by Liz Goodwin (Washington Post) But now, facing a tough reelection climate in November, some Senate Democrats who are fighting for their political lives in red states are distancing themselves from aspects of President Biden’s EV policies as Republicans go on the offense against Biden’s environmental agenda.
Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump has made bashing EVs a cornerstone of his campaign, effectively turning them into culture war fodder in an election year. Meanwhile, a fossil fuel industry group is pouring millions of dollars in ads in swing states tying Democratic senators to Biden’s EV push.
Trump has vowed to roll back Biden’s electric vehicle efforts and warned “you’re not going to be able to sell those cars” if he becomes president.
...
It is an easy attack line for Trump, however, who called the Biden regulations “ridiculous” in a recent meeting with oil industry executives who he brazenly asked to raise $1 billion for his campaign.
At a rally in Las Vegas earlier this month, Trump went on a lengthy rant against electric-powered boats, saying he would have trouble knowing what to do if the boat was sinking in shark-infested waters. “Do I get electrocuted if the boat is sinking, water goes over the battery, the boat is sinking? Do I stay on top of the boat and get electrocuted, or do I jump over by the shark and not get electrocuted?” he asked.
“I’ll take electrocution every single time,” he said. “I’m not getting near the shark.”
Last week, Trump told Senate Republicans behind closed doors he would “get rid of” Biden’s “disastrous” EV policy if he’s elected president, according to Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo).
Some Democrats in particularly tough races are distancing themselves from aspects of Biden’s policies. The issue has become so politicized that data shows more Democrats than Republicans are buying EVs.
In May, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) introduced a bipartisan Congressional Review Act resolution to overturn the Biden administration’s decision to allow components of EV batteries to be made in China, putting an exclamation point on his weeks of criticism of the Biden administration’s stance toward EVs.
“The U.S. must ban Chinese electric vehicles now, and stop a flood of Chinese government-subsidized cars that threaten Ohio auto jobs, and our national and economic security,” Brown wrote in an April letter to Biden.
Earlier in May, the Biden administration announced steep new tariffs on Chinese-made electric vehicles.
Both Brown and Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) unsuccessfully voted to roll back Biden’s emissions standards, and also voted with Republicans to scrap a Biden rule that would exempt EV charging stations from “Buy America” rules. Biden later vetoed the chargers measure.
“There is a lot of concern about electric vehicles out of the state of Ohio that’s probably bad for Sherrod Brown overall, but the silver lining is it provides him an opportunity to draw some contrasts to Joe Biden,” said Christopher Devine, a political science professor at the University of Dayton.
In Ohio, an auto manufacturing state where cars are core to politics, Brown’s GOP rival, Bernie Moreno, has criticized the “manic” move to EVs, saying it could destroy the auto industry. Brown allies have gone after Moreno for previously selling Chinese-made Buicks in his car dealership.
Ohio is home to auto manufacturing plants, including some owned by General Motors, who have signed onto the Biden administration’s EV push. After the Environmental Protection Agency adjusted its initial emissions standards and slowed the pace to electrification in its latest regulation, most of the auto industry has signed onto the policy. The powerful United Auto Workers union has endorsed Biden, as well, after the president assuaged concerns about his commitment to promoting union jobs in electric vehicle-related factories.
Tester said he believes there needs to be more research and development of EV car batteries before more consumers will want to purchase the vehicles. “I’m an internal combustion guy,” Tester said. “The truth is if you’re going to make it competitive we’ve got to get batteries to a point where they’re more affordable and longer lasting and work at colder weather conditions.”
According to Tester’s memoir, published in 2020, he bought a used Prius to drive while in Washington, D.C.
But it’s hard to make nuanced arguments during a campaign year.
Both men are facing ads funded by a fuel industry group in their states claiming that Biden will soon ban most gas-powered cars — a reference to the president’s stringent new emissions standards that experts say is misleading.
One new ad that will begin running this week as part of a broader $6.6 million buy shows Tester’s image photoshopped into the back seat of a car with Biden. “President Biden is banning most new gas cars,” a narrator intones in the background. “Putting our freedom to choose what to drive in the rearview mirror. And Senator Jon Tester couldn’t stop him.” The ad urges voters to call Tester to tell him to keep working to stop the “ban.” Similar ads featuring Brown and Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) will run in their states, where both senators face tough reelection bids, as well as in six other states.
American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers President and CEO Chet Thompson said he is “agnostic” on who wins the Senate races in the swing states where his group is running ads but believes the Biden administration’s EV policies are “wildly unpopular” with voters.
Thompson defended his ads’ use of the word “ban,” which experts say is inaccurate, because the new emissions standards will require auto manufacturers to make dramatically more EVs and fewer gas-powered vehicles to comply. That transition will be gradual, however.
The EPA says EVs would account for approximately “30 percent to 56 percent of new light-duty vehicle sales” and “20 percent to 32 percent of new medium-duty vehicle sales” in 2030. That’s below Biden’s initial stated desire to have EVs account for half of all new car sales by 2030. And neither constitutes a ban.
“It’s just Republican propaganda and fearmongering,” said Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), the chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
But the political challenges remain.
Many of the EV tax credits passed in the Inflation Reduction Act have gone to buyers in California and on the coasts, furthering the difficulty of selling the move in red states. Republicans and some Democrats have also argued that the Biden administration has been too permissive of China-made battery parts making up the vehicles, while Republicans plan to argue that lawmakers authorized billions in spending in the legislation without meaningfully lowering inflation.
Some liberal groups are arguing that Democrats should work harder to sell the benefits of the investment in EVs — including factories being built in red states — and explain to voters the economic benefits.
...
Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) — who is running for that state’s open Senate seat and is facing heat for opposing a measure to halt efforts in states to limit gas-powered cars in the House in 2023 — has taken a more offensive tack. “I know Donald Trump has made electric vehicles his new ‘woke’ culture war,” she said in a statement after her vote. “Those vehicles are going to be made. And I am always going to pick Team America over Team China making those damn vehicles.”
But Trump’s constant demonization of the vehicles — “MAY THEY ROT IN HELL,” he wrote of EV supporters in a Truth Social post last Christmas — have only served to make EVs more unpopular among Republicans.
