I sat down with Stuart Varney this morning on FOX Business News for a lightning round on solar power competitiveness versus conventional electricity, an environmentalist's dissatisfaction with Obama's lack of leadership on environmental issues, and $5 dollar gas.
Here's the video:
And here is a link in case your browser doesn't support the player:
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1457836159001/
Always fun to do these lightning rounds with Stuart.
Have a great weekend!
Showing posts with label Obama Administration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama Administration. Show all posts
17 February 2012
27 July 2011
CAFE Society? The Green Skeptic on FOX Business
I sat down with Stuart Varney & Company on FOX Business this morning to talk about the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards proposed by the Obama administration.
My take: I think better fuel economy is a good thing.
Here is the video:
I'm a free-market guy and don't like government mandates, but we've had these standards since 1975 and it has spurred innovation in the auto industry.
People are feeling the pain at the pump and higher MPG means more money in their pockets.
Some automakers are not happy with the proposal, but others like Mark Reuss of GM North America find the new standards tough, but achievable.
And I'm encouraged by John DiCicco of University of Michigan's Energy Institute who believes that current technologies can yield 74 mpg by 2035 if staged appropriately.
Who wouldn't want to get 74 miles per gallon?!
At the end of the day, I'd prefer the auto industry innovate without government prodding, but I think the CAFE standards may just prime the pump.
Stuart also threw me a couple of curve balls about a coal mining operation that was ceasing operation and Major League Baseball's Designated Hitter rule. (I'm not a fan of the DH, despite my Red Sox having been the beneficiary of the rule in 2004 and 2007.)
Here is a link to the video in case the player doesn't work in your browser: http://bit.ly/nJHeru
UPDATE: Late yesterday, I learned that the White House and Automakers had reached an agreement about a slightly revised number: Automakers and Obama Agree.
My take: I think better fuel economy is a good thing.
Here is the video:
I'm a free-market guy and don't like government mandates, but we've had these standards since 1975 and it has spurred innovation in the auto industry.
People are feeling the pain at the pump and higher MPG means more money in their pockets.
Some automakers are not happy with the proposal, but others like Mark Reuss of GM North America find the new standards tough, but achievable.
And I'm encouraged by John DiCicco of University of Michigan's Energy Institute who believes that current technologies can yield 74 mpg by 2035 if staged appropriately.
Who wouldn't want to get 74 miles per gallon?!
At the end of the day, I'd prefer the auto industry innovate without government prodding, but I think the CAFE standards may just prime the pump.
Stuart also threw me a couple of curve balls about a coal mining operation that was ceasing operation and Major League Baseball's Designated Hitter rule. (I'm not a fan of the DH, despite my Red Sox having been the beneficiary of the rule in 2004 and 2007.)
Here is a link to the video in case the player doesn't work in your browser: http://bit.ly/nJHeru
UPDATE: Late yesterday, I learned that the White House and Automakers had reached an agreement about a slightly revised number: Automakers and Obama Agree.
09 November 2010
End of Carbon Credit Market? The Green Skeptic on FOX Business
I spoke this morning with Stuart Varney on FOX Business about the end of the Chicago Climate Exchange and the Obama administration's newly announced program to encourage energy efficiency upgrades.
If your browser doens't support this video format, here is a link: Green Skeptic on FOX Business
If your browser doens't support this video format, here is a link: Green Skeptic on FOX Business
15 January 2010
Green Skeptic on Job Creation: FoxBusiness
I was on FoxBusiness yesterday, talking with Stuart Varney about the green jobs number that has come out from the Obama administration.
There were three points I wanted to make on the subject:
1.) What qualifies as a green job? What counts? We need a clear definition to determine whether the accounting is accurate and the impact is greatest.
2.) Only $5B of the $90B stimulus commitment to clean energy has moved thus far. How can we more efficiently move that capital to put it to work?
3.) Lack of manufacturing base for clean energy in the US calls into question the number and quality of the jobs that will be created here in the US. Will they be just service-oriented? Will that have significant impact on the larger economy?
You can judge for yourself whether I succeeded. Let me know what you think.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_u81LAwqR9uEN5plnqA3sd4d8ZczdiiHPDIdQwi0M9Sl-FJIDEO6EQ5ag0fFt96aM_aKLq4YfNhyDLH0U88BjQPLFNiKa1knaVdkoWooBv7WV-w9lnMbRaIoefQJlViNXMfaR6tzGJ1iceOnO4RDHYW=s0-d)
There were three points I wanted to make on the subject:
1.) What qualifies as a green job? What counts? We need a clear definition to determine whether the accounting is accurate and the impact is greatest.
2.) Only $5B of the $90B stimulus commitment to clean energy has moved thus far. How can we more efficiently move that capital to put it to work?
3.) Lack of manufacturing base for clean energy in the US calls into question the number and quality of the jobs that will be created here in the US. Will they be just service-oriented? Will that have significant impact on the larger economy?
You can judge for yourself whether I succeeded. Let me know what you think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)