Obama's Global Warming Resolution

Obama is clearly one of the few people who understand the significant consequences associated with global warming. If you have been keeping up with my blog postings, you know that if global warming continues at this rate, we will be seeing more hurricanes, crazy snow storms, and tsunamis. Also, with rising temperatures, glaciers will continue to melt and sea level will continue to rise; resulting in the submersion of some of our favorite vacation islands. I don’t know about you, but I would rather have Hawaii than another Hurricane Katrina.

Upon stepping into the white house, Obama made good on his plan to reduce the effects of climate change with the introduction of a new act. So many presidential candidates make promises that they know they cannot keep. I just have to say that I am very impressed with Obama’s persistence and ability to push this act through. He had the guts to go for it, and it will really make this world a better place. I only hope that other politicians in other countries can have the same guts as Obama.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 has three important immediate goals: creating new jobs, investing in long term growth, and increasing transparency in government spending. 

While the act contains numerous mandates, I would like to focus on the part regarding fuel efficiency standards on motor vehicles. Through a memorandum, Obama ordered the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Department of Transportation to go to the drawing board to develop better standards for passenger cars, light, medium and heavy duty trucks. 

The fuel benchmarks have yet to be determined, but are anticipated to be about 60 miles per gallon for passenger vehicles. 

That's twice the mileage we are getting now on an average vehicle like the Toyota Camry.

The standards will go into effect sometime around 2016. As a direct result, carbon emissions will be reduced by 535 million metric tons. Reducing emissions means fewer holes in the o-zone layer which means the temperature will not increase sharply. With steadier temperatures, glaciers can melt, and the sea level will rise at a slower rate. This all sounds great, right?

The mandate will also reduce America’s dependency on foreign oil. Our current dependency has resulted in wars, and more importantly war spending. I personally want our troops home. And if that can happen in tandem with reducing the national debt, I don’t think I could ask for more. 

Additionally, the mandate will create numerous new jobs because people will need to develop, and assemble the new vehicles. Lower taxes and higher employment rates sounds like a fool proof plan, right? I thought so, but there are still some hard-headed people resisting the mandate.  

The mandate has been receiving criticism from those who are opposed to the potential price tag associated with the new plan. They argue that it will create unnecessary costs and add to the already out of control national debt. This is in fact a good point. The national debt has sky-rocketed to a point which seems insurmountable. There is even a site which keeps track of the national debt in real-time: right at this second, the debt is $13,818,634,780,461. 

That’s a lot of money.

Admittedly, it will be expensive for car companies to develop this new technology, and those high costs are passed on to consumers in the form of vehicle pricing. 

Car companies are also frustrated with Obama’s mandate. Many have spoken out against the mandate because they feel that the 60mpg expectations are unrealistic. Currently, the car with the highest fuel efficiency technology is the Toyota Prius, getting 40 miles per gallon. However, Obama responded to this argument saying that it is in fact a great challenge, and American ingenuity would respond accordingly. 

Because the US is in the midst of a financial crisis, it is important that Obama address the issue of funding. He is currently being criticized for not giving any concrete cost figures associated with the new initiative. I do not think he needs to release numerical estimates. Instead, I think that he should highlight the fact that this is an investment for the future. We all know that investments require a high sacrifice at the beginning, but later provide immense benefits. 

Successful investors do not usually purchase stocks one hour and sell them an hour later, right? They purchase investments and allow them to mature and increase in price before they sell them, and ultimately make a profit.

We need to apply this same concept to Obama’s mandate. In this case, we will initially be investing a large amount of money into the project, but later it will provide the great benefit of having a world for our kids to live.  Not only do we need to give them a world, we also need to give them a few nice islands for vacation. Neither of which can happen if we do not slow global warming. 

Still others address the issue of higher vehicle prices for consumers, but this is yet another investment for the future. Consumers will initially be spending more on the vehicle, but later will spend less to fuel up. A few summers ago, gas prices skyrocketed to four dollars a gallon, and the general public was not pleased. Now we are finding a solution to that problem through increased vehicle efficiency, and consumers are still not pleased. 

Consumers need to make up their minds! If you are going to complain about something, please do not continue to complain when Obama tries to find a solution. 

Additionally, while the memorandum might increase the national debt initially, it will also increase jobs and help mitigate the financial crisis. 

New efficiency standards will create a significant need for research and development work, because as of right now, no car companies out there have the technology to reach the 60 mpg mark. Once research and development teams have figured out the technology behind the cars, even more employees will be needed for vehicle testing, vehicle assembly, and employee training. 

This large need for labor will immediately reduce the unemployment rate, and potentially even drag the country out of recession (this is a bit of an economic simplification, but an economics discussion would take many more blog posts to delve into completely). 

In addition, more employed citizens means more taxable income, and more tax dollars for the government. These tax dollars go directly towards reducing the already ridiculously high national debt. 

Ultimately, these consumers need to weigh the costs and benefits associated with the mandate. One of the largest benefits which cannot be measured monetarily is the effect it will have on the environment. Those consumers who oppose the bill do not have an accurate perception of what could potentially happen to our world if we continue living life as we do now. 

I think that the key to resolving the rift between Obama and the public would be to educate people on the detrimental effects of climate change. People need to understand that there seems to be a strong connection between climate change and devastating natural disasters. It may be a rash assumption, but I think that those opposed to the act are severely uneducated. If you know anything about global warming, you know that it is terrible for our future. Do you really want your kids to die in a hurricane or tsunami? Or become buried under the rising sea level? I didn’t think so.

To address the consumers that are complaining about the potential increase in vehicle pricing after the efficiency upgrades, I just want to say that it can be a legitimate concern for some. But on the USC campus alone, I see so many BMWs, Benzes, and Range Rovers, that those people have no right to complain about pricing. If you can afford to spend $70,000 on that shiny black Range Rover, you can afford to spend that same amount of money on a more fuel efficient vehicle. For the rest of the people out there who are driving used Corollas and Focus’ (like myself), you can continue to drive that car, and can continue to get a good deal on used cars with the lower fuel standards. Nowhere in the plan does it state that used cars will have to be altered go meet the same requirements. Hopefully within a few years, the car companies will have it all figured out and will be able to lower prices to a more affordable range. Then, the rest of us poor people in our Corollas can contribute to saving the environment too.

Also, can you really put a price tag on saving the environment? 

Beyond that, I enjoy vacationing in Hawaii and other tropical islands. With climate change, islands are starting to disappear. Unless consumers can get on board with the mandate, they won’t be able to bring their grandchildren to their favorite vacation spots because they have become submerged underwater. 

This new mandate will have a great impact on both the environment and consumers. Granted, it will increase costs initially (for both the consumer and the nation), but the far reaching affects are what we need to focus on. The mandate will decrease dependence on foreign oil, and hopefully save the lives of American soldiers. It will decrease prices paid at the pump. It will increase the number of jobs across the nation. It will decrease the unemployment rate. And most importantly, the mandate will preserve the environment for generations to come. 

I support Obama’s fuel efficiency mandate, and you should too.