And adoption of EVs is not high in most red states. In Ohio for example, just around 3.25 percent of new vehicle purchases are electric vehicles, according to the Toledo Blade newspaper. In 2022, just 3,300 EVs were registered in the state of Montana, amounting to less than half a percentage point of all vehicles.
Republican strategist Mike Murphy, who is leading an effort to encourage more EV adoption among conservatives, says the gap between Democrats and Republicans on EVs is staggering. More than 61 percent of Democrats said they believed their friends would think it was a “smart move” if they bought an EV, compared to just 19 percent of Republicans who said the same in polling commissioned by Murphy.
“They marketed EVs as environmental, I’m-a-good-person-mobiles,” Murphy said, which alienated Republicans who tend to be more skeptical of climate change. READ MORE
Related articles
- Oil, Gas Group Urges Biden, Trump to Push for Energy Permitting (Bloomberg Law)
-
EVs take center stage: A crucial issue in the Biden vs. Trump 2024 presidential election (CBT News; includes VIDEO)
-
Daybreak July 9: Slimmed down GOP platform targets China, EVs (Agri-Pulse)
-
Electricity prices get political in Trump’s world: Republicans are using the cost of power — usually an arcane issue — in a populist attack on Biden’s economic and climate policies. (E&E News Energywire)
-
Trump: ‘I will end the electric vehicle mandate on Day 1’ (NBC News; incudes VIDEO)
-
GM CFO on politicization of EVs: We try to rise above politics (Yahoo! Finance; includes VIDEO)
-
Trump targets anemic Biden effort to build EV chargers: But the former president grossly exaggerates the cost of creating a nationwide network of charging stations for electric vehicles. (E&E News Climatewire)
-
Donald Trump's invitation to Chinese carmakers might boost US transition to EVs (South China Morning Post/Yahoo! Finance)
-
Trump says he has 'no choice' but to support electric vehicles because Elon Musk 'endorsed me very strongly' (Business Insider/Yahoo!)
-
Donald Trump admits EV flip-flop was a quid pro quo to secure Elon Musk’s support (Fortune)
-
The Politics of Electric Vehicles Looms Large in Swing States Trump’s anti-EV rhetoric is a gift to Kamala Harris. (New York Times)
-
Red-state Republicans say they’ll defend Biden-era green jobs (Bloomberg)
-
Musk might be the only person Trump listens to on climate: The billionaire Tesla CEO has Trump’s ear. Here’s what he might tell the former president about rising temperatures, clean energy and making money. (Politico Pro Climatewire)
-
Musk swayed Trump on EVs. What’s next? (Politico's Power Switch)
-
Musk might be the only person Trump listens to on climate (Politico)
-
Trump 2.0 Can’t Stop Electric Vehicle Sales From Accelerating (Forbes)
-
Georgia is having an EV identity crisis (Politico's Power Switch)
-
Trump says he may end EV tax credit; is open to naming Elon Musk as an adviser (Reuters)
-
Inside JB Pritzker’s bold bid to bridge the EV culture – E&E News by POLITICO (Wired Focus)
-
Ford Shrinks Its EV Rollout Plans as Demand Lags -- Automaker cancels large electric SUV and expects to take $1.9 billion in related special charges and write-downs (Wall Street Journal)
-
Trump promises to ‘revolutionize’ auto industry in pitch to Michigan voters (Politico)
-
‘A catastrophe for Michigan': Trump attacks electric cars in his newest Rust Belt gambit (Politico)
-
The GOP’s electric car attacks crash into Dems’ closing message (Politico)
-
Congress must vote to overturn Biden-Harris regulation banning most new gas cars (American Fuel and Petroleum Manufacturers)
-
New ad—Ridin’ with Biden—urges Congress to overturn Biden-Harris gas car ban, while polling in competitive states shows liability of the issue across the ticket (American Fuel and Petroleum Manufacturers)
Excerpt from Bloomberg Law: Petroleum Institute crafts energy roadmap for candidates; Trump vows to roll back Biden energy, environment mandates
Policymakers and the 2024 presidential candidates can help reduce inflation by streamlining US energy permitting and promoting consumer choice when it comes to cars and appliances, the group representing the US oil and gas industry contends.
The American Petroleum Institute on Monday released an energy policy roadmap ahead of the year’s first presidential debate on June 27 between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump.
The group recommended lifting the Biden administration’s pause on new liquefied natural gas applications, reversing executive regulations that imposed stricter emissions standards on gas-powered vehicles, leveraging the country’s natural resources through more oil and ... READ MORE
Excerpt from E&E News Energywire: “By the end of my term, America will have the No. 1 lowest cost of energy and electricity,” Trump said in West Palm Beach, Florida, last month. “We’re going to get energy prices reduced within the first year to less than half of what they are right now, and that’s going to bring down inflation.”
At the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee this week, convention speakers blasted President Joe Biden for gasoline prices and the cost of electricity, driving at energy costs as a culprit for inflation across the economy. All of it highlights an uncomfortable reality for Democrats ahead of the November election. Electricity prices have risen by roughly 20 percent since late 2020, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, and show few signs of falling.
From April 2023 to April 2024, average retail electricity prices went up in the main battleground states, with Nevada and Wisconsin the exceptions. Conservatives have seized on power and gas prices to push back against climate policies in some states; in Washington state, a reliably Democratic stronghold, GOP megadonor and hedge fund executive Brian Heywood is bankrolling a ballot initiative to repeal the state’s cap-and-trade market for carbon emissions. READ MORE
Excerpt from Inside Climate News: No voice has amplified the Big Oil message more loudly than former President Donald Trump, who at a fundraiser in April explicitly pledged to help the industry in exchange for its members sending $1 billion to his campaign, The Washington Post first reported. Trump blasts President Joe Biden’s EV-friendly policy at nearly every public appearance, including after his conviction in New York on charges of falsifying business records, when amid grievances about the judicial system, he stated: “They want to stop you from having cars.”
