Frankly, I'm inclined to agree w/ Mesrs. Clements and Stevens. Social
engineering is rude and antithetical to the foundations of this country. We
have far too much of it already. When mass transit can handle only about
7-10% of the population, I'm not ready to give up my car. But I do drive a
car that gets 30+ mpg for commuting. I found that motorbikes are really not
that cheap when you have to buy a $70 tire every 5K miles and $200 shocks
every 15K or so.
Yes, I would like to see the SUV population cut in half or more, but they
are the unintended consequence of social engineering. Remember when Joan
Clabrook and Ralph Nader thought it would be a good idea for the nation's
automotive fleet to get 27mpg? Overpriced FWD econoboxes and family sedans
are the direct result. The old family station wagon w/ its overengineered
frame and drivetrain went the way of the Studebaker (covered wagon varity)
and we didn't have family movers and tow cars anymore. Enter the SUV,
otherwise known as a TRUCK. While I enjoy the better handling, reliabilty
and fuel efficiency of today's modern cars (particularly the RWD models), we
have given up 3.56:1 axle ratios, 7 & 8 liter engines and heavy, rugged body
on frame construction... well... except for trucks.
That is the sort of result you get when social engineering overules the
marketplace. Another example is ethanol "oxygenate" in gasoline (thank you
Mr. Bush!). The energy cost of production of ethanol is a zero-sum game, or
worse. It takes as much energy to plant the crop, harvest it and process it
to ethanol as you get out of it when burning it. Plus, the avowed purpose
of oxygenate is to make the engine it is burned in run leaner. Don't look
now folks, but the computer in your car is smarter than the idiots in the
EPA (and White House on this one). When the O2 sensor in the exhaust pipe
sees a lean mixture, it just rings up the engine room for more fuel, thus
obviating the effect of the oxygenate. As a result, you just get poorer
mileage AND emit more hydrocarbon vapors from the gas tanks and storage
tanks, creating more NOx. Yessiree, let's have more of that good ole
social engineering.
Mike (96 ImpalaSS, 89 Honda Civic SI daily driver)
climbing down off my soapbox now
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan Gruner <algruner@yahoo.com>
To: <mrclem@telocity.com>; <Nandaholz@aol.com>; <ba-autox@autox.team.net>
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 3:47 PM
Subject: RE: Cheap Gas?
> Well it looks like a few of us woke on the FAR right
> side of the bed this morning. :-)
>
> --- "Michael R. Clements" <mrclem@telocity.com> wrote:
> > Sure, yeah, let's tax the heck out of gas (and
> > diesel) like other countries
> > do. Since just about everything is transported by
> > vehicles that burn gas or
> > diesel, we can make everything cost more. This would
> > be great for the economy!
> > And it would have another salient benefit: we could
> > carry things on our backs
> > instead of transporting them with vehicles that use
> > fossil fuels. Not only
> > would this give us cleaner air, it would create
> > thousands of jobs overnight!
> >
> > But why stop there? We could also adopt the
> > socialist economies of other
> > countries, so we can enjoy right here at home the
> > benefits of double digit
> > inflation and unemployment, without having to travel
> > to Europe!
> >
> > Seriously, consider that gas powered vehicles so far
> > outnumber "alternative"
> > transportation, that making new gas powered vehicles
> > even 1% more efficient
> > would lower overall pollution far more than a fleet
> > of electric cars ever
> > would. When you consider that the millions /
> > billions of dollars spent so far
> > on electric cars and other "alternative"
> > technologies, in the absence of
> > government subsidies, would have been spent on
> > current gas technology, we
> > might have cleaner air today if these programs had
> > never been enacted.
> >
> > In short, as Kevin says, social engineering sucks.
> > Not only does it rarely
> > (never?) achieve its intended objective, it usually
> > exacerbates the very
> > problems it was intended to solve, leaving a morass
> > for future generations to
> > fix.
> >
> > just my $0.02. P.S. my sarcasm is directed at the
> > idea, not at any person.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net
> > [mailto:owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net]On Behalf Of
> > Nandaholz@aol.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 09:06
> > To: ba-autox@autox.team.net
> > Subject: Re: Cheap Gas?
> >
> >
> > I really think we need to increase gas prices....say
> > up to $5 per gallon like
> > in other markets around the world. This would have a
> > serious impact on the
> > amount of single occupancy cars and FUV's on the
> > road, and would promote
> > alternative transportation like motorcycles and
> > smaller hybrid vehicles. Maybe
> > more attention would be devoted to telecommuting,
> > shifted work schedules etc.
> >
> > .. just my $0.02
> > ~Nanda
> Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
> http://buzz.yahoo.com/
|