In parts One and Two of this series, we looked at the websites of eight aspiring Chief Executives in an attempt to divine their positions on policies relating to automobiles. To say that our commentators considered their remarks fatuous would be like saying that a Hummer H1 would be slightly out of place at a Prius Owners Group. Still, civic duty inspires us to press on. Here’s what (the other) John, Joe, Chris and Ron have to say about alt. fuels, mpgs, etc.
Unlike every other candidate so far, the issues’ page on former naval aviator and Arizona Senator John McCain’s website doesn’t have an “energy” section. In a speech at a Bio Economy conference in Iowa, McCain came out against subsidies for big oil, ethanol and hydrogen; and promised “no mandates” for renewable fuels. Instead, McCain promised “a declaration of independence from the risk bred by our reliance on petro-dictators and our vulnerability to the troubled politics of the lands they rule” with a “national energy strategy.”
McCain says the government should set targets for “the diversification and conservation of our energy sources and conservation” and then get the Hell out of the way.
Delaware Senator Joe Biden has been in the US Senate since the dawn of time (1979). On his Energy issues page, Senator Biden promises to create a five-year, $50b “Apollo Project” for energy and climate change. He’d reduce greenhouse gas emissions by imposing a cap and trade system.
According to Senator Biden, “China alone is expected to add 120 million vehicles in the next five years,” and since “more than 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions come from passenger vehicles, increasing alternative fuels is critical.” Biden would raise fuel economy standards by one mpg per year, using the fiendish, industry-friendly footprint system. This slight of hand would increase fuel economy to “40 mpg by 2017.”
Senator Biden would invest $100m into research on lithium ion batteries “needed for the next generation of plug-in hybrids, which can get up to 100 miles per gallon…” He’d require that all new cars run on E85 by 2017, and force the major oil companies to sell E85. Finally, Senator Biden says he’d “provide new incentives to vehicle manufacturers and parts suppliers to retool for the future by giving them credits for “investments and employee training.”
Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd has been hanging with Joe in the Senate for five terms. Dodd’s Energy Independence page also favors a cap and trade system to “reduce 80 percent of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.” He’s hot for a corporate carbon tax, with the income to be put in a “trust fund” used for research into renewable technologies like “wind, solar, as well as ethanol and other biofuels.”
Senator Dodd swears he’ll “eliminate our dependence on Middle East oil by 2015.” He claims “America will lead the world in fuel economy standards,” and says all cars will get 50 mpg by 2017. As for hybrids: “Americans will purchase more efficient cars and trucks like hybrid[s] and by providing an array of incentives and tax rebates, we can speed the transition from traditional cars to much more efficient hybrid vehicles.”
Finally, to save on fuel costs and lower pollution “by reducing the number of cars on the road during rush hours,” Senator Dodd would “increase access to affordable and convenient mass transit systems” across the USA.
Texas Congressman Ron Paul is a 72-year-old medical doctor turned politician. On his Environment page, Paul says he encourages “the development of alternative and sustainable energy properties,” such as solar, fuel cell and wind, but makes no mention of cars.
On the subject of pollution, Congressman Paul says “The federal government has proven itself untrustworthy with environmental policy by facilitating polluters.” He says property owners should sue. “If your property is being damaged, you have every right to sue the polluter, and government should protect that right.”
As for cross-border car shopping or auto manufacturing, Congressman Paul’s American Independence and Sovereignty page points out that he’s no NAFTA fan. According to Paul, “NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system.”
And there you have it. All of the candidates from all of the parties promise energy independence. All (save McCain and Paul) aren’t afraid to redeploy your tax dollars to achieve it. At the same time, none present what might be called a comprehensive energy policy, and no one seems particularly big on conservation. Given the uniformity of platitudes and policies affecting the auto industry, pistonheads would be well advised to cast their vote according to other issues.
Senator Biden thinks being president is the same as being king. I don’t think he has a single clue what econimics are all about.
