Arguing as liberal/progressive: Obama’s push for fuel efficiency standards
on May 19th, 2009 at 12:08 pmThe Obama fan base is once again impressed with the talking points coming straight out of the White House this week. The latest “rabbit outta my hat trick” involves the claim that Obama’s new fuel efficiency standards will save 1.8 billion barrels of oil by requiring cars to average 35.5 miles per gallon. Sounds very good, but again what will this cost the average consumer?
Well according to this AP article, the average consumer on average would pay an additional $1,300 when purchasing these “greenhouse friendly” vehicles.
If I was a liberal/progressive, my initial response to this would be out of concern for the poor. I would also provide a story or two involving a single mother who has to struggle just to get a half decent car to go to her 3 jobs while taking her children to school. I would make the case that these additional costs to “save the planet” based on faulty evidence that man contributes to global warming would be harmful to the poor. I would also bring up how even the Obama appointee for the EPA (Lisa Jackson) was unable to respond to a memo from the Obama administration (pdf) which questions the science behind the stated dangers of C02 emissions.
If the Obama administration is questioning it, why is it still pushing for these efficiency standards that would hit the poor the hardest?
Next question: Why are liberals/progressives suddenly silent on how all people (especially the poor) will have to pay more for their vehicles to “save the planet”?
The same silent treatment is given to how ethanol production CONTRIBUTES to food shortages in poor countries.
Starving people in Africa? Fuhgetabout it. I’m just glad we’re saving the planet
Saving the planet, one starving person at a time
Follow the green dot
