NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The Obama administration on Tuesday is set to propose stricter fuel economy standards in an effort to cut down vehicle greenhouse gas emissions. The plan will require passenger cars and light trucks to get an overall average of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016, according to a senior administration official with knowledge of the plan. By that year, cars will be expected to average about 39 mpg and 30 mpg for trucks. Current fuel economy standards are 27.5 mpg for cars and 23.1 for trucks.
The Obama plan would accelerate by four years new fuel economy standards passed by Congress at the end of 2007. Fuel economy will be increased gradually beginning in 2012 and run through 2016. The administration predicts the changes will save 1.8 billion barrels of oil by 2016. That's roughly what the country goes through in about 86 days, according to numbers from the Energy Information Administration. The proposed plan is expected to add about $600 to the cost of a car, the official said. That's on top of $700 added by changes to fuel economy rules that have already been recently enacted, the official said, but consumers should be able to save enough in gas to make up for the cost.
Well that is interesting. Obama's Interior Secretary Ken Salazar recently signaled that the administration does not plan to use the endangered prospects of the Polar Bear in the arctic as a tool to tighten the screws on climate change. But here is the other shoe dropping: Obama apparently is quite serious about fighting climate change by any means necessary, other than polar bears.
Of course, this does place yet another burden on Detroit as well as foreign carmakers with US plants. Instead of the Bush approach- can't ask Detroit to do fuel efficiency, that is up to the consumer- the new approach dares to confront our dependence on foreign oil and our contributions to climate change. With gas over $2 a gallon and heading upwards, of course the improved mileage stats would pay for themselves if you keep your car for a few years.
You pretty much know my opinion on this without me having to spell it out. Yes, I am one of Gather's handful of people who are eager to take on the denial squad and remind you that climate change is real, and is rooted in the billions of tons of carbon we send skyward. You can't see the carbon coming out of your tailpipe, but yeah it is there. Quite a lot of it over a year's time, you would be amazed. But enough about reality. What is your opinion on this? Annoyed that you will have to spend $600 more for a new car, even if you will get the $ back due to using less gasoline? Concerned that smaller vehicles will make you feel unsafe? Do you think there is any other way to get carmakers to undertake these changes without demanding it of them?
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 61
I don't know. I wonder what Rick Wagoner would say about it.
A plug-in Prius will be on the market in 2010, with between 100 and 150 mpg fuel efficiency.
In 2002, RMI was publishing studies about doubling fuel efficiency by using lighter, stronger carbon composites. Here, Lovins describes the "hypercar", made of ultralight materials - eventually, to be fueled by hydrogen.
In terms of the economy, I would think these extra costs stay in the US. What possible extra costs are there? More car parts? Parts that require more man-hours per unit? Additional technology? Lighter materials? These all require more labor (employment).
On the savings side, we will be sending less money to oil producing nations. That means more money available for other uses here. We'll influence oil prices downward so that the oil we and everyone else does purchase will be slightly cheaper. That means slightly lower costs on everything that requires transport, which is almost everything.
So this seems like an economic no-brainer.
I just saw something on CNN today: Toyota claims the NEW Prius gets an ASTOUNDING 50 MPG on the highway. Wow! That's about as good as my 1979 VW diesel Rabbit did. Funny. I don't remember my Rabbit being a hybrid. No electronic wizardry at all. Hmmm.
A friend of mine had a Honda Civic HF that routinely got 45-50 MPG....and IT wasn't a hybrid either.
The 2008 Ford Fiesta gets around 62 MPG and it's (can you guess) NOT A HYBRID.
(I'm seeing a pattern here.)
Better fuel economy doesn't have to be expensive or complex. Good, solid, simple engineering will get the job done just fine. All the rest is just smoke & mirrors.
And now, for my next trick, I'm going to make a 1973 Chevy Monte Carlo with a 350 get 30 MPG on the highway!! Oops. Forgot. Did that 5 years ago with a friend of mine. It's a walk in the park, really. This isn't rocket science, folks. It really isn't.
Using California for a measuring stick though is insane. Its the state with the second sickest economy in the nation and its driving itself further into the hole every minute. Oh well.
What is there to deny; the fount of all technology comes out of DC and not science. The President has been the barrier to improving gas mileage of American vehicles. The mini-van that seems to prevail in families with multiple kids is only getting 20-25 mpg because the last President didn’t say they had to get more and now that the new President has remove that barrier by saying “thou shall” we will have the new mileage of 35 mpg in three years.
I wonder if the new law will revoke the laws of physics or will we all simply have to drive smaller vehicles that don’t use fuels measured in gallons so we can claim that overall driving mileage meets the standard. It doesn’t matter that to move a vehicle still takes energy and the source of that energy doesn’t change how much is needed.
I have to admit I was surprise that they only went for 35 mpg, I remember driving a Honda Civic 30 years ago that was getting that much in the city. It only carried two little kids and a couple of bags of groceries.
First, isn't the 30% increase in mpg arbitrary? If not, how much of a reduction in CO2 emissions has been targeted by the 30% increase in mpg. How much less CO2 will be discharged into the atmosphere as a result of this new standard?
Second, the only PRACTICAL way to achieve this mpg increase is by making autos smaller and lighter. This translates causing more fatal highway accidents. Ironically, it wasn't too long ago that small cars had great gas mileage, as other commenters have related. The mileage those cars disappeared when they were made heavier with door beams, airbags, etc.to make them safer; and with air pumps and catalytic converts to tighten up on emission controls (this was back when the holy grail of emission controls was to have nothing but water vapor and CO2, both greenhouse gasses, come out the tail pipe),
Can you please site the source of your information regarding small cars being the cause of highway fatalities? According to the statistics, the number of fatalities between passenger vehicles and light trucks/SUVs is almost the same. The last year data was available, 2007, there were approximately 134,510,252 registered cars on the road, and 108,239,337 trucks. In that same time period, there were 22,716 auto fatalities and 21,686 truck/SUV fatalities.
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Vehicles/VehiclesAllVehicles.aspx
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2007/mv1.cfm
I think that one thing that SUVs have done is created a very unfortunate arms race in vehicles. as in "I have the biggest vehicle on the road, so in a crash I will live and you won't". Dreadful attitude to have, and not always fact based either. When a Hummer smashes a Volkswagen Beetle, it is not pretty, but is it because the Beetle is too small, or because the Hummer is outrageously and pointlessly big?
In addition to Julie Ann's comment above, I will point out that lighter does not necessarily mean less safe.
Cars (even SUVs) can be made from carbon composite materials, which are less than half the weight of steel, but many times stronger in crashes.
First, seperate what the facts are and what are wishes, bad driving whether it is poor safety or poor mileage is the choice of the driver and at this point no engineering will change that.
Second, the more safety devices put on a vehicle such as airbags does add weight. The lighter the materials of construction the higher the cost. Do you really think people can afford a carbon fiber car when gas is $4/gal.?
