Supporting the troops who call for higher CAFE standards
U.S. military veterans' groups are getting involved in the Congressional mileage debate. The AP reports that about three dozen veterans from the group New Hampshire for Peace wrote a letter to Congress this week calling for the 35 mpg level in the CAFE standards to remain in the final bill. The reasons are pretty self-explanatory, if you see the broader picture. For example, the veterans say that the 35 mpg level would reduce imports by 1.2 million barrels of oil which is, as the letter says, "more than twice the amount we import daily from Iraq." The letter continues, "Much of the global oil supply is located in unstable and sometimes hostile nations, especially in the Middle East, and the burden on our military to safeguard access to that oil increases daily" and "the wealth we transfer to these regions in oil revenues has been used, and continues to be used, to fund terrorism and extremist, anti-American ideologies."An October letter sent by Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn, USN, Retired, covered similar ground. You can read his letter after the jump and sign on by clicking here.
So, who's going to call out the politicians who put the desires of the automakers over the wishes of (at least some of) the troops?
[Source: AP, Environment Colorado]
AN OPEN LETTER TO CONGRESS ON OIL DEPENDENCY AND NATIONAL SECURITY
October 19, 2007
Dear Members of Congress:
As experienced and senior veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces, and as professionals working in the field of national security, we urge your support for maintaining the 35 mile-per-gallon (mpg) by 2020 fuel economy standard recently approved by the U.S. Senate in H.R. 6, the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act.
As retired Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn has said, "Our continued dependence on oil constitutes a clear and present danger to our national security – economically, militarily and diplomatically." Increasing fuel efficiency is the most effective and efficient manner to decrease that dependence. Even the National Petroleum Council recommends improving fuel economy standards by the maximum rate possible. And, the National Academy of Sciences reported in 2002 that technology exists to increase fleetwide fuel economy to 37 mpg without changing the size, weight, or power of vehicles on the road today. The Senate bill, which only mandates 35 mpg, would save 1.2 million barrels per day – more than twice the amount we import daily from Iraq.
Much of the global oil supply is located in unstable and sometimes hostile nations, especially in the Middle East, and the burden on our military to safeguard access to that oil increases daily. Since fuel efficiency standards were allowed to stall in 1985, our net oil imports have more than doubled from 27% to 60%. Today, our nation imports over 10 million barrels of oil every day. And, the Department of Energy predicts that our dependence will grow again to 70% by 2025. Our military's presence in oil-rich nations of the Middle East alone cost the U.S. taxpayer more than $137 billion in 2006, according to the National Defense Council Foundation, whose analysis included the current Iraq war.
Reliance on unstable regions for a critical energy resource constrains U.S. foreign policy and can lead to political alignments that reduce U.S. leverage on other diplomatic issues. Additionally, the wealth we transfer to these regions in oil revenues has been used, and continues to be used, to fund terrorism and extremist, anti-American ideologies. According to the U.S. State Department, in 2006 alone there were over 14,000 terrorist attacks, including those in Iraq, killing more than 20,000 noncombatants. In addition, our reliance on foreign oil leaves us economically exposed to infrastructure attacks. As former CIA Director James Woolsey has said,
"The petroleum infrastructure is highly vulnerable to terrorist and other attack. The Islamist movement, pre-eminently al-Qaeda, has on a number of occasions explicitly called for world-wide attacks on the petroleum infrastructure and has carried some out in the Greater Middle East. Successful hits...could send oil prices much higher than even today's elevated prices."
Fortunately, the Senate has approved a bill that, according to retired Marine Corps General P.X. Kelley, "is the single most effective measure that can be taken to address the profound national security threat posed to the United States by our dependence on oil."
The Senate bill, H.R. 6, calls for a fleet-wide 35 mpg standard by 2020, reducing U.S. oil use by 1.2 million barrels per day in 2020. The Senate bill's flexible "attributes based" design, in which manufacturers would meet separate mileage requirements for different vehicles based on attributes such as size and weight, safeguards U.S. manufacturing and consumer choice.
We urge you to take bold and very much needed steps to help protect America by maintaining a 35 mpg fuel economy standard and opposing half-measures in the upcoming energy conference. To quote Vice Admiral McGinn, "As a nation, we can rise to this challenge now, with clear action and modern technology, to move beyond oil from unstable regions of the world." The longer we wait, the more dangerous and expensive the solution becomes.
Thank you for your attention to this critical national security matter.
Sincerely,
Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn, USN, Retired
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Manny 8:41PM (11/09/2007)
That's my rational for converting to an EV.
1 penny going to countries that hate us is too much for me.
Gasoline will still be a necessity for my situation, but the more I travel without using oil, the less bullets I'm buying for our enemies to kill our kids with...
It would be nice if I could go to the any gas station and pay $5.00 or whatever mark-up per gallon of terrorist-free gasoline.
Reply
Sean 8:00PM (11/13/2007)
Automakers the world over are fearful of stricter standards in fuel economy. This is short-sighted, however, as technology solves the problem as do government requirements. Consumers are finally ready to make changes but ALL the automakers lack incentive for change.
Managers at these companies have to report to shareholders. If the profit comes from green technology, then the managers will have reason to change. The key into the future is to connect profit with fuel economy!
Reply
Tony Belding 8:39AM (11/10/2007)
I see the car makers being very fearful of higher CAFE standards. Can they meet a 35 MPG standard, fleet-wide? I expect so. . . But if they admit that publicly, then they believe Congress will double-down and require 45 MPG. If it looks like the car makers might be able to hit 45 MPG, then Congress would be emboldened to require 60 MPG.
Technology can't solve this political problem, because it's always a moving target. It has nothing to do with what's needed, nor with what's technically achievable. It's only about perception. Congresscritters feel the need to be seen doing something about gas prices and "pushing the car makers hard".
It's the same reason car makers (not only GM) killed their electric car programs. They were paralyzed by the fear. They figured as long as electric cars were on the road, there was a risk CARB would mandate 10% or 20% or 50% or even 100% of their cars be made electric. Once you start down this path of a command economy -- basically a communist system -- then there's no limit to what a bureaucrat might demand. Why not 100%? "You've already shown you can make them!" So it was very strongly in the car makers' interests to *not* show that they could make them. Failing that, showing that ordinary people (i.e. voters) wouldn't accept them was the next best thing.
Reply
Bill 1:24PM (11/10/2007)
Car makers don't want to build 35+ MPG cars because consumers don't want to buy them. What consumers want is more power - as long as gas is cheap.
The real solution is to increase the gas tax. When gas gets expensive, all of a sudden high MPG will be popular. But no politician has the guts to do that.
Reply
Dad 6:14PM (11/10/2007)
I served in Iraq 2003-2004, and as one veteran, I don't agreee. Let the CAFE MPG be the result of free enterprise. If CAFE gets forced to 35 mpg and folks (some veterans) lose their jobs making cars, then that is a bad idea.
Bob
Reply