How the oil price plunge could backfire on the economy
“People should enjoy the lower prices for now, because they certainly will not last.”
“People should enjoy the lower prices for now, because they certainly will not last.”
“This is to preserve and protect the franchise of fossil fuels into the 2040s, 2050s and beyond. If you think about how the world will continue to need oil, the right to operate … is going to require some kind of an accommodation, and what are we doing to get rid of fugitive emissions.”
Sorry, but you do not have permission to view this content.
The Trump administration’s new standards, cleverly referred to as SAFE standards, claims to reduce traffic fatalities by as much as 1,000 deaths a year, according to the language of the proposal. The justification for that argument is incredibly shaky however.
“I do think they would do more harm to themselves by going negative, and really withdrawing oil from production, because it would hurt them in the long term.”
“If for some reason that oil weapon becomes a Saudi response, and they may get other friends to join them in responding with an oil effect, the whole world economy could be shaken by a shortage of oil.”
“With common-sense public policies in place, American drivers will be able to save money by having options for both oil and natural gas, as well as biofuel and electricity, to power their vehicles. The result? True and lasting energy independence.”
While allowing year-round E15 opens the door to using more alcohol fuels, it doesn’t create the market competition that’s needed to achieve energy independence.
The proposed change in standards, rolled out in August, would cost Americans nearly 17,000 days of work a year because of increased illnesses, the analysis by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says.
Much of the debate surrounding the recent proposal to lower fuel economy standards focuses on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipes. Read more →