[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

Re: E-M:/ Re: Studies that study nothing, reports that reportnothing -Reply



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enviro-Mich message from JerrodM@aol.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a message dated 97-11-24 16:12:57 EST, Pete Pasterz writes:
 >>There are a few, small, underappointed and underpowered cars available
that we can  "choose", but the point was that the average for all vehicles
should (and can) be much  higher.  Just like the pollution reductions in cars
that we achieved, so can we change the  technology of the engines to use
fuels more efficiently.   Just look at the Rosen (owner of  Compaq computers)
jet-flywheel system, the hydrogen engine being developed by an east  coast
company, or even the Electric/gas hybrid car introduced in Japan by Toyota.
<<  
 
Ah, where to begin? With the facts, the dreams or the delusions of grandeur?
PP and his ilk, not satisfied with the free choices made by tens of millions
of people, have appointed themselves the arbiters of that "should and can
be." Regarding the other pie-in-sky concepts, maybe they will eventually pan
out (but at what price?), but these have all been around for decades. I spent
time in the late 60's on some of these ideas, and I suppose that others will
be touting them when all the readers of this list are long gone.

 >>People don't buy them [45 mpg cars now available] because they have been
1) convinced that  bigger = safer (which is only true as long as the spread
between the mass of vehicles is increasing such as the current
self-fulfilling prophesy of the sale of more units of trucks--including
SUV's--than cars in the U.S.) 

   Jerrod: Not true. Bigger provides greater crush distance and padding in
single vehicle incidents. Has little or nothing to do with delta-mass.
Besides, your argument turns on itself, because your crowd has been the one
trying to force an abnormally great differential by pushing for artificial
controls on mpg.


>>and that Trucks are the most desirable in terms of personal image (Power,
outdoors image); 

   Jerrod: As opposed to those who used to say (or still do?) that a VW bug
was the most desirable?


>>and 2) misled by the false economics of motor fuels--that is that as we
deplete them, and they increase our global climate change the cost (adjusted
for inflation)  GOES DOWN!   You can bet that values would change radically
if the cost at the pump would double. (remember 1973-1978 and the sales of
Japanese vehicles)

   Jerrod: Guess they can't be being depleted if the cost goes down, non?
Unless you have invented a new reverse kind of supply/demand economics, that
is. Of course if gas prices were to climb, smaller cars would be relatively
more attractive and relative demand would increase. The market does work, and
I'm glad to see that you acknowledge that fact.


>>This "convincing" (read marketing, advertising.....) is because the auto
industry knows that they can sell these vehicles at a much HIGHER PROFIT than
cars of any kind, let alone not having to spend $$ on R&D to design a more
efficient transportation system.

   Jerrod: Partially true. There's an old saying in the auto industry that
you can put in $10 of value for $5 of cost. What's wrong with that?
 
>>The only features lost are: Hauling .5 to 1 ton of cargo, towing heavy
equipment, or getting  traction in off-road travels.   How many people REALLY
need to do these things daily,  weekly, monthly or even yearly???   Most of
these vehicles are used for commuting/errand  running, which can be done by
foot, on a bike, on a bus, in a train, in a small car, in a big car--all more
efficiently than in a truck.<<
 
   Jerrod: You can't be serious. I once saw an analysis like this that
observed that toilets are almost never used, and therefore are "inefficient."
You might try to remember that efficiency is proportional to output and
inversely proportional to input, and that lots of people can have different
ideas about how to measure those quantities. It's the height of arrogance to
substitute your definition of "output" or "need" for that of the person
actually putting up the money. Tch, tch.


==============================================================
ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at
http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/

Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info enviro-mich"
==============================================================