Barack Obama says take the California low carbon fuel standard nationwide
Democratic Illinois Senator and presidential hopeful Barack Obama today called for a reduction in carbon emissions in the U.S., basically by taking California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard, which California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued an order to start in January, nationwide. His Earth Day catchphrase: "end the tyranny of oil."
According to the AP, Obama said during a campaign stop in Durham, New Hampshire that, "I believe we still have a chance to pass on a planet to our children that is cleaner and safer and more prosperous than we found it., This is our generation's moment to save future generations from global catastrophe.''
The candidate's official statement on the initiative can be found here. The details, as released, are as follows:
Obama's proposal would require that all transportation fuels sold in the U.S.contain 5 percent less carbon by 2015 and 10 percent less carbon by 2020. By requiring less carbon intensive fuels, this national standard has the following benefits:
1. The market, rather than the government would determine which fuels are used by fuel distributors and blenders to meet the NLCFS. Because biofuels are less carbon-intensive than gasoline, the NCLFS would spur greater production of renewable fuels.
2. The NCLFS would also create an incentive for the production of more flexible-fuel vehicles that can run on ethanol and more plug-in hybrid vehicles that run on electricity.
The Obama proposal includes a banking and credit trading mechanism to allow providers of cleaner burning fuel to trade allowances to other producers or bank allowances against future carbon reductions.
Related:[Source: Guardian Unlimited / AP]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Larry Rose 9:49AM (4/21/2007)
It is a start,
There is a LONG way to go.
The journey of a 1000 miles begins with a single step.
Reply
Henry 10:45AM (4/21/2007)
Just what America needs another ignorant President. So far he wants Nuclear Energy and Ethanol. Ethanol takes 4 times more fossil fuel than its energy output to produce it. I would love to see what the others politicians are saying about our energy needs.
It is wrong to say that a politician is bad due to one of its policies but this is a sure sign of one ignorance candidate.
Reply
frank78 11:28AM (4/21/2007)
ATTENTION ALL POLITICIANS: get out of the way!! Economic and energy problems are not solved by politics. You politicians are slowing things down by artificially giving money to failed ideas and lost causes. Alot more will get done if you guys sit on your hands for the next 10 years than if you start sticking your self-motivated hands into the energy industry.
One word: hubris.
Reply
rgseidl 12:04PM (4/21/2007)
The notion behind reducing the carbon content of fuels is lower tailpipe CO2 emissions. However, unlike e.g. NOx, it doesn't matter where in the world CO2 is emitted. At the low concentrations at which it occurs in the atmnosphere, it is not a hazard to human health or agriculture.
That's why you need to consider well-to-wheels emissions of CO2 when comparing the global warming impact of any system comprising a fuel and the technology that converts it to mechanical power. Corn ethanol is not much better than gasoline in this regard, though sugar cane ethanol is.
As for hydrogen and fuel cells, those are vastly more expensive and no better if produced from natural gas via steam reformation. Hydrogen produced from nuclear power via electrolysis is arguably worse, because its CO2 bona fides come at the expense of additional nuclear waste. Besides, if you've got electricity you should use it to power an EV.
If you want to cut the carbon footprint of the transportation sector without breaking the bank, the first priorities have to be (a) reducing unnecessary travel and (b) improving vehicle fuel economy.
Switching to biofuels will help, especially if cellulose becomes a viable feedstock. However, it stands to reason that producing affordable fuels in real time is going to be much harder than bringing the results of millions of years of fossilization to the surface. Add to that all the extra cars that will be on the roads in emerging economies in coming decades and it becomes even clearer that conservation/efficiency should be job one.
Reply
Joseph 11:35AM (4/22/2007)
I think Bush is alot smarter than most people think. He had EVs at the White House. Obviously the oil companies or auto makers didn't suggest this to him. Bush probably asked someone to research it for him, which means Bush is open to ideas. (at least fuel wise.)
Reply