<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for The EPA documents the White House doesn&#8217;t want you to see]]></title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.grist.org/rss/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Grist Comment Feed</description>
	<language>en</language>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #1 by bigTom</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/back-draft/</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:59:29 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/back-draft/1</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Are CAFE standards moot?</strong></p><p>&nbsp; I'm of the opinion that peak oil is going to make (continue) fuel prices so high that CAFE standards (even if they went well beyond 35mpg) are moot. The marketplace is going to demand higher fuel economy than the standards.</p><p>
&nbsp; Now, I always thought the Republican CAFE setting mechanism, was ask the auto industry, how high they could make CAFE, without ever actually forcing any restraint on the industry (i.e. if detroit thinks in 2025, that without CAFE they will meet 30mpg, then they will propose 29mpg). But, nobody expected peakoil to come so quickly, we will proceed towards more efficient vehicles far faster than any standards we would have passed.</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Are CAFE standards moot?</strong></p><p>&nbsp; I'm of the opinion that peak oil is going to make (continue) fuel prices so high that CAFE standards (even if they went well beyond 35mpg) are moot. The marketplace is going to demand higher fuel economy than the standards.</p><p>
&nbsp; Now, I always thought the Republican CAFE setting mechanism, was ask the auto industry, how high they could make CAFE, without ever actually forcing any restraint on the industry (i.e. if detroit thinks in 2025, that without CAFE they will meet 30mpg, then they will propose 29mpg). But, nobody expected peakoil to come so quickly, we will proceed towards more efficient vehicles far faster than any standards we would have passed.</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #2 by BILL HANNAHAN</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/back-draft/</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:30:23 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/back-draft/2</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Not exactly fair and balanced<p>The documents seem very one sided. &nbsp;They discuss a potential downside of global warming in great detail, but they make no mention of the down side to their recommendations which is well understood.<p>
&nbsp;For example sales of motorcycles and mopeds are exploding. &nbsp;The motorcycle fatality rate per mile is seven times higher than for cars. &nbsp;The fatality rate for bicycles is another seven times higher than motorcycles.<p>
Econobox cars are less survivable than large cars built with the same level of technology.<p>
The cost in human suffering medical bills and lost productivity is not considered in these calculations. 

<p></p></p></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Not exactly fair and balanced<p>The documents seem very one sided. &nbsp;They discuss a potential downside of global warming in great detail, but they make no mention of the down side to their recommendations which is well understood.<p>
&nbsp;For example sales of motorcycles and mopeds are exploding. &nbsp;The motorcycle fatality rate per mile is seven times higher than for cars. &nbsp;The fatality rate for bicycles is another seven times higher than motorcycles.<p>
Econobox cars are less survivable than large cars built with the same level of technology.<p>
The cost in human suffering medical bills and lost productivity is not considered in these calculations. 

<p></p></p></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #3 by morganmghee</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/back-draft/</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:21:34 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/back-draft/3</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Just like anything else</strong></p><p>Bill, the more people that ride a new transportation the more attention will be brought to it, safety standards and driving rules will be adjusted. &nbsp;We've come a long way with our adaptability, I'm sure we'll be able to clear this hurdle as well. &nbsp;The same goes for the cars, the fewer giant steel monsters on the road the safer everyone in a sustainable vehicle will be. &nbsp;Big picture, Bill, big picture.</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Just like anything else</strong></p><p>Bill, the more people that ride a new transportation the more attention will be brought to it, safety standards and driving rules will be adjusted. &nbsp;We've come a long way with our adaptability, I'm sure we'll be able to clear this hurdle as well. &nbsp;The same goes for the cars, the fewer giant steel monsters on the road the safer everyone in a sustainable vehicle will be. &nbsp;Big picture, Bill, big picture.</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #4 by spaceshaper</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/back-draft/</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2008 22:17:03 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/back-draft/4</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Fewer miles, Bill</strong></p><p>so fewer fatalities. You're making the classic error of taken the number of miles traveled by a population as a given and extrapolating from that. The average US motorist drives 12,000 miles a year. I doubt even a Lance Armstrong would bike that much. And motorcycles on average rack up far fewer miles than cars.</p><p>
Personal motor vehicles have the negative of their positive - they are so convenient to use (for the majority of the population) that we use them to death - literally. The annual death toll in the US from collisions is 50,000 or so - that's a 9/11 every three weeks of every year of every decade of the last half century - with an even higher number from health problems due to diminished exercise. We are in total denial about the costs in human suffering and loss directly attributable to our transportation choices. If we look at populations in developed countries which have greater bike use and lower car use than our own we invariably see lower overall death rates. There's little doubt that overall we'd be healthier and live longer with fewer cars, lighter cars, slower cars, smaller cars, less powerful cars.

