A Quote by Carol Browner

Choosing the most fuel-efficient vehicles within a class can save drivers at least $1,500 in fuel costs and avoid more than 15 tons of greenhouse gas pollution over the life of the vehicle, as well as help reduce dependence on foreign oil.
Motorists who want to save money on gas will demand and buy more fuel-efficient vehicles. We should not limit their freedom with more government regulations.
With regard to electric vehicles, I am all for them because most of the incremental electricity needed to run those vehicles will come from gas-fired electric generation. However, I do not believe it is wise for America to substitute dependence on foreign oil for dependence on Chinese batteries.
So we are now still dependent on foreign oil, have a problem with global warming, and are losing jobs rapidly to the Japanese in fuel-efficient vehicles as a result of that very shortsighted progress.
When ships reduce their speed they use less fuel, resulting in fewer greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants; the global shipping industry accounts for nearly 3 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Subsidies for the oil, gas and coal industries are projected to cost taxpayers more than $135 billion in the coming decade. At a time when scientists tell us we need to reduce carbon pollution to prevent catastrophic climate change, it is absurd to provide massive subsidies that pad fossil-fuel companies' already enormous profits.
You're also looking at a global warming solution here in Europe: smaller vehicles, more energy efficient, many which use diesel fuel which is more efficient. And the price of gas here is $6 a gallon to discourage guzzling. A lot of big ideas and innovations coming out of Europe.
I am firmly convinced that the trend toward more fuel-efficient vehicles is not a fad. Gas prices will continue to rise in the medium to long term, because demand is growing considerably in China, India and other countries.
Recently, the administration has rejected conservation attempts like more accurate fuel mileage for cars and bipartisan proposals for reducing our dependence on foreign oil by a million barrels a day.
Fuel cell vehicles run on clean-burning hydrogen and are three times more efficient than the traditional combustible engine.
Let's give people more incentives to get fuel efficient vehicles.
We know, at least, that this decision (ending factory farming) will help prevent deforestation, curb global warming, reduce pollution, save oil reserves, lessen the burden on rural America, decrease human rights abuses, improve publish health, and help eliminate the most systematic animal abuse in history.
I strongly support the Bush Administration's clean diesel rules, which will reduce air pollution from diesel engines by more than 90 percent, and reduce the sulfur content of diesel fuel by more than 95 percent.
Of course methane is a fossil fuel, but as long as it is burned efficiently and fugitive emissions of methane gas are minimised, it is a less harmful fossil fuel than coal and oil and is an important way-station on the global journey towards low-carbon energy.
Well, for starters, we have to do more to create demand for new technologies that can reduce our dependence on foreign oil and environmental degradation.
Natural gas obviously brings with it a number of quality-of-life environmental benefits because it is a relatively clean-burning fuel. It has a CO2 footprint, but it has no particulates. It has none of the other emissions elements that are of concern to public health that other forms of power-generation fuels do have: coal, fuel oil, others.
Raw food is the best way to have the cleanest energy. We take so much care about what kind of fuel we put in our car, what kind of oil. We care about that sometimes more than the fuel that we're looking at putting in our bodies. It's cleaner burning fuel.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!