Third, this whole cafe standard is simply political cover for the politician. They sound good about saying how they are reducing energy consumption ad carbon emission, but in reality what have they changed? Whether it is an electric car, or an ethanol car, or a hydrogen car, it takes energy, most likely electric energy to produce all of the alternatives and that burns coal.
If you want to force people to drive less then you have to move the into the inter cities where mass tranist is viable, cars can carry only two people and a couple of bags of groceries, you have to limit the distance a car can travel in a day to less than two hundred miles, you have to take the choice of driving a car away from people.
My kids have either mini vans or SUVs, depending on the age that have a car seat for each kid, a Pak n Play, clothes/diapers, strollers, sports equipment, etc. They are are cost conscious (non are newer than three years old), but the travel value of their cars isn't about size for safety it is about hauling kids. Even if a family has two kids it is much more practical to have the larger vehicle than a smaller high mpg car.
You can pound the table and whine about the waste all you want, but practicality wins out every time.
When the cars can go 500 miles on a full fuel load, it takes 10 minutes or less to fillup, and it will haul the whole family then you will change what people drive.
I am still amazed that there isn;t any effort to regulated all forms of motor racing (4 wheel, 2 wheel, boat, plane), talk about poor mileage.
But this is just a "race to the bottom." An arms race. If everyone gets heavier cars to dominate other cars, the heavy car just becomes the average rather than superior, and nobody wins. Stopping the arms race lowers the average weight without affecting relative safety, but gives everyone the benefits of lighter vehicles.
Think about it. Lighter materials are expensive presently because they are not widely used. As gas rises to $4/gal (or higher), lighter materials are more in demand, and begin to be produced at scale. The price drops (think computers over the past 30 years). Efficiency increases, so that you're paying less per mile than you did in 2008, when you were driving that Honda Civic. You have to think long term, instead of just through the next couple of paychecks.
Help me understand this that the energy of the larger vehicle will not have any more impact on the smaller one than that of simply changing direction.
Let’s assume the small vehicle weighs 1600 lbs. and the larger one is 3500 lbs. and they are both going the same speed. If I recall right my high school physics energy equals the mass times the velocity squared. If both have the same speed in opposite direction (40 mph) and the larger is 100% heavier than the smaller, that sure seems to suggest that the larger has double the energy at point of impact. So you feel that the design of the smaller will take that impact as well as the larger vehicle. Let’s consider a SUV that is 5500 lbs and generating 150% the impact energy, or what about one of those serious SUVs that is near to 7300 lbs. and you are suggesting that the smaller vehicle would only change direction in a head on collision. I knew that Congress and their “green” laws were all powerful and would overrule the physical laws.
The Smart For Two Car versus a Chevy Tahoe in a head on crash and you feel that will happen is the smaller will change directions compared to the larger?
I don’t see it as a race to the bottom, but rather a race to functionality and value. There are some that buy a large vehicle because it is large and there are many that buy a small vehicle because it is small, but I offer the vast majority buy vehicles that fill their need. Why else would we have mini vans?
How many trips to the hardware does it take in a small car to haul home a couple of sheets of 4x8 plywood or drywall or 8’ 2x4s versus a minivan? How many trips to the store in small car does it take to hall enough pavers to do a 10x12 patio?
I did buy a mini car (1980 Honda Civic getting the 30+mpg) and then had a near emotional experience with big Olds or Mercury, I decided to replace it with a larger car for purely safety concerns, other then that I have always looked at function first.
"Help me understand this that the energy of the larger vehicle will not have any more impact on the smaller one than that of simply changing direction."
What else is there? What kills in the crash of a well-designed vehicle (a vehicle with a strong passenger cage) is the sudden deceleration and the G-forces it causes. I'm not brushing off the fact that a lighter vehicle just "bounces off" a larger vehicle, as if it's nothing. I'm saying that is exactly what makes heavier vehicles safer. Deceleration 30 MPH in a few feet is less severe than decelerating 50 MPH in that same distance. But heavy/light is a relative term, depending on the weight of the other vehicle. That's why it's a race to the bottom.
And I think the statistics are misleading. Pickup trucks have the highest rate of fatalities, yet they are generally heavy and "rugged". I think it has a lot more to do with safety features and the attitude and types of drivers who tend to be in those vehicles. Young people don't have SUVs, but do have tiny, old, cheap cars that don't have all the safety features of a well-designed new car. They also have pickup trucks. Kids aren't buying luxury cars. They don't have side airbags. They tend to have agile vehicles (and many have muscle cars they like to race and speed with), and it naturally leads to them driving more aggressively than if they were driving an old boat of a car, or a minivan/suv. Nobody goes cruising in a minivan...
So as I said, I think the statistics are quite misleading. The effects of weight are there, but it's overblown as a factor in statistics. The stats for pickup trucks show that. And it's a race to the bottom anyway.
And nobody is talking about not letting people have a large car. That's not part of the debate. But why not have a large, lightweight vehicle, or a large hybrid, etc. In fact, you could give a small, light car a larger front end crumple zone and you would increase distance you have to decelerate in a crash without needing to be heavier than the opposing vehicle.
Tim M.,
"If 2 cars collide while each going 40 MPH, the heavier car might instantly drop to 10 MPH on impact, while the light car goes 10 MPH backwards. So that's the same as the difference between hitting a solid wall at 30 MPH versus at 50 MPH." Let's presume that each car has to be designed to support its own weigh in a roll over to create "room to live" inside the vehicle, will the smaller or the larger have the stronger structure and will the stronger structure provide a better chance of survival?
I agree that simply using vehicle size or style leads to misunderstanding of the data. Analysis of the driver and occupants and activities are much more telling.
I think that the driver has a great deal to do with the energy consumption of a vehicle, but is not part of the solution the "idealists" address.
F=M*A
No way to argue this one. Greater mass means greater force.
1. Electric cars would require little or no increase in present supply. Even with coal, emissions would drastically fall.
2. Within a decade, coal is going to have trouble competing with solar and wind energy. First Solar has recently announce that they have cracked the $1/watt milestone. That is the current price (not cost) of coal electricity. Nanosolar foresees the $.30/watt. Again, think long term.
Smart growth is certainly the way to go. Continued development into the countryside is suicide.
The scale up of the carbon fiber may not be as simple as you want to think. There is quite likely more cost in the technoloy to both make the material and to fabricate a vehcile. Steel is easy to stamp, that is possible for carbon fiber.
The chips are very small doesn;t have the sculpture a car has, so they aren;t analogous.
It's not a matter of size. It's a matter of weight, dynamics, and design. Amory Lovins' outfit designed an SUV in the late 1990s, with all of the comfort of an SUV, with comparable efficiency of 80 to 90 mpg. He was named to a "transition team" at Ford last year, shortly after Alan Mullaly became CEO. Mullaly was formerly @ Boeing, where carbon composits were used in the manufacture of the 787 airliner. Watch Ford - this stuff is happening.
