|
nChrist
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: March 20, 2017, 07:22:33 PM » |
|
________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 3-20-2017
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________
The AAM further explained meeting those standards would cost far more than the $200 billion originally estimated by Obama’s EPA because the “electrified technologies” needed to meet them would raise the price of vehicles and depress auto sales. As the Journal notes, the onerous standards might have been feasible when gas cost $3.60 per gallon and passenger cars comprised more than half of all vehicle sales. But when the price of gas dropped, sales of trucks and SUVs skyrocketed, with trucks gaining a 61% market share in 2016. Moreover, the decline in gas prices mitigated the benefits of customer fuel savings the EPA used to justify the increased CAFE standards.
Those standards also increased vehicle production costs, driving vehicle manufacturers to Mexico in search of cheaper labor.
The Obama administration knew all of this and originally promised the incoming administration would get a “midterm review” of the CAFE standards to be completed by April 2018.
Make that an incoming Clinton administration. When Trump was elected, Obama’s EPA set the 2012 standards in stone, even though their own projections revealed fewer than 1% of gas-burning cars would comply with the 2022 mandate, and none would meet the standards set for 2025.
Trump’s having none26 of it. “We are going to restore the originally scheduled midterm review and we are going to ensure that any regulations we have protect and defend your jobs, your factories. We’re going to be fair,” Trump said. “That is why I’m proud to say I followed through on my promise.”
Predictably, Democrats and their eco-zealot allies are furious. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) characterized the review as “all-out assault” to “dismantle important environmental protections.” Kristin Igusky, Climate Program Associate at the World Resources, declared “the administration is creating more uncertainty and blocking progress toward cleaner, more efficient vehicles for America.”
Christian Science Monitor columnist Zack Coleman joins the chorus. “Transportation is now the leading sector for greenhouse gas emissions in the United States,” he writes27. “The lower the so-called Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard, the smaller will be the reductions in carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles.”
Not quite. The expansion of the aforementioned “electrified technologies” necessary to meet the Obama EPA standards have environmental problems of their own as onerous, if not more so, than vehicles themselves. “So we’re chasing the car that is fueled solely by the electricity that comes out of our walls,” writes28 columnist Rich Cromwell. “That electricity is apparently generated by magic, never coal, so battery-powered options would reduce cars' carbon footprint and create a more sustainable future.”
While environmentalists and their Democrat allies in Congress are quick to tout the transparent benefits of electric cars or CAFE standards, they are rather myopic regarding the unforeseen — or is that conspicuously ignored — deleterious tradeoffs that accompany them.
And not just environmental tradeoffs. As Robert Tracinski explains29, one would have to drive a $90,000 electric-powered Tesla for 30 years to equalize the costs between it and a $45,000 gas-powered Lexus, based on the average number of miles most Americans drive, coupled with slightly higher gas costs than they’re currently paying. Thus, many “green energy products” are a long way from being economically viable. On the other hand, Tracinski adds, they remain “very much a plaything or status symbol for the wealthy and upper middle class, the sort of people who uniformly believe in man-made global warming and who can afford to spend tens of thousands of extra dollars just to feel good about themselves.”
One suspects ordinary Americans who can’t afford a Tesla or a Lexus and struggle to make ends meet are less “high-minded.”
And what if CAFE standards are solely about holier-than-thou self-aggrandizement? The benefit touted by the Obama administration — a “decrease global temperatures by 0.007 degrees to 0.018 degrees Celsius in 2100” — would be more than offset by “massive losses” imposed on consumers who would increase the number of miles they drive with more fuel-efficient cars offsetting carbon reductions. Many would also eschew higher-priced new car purchases and “delay upgrades, leaving older vehicles on the road longer.”
Pruitt has assured the nation his review of CAFE standards will engender a program that is “good for consumers and good for the environment.” Such balance is a refreshing change from the Obama administration’s “kill the economy to save the planet” mindset.