In this seeming non sequitur, Trump was merely reiterating one of the major themes of his bid to regain the presidency. Echoing the oil industry’s own language, he has framed his candidacy as its best hope for undoing U.S. policy to spur adoption of EVs.
...
But the message the oil industry is bringing to airwaves, social media, the courts and the 2024 political campaign is that American consumers will be squeezed in an EV transition. The Biden vehicle pollution rules “will unequivocally eliminate most new gas cars and traditional hybrids from the U.S. market in less than a decade,” said API President and CEO Mike Sommers and AFPM President and CEO Chet Thompson in a joint statement. “This wildly unpopular policy is going to feel and function like a ban.”
...
An Alliance Forged Over Smog
The oil and car industries have worked in tandem, if not in partnership, to block government action against auto pollution ever since the first recorded “gas attack” in Los Angeles in 1943—eye-watering smog that cut visibility to three blocks.
Fossil fuel exhaust was fingered as the cause of the smog as early as the late 1940s, when legendary chemist Arie Jan Haagen-Smit at the California Institute of Technology isolated brown hydrocarbon goo in a Los Angeles air sample. But in a move that would presage the efforts decades later to cast doubt on climate science, the oil industry hired its own expert.
Abraham Zarem, the oil industry-paid scientist and a prominent veteran of the Manhattan Project, hypothesized that naturally occurring stratospheric ozone was somehow seeping into the lower atmosphere to cause L.A.’s smog, according to writings and oral histories of the CalTech team. He was wrong, but his comments launched 20 years of debate and delay before the first auto pollution standards, set by the state of California in 1968, became law. Congress followed in 1970 with the Clean Air Act.
By then, the oil and auto industries—who had initially joined in a research alliance on smog—were at odds with the government and each other.
“In my opinion, it’s Detroit’s problem to meet the standards,” said Peter Gammelgard, senior vice president of the American Petroleum Institute, at a congressional oversight hearing in 1973. “They have to be the ones that make the engines and make the devices that do meet the standards.”
General Motors Vice President Ernest Starkman said his company was “desperately trying” to implement catalytic converters to reduce smog-forming pollution, but the oil industry could cut air pollution without such equipment if it eliminated lead, the additive it used to boost performance. “Unleaded gasoline is absolutely necessary,” Starkman testified.
Lead is a powerful neurotoxin, but the auto industry also wanted it gone because it destroys catalytic converters. Permanent removal of lead from gasoline, achieved in 1997 in the United States, is now viewed as one of the world’s greatest regulatory success stories, saving 1.2 million lives and $2.45 trillion in health and societal costs globally each year, according to United Nations-commissioned research.
A go-slow pattern was established in those early auto pollution fights. Both industries sought delay, with the auto industry ultimately adopting new technologies and the oil industry at least a step behind.“There was tension, which sometimes was resolved with actual summit meetings between leaders on both the auto and the fuel side,” noted Mary Nichols, former chair of the California Air Resources Board, or CARB, and 45-year veteran of the agency.
...
The rift widened after 1990, when Congress overhauled the Clean Air Act and gave the EPA power to tighten tailpipe pollution standards. Automakers ultimately agreed to deploy advanced catalysts to make vehicle exhaust cleaner. But once again, that solution was undercut by the make-up of the fuel—this time, by the naturally occurring sulfur, which rendered advanced catalysts ineffective and was harmful to health. The American Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association filed a formal petition demanding that the EPA force the oil industry to clean up its act too. President Bill Clinton’s administration responded with the first regulations requiring refiners to reduce sulfur in fuel.
“The oil industry was very upset,” recalled Margo Oge, who began her 18-year tenure as director of EPA’s office of transportation and air quality amid the controversy. “But the interesting part is all of the sudden, the environmental community, the car companies and the EPA were in one place, saying, ‘Yes, you can do that,’ and the oil industry was fighting us.”
In 2004, the sulfur rules were fully implemented and President George W. Bush’s EPA assured Congress that the impact on the price at the gas pump had been “minimal.”
By then, however, Bush’s EPA was embroiled in a far more profound auto pollution issue, one that couldn’t be solved by adding equipment to exhaust systems or tweaking the fuel refining process. In 1999, a coalition of states, cities and environmental groups petitioned the agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. The all-too-apparent solution—to reduce fuel burning in the short term and abandon the internal combustion engine in the long run—had the potential to sever entirely the strained ties between the auto and oil industries.
...
What was then called the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, for example, intervened in court in support of the Bush administration when it was sued over its stand that the EPA had no authority to regulate climate pollution from motor vehicles. The Supreme Court rejected that position in its landmark 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA decision, holding that greenhouse gas emissions were pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The oil industry filed no briefs of its own in that landmark case, reflecting how, in the view of close observers, it took a back seat in those preliminary fights.
...
The American Petroleum Institute sued the Biden administration on June 13 over the vehicle rules, leading a business coalition that includes long-time allies—auto dealers—as well as erstwhile rivals: corn producers, who have long fought the oil industry over ethanol standards. Now, both the oil and farm lobbies are united in opposition to the government EV push.
...
The manufacturers’ case was bolstered by the United Auto Workers, concerned about the loss of jobs in internal combustion plants while the union is still working to establish its presence in EV plants.
For the auto industry, flexible rules are better than no rules at all—as carmakers learned in the chaos that ensued during the Trump administration’s dramatic reversal of President Barack Obama’s climate policies. It triggered a huge battle with states that sought tougher standards, led by California, the nation’s leader in EV sales. Ultimately, the industry divided over the issue, with some automakers joining in a deal with California while it battled the Trump EPA.
...
The oil industry groups invoked a judicial principle—the “major questions” doctrine—that was seldom used until 2022, when the conservative Supreme Court, shaped by Trump, ruled to limit the EPA’s power to regulate electric power plants’ carbon emissions. Because greenhouse gas emissions were a “major question” affecting the nation, the court ruled, the EPA could only act on power plants within the bounds explicitly spelled out by Congress. Now, the oil industry groups are arguing the courts should do the same on the vehicle rules.
...
The oil industry may not prevail with its legal argument. The EPA’s authority in the Clean Air Act to act on motor vehicle pollution is more explicit than the provision the agency relied on to regulate power plants.