I am more than willing to let the price of alternatives to drive the market. If the alternatives are going to drive out fossel fuels than why do we need the pretense of cafe standards?
I am glad you don;t believe that people should have freedom of choice and should have to move to where you want them to, becuase it is a lot easier than letting people think for themselves.
As for me I have been to the big city and it is not a lifestyle that would provide the quality of life I want.
Which is simpler - making the mideast politically stable for "protecting our vital national interests in the region", or "scaling up carbon fiber" and/or transferring our energy infrastructure to renewable sources?
That's not what I said or meant. I said smart growth is imperative. That actually saves rural settings. It means that you stop doing what already doesn't work - building more congested highway systems. It means stop building out ugly cities that no one can function in. Do you know anything about the topic?
Duane: "I am more than willing to let the price of alternatives to drive the market. If the alternatives are going to drive out fossel fuels than why do we need the pretense of cafe standards?"
Not another (fake) free-marketeers. You know where solar is taking off? In sunny Germany. Why? Government policies, like feed-in tariffs and new home requirements for renewable energy, have opened markets for American companies, who couldn't get a foothold in the States. So - now - who do you want to lead the world in manufacturing renewables? China? Japan? Germany? Canada?
Practicality need not be defined as owning vehicles that are capable of loading up a sofa or a cord of firewood if someone happens to leave said items on a streetcorner free for anyone willing to pick up. We no longer live in the land of endless opportunity with no environmental downside, is all I'm saying.
survival of grandkids defines the meaning of "bottom line" for me. some others lack that long term viewpoint.
How do you define a fake "free marketeer"?
Where does the rural we need to save begin, at the intercity limits, at the suburb limits, in farm community or should they have to commute to the intercity to live? It sounds so simple, it is to bad that everything is mired in details.
I will offer a differnt appraoch; look at why people do the things you don;t like and figure out how to make it worth their while to do the better things.
"So - now - who do you want to lead the world in manufacturing renewables? China? Japan? Germany? Canada? " Where have you been for the last 50 years, do you think home and business insulation was developed by governemnt regulations? Do realize how many millions of board feet of insualtion has been developed, made, and installed each year. Are you one of those that discovered energy conservation on the front page of the newspaper? You probalbly think Stryrofoam is what cups are made of an have no clue that the real Styrofoam is that blue insulation you see going up on the side of homes and businesses. You probaly don;t realize that it was invented over 50 years ago and has been used for energy conservation for 50 over years.
It is so impressive how "green" is now the in thing and everybody living before the "green" generation were clueless on the environment and protecting it. I keep forgeting if isn;t in the New York Times or Time magazine it is real. (I can stereotype too.)
I leanred early that when I live in a home it is for the longterm and it is best to make sacrifices early to gain the benefits over the long time. In our current state the govenrment dicourages sacrificing for the longterm and only wants to make today easy.
Your easy answer is to require renewable energy sources, but what will drive its improvement. Why do you think we get more fossel fuels out of the ground today then was ever though possible, the market place. Wasn;t last year that the govenement went in to subsidize ehtanol, didn;t that work great.
Are you now the person that defines practical for all people?
If it were only a once a year trip to Lowe's or Home Depot or another lumber/hardware I doubt they would be in business. How may bags of wood mulch do you think they sell a year and do you really think it is sold 2 or 3 bags at a time? How big of a family do you think fits into a Prius? Mom, Dad, a couple of kids and when the grand parents want to go to a restaurant (and unneeded trip) we will have to take two cars. I suspect having more than two kids isn’t practical either.
Defining what is practical for all people simply related to the selection of a car takes a lot more work an infinitely more people than our society can manage.
I am too old to be made to feel guilty about my grandkids; I learned a long time ago that when people have to appeal to a person’s guilt they have lost their sense of reason. You don’t seem to get, I have been energy conscious since I first started putting gas in a car, recycling decades before curbside pickup began, even backyard composting since I first owned a home. I even had a class project (I designed) about dying water or coloring the background for maximizing solar energy absorption in a water system nearly 40 years ago. You haven’t figured out your arguing with the choir over the song to sing.
I will say the picking up of the furniture left by the side of the road and reusing it sounds like a good "green" effort. I believe one of the best backyard “green” efforts is the garage sales, it extends the usable life out of things and delays their entry into the landfill. How much energy do think is saved and money saved by garage sales across the country. It is a practical answer that the politicians and the media can’t claim so nobody want to understand why it works and how to use the causes for other “green” issues.
Good on you for recycling. But doing the right thing is not always painless, that is all I am saying. We have wasted alot of gasoline moving not people, but two ton hunks of metal. The commercials had the Tahoes and Broncos rolling up the sides of mountains, but in reality they occupied suburban parking lots and helped send more of our $ to Saudi than should have been going there. And I seem to recall a certain absurd tax cut which had the gall to actually incentivize enormous SUVs, at a time that we needed to hasten their demise.
I'm not bitter or anything, I saved money not buying one, and I never got crushed by one either. But climate change is not imaginary. It's not about convenience, not entirely. It was a bad thing and it left a mark. And so many do not even realize that it was a bad thing.
You wrote: "I am more than willing to let the price of alternatives to drive the market. If the alternatives are going to drive out fossel fuels than why do we need the pretense of cafe standards? "Free marketeers" are fakes - period. They pretend that there is actually such a thing as an "invisible hand" - that "the market" decides. BS!!! If that were actually the case, there would be no lobbyists in D.C., spending $Millions in order to stack decks in their favor. That's how I define it.
Duane: "Where does the rural we need to save begin...it is to bad that everything is mired in details."
Yes. Well, try and learn something about the details. It's not about controlling people, as you falsely assume. It's about "look at why people do the things you don;t like and figure out how to make it worth their while to do the better things." Imagine that. But maybe you prefer traffic congestion and pollution.
Duane: "...do you think home and business insulation was developed by governemnt regulations?"
Actually, more subsidies and rebates than regulation, but government was heavily involved. Those programs go back at least as far as the Carter administration. I don't know if that gave rise to styrofoam's invention, but I'll bet it's wide deployment was bolstered by these programs.
Duane: "It is so impressive how 'green' is now the in thing and everybody living before the 'green' generation were clueless on the environment and protecting it."
The Sierra Club has been promoting conservation for generations, primarily agains corporate abuses, such as CAFOs. Know what they are?
Duane: "I keep forgeting if isn;t in the New York Times or Time magazine it is real."
Your ideological biases are showing. Perhaps you prefer The Christian Science Monitor.
Duane: "...our current state the govenrment dicourages sacrificing for the longterm and only wants to make today easy."
I have been promoting long-term focus forever. Now, it appears we have an administration that is taking the long-term view. Efficiency, renewables, transportation - there is finally a long-term focus.
Duane: "Your easy answer is to require renewable energy sources, but what will drive its improvement."