I’m just waiting for Ron Paul to come out and say “If elected President, I will disband the government and step down imidiately.”
Virtual Insanity :
December 11th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
I’m just waiting for Ron Paul to come out and say “If elected President, I will disband the government and step down imidiately.”
Good one. :-)
As said previously, it would be nice if somebody had the guts to present a reasonable plan that might provide a richer, more affluent society for our children. It seems we have three camps: 1)Energy problem, what energy problem, 2) I declare that the energy problem will come to an end by (insert date) if you follow my plan for increased taxes, and 3) We can meet our needs through continued exploration and increased taxes. Only one plan has a snowball’s chance in you know what of succeeding in my opinion, and that is plan 3. By success, I mean a chance of reducing our current dependence on foriegn oil not necessarily a chance of being sucessfully implemented and improving our lives and those of future generations.
At the end of this most recent article, the author states, “Given the uniformity of platitudes and policies affecting the auto industry, pistonheads would be well advised to cast their vote according to other issues.” The problem is that as near as I can tell, these energy positions are echoed in most issues and certainly in the economic issues facing this country. The same candidates who say we can tax ourselves to energy independence and a beautiful world, also say that we can tax ourselves to health and prosperity. How this is supposed to work remains a mystery. I will of course do my civic duty and delve more deeply into each candidates actions as the time to vote approaches and use those actions as a measure of what I can expect from them in the future; however, I fear that further study will not make any of these candidates less cartoonish and more palatable to me.
I think you could be off base with Dr Paul. This is a guy who attempted to pass an act in congress to suspend federal taxes if the price hit $3.
Sure he’s for renewable energy schemes but NOT at the expense of the taxpayer, ie the elimination of subsidies to corn farmers (well all farmers really) ethanol producers Gas companies etc.
yes he did sponsor tax credits for solar & wind installation but that because its reducing that person’s taxes.
As for importing cars I’m sure Dr Paul as a free trader, would have no problem with the Mexican Alfa Romeo or Peugeot or Fiat Dealer selling you a brand new model to bring back in the US, with no import duties or protectionist rules on limits of ages. Just because Nafta mentions Free trade it doesn’t mean it is for free trade. Funny for a free trade agrement it has an amazing amount of rules
He voted for reduced congressional funding of amtrak (ford or chrysler may be kaput so why shouldn’t amtrak)
And Imsure he would abolish the CAFE system given the oppotunity.
This country needs a new space program. Why not make it energy. The economy is still surfing the Lunar Program wave, but won’t for much longer. But until there are attractive options, force can’t and or won’t work.
My $0.02
Biden’s plan would be absolutely frightening if he had any chance of getting elected. McCain … interesting. A real grasp of economics.
I strongly support Ron Paul for President. He is the only candidate who truly intends to reduce the size of government and has a ten term Congressional voting record to back it up. He is the only candidate who will bring our troops home from Iraq immediately. He is the only candidate who recognizes the importance of a sound currency. He is the strongest advocate for freedom on Capitol Hill.
HEATHROI is correct, Ron Paul is a strong believer in the free market, and opposes subsidizing anything at the taxpayer expense, alternative energy no exception. He opposes *restrictions* on free trade such as NAFTA. He stood by his principles (as he always does) in the Univision debate, where he clearly stated his opposition to sanctions against Cuba.
If you have interest in a President who places principle above political convenience and follows the Constitution, check out RonPaul2008.com, and find his well-considered positions on almost everything in the Ron Paul Archives.
Ron Paul on what makes him the strongest candidate for energy and the environment:
On energy, I would say that the reliance on the government to devise a policy is a fallacy. I would advocate that the free market take care of that. The government shouldn’t be directing research and development because they are bound and determined to always misdirect money to political cronies. The government ends up subsidizing things like the corn industry to develop ethanol and it turns out that it’s not economically feasible. So, my answer to energy is to let the market work. Let supply and demand make the decision. Let prices make the decision. That is completely different than the bureaucratic and cronyism approach.