The rules do not mandate electric vehicles, as the oil industry argues. Instead, they set pollution-reduction goals, which the EPA says are achievable because of EV technology.
Now the oil industry is taking its case not just to the courts, but directly to consumers and voters, in a “Don’t Ban Our Cars” advertising campaign, on which the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers are spending more than $10 million.
The ads urge viewers to call their members of Congress and urge them to vote to overturn the EPA regulations.
But Biden supporters believe the significance of the campaign is its collateral impact, spreading the misleading message in an election year that Biden and Democrats are trying to ban cars. The American Fuel & Petroleum Manufacturers is running the ads in states most likely to be pivotal in the presidential race—Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin—as well as in Ohio and Montana, states crucial to Democrats’ bid to maintain control of the Senate.
...
One internal American Petroleum Institute email in July 2018 described the organization’s efforts at “EV message testing” and its finding that nearly half of the 73 percent of the public who then supported government EV subsidies were “moveable”—that is, their minds could be changed.
...
But recent polls indicate most American consumers still aren’t convinced. EV sales have not increased as quickly as some predicted. Costs and lack of charging infrastructure are still widely seen as problems. Consumers also mention worries about the environmental effects of raw material mining, a favored theme of the oil industry, despite its own impacts on land, water and the atmosphere.
...
“We’re not asking them to fix the quality of the fuel. We’re saying that we as a country and the globe as a whole should get away from burning fossil fuels,” she (Oge) said. “So that’s where we find ourselves now. We find ourselves in a bigger fight.” READ MORE
Excerpt from E&E News Climatewire: Former President Donald Trump has warned in recent rallies and speeches that the federal government could face bankruptcy if the United States moves forward with plans to create a network of electric vehicle chargers.
The dire warning — backed by bombastic rhetoric and questionable math — adds a new chord to Trump’s long-running riff on EVs. How much it moves voters is unclear, but it underscores the likelihood that if reelected, Trump would torpedo the Biden administration’s efforts to put more American drivers in EVs.
“They built eight chargers for $9 billion and two of them don’t work,” Trump said at a North Carolina rally last week. “That’s a big problem. And if we were going to charge up the entire country for the electric car, if we were going to charge up, it would cost $5 trillion. That’s more money than we would have — we would have to file for bankruptcy.”
The Biden administration wants to put the U.S. on the path of building a half-million EV chargers — a critical piece of its larger goal of making EVs at least half of new vehicle sales by 2030. To support those ambitions, the bipartisan infrastructure law of 2021 included $7.5 billion to help pay for the construction of tens of thousands chargers.
Just 15 charging locations have been installed since the measure’s passage, according to the White House’s infrastructure tracking website, Invest.gov. They received an average of $770,000 in federal funding apiece, according to analysis published in June by the research firm Atlas Public Policy — excluding four stations Atlas didn’t have the costs for.
...
Though Trump can’t repeal the bipartisan infrastructure law, the Inflation Reduction Act and other Biden-backed legislative actions without congressional approval, Trump said he would “redirect” any unspent money, such as unused funding, from EV charging stations.
“All of the trillions of dollars that are sitting there not yet spent, we will redirect that money for important projects like roads, bridges, dams, and we will not allow it to be spent on meaningless Green New Scam ideas,” Trump said last month at the Republican National Convention.
The sluggish pace of building EV chargers isn’t unique to that effort.
A recent POLITICO/E&E News analysis found that, as of April, only 17 percent of the $1.1 trillion in congressionally appropriated energy, climate, technology and infrastructure investments had been spent. The slow rollout is due to regulations, government agencies overseeing large amounts of funding for new types of projects and other causes, the analysis found. READ MORE
Excerpt from South China Morning Post/Yahoo! Finance:
At a March rally in Ohio, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump broke with party rhetoric on Chinese investment and welcomed carmakers from the country to build factories in the US.
"If they want to build a plant in Michigan, in Ohio, in South Carolina, they can - using American workers, they can," the former president said in Dayton. It's an invitation he has since repeated, including at the Republican National Convention last month.
The remarks also reflect Trump's retreat from his long-time dire rhetoric about electric vehicles, which Chinese carmakers overwhelmingly focus on for international markets.
While the former president has previously only taken hits at EVs - saying that they will "kill" the US auto industry and that he would rescind federal support for them - he now strikes a more flexible tone. They're "incredible" but "not for everybody", he said, after meeting Tesla's chief executive Elon Musk.
...
But such plans triggered local opposition. At a roundtable last Friday, Representative John Moolenaar, a Michigan Republican who chairs the House select committee on China, focused on the ties between Chinese companies and the Chinese Communist Party in opposing any role for Gotion in America.
"I want to see this area have more jobs and investment but we must not welcome companies that are controlled by people who see us as the enemy," Moolenaar said, addressing an audience in Michigan's rural Green Charter Township, where one of the plants would be built.
...
Moolenaar, joined by Representative Darin LaHood, Republican of Illinois, accused Gotion of being linked to forced labour, and promoted a bill they introduced last year that would prevent Chinese companies from benefiting from IRA tax credits.
...
Democrats, too, have expressed scepticism about letting Chinese carmakers into the US, trying to strike a balance between embracing a green future and guarding against potential national security risks.
"The Biden administration worries that Chinese cars, given the number of sensors and cameras and other sorts of devices on them, are essentially, as Gina Raimondo has said, 'spy cameras on wheels'," said Peter Harrell, a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, referring to Biden's Commerce secretary.
"And that's why Biden's Commerce Department has launched a potential rule making process focused on the data security risks that could potentially shut Chinese car companies out of the US market - even if they're actually manufacturing the cars here," he added. That rule making process is expected to be completed later this year.
...
In May, the Biden administration announced discretionary tariffs of 100 per cent on electric vehicles from China and 25 per cent on Chinese-made lithium-ion batteries for EVs, contending they were in retaliation for Beijing's unfair trade practices.
The European Union, too, has taken action, raising tariffs on Chinese EVs by up to about 38 per cent in July.
...
