Good News For Car Lovers - Obama's Socialist EPA / Climate Czar Resigns

pontiac
bonneville

#1

Have you heard the news ? Carol Browner has resigned in a cloud of controversy.



It appears she’s been cooking the books. Now we may see fewer restrictions on domestic fossil fuel production and crazy car regualtions. The result could be cheaper gasoline and cars (or at least slow the rise in price increases).



Some see this as a very positive sign for the country’s economic recovery. It may be a sign that Obama is rethinking his backing of restrictive regulations that hamper the energy and automotive industries and he’s backing off.



Barrons expects a bump in coal mine stocks and a new power plant in Michigan that was bound up in red tape may be a go. We’ll need the juice for all the EVs.



Funny how I haven’t seen this on the national news circuit, but I don’t get Fox as one of my 6 channels.



I believe this is fantastic news. I don’t like these powerful Czars who hinder our economy. Should I be this excited or am I celebrating too soon ?



CSA


#2

Oops, I Forgot A Link To One Of Many Articles On This Topic.

http://detnews.com/article/20110203/OPINION03/102030334/-1/rss29

CSA


#3

Cheaper gasoline? Keep dreaming.

I fail to see how one person, in or out of an administration, can make that much difference. Besides, both sides are cooking the books.

I also fail to see how burning coal to charge electric vehicles is a step in the right direction.

To each his own.


#4

Not so sure this is good news for anyone, car lovers or otherwise. The answer to all of our woes isn’t cheaper gasoline, never mind the fact that nothing the EPA does is likely to make prices lower in the long run. Petroleum is a limited resource, and the more we use the more harm we do to the environment, and the greater our health care costs-- but you conveniently leave those factors out of the economic “benefit” of this.

In answer, no, you shouldn’t be so excited, and you are celebrating too soon.


#5

Sorry… I stopped paying attention when you referred to her as Socialist… that tells me that you aren’t thinking about things objectively enough and are falling for too much spin… ask someone who has lived under a socialist regime what it really is like. They find our willingness to label our political opponents socialist sad and pathetic…

So what was the question again?

Oh, yeah - I don’t view any removal of restrictive regulations as a necessarily good thing. Some regulations are stupid, some aren’t. Just like some speculation is good and some isn’t. All evidence now points to the price spike in gas in 2008 as having permanently hampered US demand for gasoline, suggesting our peak usage may be behind us. That peaks hit then were 100% due to rampant speculation. It was painful, it probably made the recession worse, but it has helped turn our focus so that a future price hike hurts less. The temporary pullback in prices helped minimize short-term harm, and gave technology some time to play catch up.

But if you remove pressures to become more efficient, you can slow down progress. If gas is cheaper, you slow down EV development. With powerplants somewhat more expensive, our utilities are helping people cut usage because its cheaper for them to provide CFLs and subsidize weatherization than it is to build a ton of new power plants. So removing regulation may help some industries, but may not help the energy security of the country.

On the other hand, I believe they should remove most regulations not directly dealing with safety when it comes to nuclear plants and reprocessing. That would help energy security greatly.

BTW - we don’t actually need a lot more juice for EVs. The anticipated demand for charging them comes overnight, when there is currently enough spare generating capacity for at least 50% of the light vehicle fleet to switch to electric, and that will take decades - the problem is actually the grid. The residential demand would peak beyond the current grid’s transmission capability - most of it currently being directed at serving commercial and industrial uses. So you’re looking at investments needed beefing up lines to homes, not generating power in the first place.


#6

Hooray. Let’s burn more coal and petroleum.

Hey, why is it so hot in here?


#7

This is an interesting, although brief, article about the recent antics of Carol Browner. I sort of stopped keeping track of her years ago. In all actuality, getting her out of the EPA will probably be very good for the United States and it’s citizens. She had a lot of non-scientific and nonsensical beliefs on the environment, including promoting vehicle scrapping programs to take older vehicles off the road and requiring owners of such vehicles to buy newer, more fuel efficient models. I still say those new, clean, fuel efficient cars don’t just drop out of the sky magically, and it is more environmentally friendly to keep an older car on the road than to crush it and replace it with new. She also wanted to use these scrapping programs to do away with the car hobby, getting rid of street rods, muscle cars, motorcycles, etc. What a killjoy.

As far as lower gas prices with Carol Browner gone, I don’t see that happening. A good portion of what we pay for a gallon of gasoline is in the form of taxes, which many people in power would not be willing to give up. One good thing I could definitely see coming of her leaving power is the American automakers forging forward with fuel efficient technology and getting some excellent vehicles on the market, without hindrance or meddling from the EPA (I work better without the boss constantly looking over my shoulder). If not for the EPA, look what we could have had ten years ago:

http://www.autointell.net/nao_companies/daimlerchrysler/dodge/dodge-esx3-01.htm

Unfortunately, it’s not in this article, but the reason the EPA nixed this idea is that the tiny diesel engine did not meet emissions requirements for a vehicle this size (missed the HC standard by a few PPM, if I remember correctly). Who wouldn’t want a 72 mpg, five passenger family sedan? Apparently, the EPA doesn’t.


