Bush Eases Environmental Rules on Gasoline

Derius_T

New member
Bush Eases Environmental Rules on Gasoline
Tuesday, April 25, 2006 11:29 AM EDT
The Associated Press
By NEDRA PICKLER

WASHINGTON (AP) ? President Bush on Tuesday ordered a temporary suspension of environmental rules for gasoline, making it easier for refiners to meet demand and possibly dampen prices at the pump. He also halted for the summer the purchase of crude oil for the government's emergency reserve.

The moves came as political pressure intensified on Bush to do something about gasoline prices that are expected to stay high throughout the summer.

Bush said the nation's strategic petroleum reserve had enough fuel to guard against any major supply disruption over the next few months.

"So, by deferring deposits until the fall, we'll leave a little more oil on the market. Every little bit helps," he said.

Wholesale gasoline futures prices for June delivery dropped 8 cents a gallon to $2.10 on the New York Mercantile Exchange immediately upon Bush's remarks.

Easing the environment rules will allow refiners greater flexibility in providing oil supplies since they will not have to use certain additives such as ethanol to meet clean air standards. The suspension of oil purchases for the federal emergency oil reserve is likely to have only modest impact since relative little extra oil will be involved.

The high cost at the pump has turned into a major political issue, with Democrats and Republicans blaming each other for a problem that is largely out of Congress' control. Republicans are worried that voters paying more than $3 per gallon would punish the party in power. Democrats want to make that happen.

Bush said that high gasoline prices are like a hidden tax on consumers and businesses, although he said the nation's economy was strong. He urged Congress to take back some of the billions of dollars in tax incentives it gave energy companies, saying that with record profits, they don't need the breaks. He urged lawmakers to expand tax breaks for the purchase of fuel-efficient hybrid automobiles.

The president said Democrats in the past have urged higher taxes on fuel and price caps to control fuel expenses, but he said neither approach works. Instead, he called for increased conservation, an expansion of domestic production and increased use of alternative fuels like ethanol.

Bush said high energy prices are disturbing.

"Our addiction to oil is a matter of national security concerns," the president said in a speech to the Renewable Fuels Association, which advocates alternate energy sources. "After all, today we get about 60 percent of our oil from foreign countries. That's up from 20 years ago, where about 25 percent of our oil came from foreign countries."

Bush said gasoline prices are expected to remain high throughout the summer and "that's going to be a continued strain on the American people."

Bush said the Federal Trade Commission, the Justice Department and the Energy Department were investigating whether the price of gasoline has been unfairly manipulated. The administration also contacted all 50 state attorneys general to offer technical assistance to urge them to investigate possible illegal price manipulation within their jurisdictions.

During the last few days, Bush asked his Energy and Justice departments to open inquiries into whether the price of gasoline has been illegally manipulated.

It's unclear what impact, if any, Bush's investigation would have on prices that are near or at $3 a gallon or more. Asked if Bush had any reason to suspect market manipulation, White House press secretary Scott McClellan responded, "Well, gas prices are high right now, and that's why you want to make sure there's not."

The administration sent letters Tuesday to state attorneys general urging them to vigorously enforce state law "against any anticompetitive, anticonsumer conduct in the petroleum industry."

"Consumers around the nation have expressed concerns about what they have perceived as anticompetitive or otherwise unfair conduct by the world's major oil companies," said Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Federal Trade Commission Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras. Their letter said federal agencies had substantially increased efforts to monitor, detect and prevent any violations of the law.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., urged Bush in a letter Monday to order a federal investigation into any gasoline price gouging or market speculation.

"There is no silver bullet," Frist said Tuesday on ABC's "Good Morning America," but "we need to make sure that any efforts at price-gouging be addressed and addressed aggressively." Meanwhile, Frist said, consumers should take steps to conserve gasoline ? drive at slower speeds, tune up car engines for maximum efficiency and carpool.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada dispatched his own letter, calling for a multi-pronged approach to restrain gas prices.

???

On the Net:

White House: www.whitehouse.gov

Hmmm.....
 
Why doesn't it surprise me that Bush's answer to natural market forces and the griping resulting therefrom (i.e. "political pressure") is to $hit all over the environment. At least he's consistent on that point!
 
FF said:
Why doesn't it surprise me that Bush's answer to natural market forces
"Natural market forces?"

EPA mandates requiring oxegenated fuel are anything but "natural market forces."

I think readng Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations might be in order for those who think that gov't regulation is a "natural market force."

Here is our current gasoline problem in a nutshell.
 
Why doesn't it surprise me that Bush's answer to natural market forces and the griping resulting therefrom (i.e. "political pressure") is to **** all over the environment.

expletive deleted

Idiotic environmental regulation, pushed by Henny Penny is, IMO, most responsible for high gas prices.
 
