Skip to main content

Some Republicans seem to favor melting icecaps, dependence on foreign oil

At a hearing Wednesday of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, John D. Graham, director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 2001-2006, was critical of CAFE requirements and the administration’s efforts to dramatically boost fuel efficiency standards by 2025.
Posted: September 15, 2011 - 11:41PM
Author: Don Bain

Join us...    

Graham further found fault with the plan to give automakers credits for building electric vehicles, noting the rules don't account for the environmental impacts of generating electricity to run these vehicles, according to a post by David Shepardson on

Apparently, Graham was cheering tonight when NBC National News announced tonight the Arctic snowcap is shrinking even further sending thousands of exhausted walruses (or should we say walri) to shore, far from their species’ feeding grounds.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, believes the plan to give automakers double credit for electric vehicles is next to "fudging the numbers."

Apparently Rep. Darrell thinks it’s okay to fudge the numbers when you talk about corporate taxation as a job killer – a concept thoroughly debunked decades ago and still endlessly echoed by the GOP in defense of the indefensible.

He said it could force automakers into building electric vehicles at the expense of building clean diesel or gas-electric hybrid vehicles.

In fact, there may well be cleaner diesel, but the idea of “clean” diesel is as much a myth as “clean” coal-fired powerplants. No one seems to be stopping the production of hybrids, in fact it has been a slowly growing part of the market over the last decade and there are more hybrid models on the market then ever before.

Automakers in 2017 will be able to "double count" electric vehicles and use the credits to offset less-efficient vehicles – and the Republicans oppose this? It would seem to maintain the very freedom of choice they’re implying the requirements will take away.

Further, the public will still have the chance to comment on the Obama proposal before it is finalized, according to Cass Sunstein, who heads the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. In 2007, Congress granted the authority to regulators to boost fuel economy standards. The already finalized 2012 to 2016 regulations allowed for consumer choice, he noted.

The CAFE requirements for 2025 have yet to be finalized and in that sense the Republicans are “crying before they’re hurt.”

Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., an auto dealer, said the 54.5-mpg requirement will harm "consumer choice" and puts the future of private transportation at risk. "We're picking and choosing what people are allowed to drive and not drive or purchase," Kelly said.

We don’t recall any edict defining what we can buy and what we can’t. What we recall is that it is good for the planet to lower emissions and good for our economy and national security to lessen our dependence on foreign oil.

Apparently Bush–era bureaucrat John D. Graham and House Republicans Darrell Issa and Mike Kelly don’t support any of those goals.
Meanwhile, a report filed on the Providence Business News website, the same day as the Congressional committee meeting, cites a report sponsored by the United Auto Workers, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the National Wildlife Federation titled Supplying Ingenuity: U.S. Suppliers of Clean, Fuel-Efficient Vehicle Technologies.

The article, by Kimberley Donoghue, quoted the report as stating 150,000 jobs will be a direct result of CAFE requirements nationwide, among the 300 facilities that develop and supply components for advanced internal combustion engines and vehicles, hybrid power-trains and plug-in electric vehicles.

Of course, the GOP stands staunchly in opposition to that as well, or do they?

Join us...