And compared to his Democratic counterparts, they say, the former president is less vulnerable to being seen as weak on China, giving him more flexibility to invite Chinese firms in. READ MORE
Excerpt from New York Times: “Right now, as we speak, large factories, just started, are being built across the border in Mexico. So, with all the other things happening at our border, and they’re being built by China to make cars and to sell them into our country, no tax, no anything,” he said in his RNC speech. “The United Autoworkers ought to be ashamed for allowing this to happen, and the leader of the United Auto Workers should be fired immediately, and every single autoworker, union and nonunion, should be voting for Donald Trump because we’re going to bring back car manufacturing and we’re going to bring it back fast.”
A fact-check by the Associated Press found no large Chinese car factories being built in Mexico — apparently, Trump made that part up — but it seems clear he’s hoping to repeat the magic of 2016 when he won Michigan by a razor-thin margin of 11,000 votes. Trump lost the state in 2020 by 154,000 votes, but recent polls show the state is in play once again with Harris holding a 1.2-point lead on average.
Back in 2016, Trump managed to snag the votes of many rank-and-file union workers even though their union, the UAW, endorsed Hillary Clinton. This time around, Trump is openly attacking the UAW’s president, Shawn Fain. “You probably have to get rid of this fool, this stupid idiot representing the United Auto Workers,” Trump said at a rally in Grand Rapids in July. (The union recently endorsed Harris, citing, among other things, the fact that she walked a picket line during a 2019 strike.)
A final complication for Trump is his support from Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla. “I’m for electric cars. I have to be because, you know, Elon endorsed me very strongly,” Trump recently told the crowd at a campaign event in Georgia. “So I have no choice.” He then immediately backpedaled by specifying that he backs EVs as only a “small slice” of the auto industry.
It’s a mistake to think a Harris victory — or the trend toward electric vehicles — is predestined or inevitable. A generation ago, President Jimmy Carter famously installed 32 water-heating solar panels on the West Wing of the White House. His successor, Ronald Reagan, had the panels removed; a high-ranking White House official “felt that the equipment was just a joke,” according to one account. More important, Reagan canceled a tax credit that gave homeowners incentives to use solar power. READ MORE
Excerpt from Politico: Donald Trump’s embrace of electric vehicles since picking up Elon Musk’s endorsement isn’t reassuring the EV industry — and likely won’t stop Trump and other Republicans from trying to throttle President Joe Biden’s push for non-gasoline-powered cars and trucks.
Trump’s recent change in tone reflects a softening in rhetoric about EVs on the campaign trail, but is much in line with his positive comments about the vehicles during his presidency and his 2020 reelection bid. Republicans and EV industry officials say they would still expect Trump to gut Biden’s efforts to get more electric vehicles on U.S. roads, and to repeal tax incentives that the GOP nominee alleges benefit China.
...
After more than a year of denigrating Biden’s EV policies as “lunacy” and calling for electric car supporters to “ROT IN HELL,” Trump told a rally in Atlanta this month that he’s for “a very small slice” of cars being electric.
“I have to be, you know, because Elon endorsed me very strongly,” Trump said.
...
Those comments came days after Musk — CEO of the U.S.’ top electric vehicle manufacturer, Tesla — endorsed Trump. In a conversation Monday evening on X, Musk’s social media platform, Trump told Musk he makes a “great product.”
“That doesn’t mean everybody should have an electric car, but these are minor details, but your product is incredible,” Trump said.
...
But EV industry experts said they doubt that Trump’s relationship with Musk would affect his promises to undo the Biden administration’s regulatory policies on EVs. Some also noted that Musk might benefit from a repeal of tax breaks that give a leg up to Tesla’s competitors.
Trump is “going to take a step back from making EVs a ‘punching bag,’” said Nick Nigro, founder of the EV analysis firm Atlas Public Policy. “But that doesn’t mean that he’s going to become a staunch advocate of EVs in the near term.”
...
The former president and GOP members of Congress characterize Biden’s EV push as the federal government limiting consumer choice and putting its thumb on the scale against gasoline-fueled vehicles. They also argue that policies such as a federal consumer tax credit in Democrats’ climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act — which can take $7,500 off the price of an EV — primarily benefit wealthy people and will hasten reliance on China, which dominates the supply chain for the minerals and ingredients that power the vehicles.
“I don’t think Trump being not anti-EV translates into protecting that incredibly vulnerable EV consumer credit,” said Emily Domenech, senior vice president at the lobbying firm Boundary Stone Partners who was a top energy policy adviser to former Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. “It is one of the very few areas of the IRA where you have general agreement it’s something we should go after. It is not an anti-EV thing. It’s an anti-China thing.”
Trump is also expected to continue to take aim at the Biden administration’s regulatory efforts to turbocharge adoption of electric vehicles by ratcheting down greenhouse gas emissions from cars, trucks and SUVs through stricter tailpipe rules imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency. This is despite the fact that Tesla was the only large automaker to urge EPA to strengthen the tailpipe rule from the agency’s original proposal.
The former president has exaggerated EPA’s limits on car and truck pollution — one of Biden’s most aggressive climate rules — as an “EV mandate.”
...
EV industry officials and Republican advisers say Trump and a potential GOP-controlled Congress are less likely to seek to unwind the IRA’s domestic manufacturing incentives, which are intended to reduce dependence on China for clean energy and electric vehicle components. Those subsidies have spurred hundreds of announced manufacturing investments in green technologies — largely benefiting districts and states represented by GOP lawmakers who opposed the legislation.
“The investments in red districts — it’s hard to deny the economic benefits happening there,” said Heather Reams, president of Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, a group that advises Republicans on clean energy policy. “They are going to want to tout the benefits. The push for sourcing domestically and friend shoring is huge and will continue to be that way [under possible GOP control].”
Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.), chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials subcommittee, said “we must find a balance between rolling back the worst portions of the IRA and ensuring that companies have the stability they need to continue investing in the United States,” including in the EV industry.
...
In September 2020, Trump invited EV manufacturer Lordstown Motors Corp. to bring its electric pickup to the White House as he sought to burnish his pitch on manufacturing jobs in the Midwest.