There's plenty of competition within the renewables industries. Improvements are being made daily, as I noted above - First Solar has crossed the $1/watt milestone. Others are close on their heels. Government policies in Germany and Japan have driven it. In the U.S., fossil companies have stacked the deck in their favor.
Duane: "Why do you think we get more fossel fuels out of the ground today then was ever though possible, the market place."
Really? What alternatives have you had? Why did GM recall electric cars and destroy them? Why have patents for hyper-efficient cars been bought and suppressed? Market place - my ass.
But you also wrote: "I leanred early that when I live in a home it is for the longterm and it is best to make sacrifices early to gain the benefits over the long time. In our current state the govenrment dicourages sacrificing for the longterm and only wants to make today easy."
I guess your sense of "the long term" stops with your own life and your own property. Of course, the inability to feel guilt is defined as "sociopathy". No, appealing to you grandkids' wellbeing is not, as you say, the result of having "lost their sense of reason." No. It's a last-ditch attempt to appeal to the reason of those, who cannot seem to be convinced by logic, science, economics, ethics, etc. I'm sorry you perceive care for one's children/grandchildren a liability.
Lovins explicitly makes that point in the video I linked above. That $700Billion that we spend annually to import foreign oil - surely, not even Duane can think that's a good thing - or simply "free markets".
Duane: "If the alternatives are going to drive out fossel fuels than why do we need the pretense of cafe standards?"
Another thought on this. Do you know why Japanese automakers have kicked the (not so) Big 3's butts over the last decades? The Japanese goverment took a different approach following the oil embargo of 70s. They instituted the equivalent of CAFE standards. Industry adjusted, and developed a superior product. Fake "free markets" are incapable of deciding what's best for the nation - or even what's best for industry. If you haven't learned that from the economic collapse of "deregulated" industries, then there's nothing I can do to help you.
It is my opinion that if the market wants cars with better mileage and air... the companies will produce them. I have family in the U.K. that have no real issue with it as you can already get a good selection of automobiles that have any number of ways that they can get past that mileage. My '04 Kia gets better mileage than that. I don't understand what the issue is. Conserve on your driving, and buy something that hits your fancy that does what you want. Government should not regulate all of the businesses that they come across.
Chris W.,
I have yet to find anything that is worthwhile that doesn't take sacrifice.
You still don't seem to get it. I do recycling because of only one reason, it avoids waste in any form. I don't do it because people thank me for it, I don't do it because the government requires I do it, I do it because I learned early that waste is just that, waste. We are human but I found a benefit in minimizing it.
Recycling comes in many forms, but needs more thought than the Café standards have taken. The big "green" effort on grocery bags is a good example. People got outrage over the saving of pulp trees (a crop) so they have replaced paper bags with plastic ones and now they want to replace plastic with cloth. But nobody was willing to take the time to see the value at each level. For me the paper became the garbage bag under the sink or the recycle bag for the newspapers. The plastic bag has now become the garbage bag under the sink. The cloth bag will require the individual to buy as many bags as they could expected to use on a trip to the store, for our peak use that would be 8 or 10, that is for shopping every couple of weeks (fewer trip uses less gas), when the kids were at home that would have been at least triple that many. As for the bag under the sink we would have to buy something (most likely plastic that would be over sized and more mils). Which is better to get multiple uses out of a paper or plastic bag or to purchase many cloth bags and plastic bags to fulfill other needs?
I glad that the new café standards makes so many people warm and fuzzy about our new President and the rest of the politicians, but does that do anything to change the behaviors of the drivers and the attitude toward being more energy and resource efficient? Café standards do nothing more than take away choices.
"People are looking at bottom line, (this week's paycheck) not survival of grandkids."Use guilt about my grandkids all you want, it just pisses me off, and it will not change my habits. Unless we figure out how to blow it up this great green planet will outlast our specie. My legacy to my grandkids is their parents (who are using the tools they were taught and teaching the kids tools to use to make things even better).
there is much of value in what you say Duane, and it is great that you have internalized sustainable behaviors to an extent that some preachy "greens" have not. Our legacy to our grandkids of course includes the way that we raise the parents of those grandkids. But regarding your statement-
"Unless we figure out how to blow it up this great green planet will outlast our species"
that oversimplifies things. Sure, we could reduce it to a radioactive wasteland by pushing a few buttons, but that is not the only way to deprive our grandkids of this green sphere. If you observe it from space, there is much less green on this sphere than there used to be, and we now have 7 billion of us dependent on it. maintaining the natural systems on which those 7 billion depend is becoming a chore. if it were not becoming a chore, there would be no point to the recycling that you perform.
there are some facts on which we agree, but I think that there is a stubborn viewpoint problem. You think that environmentalists want to yank your lifestyle. What they are trying to tell you is that parts of your lifestyle may not be sustainable. To a certain extent, you agree with that. There is a conflict of styles, psychologically.
"
Steve B.,
I believe that the depreciation allowances for fossil fuels should be removed.
Everyone has lobbyists, not just the people you disagree with. Without lobbyists we wouldn't get the available information. If you only listen to the media, you believe they are overweight immoral hustlers. In reality they are some of the most knowledgeable people on their topic. The good ones know both sides of the issue and deal in facts not money. The politicians still make the choice on what they believe and what the vote for.
Check on it, Styrofoam per dates Carter by decades. And insulation goes back even farther. You may only feel that government can make things happen, but in reality they are always behind the curve. And those that wait for the government to tell them what to do have wasted opportunities.
How long ago did The Sierra Club start pushing conservation of energy such as oil, gasoline, and coal?
The long-term view of the current ruling party is to reward those that were wasteful and didn't look at the long-term, such as sub-prime borrowers, credit cards borrowers, auto companies, and banks.
You are looking short-term about the renewable energy. When things are new there are lot of players, but when it becomes a utility and controlled by the government it is only a few and competition disappears. Simply look to the electricity grid.
As for my long-term view, the test is my kids and my grandkids. My kids are better at recycling, composting, making things last, staying debt free (save the house) earlier than their parents. My best guess is that their kids are learning the same lessons.
I am glad you feel you can save the world, I accept that I don't have that ability or inclination. What I can do is what is in my reach. I even chose an employer that taught me more about protecting the environment and saving energy and reducing waste then I ever got in school, from the media, from the politicians, or from any "green" group. My guilts are self inflicted not something some other person tries lay on me. Most times when a person tries to use guilt/emotion in a discussion they have given up.
The Big 3 became the Detroit 3 because of bad management. They diluted themselves on quality and cost, and they failed to change. Did you ever hear of Demming and how the Japanese applied his principles to car quality? If you ever looked past the headline you would see even companies in Michigan have led their industries in all the things you hold dear and are leaders in countries around the world in spite of the government. The airline industry has grown both in customer miles and in safety of travel since deregulation. Are the computers better today than they were a few years ago or decades ago due to government regulations?