On environment, governments don’t have a good reputation for doing a good job protecting the environment. If you look at the extreme of socialism or communism, they were very poor environmentalists. Private property owners have a much better record of taking care of the environment. If you look at the common ownership of the lands in the West, they’re much more poorly treated than those that are privately owned. In a free-market system, nobody is permitted to pollute their neighbor’s private property — water, air, or land. It is very strict.
More Here
turbosaab wrote:”…In a free-market system, nobody is permitted to pollute their neighbor’s private property — water, air, or land. It is very strict.”
That sounds great in theory. But if I live on the island of Tuvalu and global warming causes the sea to rise 1 meter, swamping the island….WHO do I sue? Assuming I can sue the entire greenhouse gas-emitting world, how do we apportion liability?
The same problem applies to most environmental problems. Assigning liability for smog-induced asthma, CO2-caused ocean acidification, toxic pollution of rivers where multiple industries dumped, etc. is nearly impossible.
I find Ron Paul to be a fascinating political phenomenon. The near-impossibility of his election allows him to take grandiose political positions (“Let’s abolish the Department of Education”) without having to come up with real-world policies for dealing with the consequences. This allows his supporters to project their brightest hopes upon him.
In this way, he is almost the anti-Hillary Clinton, whose carefully ‘triangulated’ non-positions allow her foes to project their worst fears about radical liberalism upon her, when in fact her voting record is Democratic Leadership Council Republican-lite centrist.
Thank you for the links to other sites with information about Ron Paul, turbosaab.
Sure, Ron Paul does not offer up a multi-billion-dollar government plan regarding energy. But he offers few proposals (beyond his free-market approach) on the subject, either.
For what it’s worth: Throughout this series, I’ve looked only at the official campaign sites of the 2008 presidential contenders. To be consistent, I have not included information from other sites. I’ve done my level best to remain as neutral as possible and present the facts (as best they can be found) from each campaign site.
Eric_Stepans,
I think you are severely underestimating the tenacity and resourcefulness of trial lawyers if you believe they are unable to come up with new and novel ways to sue someone, regardless of the whereabouts of their potential plaintiffs. Besides, what on earth make you think the decision structures which created CAFE as a solution to green house gas emissions are any better equipped to save the Tuvaluans than a more laissez faire approach; assuming the Tuvaluans need saving in the first place, of course.
I’m not saying ‘leaving it to the markets’ will necessarily end, or even reduce, green house gas emissions, just that history provide precious little evidence that government interference is likely to do any better. Maybe feeding 6 billion people on a planet like ours simply is not, with current technologies, possible without doing a few things that bump up the sea level a bit. In that case, the best/least bad policy might be the one that is most likely to rapidly bring about new technologies, as well as the one most adept at disseminating these technologies widely once they are invented. Again, is there any reason to believe such a policy is one of less than free markets?
As for the Department of Education, they don’t run schools, do they? I, for one, have never seen a DOE run school anywhere. All the DOE seems to be involved in, is trying to politicize at the federal level something people have been able to take care of at the individual and local level for as far back as America has been an independent nation. It’s not like No-Child-Left-Behind, or widely publicized quarrels over whether schools should teach intelligent design or sex ed, in any way improves the education of the average Joe Kid. Neither is it likely that a bunch of Washington bureaucrats are either more concerned, or more knowledgeable, about the educational needs of someone’s child, than that someone is him/herself.
To each his own, I guess, but I do find it a bit mysterious how so many seem so willing to believe in all the rosy projections articulated by politicians in support of their interventionist agendas, yet so few are willing to place even a little bit of trust in the one mode of social organization that for hundreds of years have remained by far the most successful at delivering actual results.
