U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has been involved with the ins and outs of the CAFE standards for a long while. This week, following the NHTSA's call for a 31.6 mpg average (35.7 for cars and 28.6 for light trucks) by 2015, Pelosi had some kind word for the President and the NHTSA. So, first the automakers say they're OK with these stricter numbers and now Pelosi lauds Bush? What's going on here? You can try to figure it out for yourself by reading Pelosi's statement in full after the jump, but for a flavor of what she said, check out the opening bit that says, "The Bush Administration should be commended..."

Of course, Pelosi later says that the Administration continues to block progress on climate change legislation by fighting California's efforts to install its own rules. Whew, that's more like it. Thought for a moment there we weren't going to have a bumpy ride to 35 by 2020.

The President has at least one fan of his vague call last week to halt to greenhouse gas emissions growth in the U.S. by 2025. Kind of.

While Oxfam America said Bush was "ignoring reality" with the plan, the National Biodiesel Board has come out in favor of at least some parts of the plan. In a short statement issued last week (pasted after the jump) the NBB doesn't take a stand on whether the plan is the right one or the best one, it does say that biodiesel is a good way to reduce GHG emissions, and that growing more domestic biodiesel crops will "help America achieve this vital goal." NBB CEO Joe Jobe said that the biodiesel industry is ready to work with all politicians to "address climate change."

President Bush's call for climate the other day hasn't been very widely lauded. Oxfam America has issued one of the stronger criticisms, saying the plan "ignores reality." Echoing Sen. Barbara Boxer's (D-California) statement that the initiative was "worse than doing nothing," Oxfam says it "could make matters worse." Remember, details on just how Bush plans to halt greenhouse gas emissions growth in the U.S. by 2025 were not provided on Wednesday when the president announced the plan.

One issue that Oxfam points out in their press release on the topic (pasted after the jump) is biofuels. Just as Europe is having second thoughts about biofuels, Oxfam sounds a dire warning that non-food sources of ethanol need to be encouraged. Well, duh.

Photo: Saul Loeb, AFP/Getty Images

Now we know a bit more about the White House's U-Turn on global warming. President Bush made a speech in the Rose Garden today calling for a stop to greenhouse gas emissions growth in the U.S. by 2025. As NPR phrased it, that's when babies born this year will be in high school.

As we heard earlier this week, the White House is afraid that changes to the status quo that might come about thanks to things like the legal challenges about the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases could result in a regulatory trainwreck on greenhouse gas issues. Bush said today that he was concerned that legislation that Congress is looking to pass could hurt economic growth. The President did not issue a lot of details about his cautious plan that is far weaker than European plans, but that didn't stop Democrats from saying it was too little, too late. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-California) called it "worse than doing nothing ... the height of irresponsibility."

[Source: NPR]

U-turn. Waking up. Flip flop. Call it what you want (the Washington Times, headed by the very strange Sun Myung Moon, called it "changing course"), but the White House might be getting ready to call on Congress to pass a bill that deals with global warming. According to the Mooney Times (the only paper that seems to have talked to anyone - every other source online just references the Times article), White House officials are fearing a "regulatory nightmare" - thanks to those lawsuits over the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases, for example - if they don't pass a law quickly. White House spokesperson Dana Perino said the regulations were headed into "train wreck" territory. One anonymous official said that the administration hopes that "the debate over [global warming] is over, and it is time to do something." O rly?

The Times writes that Republicans in Congress apparently think the White House is "making a mistake" by going down this road. Funny, they didn't speak up all the other times mistakes were made.

[Source: Washington Times, ]

On a recent episode of the Daily Show, the spike and price of a barrel of oil was explained (see videos below the fold). The comedy news show's explanation includes $15 of the $104 for a barrel of oil going towards trying to convince the public that the oil companies are not raping the environment. Another $25 goes towards blackening the oil because oil actually comes out of the ground rainbow colored. Who knew? The Daily Show also took a shot at President Bush for his press conference where he said he was unaware of the predictions that gas prices could reach $4 a gallon and for his speech at the WIRC.

[Source: Daily Show]

President Bush gave a great speech (see video below the fold) at the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference yesterday. Bush started the speech by joking about the length of the conference's name and his large motorcade. He quickly became serious, however, saying we have to "get off oil" and listed reasons including the reality that the sources of oil are often countries that don't like us. Bush then spoke about a green future where Texas farmers grow switchgrass that's turned into fuel for our cars, city people drive plug-in hybrids that have a 40-mile electric-only range and, in the long term, hydrogen-powered cars that produce only water as a waste product. Bush even talked about a flight by the Air Force with alternative fuels and, as we mentioned earlier, a recent flight on biofuels by Virgin Atlantic. What he just described, Bush says, is the "beginning of a new era," one that's almost equal to the era started by the Model T. The Bush administration has an exemplary record on green transport and this speech felt like it put a well-deserved capper on his accomplishments.