<p>The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.</p></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Fewer miles, Bill</strong></p><p>so fewer fatalities. You're making the classic error of taken the number of miles traveled by a population as a given and extrapolating from that. The average US motorist drives 12,000 miles a year. I doubt even a Lance Armstrong would bike that much. And motorcycles on average rack up far fewer miles than cars.</p><p>
Personal motor vehicles have the negative of their positive - they are so convenient to use (for the majority of the population) that we use them to death - literally. The annual death toll in the US from collisions is 50,000 or so - that's a 9/11 every three weeks of every year of every decade of the last half century - with an even higher number from health problems due to diminished exercise. We are in total denial about the costs in human suffering and loss directly attributable to our transportation choices. If we look at populations in developed countries which have greater bike use and lower car use than our own we invariably see lower overall death rates. There's little doubt that overall we'd be healthier and live longer with fewer cars, lighter cars, slower cars, smaller cars, less powerful cars.

<p>The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.</p></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #5 by Bob Wallace</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/back-draft/</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 01:33:41 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/back-draft/5</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Step one...</strong></p><p>"The documents seem very one sided. &nbsp;They discuss a potential downside of global warming in great detail, but they make no mention of the down side to their recommendations which is well understood."</p><p>
That may well be. &nbsp;It might be wise to consider the upsides of the EPA report <strong>and</strong> to suggest improvements. &nbsp;Plans and solutions evolve, they do not spring full grown from the womb. &nbsp;</p><p>
It would be foolish to toss out a good idea simply because it could benefit from additional refinement.</p><p>
" For example sales of motorcycles and mopeds are exploding. &nbsp;The motorcycle fatality rate per mile is seven times higher than for cars."</p><p>
Here I wonder if we need some better data. &nbsp;Are there, perhaps, two classes of motorcycle riders? &nbsp;The 'daredevils' and 'responsible' riders? &nbsp;If so, might not fatality rates per mile drop as more responsible, conservative people begin to use motorcycles?</p><p>
(The incidents of motorcycle death/major injury with which I am aware involve people driving way too fast for conditions.)</p><p>
"Econobox cars are less survivable than large cars built with the same level of technology."</p><p>
Even the most basic consideration of the physics of transportation tells us that vehicles need to become lighter (not necessarily smaller). &nbsp;</p><p>
Perhaps we need to give serious rethinking to how light cars can be made safer. &nbsp;We certainly could learn something from the crash box design of Formula 1 race cars.</p><p>
Perhaps we need to significantly reduce speed limits for large vehicles which would decrease the rate of impact with lighter vehicles and increase fuel savings.</p><p>
The really valuable critic doesn't just find problems, they suggest solutions....</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Step one...</strong></p><p>"The documents seem very one sided. &nbsp;They discuss a potential downside of global warming in great detail, but they make no mention of the down side to their recommendations which is well understood."</p><p>
That may well be. &nbsp;It might be wise to consider the upsides of the EPA report <strong>and</strong> to suggest improvements. &nbsp;Plans and solutions evolve, they do not spring full grown from the womb. &nbsp;</p><p>
It would be foolish to toss out a good idea simply because it could benefit from additional refinement.</p><p>
" For example sales of motorcycles and mopeds are exploding. &nbsp;The motorcycle fatality rate per mile is seven times higher than for cars."</p><p>
Here I wonder if we need some better data. &nbsp;Are there, perhaps, two classes of motorcycle riders? &nbsp;The 'daredevils' and 'responsible' riders? &nbsp;If so, might not fatality rates per mile drop as more responsible, conservative people begin to use motorcycles?</p><p>
(The incidents of motorcycle death/major injury with which I am aware involve people driving way too fast for conditions.)</p><p>
"Econobox cars are less survivable than large cars built with the same level of technology."</p><p>
Even the most basic consideration of the physics of transportation tells us that vehicles need to become lighter (not necessarily smaller). &nbsp;</p><p>
Perhaps we need to give serious rethinking to how light cars can be made safer. &nbsp;We certainly could learn something from the crash box design of Formula 1 race cars.</p><p>
Perhaps we need to significantly reduce speed limits for large vehicles which would decrease the rate of impact with lighter vehicles and increase fuel savings.</p><p>
The really valuable critic doesn't just find problems, they suggest solutions....</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #6 by archigeek</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/back-draft/</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 01:44:59 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/back-draft/6</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Holy crap...</strong></p><p>You troll types are TOOO funny! First jabailo with his comment the other day about all liberals being "rich". And now BH with the "fair and balanced" schtick. Dudes, you two should go into stand-up. Oh, but wait, I'm just drinking the liberal Kool-aid. Stop it. You're killing me.

<p>The mellotron is your friend.</p></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Holy crap...</strong></p><p>You troll types are TOOO funny! First jabailo with his comment the other day about all liberals being "rich". And now BH with the "fair and balanced" schtick. Dudes, you two should go into stand-up. Oh, but wait, I'm just drinking the liberal Kool-aid. Stop it. You're killing me.

<p>The mellotron is your friend.</p></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
 </channel>
</rss>