You may feel that the people in Washington are smarter that the rest of us, I don't. The biggest polluter is the US government (it was happening in the Carter years) and you want them to run the rest of us.
I feel there are two approaches to regulations; command and control, and best available knowledge. The command and control stifles innovation and protects the poor performers. The best available knowledge identifies the principles and allows the individual to be creative in addressing them. Which do you want to talk about?
I surely have biases. I have yet to me anyone that doesn't no matter how hard they try to deny them.
As for why GM recalled their electric car, I have no clue. It was GM's, what more need be said.
Chris W.,
You must have a different definiton of "environmentalist" than I do. Because I consider myself one. My lifestyle has change and continues to change as I learn new things.
What I am frustrated with is those that herald pronocements of success such as the new Cafe standards and never measure if the results are really there.
I am frustrated by the arrogance of the those who stand infront of the media and tout their commitment to the the environment and never make the effort to see who has been the most succesful for years adn ask why or how.
The evil oil companies have create exoctic technologies to prevent spills in the most difficult of environments and yet all we hear is how bad they are and how wasteful it is to use oil and coal. Do yuo think the polticians ever asked them how they were able to do this or even how energy effiecent they are?
My mother was an environmental lobbyist. She fought the coal industry here in KY. The difference she got paid bupkus to do it.
And I have yet to see anything, anywhere more wasteful than removing the top of a mountain to get the coal out.
I live in a coal producing state. I have walked strip mines, seen communities destroyed by slag and runoff, watched men die in coal mines for lack of safety equipment. Don't tell me about exotic technologies - the coal companies do whatever they can get away with - and with the collusion of the last administration, they knew they didn't have to put any of those technologies to work unless it improved their bottom line. People die here because coal is king.
I know why they're successful. They bribe legislators, mislead the public and threaten everyone with loss of jobs if the smallest hurdle is placed in the way of the juggernaut.
Get real.
Sarah A.,
I expect your mother wasn't a stereotypical lobbyist. I wish Steve B. would know her to realize that lobbying is a bad thing.
It is all about how you define success. Is there one coal mining company or operation better than the rest? If so, were they challenged with all the rest or were they asked why they were different and worked with to get better?
'As for my long-term view, the test is my kids and my grandkids. My kids are better at recycling, composting, making things last, staying debt free (save the house) earlier than their parents. My best guess is that their kids are learning the same lessons."
THAT'S great. But does it annoy you that other parents are teaching their kids to toss aluminum into the trash because "green" is a bad word? Does it annoy you that there are no incentives at work for recycling, and that as a result idealists do all the heavy lifting while more than half of all americans basically ignore the entire concept of recycling? I just wonder if the approach of asking volunteers to raise their hands has a future. That is the problem I have with the argument that the government should not set efficiency standards for vehicles. The alternative does not represent a solution, as far as I can tell.
Chris W.,
You keep saying "that as a result idealists do all the heavy lifting", I am not an idealist and do some of the lifting and I watch and see how my neighbors do lifting and major lifting has been done by the business practicalists. Who do you think are inventing the new efficeincies, who has been planting trees to provide pulp for paper?
My annoyance is with the "idealists" that disregard the efforts of success by the "practicalists".
I am disappointed that more aren;t making and effort, but I put that to it not being presented to them in the proper way.
It is so easy to preach, but it more effective to sell. The tools are there. It seems the "idealists" are talking to loud to listen.
Duane: "I believe that the depreciation allowances for fossil fuels should be removed."
Good. Any other perks for fossils you think should be eliminated?
Duane: "Everyone has lobbyists...The good ones know both sides of the issue and deal in facts not money.
LOL!!!
Duane: The politicians still make the choice on what they believe and what the vote for."
Ok. So you won't be complaining about policies presently set on renewables to reverse the "market" bias in favor of fossils for decades. Those days are over.
Duane: "Styrofoam per dates Carter by decades. And insulation goes back even farther. You may only feel that government can make things happen....
I provided you references to show that government policies influence deployment of such products after you tried to claim that it's the "free market." There is not doubt that government programs helped build out insulation and efficiency industries.
Duane: "How long ago did The Sierra Club start pushing conservation of energy such as oil, gasoline, and coal?"
I don't know. I gave you the link. Look it up.
Duane: "The long-term view of the current ruling party is to reward those that were wasteful and didn't look at the long-term, such as sub-prime borrowers, credit cards borrowers, auto companies, and banks."
I might agree with you to some extent on this. But the "dynamic" there is the same one that has us remaining dependent on fossils for decades with full knowledge that we were digging ourselves deeper and deeper - committing ourselves further and further into the mideast "to protect our vital national interests in the region." Regarding banks, GM and Chrysler - anything that gets "too big to fail" is too big - period. But I suppose that you'd oppose regulations that would prevent that from happening. No - "free markets" love those mergers and take-overs. Nothing should prevent that - right?
Duane: "You are looking short-term about the renewable energy. When things are new there are lot of players, but when it becomes a utility and controlled by the government...."
What a crock!!! Whoever said anything about government controlling renewables? The long-term is a sustainable economy. What we have had is an unsustainable economy, and we are paying the price for that now. We didn't learn anyting in the 70s. If we listen to folks like you, we won't learn anything now, either.
Actually, if you actually knew anything about this emerging field (try reading Friedman's <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.thomaslfriedman.com/bookshelf/hot-flat-and-crowded">Hot, Flat, and Crowded</a>. Do you know what a distributed energy infrastructure is? How about being able to produce your own energy, and sell what you don't use to the utility? Get over you socialism paranoia.
Duane: "As for my long-term view, the test is my kids and my grandkids. My kids are better at recycling...."
Good. I do all of those things, too. Most people don't. The failure of your "long-term" view, though, is that it's myopic - too narrow. You're limited to your own personal circumstances, and you have no view larger than that. Here's the evidence:
Duane: "I am glad you feel you can save the world, I accept that I don't have that ability or inclination."
Why do you ridicule efforts to leave things better than you found them? That's what it's about - and your limited, personal efforts - while important - simply are not enough. BTW - my long-term, personal efforts go way back. You talk about your kids? I didn't have any, specifically so as to not contribute to a "population explosion". My kids don't have to recycle, now do they?
Duane: "My guilts are self inflicted not something some other person tries lay on me."
That's not it at all, Duane. If you can't feel anxiety re: the world your grandchildren will live in as adults, then there's no "guilt-trip" I can lay on you that will make any difference. Hell, I was thinking more in terms of your grandchildren's well-being when I was twenty than you seem capable of doing.
Duane: "Most times when a person tries to use guilt/emotion in a discussion they have given up."
Well, I've certainly given up on you. I have no confidence in someone, who cannot look at the risks for future generations, and instead spouts paranoid, adolescent nonsense about "guilt trips".
Duane: "The Big 3 became the Detroit 3 because of bad management. They diluted themselves on quality and cost, and they failed to change."