#8

It’s fairly obvious that he’s not thinking about things objectively because the “article” he links to is an opinion column, not an article. That pretty much tells us where his news on this is coming from (hint, btw, the Washington Times and Michelle Malkin are not reputable sources of journalism).

I’m quite confused as to how burning more coal is something the EPA should stand for, which is apparently what CSA believes since he thinks it’s a good thing that they supposedly will back off on restrictions of it. It’s the environmental protection agency, after all, and it’s whole job is to try and. .you know. . Protect the environment from corporations who want to spew toxins into it.

As for cheaper gas, as mcparadise said, keep dreaming. We had environmental restrictions in place when gas was less than a buck a gallon. Gas is never going back there even if we remove all regulations on it (and what a great idea THAT would be) because the oil companies now know they can charge at least 3 bucks a gallon and we’ll pay it.


#9

“It appears she’s been cooking the books.”

The article did not accuse her of it. He said “her office”. She may have sanctioned it, or maybe not. In any case, she would not have resigned before discussing it with the President. It may just be that he wants no controversy of this type now and asked her to leave in order to stop the clamor before it started.


#10

If you want some really good news, take a look at Chrysler’s new 300 series.


#11

“Sorry… I stopped paying attention when you referred to her as Socialist… that tells me that you aren’t thinking about things objectively enough and are falling for too much spin…”

It’s not just you, many folks are unaware that we had at least one unelected socialist in a powerful government position under this administration.

http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticlePageID=1272

CSA


#12

“Socialist”; without throwing this word around as a slur, how many of these programs would you throw out. If you want to dump all of them, you’re not a socialist but you are in the minority.

Civil Service Retirement Systems
Federal Employee Retirement Systems
Railroad Retirement System
Housing & Urban Development (HUD) Programs
Public Housing
Rental Vouchers & Certificates
Section 8 Housing Vouchers
Shelter Plus Care
Single Room Occupancy
Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Social Security (OASDI)
Unemployment Insurance
Temporary Disability Insurance
Medicare
Medicaid
Medicare Prescription Drug Plan
Supplemental Security Income
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Food Stamp Program
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
National School Lunch Program
School Breakfast Program
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Import Tariffs

How about the state and local highway and road departments, police, public library, public schools and on and on.
Let’s accept the fact that the majority of people are socialists in one way or another and move on.


#13

Your definition of “socialist” is wrong. Additionally, you like socialized programs. In fact, you willingly embrace them, every time you drive. If you think aspects of socialization should be banned from the US government, then I trust you are willing to put your money where your mouth is, and build your own roads.

Further, I expect a refund for the portion of my tax dollars which went to build the roads that you drive on and from which I receive no benefit.


#14
 It is funny that most people who attack socialism and/or communism don't understand what they are and don't under stand that they likely grew up in a communistic society.  

.
.
.
.

Think about the family.  It is by nature communistic.  ? 

Note: I really don’t believe communism is an effective form of economics when scaled up.


#15

I believe this is fantastic news. I don’t like these powerful Czars who hinder our economy.

You mean like Jack Walsh (GE CEO)…Or the Waltons (WalMart)???


#16

And you’re right. It’s not.

But then, no form of economics is good. It’s just that some are less bad than others.

On paper, communism is great. But the paper fails to take into account the human-factor, which is that there will always be a set of greedy people who will want a bigger share of the pie than everyone else. And once they manage to get it, the communism system collapses. There’s no way to stop them from getting it, and so communism as an economic system is unworkable.

But then, the same argument can be applied to capitalism :wink:


#17

I always liked “Rush Limbaugh” and his attack on Socialism…yet at one time he was on Welfare. I guess Welfare is only bad if you’re not the one who’s collecting it. BTW…Rush considers Welfare to the be the #1 Socialist agenda in the US.


#18

If we each were required to keep all the waste that we create life would be good. My 1 acre lot would eventually fill but I won’t last that long. Just let people abandon cities as lots fill and the owners die. Some solutions are just so simple.


#19

Limbaugh almost doesn’t count, because I don’t think he really believes half of the stuff he says. He’s in this for the money. If he thought the money was in whipping the Left into a frenzy instead of the Right, then he’d be out there screaming his head off about what evil nazi bastards the Republicans are and can’t you people see that Obama is the only thing that’s keeping this country from destruction, etc etc.

Anyone who’s only chasing the money can’t really be looked to for a reasoned opinion on anything, which is why we don’t ask the used car salseman what he thinks we should buy. :wink:


#20

“Just let people abandon cities as lots fill and the owners die. Some solutions are just so simple.”

Have you been to Detroit lately?? Or any rust-belt city for that matter…