Carter Energy Policy

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_energy.html

Well the bushbackers deny Jimmy Carter had a comprehensive Energy that would have prevented the current mess.

Aaron and others have followed their usual tactics in trying to intimidate other posters they dont agree with.

When you answer on one thread he runs to another thread with the same BS.

But for those interested, here is Carter's plan.

Based on ten fundamental principles.

I am posting the most basic of polls since the rightwingers always criticize the poll's wording.

So it is just a simple yes or no.

So tell us Sherm, why didn't he act on this? I mean, I posted 2 links that said it was long on talking but short on walking. Is that the case or no? Was Carter all hat, no cowboy or was he wronged by Ronnie after he left?

Can you do that Shermy?

I'm still waiting on some sort of response Sherm to the one question that I've ask you at least 3 times in response to Carter's energy plan that you think so highly of.

And if you ever find the courage to answer simple questions, maybe then we can start talking about specifics. A great place to start would be in how West Virginia can play a role in this nations energy future, at least according to Carter.

I happen to agree with him on this one.

The ninth principle is that we must conserve the fuels that are scarcest and make the most of those that are more plentiful. We can't continue to use oil and gas for 75 percent of our consumption when they make up seven percent of our domestic reserves. We need to shift to plentiful coal while taking care to protect the environment, and to apply stricter safety standards to nuclear energy.

"If we fail to act soon, we will face an economic, social and political crisis that will threaten our free institutions.

But we still have another choice. We can begin to prepare right now. We can decide to act while there is time.

That is the concept of the energy policy we will present on Wednesday. Our national energy plan is based on ten fundamental principles.

The first principle is that we can have an effective and comprehensive energy policy only if the government takes responsibility for it and if the people understand the seriousness of the challenge and are willing to make sacrifices.

The second principle is that healthy economic growth must continue. Only by saving energy can we maintain our standard of living and keep our people at work. An effective conservation program will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

The third principle is that we must protect the environment. Our energy problems have the same cause as our environmental problems -- wasteful use of resources. Conservation helps us solve both at once.

The fourth principle is that we must reduce our vulnerability to potentially devastating embargoes. We can protect ourselves from uncertain supplies by reducing our demand for oil, making the most of our abundant resources such as coal, and developing a strategic petroleum reserve.

The fifth principle is that we must be fair. Our solutions must ask equal sacrifices from every region, every class of people, every interest group. Industry will have to do its part to conserve, just as the consumers will. The energy producers deserve fair treatment, but we will not let the oil companies profiteer.

The sixth principle, and the cornerstone of our policy, is to reduce the demand through conservation. Our emphasis on conservation is a clear difference between this plan and others which merely encouraged crash production efforts. Conservation is the quickest, cheapest, most practical source of energy. Conservation is the only way we can buy a barrel of oil for a few dollars. It costs about $13 to waste it.

The seventh principle is that prices should generally reflect the true replacement costs of energy. We are only cheating ourselves if we make energy artificially cheap and use more than we can really afford.

The eighth principle is that government policies must be predictable and certain. Both consumers and producers need policies they can count on so they can plan ahead. This is one reason I am working with the Congress to create a new Department of Energy, to replace more than 50 different agencies that now have some control over energy.

The ninth principle is that we must conserve the fuels that are scarcest and make the most of those that are more plentiful. We can't continue to use oil and gas for 75 percent of our consumption when they make up seven percent of our domestic reserves. We need to shift to plentiful coal while taking care to protect the environment, and to apply stricter safety standards to nuclear energy.

The tenth principle is that we must start now to develop the new, unconventional sources of energy we will rely on in the next century."

Well since you apparently want to actually discuss his policy I thot it convenient to just cut and paste the ten principles which are the foundation.

Personally I dont have a problem with any of them, do you?

And I would not object to recommitting to them now, would you?

Remember that Carter was an engineer and a methodical thinker.

Perhaps we needed LBJ or someone like him to take office immediately after Carter who had the political skills to git'r done as they say.

Hi Sherm,

These are nice principles, but it's no policy. A policy would be something like "cars that get less than 10 miles to the gallon will be taxed an extra 1000 dollars" or "cars that get better than 45 miles to the gallon will be eligible for a 2000 tax credit" or "Congress will go to a paperless legislative process by 2010" or the like.

Saying nice things about alternative energy and not kowtowing to the Saudis is just that, saying nice things.

I need real substance from these people, and I frankly need them to lead by example before telling me what to do. The President of one the universities at which I teach drives a very large SUV. He is a liberal who tells the campus population that we must do more for the environment and for the poor. So far I'm about the only person who gets that it's a joke.

Incidentally, the Preisdent of my other university at the moment, is the exact opposite. He lives very modestly, drives an efficient car, and says much less about what other people should be doing than the other one. While both liberals, the one is being more consistent and less political.

I agree with Mike Sherm and that's what I've been trying to say for some time and you've been running from the converstaion every since your first post. You do it again here.