Nonetheless, he will face resistance. As columnist Ned Barnett reveals30, the EPA is still infested with careerists who “believe their own views on global warming and a host of other environmental issues are the only ‘true’ positions. The president, for his part, is clearly preparing to take the challenge directly to the EPA’s permanent staff.”
Hopefully under a swamp-draining Trump administration, there’s no such thing as administrative permanence.
MORE ANALYSIS FROM THE PATRIOT POST
The Budget Is All About Negotiating31 — The “Art of the Deal” is key to understanding the president’s approach.
Americans Are Clamoring for … Chelsea Clinton?32 — The only thing that “persists” is the Clinton dynasty.
Reminder: ObamaCare Isn’t an Option for Millions33 — Bernie Sanders is blind to his own double standards.
Target’s Transgender Policy Encourages Predators34 — Women and girls have been filmed by men in Target’s facilities.
Do Venezuelans Love Socialism?35 — No, but totally ignorant American Democrats sure do.
About That ‘Busted’ Blizzard Forecast…36 — Both the public and meteorologists could use some fresh air on this issue.
BEST OF RIGHT OPINION
George Will: Questions for Judge Gorsuch37
Peggy Noonan: Reach Across the Aisle, Mr. President38
Herbert E. Meyer: How Intelligence Works (When It Does)39
For more, visit Right Opinion40.
OPINION IN BRIEF
Jeff Jacoby: “Instead of solving the system’s problems, Obamacare only entrenched them. While Democrats portray repeal of the Affordable Care Act as an assault on baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet, Republicans ought to be reminding voters how Obamacare played out in real life: reminding them, for instance, that it hurt more families than it helped. That it saddled insurers with losses so massive they were forced to pull out of many state exchanges. That it forced millions of Americans off their existing health plans. That it fueled double-digit annual increases in premiums. That it added billions to the national debt. Since 2010, Republicans have been swearing up and down that they would scrap Obamacare. The way to do that is to scrap Obamacare. Scrap the subsidies, the community-rating rules, and the guaranteed-issue requirements. Scrap the employer mandates and the individual tax penalties. Scrap the ‘slacker mandate’ for those 26 and under. Scrap the guarantee of coverage for pre-existing conditions. And then keep going.”
SHORT CUTS
The Gipper: “The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant. It’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”
Observations: “When it comes to nomenclature, it occurs to me that we not only have a general tendency to misname things, but to reverse their meanings. Take ‘social media,’ for instance. Every time I go to a restaurant, I am certain to spot three or four young people sitting in the same booth, each of them engrossed in their electronic toys, communicating with people who have the good fortune to be somewhere else. Or consider ‘civil servants,’ if you will. Not only are they not civil, but if you’ve ever tried to fire one of them, you have quickly discovered that they aren’t your servants; you’re theirs!” —Burt Prelutsky
Upright: “[Chuck] Schumer’s chosen role as demagogue stands in stark contrast to what is demanded of judges and can be expected of [Neil] Gorsuch. Judges and justices are charged with upholding the Constitution and applying justice fairly to everyone. Most of them, liberal or conservative, would never endanger the rule of law with careless comments like those Schumer has made in longstanding and unsuccessful efforts to politicize the judiciary. In the end, politicians such as Schumer are the best reminder that we need more judges like Gorsuch.” —Washington Examiner
Dezinformatsiya: “[Trump] has spent his whole life bulls—ting. He has succeeded by bulls—ting. He has gotten to the presidency by bulls—ting. It is very hard to tell somebody at that point that bulls— doesn’t work, because look at the results, right?” —CNN’s Fareed Zakaria
Non Compos Mentis: “I worry that if half the country wants this guy to be president we do need the UN to step in or the United Federation of Planets, or something.” —Bill Maher
And last… “Hillary is sending a substantive message to serious women everywhere — when you fail miserably, try again with a new hairstyle.” —Twitter satirist @weknowwhatsbest
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Managing Editor Nate Jackson
Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families. |