I wrote GM a few years ago, re: an ad they had, which depicted "polluting" desert regions with auto waste. In the process, I told them I drove a Honda Insight, 62.2 mpg. I wondered when GM would give me an option to buy a comparable car - that I'd like to buy an American hybrid. The response was tone-deaf. That's the great thing about America, they said. Everyone gets to buy what they want. Years later, GM is on the skids. So I don't disagree about the auto industry. I repeat, though - the Japanese industry responded to government regs, which the American industry fought tooth and nail - even up until the present.
Duane: "Did you ever hear of Demming and how the Japanese applied his principles to car quality?"
Of course. The management philosophy of Demming does not contradict the regulations of the Japanese government. Both contributed.
Duane: "The airline industry has grown both in customer miles and in safety of travel since deregulation."
ROFLMAO!!! That's why the airline industry is in such great shape today. Have they paid off all those govenment bailouts yet? Personally, I don't fly anymore. I don't trust the industry, and I don't want to die in a crash.
Duane: "Are the computers better today than they were a few years ago or decades ago due to government regulations?"
When you get over you government paranoia, you'll realize that it's both - industrial innovation and government regulations. Where do you think the internet/computers originated?
Duane: "You may feel that the people in Washington are smarter that the rest of us, I don't."
No. I don't think they're smarter. But I don't think they're dumber, either. They have a role to play. That role can be played destructively or constructively, but it is a legitimate role.
Duane: "The biggest polluter is the US government (it was happening in the Carter years) and you want them to run the rest of us."
Cut the crap. I don't want government to run the rest of us. But I don't want "the market" to have no rules, either. I do want government to protect the national interest, which is defined by what is going to protect the economy as well as the borders. When corporations are acting to put national security at rist, you bet I want government to intervene. Why wouldn't you?
Duane: "I feel there are two approaches to regulations; command and control, and best available knowledge."
I agree. So what regulations do you think can be based on "best available knowledge", and who defines "best available knowledge"? BTW, sometimes "command and control" can be based on "best available knowledge". You have to consider context - that is, a large perspective for the long-term.
Duane: "As for why GM recalled their electric car, I have no clue. It was GM's, what more need be said."
Yeah - that was their attitude. Look at the shape they're in today.... That kind of ignorance is bankrupt - "...what more need be said."
Duane (to Chris): "What I am frustrated with is those that herald pronocements of success such as the new Cafe standards and never measure if the results are really there."
What I am frustrated with is those, who assume that the results were never measured, and who deny that they were really there.
Duane (to Chris): "The evil oil companies have create exoctic technologies to prevent spills in the most difficult of environments and yet all we hear is how bad they are and how wasteful it is to use oil and coal."
And...
Duane: "Do yuo think the polticians ever asked them how they were able to do this or even how energy effiecent they are?"
And you think they just did this on their own? You really don't have a clue, do you?
Duane (to Chris): "You keep saying 'that as a result idealists do all the heavy lifting', I am not an idealist and do some of the lifting and I watch and see how my neighbors do lifting and major lifting has been done by the business practicalists."
Major corporations NOW are making tremendous changes. I have explained that you you in the past, relative to your (hopfully past) "skepticism" around climate change (which you dismissed in the past). But it hasn't always been that way. They were not "on board" when the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts were passed. And there have been numerous lawsuits forcing compliance with that legislation over the years. Thankfully, those days have changed in large measure. Corporations ARE making changes - in part because there are regulations, and in part because there is a market for those changes. "Practicalists", as you put it, have learned that "idealists", as you put it, have been right. Maybe, even you will eventually learn that intellectual autonomy is not the same thing as always saying no.
Chris: "I just wonder if the approach of asking volunteers to raise their hands has a future."
Necessary, but not sufficient. Duane hates government, and probably buys the Reagan delusion that "government is the problem." I do many things in a responsible way, including (Duane), financial management. I don't owe anybody anything - period. And what has that got me re: stability in a failing economy? Well, I'm still way better off than most - but I've taken losses as a result of things entirely outside my control. Pollution, climate change, wars to protect resources - these are no different. I can take as much personal responsibility as I want, AND IT WON'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. Society - in the form of governments and its institutions - have to take collective responsibility to get the job done. And - this is the point Duane doesn't get - every individual will be affected greatly by whether the job gets done - or doesn't.
Steve B.,
I think all special incentives for oil, coal, gas, ethanol, solar, etc. distort the market and discourage innovation. I will complain about all special government incentives, they always screw-up and have to have a redo later to correct the screw-up which only makes new screw-ups. I think the "too big to fail" is a neat catch phrase that the politicians and media like and to rationalize their actions.
You don't seem to always listen and you do not know enough about me. I don't hate. I have worked with government and have found some very intelligent and committed people there and found those that weren't.
I have found the best knowledge available approach has had the most profound and performance improving effect on that regulated community. I had one experience that the regulations was created by industry had to be sold by industry. I am not a libertarian; I simply want restrain and thoughtfulness when government gets involved. I see value in the FDA though they do screw-up, in the EPA in spite of their arrogance, and so on.
Your links didn't work.
With regard to lobbyists, are you a member of an environmental group (not a formal one), a consumer group, an employer, a technical group, a taxpayer group, etc., they all have lobbyists. I would like to hear of a single demographic group in our society that doesn't have a lobbyists
I am skeptical of bigger because more times than not it becomes too structured and discourages characters and innovation, and it encourages go along to get along. I suspect the banks are an example of that; one started getting a better stock price so the others followed the herd of their peers into the toilet.
When government gives the money they control.
The electric grid was an example of government regulation stifle innovation. In my community the local government restrictions prevent me from putting a windmill on my house. In the area around my town the local government has changed their zoning to prevent wind farms. Do you consider zoning a type of regulation?
I feel if I have done better than my parents and my kids do things better than me, then I have left the world a bit better. If something can be changed with the wave of hand then the next person in that position can wave their hand and push all that aside. Look at Bush and Obama, a simple signature has closed Gitmo, ended torture, and now ended wasteful automobiles.
The Demming reference was to why Japan took market share from the Big3. As far as the airlines, do feel profitability is measure of success or the safety of air travel or the number of mile flown? Profitability is an individual company issue to me, the mileage and safety is a measure of the industry.
If the government couldn't practice good environmental stewardship then why should I believe they know how to do it better than I do or at least those they are trying to regulate?
Command and control is, at best, based on the available knowledge at the moment in time it is written.
What metrics are included in the new Café standards that will show the effectiveness of the regulations? There are companies (that I know of) out there that have been posting online their environmental, safety/health, and energy consumption since the early 90s. When will we see that for this regulation or any regualtion?
As far as companies' practices and performances you do a bit of research. In the context of the time and place there are many that have been addressing your concerns. As an example consider a company back in the 1890s moved to the logging area (using stumps) to generate steam rather than move to the coal fields. Would that fit your idea of "green"? Consider if that mind set has permeated that company ever since. I wonder what "idealist" that company owner was listening to back then.