[Source: The White House via Detroit News]

Although some have argued, even recently, that the drive to convert large amounts of farming acreage to ethanol production has had no effect on the prices people pay for food, that is not the memo our prez has received. I guess someone in Washington noticed the price of corn has shot up 250 percent in the past two years. Not content to let the market work it out for itself, Bush spake to the masses gathered before him at the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference (WIRC), "And so we got to do something about it." My, but he is a man of words, isn't he.

And what is this "something" the Decider has decided we should do? Make more ethanol, of course. But now, we should make it out of wood chips and agricultural waste. Apparently, we still have lots of trees we don't need and our agricultural waste isn't currently being used for anything besides soil enrichment. According to this article in the New York Times, Bush informed the crowd that the effort is well under way and that the Energy Department had already spent over $1 billion kick starting a "cellulosic ethanol" industry.

Speaking of nuts, the president also let it be known that he had been impressed with the recent flight Virgin Atlantic made from London to Amsterdam on fuel derived from the babassu nut. Though Bush said he had never seen the nut in person, he was amazed it could help power a plane the size of a 747. I guess if the plane had been smaller he would have been less impressed.

[Source: New York Times]

Two days ago, we told you President Bush said he was unaware some analysts were predicting $4 for a gallon of gas in the U.S.. The day before Bush made those remarks, White House press secretary Dana Perino was actually asked about gas prices and she said "we're mindful of it." Yesterday, when asked if Bush was "joking around" when he said he did not know their was talk of $4 gas, the White House said that "the President's point was that neither his advisors nor Energy Department analysts are at this point forecasting $4-a-gallon gasoline."

But $4.00 gas is actually here today is some parts of the country. What does the White House have to say to that? "I think that the national average, as of earlier this week, was $3.15, according to the Energy Department and other surveys" says the White House. The EIA actually says $3.13 and "other surveys" must mean things like the AAA survey, which says $3.16. So, the White House uses multiple surveys for the average price of gas but only use a single, government source for predicting gas prices? That makes perfect sense because the EIA has been so incredibly accurate and its predictions have never changed (/sarcasm).

The price of a barrel of oil went over $103 recently and it's reasonable to think that, as a former oil man, the president knows $4 for a gallon of gas is very possible, even if he didn't see the predictions. Perhaps he was trying to defuse what might have been seen as an endorsement of the $4 prediction in the question, a number the EIA has not officially predicted. However, his appearing to have "no clue" on what analysts are predicting, as the CNN video below the fold says, is more disconcerting to some than the actual $4 predictions themselves.

[Source: The White House]

Last night, in his last State of the Union address, President George Bush said "let us continue investing in advanced battery technology and renewable fuels to power the cars and trucks of the future." You can see for yourself in the video above. We will have more on this later but from what he said and previews in the press, it looks like Bush won't have any major initiatives for cars in '08.

This is very different from last year when Bush not only talked up battery-powered cars and renewable fuels in the state of the Union but also hybrids, plug-ins, clean diesel, biodiesel and even CAFE. You can watch that video below the fold. President Bush got most of what he asked for in the energy bill that past late December. Do you think any more laws need to be written?

[Source: CSPAN2]

It looks like Bush is trying to avoid the massive sh*t storm building around the EPA head's decision to deny the California waiver. Check out this exchange from today's press briefing at the White House:

Q Under what authority can the President tell California it can't have tougher global warming levels than the national strategy that he said he wanted?

MR. FRATTO: I mean, the President didn't tell California that, but the EPA Administrator made his independent decision on whether to approve or not approve that waiver. He made a decision not to approve the California waiver, and as he explained, I think, he made that based on what he thought was best for the nation in addressing this issue. And he pointed to the really significant policy changes that are going to come through from the energy bill that we signed last week.

Q -- no longer supports the kind of states' rights that he did when he was governor?

MR. FRATTO: There's always a balance. And he does support -- he does have a healthy respect for states' rights. But these decisions need to be made in terms of what is best for the country. We support EPA Administrator Johnson's decision, but it was his decision to make.

The president didn't tell California that, independent decision, I think he made, Bush supports state rights... ah, the EPA head serves at the pleasure of the president and Bush does not sound too pleased. If I were EPA administrator Stephen Johnson, I would start cleaning out my desk right now. The video above shows Arnold saying he is going to sue as quickly as possible to get his state that waiver.

[Source: White House]

In September, I wrote Dingell would kill CAFE. Earlier today, I wrote he played a part in delaying a vote on the energy bill in the House. However, a rebel alliance has pushed the vote through, and it should happen later today. We'll have more updates the vote occurs. Until then, I thought this was a must see; the video above is the great John Dingell himself admitting defeat and saying he will vote for the energy bill. So, did he lose? No, the bill is dead.

