Comments Weeb has made

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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, 7 months ago 8 Responses

  • David,

    Understood.  I have the same reservations and I think you understand that this is not a simple issue.  You are, after all, not a biofuel hater.  I think that these moneyed interests are generally doing more harm than good, and because the problem is so massive I tend to think we should not condemn them too harshly.  
    For instance, I am still really angry that the Energy Bill pays a higher subsidy for blending virgin sources of biodiesel than waste vegetable oil sources.  That is a disgrace and it is the fault of Big Agriculture.  But on the other hand without the Soy farmer lobby there might not be any subsidy at all and the biodiesel industry would probably be near non-existent in this country.
    On How big money skews the energy debate posted 3 years, 7 months ago 10 Responses

  • The Market

    I agree that nuclear is not the answer for now(especially since the U.S. has no permanent location for nuclear waste storage). But I disagree with the idea that private investment should be lamented.  
    If we are truly going to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels it is going to require a tremendous infusion of money.  Federal and state governments will not have the resources to do this alone.  Instead they have to provide incentives to private actors to invest the capital necessary to completely overhaul our economy to run on sustainable sources of energy.  
    So instead of whining about those who want to make money off of wind energy or biofuels, we should applaud them for their efforts. We should not be deluded enough to think that one technology will solve all of our problems, but we should be willing to allow cheaper renewable technologies flourish now while keeping in mind that other more expensive technologies must continue to be supported for a time when they too will receive significant private investment dollars.On How big money skews the energy debate posted 3 years, 7 months ago 10 Responses