EPA Moves to Regulate CO2, Afghanistan Becomes Political

Dear Friends,

Here are a couple items I thought you would want to follow.

Blessings,

Barrett

--------------------------------------------
EPA Moves to Regulate CO2

The EPA has announced it is moving forward with plans to regulate CO2 emissions. This threat has been held over our heads to put pressure on Congress to pass a CO2 control bill. Now that it looks like that isn’t going to happen any time soon, the EPA is starting to move forward with its Supreme Court-granted authority to regulate so-called greenhouse gases (GHG) through the Clean Air Act.

They announced their first move last week. They are requiring the auto industry to implement changes that will reduce GHG emissions in future cars and light trucks. They state:

“The standards proposed would apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. They require these vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of carbon dioxide (CO2) per mile in model year 2016, equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon (mpg) if the automotive industry were to meet this CO2 level all through fuel economy improvements.”

And yes, this is going to cost everyone some money. The EPA claims that their rules will add about $1,100 to the cost of a 2016 year vehicle. They say this is negligible compared to their estimate that a consumer will save $3,000 a year in fuel costs over the lifetime of the vehicle. Somewhere in one of their files one could probably find how they arrived at their calculation, but you can be sure they based it in part on their expectation that gasoline is going to be more expensive and that using less of it will result in savings for the driver. If we just drilled for our own oil, this would never be the case, but of course such thinking is not even part of the process in these circles.

Furthermore, this average cost/benefit calculation is an average. Those who drive less will not experience the same benefit, but their cars are still going to cost $1,100 more. So, who gets hit the worst? The poor, who will have to pay more for their cars, but who will drive less, and senior citizens, who no longer must commute to work and tend to use their cars less. In other words, the very people with the least disposable income will bear more of the cost and experience less of the benefit.

Also, you can be sure that the EPA didn’t calculate other costs that will result. For example, we already know that municipalities are feeling the effects of lower gasoline prices and less gas consumption. Their tax revenue on gas sales is down so badly that they are looking for alternative ways to raise money off of car drivers. One of the more popular ideas is to start taxing people for the miles they drive. Such a proposal will hit people who use their cars the most, which will reduce the benefit they are supposed to be getting through the EPA’s calculation, but they will still be paying $1,100 more for their cars. It will also add costs to the poor and senior citizens. While they are likely to drive fewer miles, they will still have to pay for the miles they will drive, adding more costs against the supposed savings.

Afghanistan Becomes Political

This week, President Obama decided to hold off on any decision to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan. Why? Liberal members on the Hill are questioning the wisdom of sending more troops.

Our commanders aren’t questioning it. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen has called for more troops. General Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is reportedly asking for 30,000 to 40,000 more troops.

Of course, there are a lot of factors to consider. Afghanistan has a history of bringing nations to their knees, but the crowd now fighting the call to send more troops to Afghanistan also fought the surge in Iraq. They can hardly be considered objective counselors in this issue.

Meanwhile, the insurgency is growing every day, and American and NATO troops are dying at higher rates. General David Petraeus recently called for patience in dealing with Afghanistan, which included a call for increased security, which I interpret, in part, to mean, more troops. He said,

“In Afghanistan, security is the principal concern, although there are numerous other challenges as well, with governmental legitimacy prominent among them. Clearly, the security trend in Afghanistan has been a downward spiral, with levels of violence at record highs in recent weeks.”

General Petraeus has proven he knows what he is doing. As far as I am concerned, his voice outweighs all the negative attitudes on Capitol Hill. We will soon find out if Afghanistan is going to be a political issue, or if President Obama will follow President Bush’s strategy of letting the experts fight our wars, and win them.