That same week, during his first debate with Biden, Trump said he’s “all for electric cars” and boasted that he’s “given big incentives” for consumers to buy EVs. But argued that “what they’ve done in California is just crazy.”
Tim Groeling, a professor of political communication at the University of California in Los Angeles, said Trump’s latest shift in EV rhetoric is nothing new for the former president.
“Trump has a tendency to do a ‘salesman’s patter’ of flattering, positive remarks about whomever he is negotiating with at a given moment (including foreign leaders),” Groeling said in an email. “It’s completely in character for him to do this while courting Musk.”
Groeling added that there’s a “big distinction between positive remarks about EVs or particular cars, vs. positive remarks about EV regulations or policies,” and Trump hasn’t indicated any shift in the latter.
Musk, for his part, has indicated he’d be fine with Trump removing the subsidies, saying on an earnings call last month that it would “have some impact” on his company but be “devastating for our competitors.” READ MORE
Excerpt from Politico: Trump’s campaign, meanwhile, shows no signs of backing down on its promise to undermine state and federal emissions rules. When asked whether Musk’s support has pushed Trump to reconsider his plan to revoke California’s clean cars waiver and undo the Biden administration’s federal emissions standards, the campaign responded Monday with a statement from Republican National Committee spokesperson Anna Kelly blasting EV mandates.
“California Kamala Harris and Tim Walz’ elitist obsession with electric vehicle mandates will punish the American auto industry while strengthening Communist China’s market,” she said. “President Trump believes in putting America First by supporting our auto industry and giving Americans the choice to buy the car they want.”
Others do expect Musk to give California a boost in defending its policies against Trump, who has vowed to block California’s special permission to implement its stricter-than-federal clean air rules, including its ban on selling new gas-powered cars after 2035, if he becomes president.
...
But Musk’s backing of aggressive EV rules and incentives was marked by self-interest. As the state wrote tailpipe rules for later model years, the tech scion clashed with regulators in pushing standards that were so aggressive, hardly any other company besides Tesla would have been able to meet them.
“Tesla’s arguing for more rigor isn’t necessarily more net reductions,” said Segall (Craig Segall, a former deputy executive officer at the California Air Resources Board who now serves as vice president of the environmental group Evergreen Action). “They’re arguing for the chance to basically be the marketer of ZEV credits.”
Sperling (Dan Sperling, a former CARB board member who directs the Institute for Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis) said Musk even barred his engineering students from visiting the Tesla factory around 2014 in protest of CARB’s decision to issue weaker standards. “He actually banished anyone from UC Davis and any of my grad students from coming to the Tesla factory,” Sperling said. “That’s how petty he was.”
Tesla also squabbled with regulators when they sought to limit EV rebates to companies that abide by “fair and responsible” labor practices, which he said would disadvantage his Fremont factory. And the political gulf between Musk and California Democrats has only grown. Last month, he again threatened to move his other companies’ headquarters, this time SpaceX and X, from California to Texas in protest of new state protections for transgender students in schools.
Segall cited Tesla’s declining share of EV sales and Musk’s expanding business interests as reasons he can’t be counted on to defend the state’s policy as he once did. READ MORE
Excerpt from Politico's Power Switch: On one hand, its lawmakers and economic-development types are thrilled to have garnered almost $25 billion — more than any other state — to build battery and EV factories. They could employ tens of thousands and fulfill Republican Gov. Brian Kemp’s goal of making Georgia an “electric mobility capital.”
On the other, many voters and state lawmakers don’t like or want EVs. Few people outside of Atlanta drive them. State legislators have put up barriers to Georgians owning EVs because they consider the technology a creation of overreaching California regulators, designed to address climate change, which many there still think is an overblown problem.
“On the political level, that’s the really fascinating tension,” said Stan Cross, the director of electric transportation at the nonprofit Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. “That tension between wanting all of this benefit from jobs and investment, without celebrating the end product created.”
...
For Democrats, it means that President Joe Biden — and now his anointed heir, Vice President Kamala Harris — are having difficulty turning their legislative victories into votes in this crucial swing state. After all, it is the Inflation Reduction Act, Biden’s landmark legislative achievement, that accelerated Georgia’s EV transition.
It also puts Georgia Republicans in a state of perpetual awkwardness. They simultaneously want to celebrate the jobs that they helped land, by offering EV makers big incentives and out-hustling other states, while not celebrating the fruit of the factories. And they have to avoid the fact that some of the credit belongs to Democrats.
This job isn’t made any easier by former President Donald Trump, who has a personal animus toward the EV and criticizes its capabilities constantly, even if he has recently softened his language upon receiving an endorsement from Tesla CEO Elon Musk. (Trump created other complications for Georgia’s GOP a few weeks ago when he called Kemp “a very average governor.”)
So in short, the Georgia EV has led Republicans and Democrats into a tricky thicket. READ MORE
Excerpt from Inside Climate News: In May 2024, U.S. Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming and 18 other Republican senators introduced a bill to repeal the EV tax credit, which provides up to $7,500 for new EVs, up to $4,000 for used EVs and includes a commercial clean vehicle credit that helps subsidize leased EVs. The bill would also cut the investment tax credit for EV charging stations that was expanded by the Inflation Reduction Act.
Barrasso argued that working-class families in states like Wyoming shouldn’t have to shoulder the costs of what he views as President Joe Biden’s climate agenda forcing expensive electric cars on Americans who don’t want them and cannot afford them. The Wyoming Senator’s view is right in line with that of former President Donald Trump, who has pledged to eliminate EV subsidies if re-elected in November.
...
Helping to amplify that charge is Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon, who joined a coalition of 26 Republican-led states in a lawsuit against the Biden administration, aiming to block its federal fuel efficiency standards for gasoline-powered vehicles.
The standards from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, impose stricter fuel efficiency requirements for automakers. The rules are technology-neutral, but in practice, they are expected to encourage the production of more EVs and fewer gasoline-powered vehicles.
Gordon described the new rules as “unworkable.”
