Weeb’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Different CAFE Tiers?

  The article states, "Bush wants the authority to restructure...the CAFE program. The aim is to... (regulate) vehicles not according to a total fleet-wide average, but rather (by) dividing them up into size classes and setting weaker targets for bigger vehicles."
  Wouldn't this almost automatically gut CAFE standards?  Hybrid technology is great, but the best way to improve gas mileage is still to make light cars. All things being equal, small cars are lighter than large cars.  If we were to raise CAFE standards gradually to 45 mpg or higher I would assume the array of cars on the road would generally get smaller.  But if we lock in different categories of cars based on size, we would freeze the mix of large and small cars on the road as it now stands.  This would almost certainly lead to worse overall gas mileage.  
  After all, gas mileage for passenger vehicles in this country has gotten worse since the '80's because car manufacturers can avoid their responsibilities by producing light trucks and SUVs that have different standards than cars.  This proposal would just give automakers even more room to creatively shirk the mandate for fuel efficiency.
  Am I wrong?  If not, why have I not seen this point in any of the coverage I have seen on this ridiculous proposal?
  On Push to raise fuel-economy standards gaining new support posted 3 years, 6 months ago 4 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Re: Over-representation

  Thanks for the clarification.  I agree that more emphasis on the problem needs to be made, but I also think solutions are being driven by energy security concerns, high gas prices, and increasingly aggressive and autocratic regimes in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Venezuela.  So while I agree that we need to make sure that Americans get the problem, we also need to be concentrating on the solutions so that the momentum created by these other issues does not lead to "solutions" that do not respect the environment like coal, nuclear, and fossil fuel-based hydrogen.On An interview with accidental movie star Al Gore posted 3 years, 6 months ago 17 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Gore Evermore

  Cannot wait to see the movie, and it is really exciting to see a former mainstream politician give this problem the attention it deserves.  
  One question though.  What does the following sentence mean? Gore said, "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is."
  Does that mean it is OK to over-emphasize how dangerous global warming is?  I worry about comments like this affecting the credibility of the message.
  Remember when everyone was telling us that all fat was bad?  That was because scientists and doctors thought the public would not understand that unsaturated fats can be good while saturated fats are not.  Now that message is finally getting out there, but people are leery of the new message because they think nutritionists and doctors keep changing their minds.On An interview with accidental movie star Al Gore posted 3 years, 6 months ago 17 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  CAFE Standards

  This gem from the New York Times:

  "Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta asked the House Energy and Commerce Committee today for the authority to revamp the system of fuel economy standards for cars....
  'What we need is the statutory ability to reform the structure of the program,' he [Mineta] said, to avoid problems with the current system. Those problems, he said, have hurt American automakers and endangered safety by forcing manufacturers to make more small cars.
  Mr. Mineta said the system should be revamped to set different fuel standards for different sizes of vehicles."
  For more go to: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/03/washington/03cnd-fuel.html?hp&ex=1146715200&en=ea400f4861e 90414&ei=5094&partner=homepage

  Hurt automakers by forcing them to make smaller cars!?  What roads are they driving on? Vehicles are getting bigger and bigger.  And guess what Bush Administration?  Because of the laws of physics small cars get better gas mileage.  It is unbelievable that the Administration now wants to undercut fuel mileage standards even more by having different standards for different-sized cars!On America's place in the world posted 3 years, 6 months ago 8 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Biofuels, other clean technology and behavior

  Your posts raise a valid point, but I do not think they account adequately for three things.  First, high gas prices will not only spurn the development of harmful alternative fuels that are coal based, but will also help create demand for more environmentally friendly fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. I understand biofuels are not perfect, but they are better than fossil fuels and biofuels still have a leg up on coal-based fuels.
  Second, high gas prices serve as a continual reminder to people that we need to invest in other types of renewable technologies even if they cannot power our vehicles yet.  All this attention to high gas prices makes people aware that the US is overly dependant on foreign sources of energy.  This type of discussion leads to more interest, investment and publicity for other renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, tidal and geothermal power.
  Third, high gas prices can and have already begun to change the behavior of people.  Not only are people looking to buy cars with a higher gas mileage, but there is anecdotal evidence of increased car pooling and use of mass transit.  These behaviors can develop into habits thereby create a more environmentally responsible citizenry.

  -Hal Connolly
  On Driving less is great, but producing more oil is a less-desirable reaction posted 3 years, 6 months ago 8 Responses