I offer one the best approaches to environmental problems I have heard, I paraphrase the Henry Ford, make the companies operate downstream of where their waste discharges. This even predates Nixon and the EPA.
People and their organization make the difference. Steve can you accept that practical people can make changes before government even catches on. There we recycling companies a hundred years before we had government talking about it. Was it an idealist that made that happen or someone seeing that people/companies were willing to buy recycle?
Duane: "I think all special incentives for oil, coal, gas, ethanol, solar, etc. distort the market and discourage innovation."
They have distorted the energy market for decades. Fossils have had an unfair advantage. Point is - there is not "free market" when it comes to energy. If there had been, we would have been using renewables for some time now.
Duane: "I think the "too big to fail" is a neat catch phrase that the politicians and media like and to rationalize their actions."
That's one way to look at it, and not necessarily not true. But I don't think you can deny that thousands of jobs are affected. I don't think you can deny the substantial effect a failure of one of these mega-corporations would have. Try this idea - many things can be true at once.
Duane: "I simply want restrain and thoughtfulness when government gets involved."
Who wants anything different? Corporations have no "national interest" at heart. It's not their job. So, what institution is there to look out for the national interest? Yes, there is a role for government, and only a damed fool would want that role played irresponsibly.
Duane: "I would like to hear of a single demographic group in our society that doesn't have a lobbyists"
All lobbyists are not created equal. Ask Cheney's energy task force. Oh, that's right. No one can find out who they were.
Duane: "I am skeptical of bigger...."
Depends on context. Context is everything. Even so - you'd be in favor of regulations limiting size/scope of a corporation's growth?
Duane: "When government gives the money they control."
So? You can say that about anyone/thing.
Duane: "Do you consider zoning a type of regulation?"
Good example. Zoning has been a great tool of utilities and developers. Utilities don't want you to produce energy that they have to buy if you're connected to the grid. Developers get areas re-zoned to fit their purposes. So yes. Zoning is a type of regulation that is manipulated by industries to the detriment of most citizens. Does that mean there shouldn't be zoning? Hardly. Portland, OR is a good example of how zoning has worked for citizens - in ways that utilities and developers can still make money. How would you put that? "Best available knowledge?"
Duane: "Look at Bush and Obama, a simple signature has closed Gitmo, ended torture, and now ended wasteful automobiles."
Your problem with that? You know, the world is alot bigger than your family. If you're telling me you have no sense of responsibility to this world, then ok. That's a totally foreign orientation to me - but ok.
Duane: "The Demming reference...."
Yep. I got that. It still doesn't contradict the role of regulations in the shift of the Japanese automakers toward efficiency. You get that?
Duane: "Profitability is an individual company issue to me, the mileage and safety is a measure of the industry."
Know of any airlines not losing money? Maybe, Southwest?
Duane" If the government couldn't practice good environmental stewardship then why should I believe they know how to do it better than I do or at least those they are trying to regulate?"
Government is one of the largest buyers of hybrid vehicles. Government buildings are some of the first, best examples of LEED innovations. Government has spurred innovation with stationary fuel cells in NY through purchase of hydrogen fuel cells for stationary energy production. The premise of your question is anything but universal.
Duane: "Command and control is, at best, based on the available knowledge at the moment in time it is written."
Yes? So? When new knowledge is realized, adaptions are possible - given there are no "vested interests" to subvert those innovations.
Duane: "What metrics are included in the new Café standards that will show the effectiveness of the regulations? There are companies (that I know of) out there that have been posting online their environmental, safety/health, and energy consumption since the early 90s. When will we see that for this regulation or any regualtion?
I haven't researched it, but your assumption that they don't exist is strange.
Duane: "I wonder what 'idealist' that company owner was listening to back then."
No one was thinking "green" back then. No one had any awareness that ground was being laid for the environmental problems we experience today. It's different now - we do know. BTW, during the timeframe you mention, "idealists" had recently effected the end of slavery. "Practicalists" - where were they?
Duane: "...make the companies operate downstream of where their waste discharges. This even predates Nixon and the EPA."
Wendell Berry has one too. Make the owners/shareholders live in the same communities, where their companies are polluting. Great ideas. Whatever became of them? How about results from the Clean Air/Water Acts?
Duane: "...practical people can make changes before government even catches on."
Context and scale. What makes that so hard for you? Also, much of the awareness re: making changes comes from government agencies - you know, like NASA, NOAA, NRC? Think "practicalists" could do a space program? What industries have resulted from that government initiative? Poor government - it takes so long to "catch on".
Steve B.,
"I don't think you can deny the substantial effect a failure of one of these mega-corporations would have. Try this idea - many things can be true at once." You either believe in sacrifice or you don't. The Detroit 3 (everyone, the Unions struck to get what they got) screwed up for years so you either keep supporting the screw-ups or you let them fail. Do you honestly believe if they are saved they will change? Why the government has bailed them out before and they didn't change. Now they are bailing them out again, why should they change? Oh, because Steve B. or Barack O. said so.
Wasn't there a saying you can't make an omelet without breaking the shell? When things change there is sacrifice and there are too many people with too many bad habits to protect them all.
"only a damed fool would want that role played irresponsibly." Then why do you complain about the oil subsidies unless there were some fools, and why do you feel I was so disappointed in the ethanol subsidies because there were some fools. Guess what there are fools. There were Congressman that pushed Fannie and Freddie to help people get home loans who could afford them because they said everyone should have a home. Guess what they were fools. Owning a house is not making a home. Going in debt over your head is not making a home.
"Context is everything. Even so - you'd be in favor of regulations limiting size/scope of a corporation's growth?" Simply size and scope, no. Put it in context, maybe.
The zoning to prevent wind farms was driven by local citizens (no big company) who don't like the look.
"When new knowledge is realized, adaptions are possible - given there are no "vested interests" to subvert those innovations." That may sound good in theory, but not in practice. The effort required changing command and control is over whelming, both the rigors and the resistance prevent updating the command and control.
"BTW, during the timeframe you mention, "idealists" had recently effected the end of slavery. "Practicalists" - where were they?" Were the northerner idealist or practicalists who didn't use slavery when it was in such vogue elsewhere in the world?
"Think "practicalists" could do a space program? What industries have resulted from that government initiative? Poor government - it takes so long to "catch on"." Was it that the government had the smartest people or had the most money? Was it NASA where the technology for space started or it DOD?
I think there are idealists and practialists in business as government and academia. I have seen t practicalists lead the idealists, just as in safety and health and environment as in recycling. They find a problem and turn it into an opportunity. My view is without the pragmatist very little of what the idealist wants to happen would happen.
"My view is without the pragmatist very little of what the idealist wants to happen would happen."