“Our federal government should not be issuing overreaching mandates that manipulate the free market,” Gordon said in a press statement after the filing of the lawsuit. “Wyoming residents drive thousands of miles each year through remote areas. They should be able to decide what vehicle technology is most suitable for their needs, not the Biden administration.” READ MORE
Excerpt from Politico: Trump pledged to rescind what he called Harris’ “electric vehicle mandate” — a distortion of existing EPA rules on tailpipe emissions that are designed to push the U.S. vehicle fleet toward more efficient vehicles. Trump said the rules would require 67 percent of cars in the U.S. to be electric, but the number is actually an estimate calculated by the EPA on how many new car sales would be electric in 2032 to comply with the rule. Automakers could also comply with lower EV sales if they squeeze more fuel efficiency out of their gas-powered vehicles.
Trump also attacked Harris for sponsoring a bill in 2019 that would require a complete transition away from gas-powered vehicles — a position Harris has disavowed on the campaign trail in Michigan.
“I will terminate that mandate on my first day,” Trump said, ostensibly referring to the EPA regulations, though he did not specify. READ MORE
Excerpt from Politico: The former president is trying to capitalize on union workers’ concerns about the Biden administration’s push for plug-in cars. -- Former President Donald Trump is trying to tap into union autoworkers’ anxieties about the switch to electric vehicles, seeking a political vulnerability in one of the Biden administration’s signature economic policies.
He aimed a barrage of attacks at President Joe Biden’s environmental stances during a campaign speech Sunday to about 2,000 people in Novi, Mich., contending that electric car manufacturing will destroy jobs in the auto industry. Michigan helped propel Trump to the White House in 2016 when he won a surprise victory over Hillary Clinton with an 11,000-vote margin in the state.
...
Trump’s remarks about electric cars point to an emerging theme in his presidential campaign that expands on the populist messages he offered to coal miners and blue-collar workers in 2016 and 2020.
...
Already, the United Auto Workers announced in May that it wouldn’t endorse Biden, at least for now, arguing that his electric vehicle policies could lead to fewer or lower-paying jobs. The union also criticized the administration’s announcement last week of a $9.2 billion loan to Ford Motor Co. to build three battery plants in Kentucky and Tennessee — two red states with anti-union policies, like many of the other states benefiting from the new wave of clean-energy projects.
The UAW has flatly ruled out endorsing Trump, saying he is not “pro-worker, pro-climate, and pro-democracy.” Still, the former president’s message to Michigan voters echoed some of the union’s own criticisms of the administration’s effort to move the nation past the internal-combustion engine.
“Driven by [Biden’s] ridiculous regulations, electric cars will kill more than half of U.S. auto jobs and decimate the suppliers that they decimated already,” Trump said at the Oakland County Republican Party dinner. He added, “It’s going to decimate your jobs, and it’s going to decimate, more than anybody else, the state of Michigan.”
...
It takes fewer workers to assemble electric vehicles than gasoline-powered ones, and they have fewer parts. Also, salaries in electric vehicle plants, and in facilities that make components such as batteries, tend to be lower than for workers who make internal-combustion-engine vehicles.
...
UAW President Shawn Fain wrote in a memo in May that Biden needs to ensure that autoworkers will be paid fairly. He pointed to the hourly wage of $16.50 at a General Motors Corp. battery factory as cause for alarm, noting that workers at a separate GM factory that closed in 2019 made twice as much.
“If the government is going to funnel billions in taxpayer money to these companies, the workers must be compensated with top wages and benefits,” Fain wrote. “A ‘just transition’ has to include standards for our members and future workers.” READ MORE
More than 50,000 articles in our online library!
Use the categories and tags listed below to access the nearly 50,000 articles indexed on this website.
Advanced Biofuels USA Policy Statements and Handouts!
- For Kids: Carbon Cycle Puzzle Page
- Why Ethanol? Why E85?
- Just A Minute 3-5 Minute Educational Videos
- 30/30 Online Presentations
- “Disappearing” Carbon Tax for Non-Renewable Fuels
- What’s the Difference between Biodiesel and Renewable (Green) Diesel? 2020 revision
- How to De-Fossilize Your Fleet: Suggestions for Fleet Managers Working on Sustainability Programs
- New Engine Technologies Could Produce Similar Mileage for All Ethanol Fuel Mixtures
- Action Plan for a Sustainable Advanced Biofuel Economy
- The Interaction of the Clean Air Act, California’s CAA Waiver, Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, Renewable Fuel Standards and California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard
- Latest Data on Fuel Mileage and GHG Benefits of E30
- What Can I Do?