G.W.'s just rattling the saber on this one, IMO. His poll numbers were at 32 last I checked, so he suddenly comes up with this whole investigation into price gouging and easing up on the environmental standards, it just seems to me that he's playing to the crowd, like look, we're gettign stuff done, for you! And as far as cutting supplies to the strategic oil reserves, it seems like a mistake, because yes, it helps ease prices now, but what about down the road when we really need the extra oil? Just seems to me that its all just BS right now, but my area's not being hit with huge gas prices. I might be wrong on all of this, but its just my opinion, for what its worth. -BamaXD
 
All the information necessary to understand the market forces causing gas prices to rise are publicly available. So you don't have to have an opinion about it.


Environmental regulations, administered poorly, are partially to blame. Congress's unfunded environmental mandates on domestic refineries were so expensive that the oil companies simply closed all the older non-complying plants. The first major shortage and consequent price hike in gas came directly after that.


So now that the damage is done, he's reversing the regulations? Super.


The current gas price should be a catalyst for public interest in getting away from oil, rather than an all out effort to find and use up every last bit of it. Drilling more is not going to fix much of anything, but we know exactly what it is going to break.
 
Last edited:
Pull all the taxes, then pull all the enviro-regs. You can put them back when someone can show where FedGov gets authority within its constitutional limitations...
 
Handy wrote:

Environmental regulation, administered poorly, are partially to blame. Congress's unfunded environmental mandates on domestic refineries were so expensive that the oil companies simply closed all the older non-complying plants. The first major shortage and consequent price hike in gas came directly after that.

Well said Handy, and the cold truth....

I personally don't care WHO or WHAT settles this issue. I just know that $3.00/gallon gas is KILLING poor folks like me. I can barely afford to drive to work at all. I drive 40 miles each way. Thats a minimum of 400 miles on average a week. I get 15mpg average. Thats roughly 27 gallons of gas, at $3.00/gallon.....thats about $80 bucks a week in gas. Not counting the wife's car, or errands, store, kids school stuff, ect. We basically spend roughly close to $200.00 a WEEK just in gas.

In a month, thats almost my house and 1 car payment.....INSANE.

(Just wanted to complain, and see if I could still do math) :D
 
What can I say? Moving closer is one option.

I would have preferred to live in the country these past 30+ years, but the OPEC oil embargo of the '70s cured me of my cheap-oil delusions just as my early experience with yearly increases in suburban D.C. traffic cured me of my fantasy of easy rush hour commutes.

OTOH, as it turned out I've really enjoyed my neighborhood and walking 5 blocks to work since 1980.

John
 
The oil companies were given huge tax breaks last year. Plus some are drilling on land owned by the government and not paying any royalties back to the government.

I say if the oil companies are unwilling to build new refineries after being given tax breaks and pumping oil from public lands without paying royalties. Congress should change all that get the revenues from the oil companies in the form of taxes and royalties and decrease or eliminate the federal gas tax.

As far a s enviromrntal laws...political boogeyman. There are many new energy projects that are being built that are getting the permits. Why build new refeneries or pipelines when there is no economic incentive to do so. As we have seen emmision regulations can be relaxed. So can the legal red tape for building a refinery.

The last refinery built in the US was in 1976. There are about 149 refineries in the US today. They were not closed because of legal red tape. They were closed due to the fact that refineries have upgraded operations requiring less manpower to operate. The refining capacity has only shrunk about 10% from it previous peak of 18.6 million barrels a day, while the demand for fuel has risen 45%.
 
First Freedom, here is the first link of 72,600 I found on google with the search string 'mtbe'+ 'poison'+'water'. http://www.timesunion.com/TUNews/SpecialReports/HiddenPoison/index.aspx

Mr. Bush is planning to suspend the crackpot rules which have caused this poison to widely contaminate our water supplies. So how is that damaging to the environment? We need to do away with the MTBE rule entirely rather than on a temporary basis.

You may thank me later for this iota of environmental education. :D
 
Last edited:
I thought Bush had ALREADY suspended the formulation standards in response to the Katrina & Rita disasters....

...if he did, when did he reinstate them? And WHY would he do a moronic thing like that?...


...if not, WHY NOT?...

Suspending the useless enviromental regs is the ONLY productive thing he's done in this proposal. The Strategic Reserve still needs to be replentished. And Bush needs to push for the suspension of the Fed Gas Tax...permanently.
 
I knew I'd get flamed in this one....but

Meek, I do appreciate a sincere education if I'm missing something. But can you please explain to me/us, in a nutshell, why is it, as you claim, that the regulations designed to reduce poisonous MTBEs in the environment is actually causing them to increase? That is what you're saying, correct, if you're saying that suspending the rules will actually help the environment?
 
FF said:
Meek, I do appreciate a sincere education if I'm missing something. But can you please explain to me/us, in a nutshell, why is it, as you claim, that the regulations designed to reduce poisonous MTBEs in the environment is actually causing them to increase? That is what you're saying, correct, if you're saying that suspending the rules will actually help the environment?
Meek can speak for himself and your understanding of what he said, but I think I can help & interject some information.

The regs were not proposed to reduce MTBE in the enviro, they were proposed to reduce some air pollution. The poisoning of broundwater sources was an unintended consequence.

Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) is a water-soluble oxygenate that increases the oxy level in gasoline as mandated by the egregious 1990 Clean Air Act. It was preferred to other oxygenates due to cost and especially because it blended well with gasoline and was not hygroscopic the way ethanol ( & other alcohols) are. So, it could be blended into gasoline at the refinery, stored in solution, pumped through pipelines in solution, and tanked around the world in solution.

MTBE, unfortunately, is also highly toxic. Serious health effects can be observed at a concentration of 20 ppb in drinking water. Remeber, MTBE is water-soluable. Well, when (not "if") gasoline tanks leak at your local stop-n-rob, the MTBE gets into the ground water. It does not take much MTBE to contaminate ground water to the extent that it is unhealthy.

http://www.epa.gov/mtbe/water.htm said:
In 1996, the city of Santa Monica learned that two of its drinking water wellfields, Charnock and Arcadia, were contaminated with MTBE at levels as high as 610 ppb and 86 ppb respectively. In response, the two wellfields, representing 50 percent of the city's drinking water supply were shut down and the city began purchasing replacement water. This incident was the first major water contamination which brought public attention to MTBE.

What happens when MTBE gets into the environment?
Because MTBE dissolves easily in water and does not "cling" to soil very well, it migrates faster and farther in the ground than other gasoline components, thus making it more likely to contaminate public water systems and private drinking water wells. MTBE does not degrade (breakdown) easily and is difficult and costly to remove from ground water.

How long will MTBE remain in water?
MTBE is generally more resistant to natural biodegradation than other gasoline components. Some monitoring wells have shown little overall reduction in MTBE concentration over several years which suggests that MTBE is relatively persistent in ground water. In contrast, studies of surface water (lakes and reservoirs Exit EPA disclaimer have shown that MTBE volatilizes (evaporates) relatively quickly.
 
Ah yes. Another bunch of posts bashing the President. It is all the President's fault. :rolleyes:

My favorite idea is imposition of higher taxes on oil company profits. As though somehow the oil companies wouldn't pass the increased costs of taxes onto the consumer. And the complaining about "unfair" profits, as though the oil companies have a fiduciary duty to someone other than shareholders. Investigation after investigation has revealed no fraud or price-fixing by oil companies. That supply and demand thing is a real bummer, eh?

Hey folks, don't blame the President on this one. Want someone to blame? Go look in the mirror. When you buy a vehicle that gets 15 miles to the gallon, you're gonna have to feed it. A lot. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be able to buy such a vehicle, but you have to be prepared to pay the price of feeding that vehicle. Sort of like watching your fat girlfriend eat a bucket of fried chicken, and then reacting indignantly when you have to pay the tab when she is finished (ladies of the forum, substitute fat boyfriend to fit your situation :D ). You're the one who picked her.

Well, maybe you still don't want to blame yourselves. Fine; blame the politicians. But don't just blame President Bush. Our dilemma with oil is similar to our dilemma with illegal immigration. For decades we have done nothing about the problem, and we have failed to demand that our elected representatives do anything about the problem. Heck, we voted 'em in. And it is not just the Republicans who have ignored the energy problem for years. The Democrats have, too. I'll remind you that President Clinton had an 8 year tenure. In fact, neither party has taken action on the issue since the oil embargo occurred 30 years ago. Like I said, both parties have failed.

So now we're stuck in the middle of a mess when things come to a head (like immigration), and looking to pin blame on someone. Contrary to what the Bush bashers would have you believe, the President cannot simply declare that the price of gasoline must decrease, or confiscate oil profits, or take over refineries. He can take administrative action, such as temporarily suspending environmental rules in an attempt to slightly help, but that's about it. We're in a mess now, and no action taken by Congress or the President is going to solve the mess in the short-term.
 
The feds get their 18.4 cents per gallon regardless of whether the oil companies are making a penny a gallon profit, or ten bucks a gallon profit.

Who Profits at the Pump?

by Scott A. Hodge and Jonathan Williams

Over the past quarter century, oil companies directly sent more than $2.2 trillion in taxes, adjusted for inflation, to state and federal governments ? three times what they collectively earned in profits over the same time period. Yet some politicians say this is not enough and are proposing a new ?windfall profits? tax to raise billions more for federal coffers.

Of course, as most economists agree, corporations don?t pay taxes, people do. Folks like us will really pay those new taxes, either through higher prices at the gas pump or through lower returns in our 401(k)s. Smaller profits for companies means smaller returns for our retirement funds.

Congress recently brought in oil executives for a grilling on ?excessive? profits. The press piled on with headlines such as, ?It?s Open Season on Big Oil.? At a minimum, both politicians and the media are guilty of biting the hand that feeds them and, perhaps, a bit of hypocrisy: Oil companies hand over more than $35 million per year to newspapers for advertising, while the government profits far more from each gallon of gas sold than do the oil companies.

chart_hodge11-16-05.gif
 
Back
Top