Huh? In the video above, John says the White House showed no interest. No interest? They threatened to veto it Monday and repeated the threat to veto it again today, again citing Dingell's problem with the CAFE portion of the bill. That's lack of interest? Why would Dingell doublespeak like that? John did the same thing, as you can see in the old video below the fold, when he proposed the gas tax which everyone knew he did not really support.

The energy bill needs friends and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi should have just given Dingell a delay, dropped three MPG from CAFE and all of her problems would have gone away. Along with the veto threat from the president, there is a fillibuster threat when the bill goes to the Senate. What will we see in the vote tonight? Will the bill pass? Will the CAFE standard in the bill be lowered? Stay tuned.

Related:

• Fuel economy bill has seventy percent chance of passage

[Source: CSPAN]

What did I tell ya? The great photo above is of Bush and Dingell from 2005 but it could have been two days ago. According to the Detroit News, the House has delayed the energy bill vote. As we reported, CAFE is largely settled and even Toyota has come out in support of the new agreement. Trouble is, John Dingell has a problem with it, and it's the same problem, it turns out, that the White House mentioned in a letter to Congress threatening to veto the bill again. So, do they just have to dot some i's and cross some t's on which agency will set CAFE? I doubt it because you see red herrings like this all the time in the polite debates in the Congress.

I would guess that once Bush put out the veto threat, Pelosi lost whatever votes she took from Dingell. When the rough draft of the bill is in Dingell's hands again, suddenly a change that was only going to be which agency will regulate, has 35 MPG crossed out and 27 put in its place. Will that happen? At this rate, we should find out by 2030 when the bill requires the change. It's also possible they pick an agency and the White House takes CAFE out of its letters to Congress. I doubt it because Dingell is like a ninja: if you see him, you are already dead.

Related:

• Fuel economy bill has seventy percent chance of passage
• White House threatens to veto energy bill again

[Source: The Detroit News]

Bush rarely takes questions and even when he does, it's never about green transportation. Unbelievably, on Monday, Bush was asked about the impact of fuel efficiency on the gas tax and the impact of ethanol on feed costs. Bush admits we have to move away from the gas tax because of higher fuel efficiency and he seemed to support any new user fee. Here is the full quote of the fuel efficiency question and the answer:

"Q I have a transportation question for you -- Raymond Burns with the Rogers-Lowell Chamber. For business to continue to grow in Northwest Arkansas we're going to have to help with our transportation infrastructure. (Applause.) Apparently, that's our number-one issue. Given that we collect taxes on gasoline by the gallon, and fuel efficiency means there will be less taxes collected, going forward, what will the priority for transportation help be, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: The -- step one, in order to make sure that that which we collect gets spent equitably, is to make sure that the committees in the House and Senate that appropriate the monies don't take a lot of the money as special projects. In other words, what happens is, is that the Public Works Committee is the largest committee in the House -- are you on Public Works, Boozeman? Yes. (Laughter.) It sounds like I better be diplomatic in the answer. (Laughter.) So what happens is these members say, okay, I want this for my district, I want this for my district, I want this for my district, so they get a unanimous vote out of the committee -- was it unanimous last time? Yes, that's what I thought.

And then so the money isn't equitably distributed. So step one is to make sure that the committees do their jobs the right way. Step two is to give states flexibility so that if they so choose -- which I think exists today -- that if you decide to have a highway for truckers paid for by fees, that you're encouraged to do so.

I mean, you're right, fuel efficiency is going to make it harder to collect gasoline taxes. Therefore, the next question is, what's the next best user fee. Gasoline tax is a user fee. Is there a better way to collect money, a better user fee system? And one thing I think is that if you've got a freeway, you ought to be able to parallel that freeway with a way to collect user fees, a toll way, and so people have a choice. You know, a trucker, if he's interested in moving through Northwest Arkansas in expedition [sic] fashion will pay a little extra money to be able to do so.

My attitude is, so long as the taxpayer has got a free alternative, I don't see why it makes -- why it's a problem to have the paying option available as a way to collect user fees to modernize the highway system. And so that's an idea for you right there."

Go below the fold to see Bush's response on ethanol.

[Source: The White House]

Bush sent a letter telling Congress what changes they can make to the energy bill so he does not veto it. Allan Hubbard wrote the letter that the White House sent to Congressional leaders (Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner) with a list of "deal-makers and deal-breakers." The energy bill does not have enough votes to make the bill veto-proof, so Congress will probably read this letter very carefully.

Bush says Congress can "reform and strengthen" CAFE but such actions should be "based on sound science, safety and cost-benefit analysis." Also, Bush does not want to see anti-trust violations against OPEC or price controls during energy emergencies. Capiche Congress?

Related:

• Bush might veto the energy bill

[Source: Bloomberg]