Donate
DonateARCHIVES
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- June 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- October 2006
- April 2006
- January 2006
- April 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- December 1987
CATEGORIES
- About Us
- Advanced Biofuels Call to Action
- Aviation Fuel/Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF)
- BioChemicals/Renewable Chemicals
- BioRefineries/Renewable Fuel Production
- Business News/Analysis
- Cooking Fuel
- Education
- 30/30 Online Presentations
- Competitions, Contests
- Earth Day 2021
- Earth Day 2022
- Earth Day 2023
- Earth Day 2024
- Executive Training
- Featured Study Programs
- Instagram TikTok Short Videos
- Internships
- Just a Minute
- K-12 Activities
- Mechanics training
- Online Courses
- Podcasts
- Scholarships/Fellowships
- Teacher Resources
- Technical Training
- Technician Training
- University/College Programs
- Events
- Coming Events
- Completed Events
- More Coming Events
- Requests for Speakers, Presentations, Posters
- Requests for Speakers, Presentations, Posters Completed
- Webinars/Online
- Webinars/Online Completed; often available on-demand
- Federal Agency/Executive Branch
- Agency for International Development (USAID)
- Agriculture (USDA)
- Commerce Department
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Congressional Budget Office
- Defense (DOD)
- Air Force
- Army
- DARPA (Defense Advance Research Projects Agency)
- Defense Logistics Agency
- Marines
- Navy
- Education Department
- Energy (DOE)
- Environmental Protection Agency
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
- Federal Reserve System
- Federal Trade Commission
- Food and Drug Administration
- General Services Administration
- Government Accountability Office (GAO)
- Health and Human Services (HHS)
- Homeland Security
- Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
- Interior Department
- International Trade Commission
- Joint Office of Energy and Transportation
- Justice (DOJ)
- Labor Department
- National Academies of Sciences Engineering Medicine
- National Aeronautics and Space Administration
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
- National Research Council
- National Science Foundation
- National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Overseas Private Investment Corporation
- Patent and Trademark Office
- Securities and Exchange Commission
- State Department
- Surface Transportation Board
- Transportation (DOT)
- Federal Aviation Administration
- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
- Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Admin (PHMSA)
- Treasury Department
- U.S. Trade Representative (USTR)
- White House
- Federal Legislation
- Federal Litigation
- Federal Regulation
- Feedstocks
- Agriculture/Food Processing Residues nonfield crop
- Alcohol/Ethanol/Isobutanol
- Algae/Other Aquatic Organisms/Seaweed
- Atmosphere
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
- Field/Orchard/Plantation Crops/Residues
- Forestry/Wood/Residues/Waste
- hydrogen
- Manure
- Methane/Biogas
- methanol/bio-/renewable methanol
- Not Agriculture
- RFNBO (Renewable Fuels of Non-Biological Origin)
- Seawater
- Sugars
- water
- Funding/Financing/Investing
- grants
- Green Jobs
- Green Racing
- Health Concerns/Benefits
- Heating Oil/Fuel
- History of Advanced Biofuels
- Infrastructure
- Aggregation
- Biofuels Engine Design
- Biorefinery/Fuel Production Infrastructure
- Carbon Capture/Storage/Use
- certification
- Deliver Dispense
- Farming/Growing
- Precursors/Biointermediates
- Preprocessing
- Pretreatment
- Terminals Transport Pipelines
- International
- Abu Dhabi
- Afghanistan
- Africa
- Albania
- Algeria
- Angola
- Antarctica
- Argentina
- Armenia
- Aruba
- Asia
- Asia Pacific
- Australia
- Austria
- Azerbaijan
- Bahamas
- Bahrain
- Bangladesh
- Barbados
- Belarus
- Belgium
- Belize
- Benin
- Bermuda
- Bhutan
- Bolivia
- Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Botswana
- Brazil
- Brunei
- Bulgaria
- Burkina Faso
- Burundi
- Cambodia
- Cameroon
- Canada
- Caribbean
- Central African Republic
- Central America
- Chad
- Chile
- China
- Colombia
- Congo, Democratic Republic of
- Costa Rica
- Croatia
- Cuba
- Cyprus
- Czech Republic
- Denmark
- Dominican Republic
- Dubai
- Ecuador
- El Salvador
- Equatorial Guinea
- Eqypt
- Estonia
- Ethiopia
- European Union (EU)
- Fiji
- Finland
- France
- French Guiana
- Gabon
- Georgia
- Germany
- Ghana
- Global South
- Greece
- Greenland
- Guatemala
- Guinea
- Guyana
- Haiti
- Honduras
- Hong Kong
- Hungary
- Iceland
- India
- Indonesia
- Iran
- Iraq
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Ivory Coast
- Jamaica
- Japan
- Jersey
- Jordan
- Kazakhstan
- Kenya
- Korea
- Kosovo
- Kuwait
- Laos
- Latin America
- Latvia
- Lebanon
- Liberia
- Lithuania
- Luxembourg
- Macedonia
- Madagascar
- Malawi
- Malaysia
- Maldives
- Mali
- Malta
- Marshall Islands
- Mauritania
- Mauritius
- Mexico
- Middle East
- Monaco
- Mongolia
- Morocco
- Mozambique
- Myanmar/Burma
- Namibia
- Nepal
- Netherlands
- New Guinea
- New Zealand
- Nicaragua
- Niger
- Nigeria
- North Africa
- North Korea
- Northern Ireland
- Norway
- Oman
- Pakistan
- Panama
- Papua New Guinea
- Paraguay
- Peru
- Philippines
- Poland
- Portugal
- Qatar
- Romania
- Russia
- Rwanda
- Saudi Arabia
- Scotland
- Senegal
- Serbia
- Sierra Leone
- Singapore
- Slovakia
- Slovenia
- Solomon Islands
- South Africa
- South America
- South Korea
- South Sudan
- Southeast Asia
- Spain
- Sri Lanka
- Sudan
- Suriname
- Swaziland
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Taiwan
- Tanzania
- Thailand
- Timor-Leste
- Togo
- Trinidad and Tobago
- Tunisia
- Turkey
- Uganda
- UK (United Kingdom)
- Ukraine
- United Arab Emirates UAE
- Uruguay
- Uzbekistan
- Vatican
- Venezuela
- Vietnam
- Wales
- Zambia
- Zanzibar
- Zimbabwe
- Marine/Boat Bio and Renewable Fuel/MGO/MDO/SMF
- Marketing/Market Forces and Sales
- Opinions
- Organizations
- Original Writing, Opinions Advanced Biofuels USA
- Policy
- Presentations
- Biofuels Digest Conferences
- DOE Conferences
- Bioeconomy 2017
- Bioenergy2015
- Biomass2008
- Biomass2009
- Biomass2010
- Biomass2011
- Biomass2012
- Biomass2013
- Biomass2014
- DOE Project Peer Review
- Other Conferences/Events
- R & D Focus
- Carbon Capture/Storage/Use
- Co-Products
- Feedstock
- Logistics
- Performance
- Process
- Vehicle/Engine/Motor/Aircraft/Boiler
- Yeast
- Railroad/Train/Locomotive Fuel
- Resources
- Books Web Sites etc
- Business
- Definition of Advanced Biofuels
- Find Stuff
- Government Resources
- Scientific Resources
- Technical Resources
- Tools/Decision-Making
- Rocket/Missile Fuel
- Sponsors
- States
- Alabama
- Alaska
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Florida
- Georgia
- Hawai'i
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Midwest
- Minnesota
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- Montana
- Native American tribal nation lands
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Puerto Rico
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- Washington DC
- West Coast
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming
- Sustainability
- Uncategorized
- What You Can Do
tags
© 2008-2023 Copyright Advanced BioFuels USA. All Rights reserved.
Comments are closed.