His stance on ethanol sets Cal professor apart

Contra Costa Times ^ | 9/26/5 | Judy Silber

[CSM]

" guess you favor lifting all regulations off cars so that we can do without any safety features, pollution features, etc."

Yes, I advocate returning to the point where the consumer (market) decides the level of safety that they would like to purchase and the fuel efficiency they want. We would get a much better performing vehicle almost immediately and the market would be created to invest in new engine technology.

Keep holding the auto industry back with your continual support of government regulation.

[thackney]

"I have read the constitution several times and I still can't find a reference to a freedom to breath clean air. Can you point me in the right direction?"

You may want to go read it again. Our individual freedoms cannot infringe on other peoples freedoms. That is why we have laws beyond the constitution--to ensure that your personal freedom does not infringe or limit mine.

Again, tell me how this differs from limiting how far you are "allowed" to drive for a vacation? How large a home you heat and cool? How much fuel your recreation consumes?

[Hendrix]

"I would like you to defend your claim that the majority of truck owners never haul anything in them. I have never meet a truck owner who never used it to haul anything."

Unless you hang around people in the construction business or farmers, I would bet if you ask people how often they haul anything (other than groceries), you will find that most people will tell you that they rarely haul anything that requires a truck or an SUV. I have owned several trucks and one SUV, and I rarely hauled anything in them. How many times a year do you really need a sheet of plywood or anything else that requires a truck?

[spunkets]

" We already have fuel efficiency standards on cars, and it makes sense to adjust them like we have done with every other product that uses efficiency, including every appliance that you own. "

ALmost all of these standards are simply statements of what is readily available for simple low cost design of any paritcular performance level for an engineered product. What the greens are calling for is extreme cost, low performance and banning everything else. Low performance includes having the product banned altogether.

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

OK, nice bio, now where in the hell was the beef????????????

[jonascord]

You surrendered your "right" to breathe clean air when you chose to live in a city, near other humans. Humans pollute. They heat their homes, they breathe, they cook, they eat beans and emit methane. They drive cars, buses, trucks, trains, ships so that you can eat. They burn coal and natural gas so you can watch TV and make half-considered statements on your computer.

My "neighbors" are far enough away so that the report of my .30-06 is a soft thud. Not everyone wants to live in someone else's back pocket. We use the Suburban to take the trailer into town for loads of feed, repair the mower, drop off the washer. Out here in the Tall and Uncut, the idea of "banning" SUVs, (pickup trucks that keep the dog warm) and pickups is a non-starter.

[-YYZ-]

The farmers want ethanol because it increases demand for corn and gives them a reason to farm, even though it does not make sense to do it from an energy policy point of view.

To be more exact, farmers want corn to ethanol fuel production because it increases demand and prices for corn that is already in oversupply since its production is subsidized. Farm subsidies are big business (and a lot of them are paid to big businesses, too, not the relatively small independent operator that they are supposed support).

[Old Professer]

How are you getting it started and what are you doing with the empty cans?:)

[Hendrix]

"Again, tell me how this differs from limiting how far you are "allowed" to drive for a vacation? How large a home you heat and cool? How much fuel your recreation consumes?"

There are no regulations on any of that, but WE HAVE HAD FUEL EFFICIENCY STANDARS FOR CARS FOR MANY YEARS. ADJUSTING THEM TO HELP SAVE ENEGY (LIKE WE HAVE DONE FOR EVERY APPLICANCE IN YOUR HOME) WOULD NOT BE COMMUNISIM, DESPITE THE ARGUMENTS ON THIS BOARD.

[hlmencken3]

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/pas/publications/facts/html/feedgrains03.htm

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Agriculture/BG1510.cfm

[thackney]

"Higher efficiency means MORE not less driving which will increase consumption there for driving demand"

That is a false assumption. You are assuming that people will choose to drive more if their cars get better gas mileage. I don't think that will be the case. Most people drive the amount needed to go to work, etc., so they are not going to just choose to start driving more because their cars get better gas mileage.

Do you disagree that people do limit their fuel consumption because of the recent rise in fuel expense? I see people doing more car pooling, better job of combining their trips. Do you think this is only a one-way cause & effect?

[Hendrix]

To be more exact, farmers want corn to ethanol fuel production because it increases demand and prices for corn that is already in oversupply since its production is subsidized. Farm subsidies are big business (and a lot of them are paid to big businesses, too, not the relatively small independent operator that they are supposed support).

I agree. You said it better than I did.

[CSM]

"I do what makes the most sense and let the chips fall where they may."

Don't let facts get in the way of your emotions tho'.

[radioman]

As I understand it, any more than 10% ethanol in U.S. cars would ruin the engine.

Alcohol will not ruin the engine. In fact, alcohol will extend the life of your engine. Some fuel pump diaphrams will deteriiorate with alcohol. This is a minor, easily solved problem. You can switch to run straight alcohol cheaply with off the shelf parts.
.

[Liberty Tree Surgeon]

By that standard, no one can do anything...one cannot even go to the bathroom without imposing "externalities."

I guess what this means is: I cannot argue against your position, so I am going to claim the problem is too complicated to understand (even though we know how much it has cost the country in the Mid-East over the last 15 years through two major wars and all the other aid). Until the US is involved in a war over water rights, flushing the toilet is not likely to lead to issues of strategic importance.

[B Knotts]

SUVs became popular as an unintended consequence of the very fuel efficiency standards you like so much.

The end result was more, not less, fuel used. People bought larger vehicles to replace the full-size cars they could no longer buy.

[Hendrix]

"To be more exact, farmers want corn to ethanol fuel production because it increases demand and prices for corn that is already in oversupply since its production is subsidized. Farm subsidies are big business (and a lot of them are paid to big businesses, too, not the relatively small independent operator that they are supposed support)."


I agree that people have cut consumption from the costs, but I dont' think that people will drive twice as much if our cars get twice the gas mileage and nullify the higher fuel efficiency as you claim. It won't happen.

[CSM]

That doesn't connect your "right to breath clean air" to freedom. Try again.

[B Knotts]

So, your basic point is that we are fighting a war for oil, eh?

[antiRepublicrat]

I would really like to see a regulation that required a vehicle to be heavier. I suspect, that the automobile manufacture chose this method to meet crash test requirements.

The requirements for ABS and airbags added a lot of weight. The biggest weight addition was replacing the small, light engine with a heavier one that had already undergone the prohibitively expensive tests for American emissions standards (as opposed to the stringent European standards it already met). But we do have insurance-industry-bought bumper requirements, so the manufacturer had to get a hardship exemption from bumper rules, and also headlight rules (for this car, the bumper and headlamp issues are related).

All that also upped the price over 30%. That's your government looking out for you.