It's a truism. The abolitionists did not get anywhere ending slavery until the US army invaded the South and put an end to it. But idealists are just important as realists in human progress.Chris W.,
"Do you think there is any other way to get carmakers to undertake these changes without demanding it of them? " Do want an answer to this question even it is about the car buyers and drivers?
I believe seatbelts were installed in the 1956 Ford, best guess that was before the government wrote a regulation. Was that the idealist or the pragmatist?
Duane: 'I believe seatbelts were installed in the 1956 Ford, best guess that was before the government wrote a regulation."
I don't know if that's true or not. I do know that the auto industry fought seatbelts tooth and nail, and they are only in your car now due to government regs.
Duane: "You either believe in sacrifice or you don't."
Well, despite all your implied and explicit accusations, I don't particularly relish the idea of defining other people's sacrifices. At best, I present reasons why sacrifice is appropriate. I have sacrificed with my own personal resources all my life "to leave things better than I found them." I learned that from my father, who was the best man I have ever known. I would never favor the sacrifice of other men's jobs in order to prove an economic point or theory. I am no fan of the "Detroit 3", as you call them - although, Ford is looking pretty good relative to the others. But I am not beyond "sacrificing", given that they are changing. I really don't care if I'm paying higher taxes if the decisions are being made that will put us on track so that we can sustain and economy and livelihood. I don't even care that I may never see it, so long as I can see that's the direction we (as a nation) are headed in.
Sacrifice apparently means something totally different to you.
Duane: "Then why do you complain about the oil subsidies unless there were some fools...."
I don't argue for bad government. But I also don't argue for no government. BTW, I was never in favor of corn ethanol. That was another example of vested interests lobbying congress to futher their own narrow interests, and not those of the country. I don't see that any different than Cheney's "energy task force". Renewables are inherently better in all respects, from security, to climate, to economic sustainability, to environmental sustainability. Because of that, they are better for the nation, and they advance our broad national interests. There is no parity between renewables and fossils. Call it "idealism" if you want. Fossils are in no way "practical". There has been nothing "practical" about the whole damned system. That's why the house of cards has fallen down around us. If you weren't affected, then you're lucky. I lived damned responsibly. I don't mind paying higher taxes on the conditions I said above. But I sure as hell resent people walking away with golden parachutes, when their companies failed - and when those failures led to chain reactions that affected me. It is nothing less than legal thievery. That's what I think of your "free markets". That's what results - time and again - from having no rules, too few rules, and no enforcement of rules that do exist. We don't need foolish rules either. We need sensible rules, that call for sacrifices that are fair, and that have a chance of advancing the national interest. That's what I argue for.
Duane: "The zoning to prevent wind farms was driven by local citizens (no big company) who don't like the look."
Then maybe they should try solar. But if they don't like that, then they should pay for the damage caused if their first choice is fossil. I shouldn't have to pick up the tab for their destructive preferences as a taxpayer or as a breathing entity.
People, who bought SUVs a few years ago, often argued that they had a right to buy one if they could afford it. Never did they consider that their gas guzzler increased demand which put pressure on supply, causing prices to rise - not just for them - for all of us. Everyone's every decision is not made in isolation. Everyone's every decision has ramifications for others. You'd be surprised how little awareness of that fact there is.
So people, who don't like the look of wind, should understand what the cost of that preference is - not just intellectually, but monetarily as well.
Your description of "idealist" vs. "practicalist" is vacant. There is nothing "practical" about what has brought us to the economic conditions, not to mention the foreign entanglements, in which we presently find ourselves. What you describe as my "idealism" is actually very practical. It inherently is more suitable in defeating terrorism. It is environmentally healthier. It is climatically more stabilizing. It is economically more sustainable. Even educationally, it gives students a reason for studying science and math. There is a line in the Bible that says something like - where there is no vision, the people perish. I think you confuse "idealism" with "vision". Vision galvanizes energy, which is immensely practical. That is why you see so much movement these days in corporations, and in a large number of citizens. That is why things are beginning to change.
Steve B.,
The seatbelts were developed and installed before regs. The Questions should be why didn't they carry them forward? I believe that ABS brakes, lights on while engine running, air bags were all developed before there were regulations, do you ever wonder why?
"I don't particularly relish the idea of defining other people's sacrifices." It isn't about defining sacrifice, it is about letting people know sacrifice has to be made. Raising a family takes sacrifice, the individuals decide on what they are willing to sacrifice. Change requires sacrifice, the choice is when the sacrifice is made. The Detroit 3 could have made the sacrifices over the years rather than being forced into them today and elevating the intensity. When the automobile came into prominence the buggy whip workers changed or lost their jobs. The reality makes the choice.
How do you define sacrifice? For me it is broad and encompasses everything, from listening and studying in school, to spending less than you earn, to eating what you need and working off what you don't, to continuing to learn new skills to stay competitive as an employee, and so on.
"Renewables are inherently better in all respects, from security, to climate, to economic sustainability, to environmental sustainability." A strategy has to include a transition from the present to the future not simply whine about the past. Just as gas use isn't only about the car, it is affected by the driver's choices.
"I don't mind paying higher taxes on the conditions I said above." To me wasting taxpayers dollar is legal thievery. My income it so low that it isn't politically possible for Washington to redefine "rich" to affect me, but I resist higher taxes until government develops the means to measure the performance of the programs the money is spent on. At least businesses that waste money have the ultimate accountability, if they don't make a profit they go bankrupt.
"But I sure as hell resent people walking away with golden parachutes, when their companies failed" That seems to be like resenting a player making millions every year while playing on a losing team, I can resent all I want and it won't change anything. That is why I don't try to save the world and only work on what is in my reach.
"Then maybe they should try solar." What if they don't like solar, should they stay with oil? Maybe we should try to figure out how we can present the needs and the possible solutions, and then enlist their participation rather than simply regulate what they do.
"There is nothing "practical" about what has brought us to the economic conditions, not to mention the foreign entanglements, in which we presently find ourselves." I believe we have become the most affluent in our history because of pragmatists and practicality. We have for the past year or so suffer an ebb to our financial status, but anyone that thinks economies and personal wealth only go up is not learning from history.
"Vision galvanizes energy, which is immensely practical." Are you now saying that vision is only held by "idealists" or can the pragmatic/practicalists have visions too? I wonder how many companies have visions, how many companies that fail have visions, and how many government laws require visions.
Is it the vision that Chrysler and GM had that caused their problems or their practices?
Chris. Regarding the original topic, I don't think 35.5 mpg is going to be an issue. Plug-in hybrids are just over the horizon. Toyota is bringing a plug-in Prius to the market next year. That's 100 - 150mpg. Ford is not far behind. I think Ford is also focusing on lighter materials, if having Mullaly as CEO is any indication. BTW, I haven't noticed alot of whining about the 35.5mpg standard by 2016. Have you?
no Steve, I think that the opposition people are saving their ammo for cap and trade- that vote looks iffy to me.