And also, last time I checked, some weeks ago, I could not find any bookmaker willing to give better than 6-1 odds on Dr. Paul winning the presidency. One was at 4-1. For comparison, I don’t remember any republican had less than 3-1, and Hillary had 2-1, so 6-1 is not that long of a shot. From what I gather, the most quoted on TV national polls with regard to the primaries only poll people who voted in the Republican primaries last time, while Dr. Paul’s supporters are as likely to be from the Howard Dean wing of the Democratic Party as from anywhere. So, while I wouldn’t necessarily bet even money on him beating Romney in the primary, his support is way past the point where registering republican to vote for him is in any way a ‘wasted vote’.
Well said stuki.
But if I live on the island of Tuvalu and global warming causes the sea to rise 1 meter, swamping the island….WHO do I sue? Assuming I can sue the entire greenhouse gas-emitting world, how do we apportion liability?
The same problem applies to most environmental problems. Assigning liability for smog-induced asthma, CO2-caused ocean acidification, toxic pollution of rivers where multiple industries dumped, etc. is nearly impossible.
Good point. I agree this is a difficult and important issue. Placing an emphasis on private property rights would bring these questions to the forefront, and legal standards could be applied, instead of legitimizing pollution with government set “allowable limits”.
The near-impossibility of his election allows him to take grandiose political positions (”Let’s abolish the Department of Education”) without having to come up with real-world policies for dealing with the consequences. This allows his supporters to project their brightest hopes upon him.
Reagan campaigned on eliminating the Department of Education, not exactly an extreme position. What’s grandiose to me is the idea that we need a huge federal government to try to take care of everyone from cradle to grave. If you can manage to set that idea aside, it’s amazing to realize that not only can we do without all that federal bureaucracy, we can do a lot better without it. I come from a family of teachers and I can safely say they are perfectly capable of educating children without a federal agency telling them how to do so.
By the way, I agree with you about Hillary Clinton being the centrist Republican-lite candidate (actually, small quibble, I would have said “neocon lite”).
Glenn,
Thanks for running this series on the candidates. It’s interesting to see how “automotive enthusiast” type issues fit in with the greater campaign platforms and policies. Agree with your conclusion that it’s best to choose a candidate on other issues. Certainly a lot to consider this time around.
If USA is eager to reduce oil dependency, they should scrutinize where the oil is being spent mostly. and mostly it is spent commuting from home to work. idling in traffic jams or driving around to shopping malls. So ,to decrease demand for oil ,you need to pull locations of house-work closer so that people wouldn`t spent hours burning gas. if usa HAD SMALL OR MEDIUM SIZE FACTORIES SCATTERED ALL AROUND THE COUNTRY, THEY WOULDN`T NEED to commute for hours from their suburbs. make tax reductions for those who live near the working area, and don`t have to use transportation. no taxing transportation that uses non-fossil energy.
If America wants to get out of the mess in economy, it is actually very simple solution. make conditions, that doesn`t allow people to choose easy jobs that don`t deal with anything- nor physical, nor mental input.1. make family, and education a priority.
2. educate people for real industries, not for `crossword puzzles` specialists.
3. make drastic changes in manufacturing standards. create a superprogram fighting with 3 basic killers of american manufacturing industry-
obsoletness( lack of competetive complexity), lack of quality, lack of product diversity.
4. improving point3, start increasing exports.
5. increase birth rate very easily- make new homes accessible to new families. ( government regulated rental ceilings).
6. supertax the coal burning powerhouses. no tax on sustainable renewable energies.
7. let Ron Paul save your asses.
Although I don’t agree with many of his positions (going back to the gold standard would absolutely destroy the U.S. economy for one thing), I do have to tip my hat to Ron Paul for being the only candidate out there who wishes to reduce our federal government’s scope and spending.
The level of waste and entitlement out there is absolutely amazing. In my B.C. era (before cars became my daily focus) I interned at a Washington think tank for a summer. The people were absolutely wonderful and there were more brilliant minds there than anywhere else I’ve ever been since that time. But I couldn’t believe the lack of logic involved in the entire process.
