One of the key domestic policy initiatives of the last State of the Union was a discussion of energy independence, so it came as little surprise that the president would revisit the subject this year. It must poll well.
Unfortunately, there are a few problems with Bush’s energy agenda. OK, more than a few.
President Bush’s proposals to reduce U.S. gasoline consumption by 20% in 10 years include more specific and ambitious new goals than in previous White House statements, but they also appear to rely on assumptions about energy markets, politics and technology that some experts say are debatable, and include some apparent contradictions. […]
[Bush] rejected bipartisan calls for Congress to set new fuel economy rules, preferring to have the U.S. Department of Transportation set the standard. Under current law, the DOT can only set mileage standards for light trucks; raising the standard for passenger cars requires an act by Congress. The administration is expected to press Congress to allow DOT to set car standards using a vehicle size method rather than an overall fleet average.
Given the negative reaction Bush received from some Democrats on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, that possibility appears remote.
Environmentalists were skeptical that Bush’s proposal would lead to any significant increase in fuel economy rules.
Indeed, some aspects of the overall plan seemed to contradict each other. For one, Bush’s proposal to save gasoline by increasing vehicle fuel economy standards could be undermined by his call for greater use of alternative fuels. Ethanol, for example, gets less mileage than gasoline and, without a major technological breakthrough, requiring more of it could make it harder to increase fuel efficiency.
Philip E. Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, said that the president’s request for new legislation “letting him set standards basically model-by-model is something Detroit has pushed for years — as a way to poke more loopholes in the current weak standards.”
You mean that Bush, a former failed oil exec, isn’t really committed to a serious energy policy? He wants to take already-weak standards and make them weaker? You don’t say.
For that matter, the president drew applause for announcing a goal of reducing U.S. gasoline usage by 20 percent in the next 10 years, but he omitted a detail or two.
The fine print: Administration officials said that the goal is 20 percent below projected annual gasoline usage, not off today’s levels.
That’s very significant for oil markets, where analysts look at the balance of rising supplies and rising demand.
“If you made this type of reduction . . . U.S. petroleum consumption wouldn’t be flat, but it would not grow meaningfully,” said Frederick W. Smith, chairman of FedEx Corp., who said he applauds Bush’s “balanced” approach.
But people worried about climate change were disappointed. Using projections means that carbon dioxide emissions from transportation fuels will drop only slightly from today’s levels; other parts of the economy produce the other two-thirds of greenhouse gases.
“This is not nearly enough to really put us on the path of reducing emissions down to 60 percent or 80 percent of current levels, which is what we really need,” said Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
For that matter, as long as we’re on the subject, I’m reminded of what happened last year, after Bush said he was committed to expanding investment and research into alternative fuels, and vowed to “replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025.” The very next day, Bush’s Energy Department said the president’s comments were not to be taken literally.
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) called last night’s energy proposals “the latest in a string of disappointments from this administration.” Indeed.