Friday, October 12, 2007

Sen. George Voinovich says "No" to the jobs of tomorrow

I'm posting this in an effort to "bring home" all the bits of wisdom I've spread out to other blogs - Nick D

U.S. Sen George Voinovich (R-Ohio) announced that he will oppose efforts in Congress to hold SUV's and light trucks to the same fuel mileage standards as cars. A bill which passed the Senate 65-27 but is now headed to a House-Senate conference committee would require a combined fleet fuel economy of 35 MPG by 2020. In requiring this, the bill promises to spur further investment in fuel-saving technology that could create thousands of new jobs right here in Ohio, jobs that won't be tied to the inevitable decline in the use of fossil fuels. Voinovich instead backs an alternative bill that would call for a 35 MPG standard for cars, and a 32 MPG standard for trucks & SUV's, by 2022, but includes a loophole allowing regulators to delay fuel economy mandates if they are found impossible to meet. Read the full story in this Pee Dee article.

Reducing our dependence on petroleum is not just a win-win, it is, by my calculations, a win-win-win-win.

Win #1 - Reduce CO2 emissions - Anyone notice how warm it's been into October? How dry it is down in the South? Yeahh....that global warming thing is not only not a hoax, its happening right now. This is a great first step towards reducing our carbon emissions

Win #2 - Prevent Terrorism - Let's see if we can grasp this one kiddies, we buy oil from Middle Eastern countries for dollars. Some of those dollars get spent for good stuff, but some get provided to terrorists. So the less dollars we send over there, the less ends up in the hands of al-Qaeda. The less oil we buy, the more it drives down the price of oil, which means that al-Qaeda gets less money no matter who is buying oil. If we really want to win the "war on terror," we must reduce our reliance on oil. Was that simple enough?

Win #3 - Reduce our trade deficit - Anyone been paying attention to all those stories talking about how cheap the dollar is these days?? Five years ago, it cost 90 cents to buy a euro. Today it costs $1.40. That's because we've been sending oodles of cash overseas to purchase increasingly expensive oil, (Five years ago, the price of oil was $20/barrel. Today its $80/barrel) and it turns out the rest of the world isn't buying more of our stuff to compensate. So, there are piles of greenbacks overseas, and that makes them easily available and therefore....less valuable. Less oil use = less greenbacks sent overseas = smaller trade deficit.


Win #4 - Creates the jobs of tomorrow
- Hate to break it to the UAW, but hanging on tighter than hell to the jobs of the past is a slow-death strategy. Instead, how about an infusion of some young blood. How about having confidence that Ohioans will be manufacturing fuel cells, electric motors, lithium-ion batteries and other advanced technologies. Ohio has manufacturing know-how that few areas in the world can match. Why don't we provide incentives to invest in this emerging technology, by, for instance, requiring higher gas mileage!! Gosh I crack myself up.

Go tell Georgie to shape up and support the gas mileage bill without the loopholes.

4 comments:

kwolph said...

Hi Nick

I really enjoyed your comments about Senator Voinovich's decision to oppose the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards provision. I agree that we need to fight for the future and push the Government to pass laws aiding our environment.

So, after years of inaction, Congress finally has a chance to pass meaningful energy legislation. But there is a chance these two key advances won't make it through to the final bill.

I am working with a coalition to make sure Congress sends the president a strong energy bill with meaningful changes for our environment and planet. It collaborates well with your 'Go tell Georgie to shape up' link. This legislation would be a monumental step toward stopping global warming. Go to http://www.energybill2007.org and sign the petition. I hope this link will add fuel to the fire. Good luck with your efforts eco- friend and pass on the good word.

Chris Abraham said...

Hey there, kwolph, I just wanted to make your link work! www.energybill2007.org -- great link -- I am going to sign the petition now!

mary said...

So then, what would be the reasoning behind NOT retooling the big 3 makers and others for manufacturing non-petroleum based auto engines and parts? Let me guess, Moneyyyy?

coop179 said...

Guapo, Guapo, Guapo...

Preventing global warming, preventing terrorism, reducing our trade deficit and creating jobs all by increasing fuel economy.

Well, let's look at this for a moment.

Global warming. Over the entire history of the Earth, there have been climate changes, a couple degrees here and there, and the Earth always adjusts. It's just the law of nature. Yet, the argument of Global Warming has one flaw. Global implies that the entire Earth is warming. However, this is not the case. Yes, the polar ice caps in the Arctic are melting. Yet, the polar ice caps in Antarctica are growing. How can you have Global Warming if Antarctica is getting colder?

Preventing terrorism. While I agree we need to reduce our dependency on Middle Eastern oil, the second largest supplier of oil to the US is Mexico, and the truth of the matter is that if the environmentalists on the LEFT allowed us to build more refineries in the US we could reduce the cost of finished goods produced from oil.

Trade deficit. It's not oil that's causing our trade deficit. People just aren't buying American products any more. China is undercutting us by leaps and bounds, India is jumping into the market, and other countries are doing the same. Then, there are these great trade agreements like NAFTA that have both helped and hindered American trade.

Creating jobs. Yes, new technologies create new jobs, but at the cost of the jobs of the old technologies. So, you are robbing Peter to pay Paul. By forcing the Big 3 into fuel economy standards, you are affecting several other industries, including the $91-billion metalforming industry I work with everyday. And, most of those companies are family-owned shops that are fighting to stay alive in today's economy. You'll be closing those businesses because the Big 3 won't need their parts. Plus, most of your fuel-cell manufacturers already exist, so they will just be adding employees, but I can't imagine that fuel-cell manufacturers are going to be hiring tool and die setters or punch press operators. So, you are going to put those people out of work, and the metalforming industry is already hurting.