People were paid six figure salaries for just writing on very specific subjects. Many times the writers wouldn’t even be the actual writers. They would have researchers, near writers, who would write specific passages of the papers in order to make the overlaying opinion a more qualified one because… they didn’t fully understand the subject matter they wrote about to begin with. However their supporters had an opinion that needed to be defended. Hence these papers would, in turn, be used by lobbyists and other hired hacks of a given ideological bent to influence those who were elected to vote on the subject… and yet, oftentimes those folks themselves would know virtually nothing about the subject matter either.
But those elected officials usually wouldn’t get the papers because they were too busy. They would either meet a lobbyist who may ‘explain’ a few brief points of the paper, or they had aides who used the papers so that the Congressman or Senator could safely vote on an issue that they knew nothing about (but their funding sources knew quite well).
Can someone tell me what’s created in this process? If you said perpetual taxes, debt, and ‘We the people’ getting screwed you would be absolutely correct.
There are a lot of better alternatives out there. Hopefully we won’t have to become bankrupt before they’re seriously considered by the mainstream.
Lumbergh21 :
1)Energy problem, what energy problem,
2) I declare that the energy problem will come to an end by (insert date) if you follow my plan for increased taxes, and
3) We can meet our needs through continued exploration and increased taxes.
4) We must defeat the terrists. (Oh looky! – who woulda thought they’d have so much oil? As long as we’re here …)
I suspect #4 is the real plan for most of the candidates.
Steven, sounds like quite the experience. I can only imagine how much worse things are today, considering the growth of the federal government in recent times. One of the things I greatly respect about Ron Paul is his emphasis on taking the time to study issues himself rather than relying others to tell him how to vote.
It’s interesting to me that you recognize perpetual taxes, debt, and “we the people” getting screwed as a root cause of out-of-control government, yet you dismiss sound currency (“gold standard”) as a solution. I’d argue that inflation of our fiat currency plays a key role in financing the feds.
Why would the US economy be destroyed? I’d argue that much of the damage has already been done; to the extent that prosperity is based on unsustainable debt and deficit spending, it’s based on illusion. I’d rather see a proactive transition toward more stable, sustainable currency (created by the free market, rather than manipulated by the federal government) than wait until it all comes crashing down and then try to pick up the pieces.
would the Island of Tuvalu be swamped by a rising ocean nope – heres why
add a shot of whiskey (or 3) to one glass, add ice look at level of whiskey – wait for ice to melt examine level of whiskey again (it may well be the same) drink whiskey
this is because ice displaces its on weight in water the water level will not rise
surprising how many things become clearer with whiskey
Heathroi,
Your argument only works if the ice caps are already floating in the oceans. AIUI much of the ice is above sea level, supported by land masses.
heathroi- nice one!
(this one`s for the warmings of the globes) :)
Captain Nemo`s going home,
He`s conquered Tuvalu, he`s conquered Rome.
Though his posture stands so strict,
His sincere eyes the toughness contradict.
And he closes his lids in a trance,
Inviting Sarah Brightman to a dance.
She carves with her heels the polished deck
devouring the music in refrain, what the heck.
And I might be Nemo, his son ,or next to him,
Or simply an aggregate floating interim.
Oh, Jacques Yves,I guess jealous you turn,
the frothing sea quenching your heartburn.
Juris B.
After taking a few reads…I think I’m going to leave my piston head status at the curtain when it comes voting time. I’ll never see what I want to see from any politico when it comes to the automotive world, so I’ll fall back on my usual voting marks.
I am not supporting Ron Paul for President, but I would really hope that someone would put him on their cabinet. He could be a great influence in the right direction. When they all start popping off ideas about how to fix everything, he could pipe up and tell them to stop meddling.