This is all fluff and no puff. Hell, the first 7 principals all pretty much say the same thing (conservation) but are worded a little differently. It isn't until the 8th principal that he actually says something slightly different and that is his proposal for the department of energy.

This is all fine and well but where's the meat of Carter's energy policy? Where does he demand higher MPG standards, which he could have done. Do you realize that the first change to CAFE standards after they were introduced in 1975 was last year when GWB signed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which raised the standards to 35 MPG by 2010 and for the first time included light trucks and SUV's.

Carter had 4 years to propose increases and he didn't even though democrats had control of both the house in the senate during his entire term. Has he truely wanted to conserve, it seems to me he would have at the very least accomplished that feat.

As Mike said, I see a lot of talk but very little policy. Can you perhaps shed some light on actual policy as I would be very interested in reading it.

Well guys instead of me cutting and pasting, let me start by referring you to this:

http://www.thomhartmann.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=114&Itemid=120

Now you say there was no policy but in fact a policy was proposed and was partly in place when Reagan took over and undid it.

There were tax credits to install solar heating, tax credits for home insulation, funding for alternative energy research etc.

But powerful special interests existed then as now.

You may not like it but it is true they backed the republicans and the wannabe republicans and helped stall and block lots of meaningful reform.

Interesting article Sherm.

I'm still curious though why Carter never addressed CAFE standards and why he waited more then 2 years between his first energy speech and proposing and implementing the 'policy' you claim Regan undid.

Thoughts?

Aaron wrote:Interesting article Sherm.

I'm still curious though why Carter never addressed CAFE standards and why he waited more then 2 years between his first energy speech and proposing and implementing the 'policy' you claim Regan undid.

Thoughts?

Well Aaron I dont know where you got your info that Carter never "addressed" CAFE standards.

Was it not he who initiated CAFE standards in the first place?

http://www.frugalmarketing.com/dtb/kennedy.shtml

From the above link...

"In the late 1970's, President Jimmy Carter implemented CAFE standards to combat an oil shortage driven by policies of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. The standards raised fuel efficiency in American cars by 7.6 miles a gallon over six years, causing oil imports from the Persian Gulf to fall by 87 percent. Our economy grew by 27 percent during that period. Detroit, predictably, figured out how to build more fuel-efficient cars largely without reductions in size, comfort or power.

The CAFE standards worked so well that they produced an oil glut by 1986. That's when the Reagan administration intervened to rescue America's domestic oil industry from gasoline price collapse. Ronald Reagan's rollback of CAFE standards caused America, in that year, to double oil imports from the Persian Gulf nations and to burn more oil than is in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge..."

No Sherm, not according to what I've found, Carter was not the first person to introduce CAFE standards. The first standards were introduced in 1975, which was more then a year before Carter took office.

The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations in the United States, [b]first enacted by Congress in 1975[/b],(before Carter took office) are federal regulations intended to improve the average fuel economy of cars and light trucks (trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles) sold in the US in the wake of the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo. Historically, it is the sales-weighted harmonic mean fuel economy, expressed in miles per gallon (mpg), of a manufacturer's fleet of current model year passenger cars or light trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 8,500 pounds (3,856 kg) or less, manufactured for sale in the United States.

source

From the same source...

In late 2007, CAFE standards received their first overhaul in more than 30 years. On December 19, President Bush signed into law the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which requires in part that automakers boost fleetwide gas mileage to 35 mpg by the year 2020. This requirement applies to all passenger automobiles, including "light trucks." Politicians had faced increased public pressure to raise CAFE standards; a July 2007 poll conducted in seven states revealed 84-90% in favor of legislating mandatory increases.

According to this, Carter didn't do anything to CAFE Standards other then blow smoke. Seems our sources don't exactly agree, doesn't it.

Here's a back up for what mine says.

Corporate Average Fuel Economy (C A F E )
First enacted by Congress in 1975, the purpose of CAFE is to reduce energy consumption by increasing the fuel economy of cars and light trucks. Regulating CAFE is the responsibility of NHTSA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). NHTSA sets fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks sold in the U.S.; EPA calculates the average fuel economy for each manufacturer. This site contains an immense amount of information about the CAFE program, including a program overview, related rulemaking activities, research, fleet characteristics and summaries of manufacturers’ fuel economy performance since 1978.

Second source

I don't suppose you have something to back up yours, do you Sherm?

I already posted my source, remember?

I realize you guys will never have the gonads to admit Carter was right.

But he was nontheless.

And he was also right not to go barging into a hostage situation and get all the hostages killed plus other innicents and who knows how many military personnel.

But if he had he would probably have been re-elected.

And I posted TWO that proved beyond doubt that you are WRONG Sherm.






.

Well I thinbk history will show that Carter was right.

And you guys will still be arguing from heaven or hell that he was wrong.

So no point trying to discuss it.

(but I did try)

No you did not. I posted contradicting evidence that proved what you said was wrong and par the course, you ignored it.

Carter was right on many things. But he was not man enough to follow through on what he said and that in the end is why he was a one term President.