SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: RetiredNow who wrote (360883)12/1/2007 6:48:11 AM
From: Road Walker  Respond to of 1576825
 
Lawmakers Set Deal on Raising Fuel Efficiency
By JOHN M. BRODER and MICHELINE MAYNARD
WASHINGTON, Nov. 30 — Congressional negotiators reached a deal late Friday on energy legislation that would force American automakers to improve the fuel efficiency of their cars and light trucks by 40 percent by 2020.

The proposal, which would require automakers to achieve 35 miles per gallon on average, is similar to a measure that was passed in the summer by the Senate but was bitterly opposed by the auto companies, who argued they did not have the technology or the financial resources to reach that goal.

The auto companies gave up their long-held opposition to fuel- economy increases not long before the Senate version was passed, but proposed a much weaker alternative. In recent weeks, the chief executives of General Motors, the Ford Motor Company and Chrysler visited Capitol Hill in an effort to fend off a stronger measure, but the compromise announced Friday showed those efforts had little effect.

The compromise emerged after days of difficult negotiations between House and Senate members and their staffs. The final deal was hammered out by the two main antagonists, the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, and Representative John D. Dingell, the Michigan Democrat who is the auto industry’s most effective advocate on Capitol Hill.

The compromise should ensure passage in the House, although the Senate may insist on changes. It does not appear to include provisions, like $16 billion in new taxes on the oil industry, that drew a veto threat from President Bush.

The latest version of the measure, if it becomes law, will force wrenching changes on the American car companies, from design studios to new-car showrooms to executive suites. Automakers now have to achieve 27.5 miles per gallon on cars, a figure that has not changed since 1984, and 22.2 miles per gallon for light trucks, including minivans, sport utility vehicles and pickups. Under the compromise, the companies will retain the distinction between the classes of vehicles, but must still meet a combined 35 m.p.g. fleetwide standard.

Ms. Pelosi called the compromise on mileage “an historic advancement in our efforts in the Congress to address our energy security and laying strong groundwork for climate legislation next year.” She said that she was confident it would win the backing of environmentalists, auto makers and labor and would clear Congress by the end of this year.

Mr. Dingell, in a statement, called the new mileage standard “aggressive and attainable.”

“After weeks of productive discussion and negotiation, we have achieved consensus on several provisions that provide critical environmental safeguards without jeopardizing American jobs,” he said. Critical to his agreement, he said, were incentives to the American auto industry for producing small cars in the United States and cars that run on a combination of gasoline and ethanol.

The Big Three automakers have warned that complying with the new fuel economy rules will cost them tens of billions of dollars and rob consumers of choices. But even if they meet the law’s mandate, the fuel efficiency of the American car fleet will still lag far behind that of other major industrialized countries.

European auto companies, for example, must average 40 miles per gallon and China requires a 35 m.p.g. standard. Automobiles sold in those countries are generally smaller and less powerful than the most popular models in the United States, however.

Lawmakers and aides were still ironing out the other major parts of the pending energy legislation Friday night, including details of a provision calling for a huge increase in production of fuels made from corn and other renewable sources.

The package will also include a requirement that most electric utilities produce 15 percent of their power from renewable sources, like wind and solar, by 2020.

A multibillion-dollar package of tax measures to pay for the other provisions was still under discussion Friday night but was not expected to be in the legislation to be brought to the House next week.

The energy bill faces opposition from segments of the auto, oil and utility industries, among the best organized and well financed lobbies in Washington. But House and Senate leaders expressed confidence on Friday that they could win passage before the end of the year.

The energy package, intended to reduce the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels and slow the production of the gases that contribute to global warming, would bring major changes to America’s highways, farms, factories, refineries and power plants. It contains not only the fuel-economy rules, which will alter the American auto fleet, but will divert vast tracts of farmland to produce ethanol and other renewable fuels and bring a bonanza for solar and wind power.

Under terms of the auto mileage deal, the cars and trucks sold in the United States must meet a fleetwide average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020. The Senate passed a bill with this standard in June, but the House version of the legislation, passed in August, did not include any new mileage mandate because of opposition led by Mr. Dingell.

Speaker Pelosi supported the new mileage standard and vowed that she would restore it in the final bill. She appears to have prevailed but Mr. Dingell won some important concessions.

The package nearly fell apart this week when Mr. Dingell insisted on leaving sole authority to regulate automobile mileage standards with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, an arm of the Transportation Department. That would have weakened the power of the Environmental Protection Agency and the states, led by California, to regulate auto emissions of carbon dioxide, which are in large measure a function of the amount of fuel burned.

Federal court rulings this year have decided this so-called pre-emption issue in favor of the E.P.A. and the states, decisions that Mr. Dingell hoped to undo by Congressional action. The traffic safety administration has had authority over fuel-efficiency standards since 1975 but has not imposed any significant increase since 1985. The E.P.A. is currently writing rules to comply with a Supreme Court ruling this year that gave it the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions and is weighing an application by California and 14 other states to set their own emissions standard.

The authority of the E.P.A. to regulate tailpipe emissions and the right of California and other states to set their own, higher standards were considered deal-breakers by Ms. Pelosi and her fellow California Democrat, Senator Dianne Feinstein. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Republican governor of California, weighed in late in the week to tell negotiators that he would oppose the bill if the Mr. Dingell’s preemption language stayed in.

Mrs. Pelosi and Democratic leaders in the Senate rejected Mr. Dingell’s preemption effort, but softened the blow by agreeing to allow the car companies to retain a credit for vehicles capable of running on a blend of gasoline and ethanol. That credit was set to expire in 2008 but now will begin to decline in 2014 and be eliminated entirely by 2020.

The compromise also contains incentives for American auto companies to continue producing small cars in the United States, a measure that the autoworkers union has estimated would save 17,000 autoworker jobs.

