Crash Course on the Candidates: Barack Obama
Editor's note: As the presidential race hits a calm period, KickingTires is taking a look at how each of the top three remaining contenders stack up when it comes to automobile-related policy.
Like his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama wants to see a major increase in fuel economy standards in the next two decades — according to his website, well beyond 35 mpg by 2020, which is the current law. To help automakers and parts suppliers, he would provide tax credits to retool plants and invest in "lightweight materials and new engines." He also wants to lift the 60,000-unit-per-manufacturer cap on buyer tax credits for hybrid and alternative-fuel vehicles.
Staying true to his Midwestern, farm-state roots, Illinois Sen. Obama has made biofuels a major part of his energy policy in relation to automobiles. Obama proposes strong investment in cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel, making it a goal to introduce 2 billion gallons into the system by 2013 and 60 billion gallons by 2030.
According to his website, Obama wants to deliver on this goal by providing subsidies, loans, grants, government contracts and even cash prizes to encourage development of "the most promising technologies." He also desires a mandate that would require automakers to put flex-fuel engines in all new cars by the end of his first term.
If there is something to be skeptical about here, it is Obama's steadfast support of biofuels. While exciting developments continue with cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel, corn ethanol has begun to raise more and more environmental concerns, including land and water use, food prices and vehicle efficiency.
Previous
Subscribe to our feed
Email us your tips!
So. This is how our government works and has for over 200 years.
BTW
The previous comment was deleted not for political reasons but because it's off-topic and takes away from the blog.
two more posts were deleted because they didn't add to the conversation about energy policy or transportation which is what we tried to talk about in these three posts. Also calling at least a third of the voting public idiots isn't nice.
Fuel economy *is* tops, efficiency is the way to go, but biofuels are a diversion. They just require more energy and processing to get to a useful fuel -- how is that better than hydrogen?
Six-
Biofuels require less energy in than they put out.
The opposite is true of hydrogren.
Therefore hydrogen is not an energy source; biofuels are.