Legislators: Screw The People

Just as I've been saying:

Aggressive New Fuel Economy Standards To Cost Automakers $47 Billion

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Transportation on Tuesday announced that it wants to require automakers to achieve an average 31.6 miles per gallon by 2015 for the cars and trucks they sell in the U.S. — a move that will cost the industry $47 billion over a five-year period.

The proposal will save nearly 55 billion gallons of fuel and result in a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions estimated at 521 million metric tons, said U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters. Meeting the objective would require 4.5 percent annual improvements in fuel efficiency or a 25 percent improvement between 2011 and 2015.

Under the new rules, cars must achieve fuel economy of 35.7 mpg by 2015, up from the current 27.5-mpg standard. Light trucks must improve mileage to 28.6 mpg, up from 22.5 mpg now.

Peters, who noted that she arrived at the press conference in a Saturn Aura hybrid, called the proposal "historically ambitious, yet achievable." The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the lobbying arm of the U.S. auto industry, issued a statement calling the fuel economy proposal "tough" and a "challenge." It added, "We have a responsibility to increase fuel economy and limit greenhouse gas emissions from new automobiles."

What this means to you: The cost of the new fuel efficiency standards will ultimately be passed on to the consumer. — Anita Lienert, Correspondent

Gee, I wonder who's going to foot the bill? Surely not the consumers (as this Antia Lienert woman observes)? Oh wait, yes actually, we consumers will pay for it. And with what result? More expensive vehicles and a negligible impact in pollution or in oil supplies, production, or cost. Here's a hint about carbon dioxide: the planet can take care of it. In fact, that's what trees are excellent at doing: scrubbing the air of C02. Trees and the planet in general have much more trouble with the fancier pollutants, which are already being taken care of by emissions laws and which cost far less to impact than C02. If these schmucks actually cared about decreasing the amount of C02 released, they'd focus on things like coal power plants and industry. But then those businesses who contribute so many billions of dollars might be affected, and lord knows we can't have those who fund politicians upset. No, let's screw over those who can afford it least so a few simpletons can be deceived with a slight of hand that would embarrass the worst amateur magician. Rather than build nuclear power plants and clean up existing ones (which would have much greater impacts on pollution) or let consumers dictate what they're willing to pay (an utterly shocking idea!) let's tack on thousands of dollars to the price of cars so that the poor, who already have difficulties affording vehicles and gas, can have a fuzzy warm feeling in their tummies knowing that some people in Hollywood, Washington DC, and yuppie white suburbs can feel righteous.

Fools.

The Brilliance of Boulderites

Yesterday I had the fortune of being taken out to eat at Sherpa's by Megan and Erin in honor of my birthday as well as for passing comps. (I love me some vindaloo. Gratias, puellae.) As I was driving down to the restaurant around noon, I passed through the intersection at Broadway and Arapahoe. There, half a dozen protesters stood on the corners holding up placards complaining of the war in Iraq. "Occupation Breeds Hatred", said one. Another said something along the lines of "Bring Our Troops Home Now".

Friday, I ran to the union to grab some food from the food court, as I had not eaten before going to campus. Along one of the walkways through the dining area to the entry to the food court stand a number of folding tables, which typically are occupied by solicitors for whatever suits your fancy: intelligent design, chiropracty, skiing, what have you. That day, one of the tables was being used by a group opposed to the war in Darfur, Sudan. A righteous and correct cause, to be certain. But were they collecting donations to buy food and supplies for the people of the region? No. Were they asking for volunteers to go administer aid and relief to the needy? No. They were taking pictures of individuals holding a sign protesting the situation, pictures that they would send or take to a protest in San Francisco against the ongoing aggression and lack of world response.

These are simply two examples of the astounding stupidity, ignorance, and disconnection from reality that seems so symptomatic of people who live in this town. What do they expect to accomplish by preaching to the choir, so to speak, protesting on a street corner in Boulder? What do they hope to change by protesting in San Francisco? Is that city intimately linked with Sudan, or Darfur in particular? Is it geographically close? Is the seat of any government with authority and power to act to change the situation located in San Francisco, or Boulder? What message do they believe themselves to send by snapping a photograph holding a stock sign? Do those protesting against the Iraqi war have the slightest clue as to what the Iraqis wish us to do? Do they even know anyone in the military, much less care enough about the military to make their claims to "support the troops" more than hypocritical lip-service and propaganda? Hypocrites, liars, and fools all.