Jurisb has a good idea, but it would be simpler to get more people working closer to home. The governments of most states need to reduce the friction in the housing markets. There are way too many people getting paid everytime a house is sold. If the government changed what they needed done, more people could move when they get a job change. Also, the schools need fixing, and the best ways to do that are to get rid of the Dept. of Ed., get rid of teachers unions in public schools, allow for choice through vouchers, and mandate that schools be allowed to expel problem children.
I am not for the government trying to influence smaller factories, but they could stop subsidizing large ones. Put an end to all tax abatements and subsidies from state and local governments. I remember when Houston spent well over a hundred million to keep Compaq here. They helped put every corner computer store out of business. Now Compaq is gone anyway. Brilliant.
With people able to more easily move, they just might do it, and save the mileage.
‘Also, the schools need fixing, and the best ways to do that are to get rid of the Dept. of Ed.’
Agreed…
“get rid of teachers unions in public schools”
Nope. The biggest problem we have, other than federalization, is that much of the subject matter and skills that are taught in public schools are stale and irrelevant. Well that and the trauma caused by bad grammar and run-on sentences.
“allow for choice through vouchers”
If private schools weren’t allowed to choose who they accept and provide service to, I could see that. Vouchers can work… so could a few dozen other ideas.
“and mandate that schools be allowed to expel problem children.”
Not only do I agree here, I think every teacher should have a baseball bat in their classroom. Should a kid run their mouth off, they can pull an Al Capone and whack em’ in the back of the head.
Then again, the brain damage caused would lower overall SAT scores so maybe not. Hmmmm… rubber bullets? taser? cafeteria food?
The problem with the public school systems starts at kindergarten and just compounds as they go up in grades. They don’t teach critical thinking they are only interested in having little robots, dumb robots at that. And everyone is stuck learning at the slowest kids pace regardless of how bored or frustrated that makes the kids that actually want to learn.
My daughter last 2 weeks at a public kindergarten until my wife and I sat in her class for 15 minutes. We were both disgusted by what we saw and pulled her out of that school that same day and found a good private school for her regardless of how much we couldn’t afford it.
Parents involvement in their kids lives would help a lot in this country also, but that is a completely different topic.
How would putting the dollar back on a metals standard ruin the US economy? I truly fail to see the mechanism by which that would happen.
I mean, we would still have the same workers, with the same level of skills, and the same machinery, technology and natural resources. All that would change is we would have higher short term rates, and as soon as lenders realized we were serious about the peg, lower long term ones (due to diminished inflation expectations). This yield curve flattening would likely do wonders for the America’s economy. It’s not like our biggest problem over the last couple of decades has been excessive longtermism.
The issue I find with public schools is they teach in order to pass these lowest common denominator tests, and the LCDs still fail them. They don’t teach actual history, math, science, and English, they teach them how to pass a standardized test in order to raise state standing on an educational level. Of course, I hardly believe in public anything, so I tend to be a bit biased towards that. For some ass odd reason, the school I went to (private) required us to take a portion of the TAAS or TACHS or whatever the hell it is called. I was pretty well put off by the questions they were asking, and the fact that some people fail those tests is scary.
Mr. Lang’s post on the Think Tank is a gem. (What entity was it — Brookings? AEI?) If people only knew how public policy is made, there’d be a lot less support for statist “solutions” to “crises.”
Once I was assigned to analyze a long and complicated bill that had purportedly been authored by a key legislator, but actually was written by a lobbyist. It was immediately clear to me that the bill would result in two things: give special advantages to the lobbyist’s organization, and create administrative snafus. I wrote a long and critical analysis, and sent it in. When the bill had its committee hearing, the key legislator showed up to speak for it. He admitted he hadn’t had time to read the bill but had been assured it was a good measure. The committee (which was just as ignorant of the details) immediately OK’d it, and the bill later became law.
It’s tempting to provide my own thoughts on presidential candidates and the issues, but as a kid I was told arguing religion or politics accomplishes nothing but aggravating everybody. So with that, I’ll shut up except for suggesting it’d be better for TTAC to avoid creating openings for political commentary.