John M. Broder reported from Washington and Micheline Maynard from New York.



To: RetiredNow who wrote (360883)12/1/2007 8:40:46 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 1576825
 
This is pathetic.........they've upped the required fuel efficiency mileage to 35 from 27.5 but it does not have to be put into effect until 2020. This is the best the American auto industry can do? They must think we are very stupid.

Lawmakers Agree on Higher Fuel Standards

By TSC Staff
12/1/2007 11:17 AM EST

U.S. lawmakers have struck a deal on legislation that would raise fuel efficiency standards to an average of 35 miles per gallon for cars and light trucks by 2020.

Detroit's Big Three automakers had long resisted increases in Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards, arguing that they would create a crushing financial burden. The current standard for cars, which hasn't changed since 1984, is 27.5 mpg. For the light-trucks category, which includes sport utility vehicles and minivans, it's 22.2 mpg.

The deal is part of a larger energy bill that likely will move through the House next week. If it passes, it will change the rules of the game for Ford (F - Cramer's Take - Stockpickr - Rating), GM (GM - Cramer's Take - Stockpickr - Rating) and Chrysler.

The deal was reached late Friday and came after several days of tense negotiations between members of the House and Senate.

During the summer, the Senate had approved a measure requiring the 35-mpg standard. The New York Times noted that automakers had relaxed their long-held resistance to increased CAFE standards shortly before the Senate passed its measure, but they had proposed a much weaker increase than the 35-mpg fleetwide average.

Friday's deal was hammered out by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) and Rep. John Dingell (D., Mich.), who has been a vocal supporter of the auto industry. Pelosi and other congressional leaders said they were confident the energy bill could win passage by the end of this year, according to The New York Times.

Shares of Ford closed Friday up 22 cents at $7.51. GM stock ended the session up $1.05 at $29.83.



To: RetiredNow who wrote (360883)12/2/2007 7:16:35 AM
From: Road Walker  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1576825
 
The People We Have Been Waiting For
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
It was 60 degrees on Thursday in Washington, well above normal, and as I slipped away for some pre-Christmas golf, I found myself thinking about a wickedly funny story that The Onion, the satirical newspaper, ran the other day: “Fall Canceled after 3 Billion Seasons”:

“Fall, the long-running series of shorter days and cooler nights, was canceled earlier this week after nearly 3 billion seasons on Earth, sources reported Tuesday.

“The classic period of the year, which once occupied a coveted slot between summer and winter, will be replaced by new, stifling humidity levels, near-constant sunshine and almost no precipitation for months.

“‘As much as we’d like to see it stay, fall will not be returning for another season,’ National Weather Service president John Hayes announced during a muggy press conference Nov. 6. ‘Fall had a great run, but sadly, times have changed.’ ... The cancellation was not without its share of warning signs. In recent years, fall had been reduced from three months to a meager two-week stint, and its scheduled start time had been pushed back later and later each year.”

You should never extrapolate about global warming from your own weather, but it is becoming hard not to — even for professionals. Consider the final report of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (I.P.C.C.), which was just issued and got far too little attention. It concluded that since the I.P.C.C. began its study five years ago, scientists had discovered much stronger climate change trends than previously realized, such as far more extensive melting of Arctic ice, and therefore global efforts to reverse the growth of greenhouse gas emissions have to begin immediately.

“What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future,” said the I.P.C.C. chairman, Rajendra Pachauri.

And sweet-sounding “global warming” doesn’t really capture what’s likely to happen. I prefer the term “global weirding,” coined by Hunter Lovins, co-founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute, because the rise in average global temperature is going to lead to all sorts of crazy things — from hotter heat spells and droughts in some places, to colder cold spells and more violent storms, more intense flooding, forest fires and species loss in other places.

While the Bush team came into office brain dead on the climate issue and will leave office with a perfect record of having done nothing significant to mitigate climate change, I’m heartened that our country is increasingly alive on this challenge.

First, Google said last week that it was going to invest millions in developing its own energy business. Google described its goal as “RE < C” — renewable energy that is cheaper than coal — adding: “We’re busy assembling our own internal research and development group and hiring a team of engineers ... tasked with building one gigawatt of renewable energy capacity that is cheaper than coal.” That could power all of San Francisco.

Its primary focus, said Google.org’s energy expert, Dan Reicher, will be to advance new solar thermal, geothermal and wind solutions “across the valley of death.” That is, so many good ideas work in the lab but never get a chance to scale up because they get swallowed by a lack of financing or difficulties in implementation. Do not underestimate these people.

Last week, I also met with two groups of M.I.T. students who blew me away. One was the M.I.T. Energy Club, which was founded in 2004 by a few grad students discussing energy over beers at a campus bar. Today it has 600-plus members who have put on scores of events focused on building energy expertise among M.I.T. students and faculty, and “fact-based analysis,” including a trip to Saudi Arabia.

Then I got together with three engineering undergrads who helped launch the Vehicle Design Summit — a global, open-source, collaborative effort, managed by M.I.T. students, that has 25 college teams around the world, including in India and China, working together to build a plug-in electric hybrid within three years. Each team contributes a different set of parts or designs. I thought writing for my college newspaper was cool. These kids are building a hyper-efficient car, which, they hope, “will demonstrate a 95 percent reduction in embodied energy, materials and toxicity from cradle to cradle to grave” and provide “200 m.p.g. energy equivalency or better.” The Linux of cars!

They’re not waiting for G.M. Their goal, they explain on their Web site — vds.mit.edu — is “to identify the key characteristics of events like the race to the moon and then transpose this energy, passion, focus and urgency” on catalyzing a global team to build a clean car. I just love their tag line. It’s what gives me hope:

“We are the people we have been waiting for.”