I believe that the US and its people are becoming exponentially the ME
generation and exponentially more hypocritical than ever. I believe there
is much less concern in my country for anyone but "ME." And in that vein, I
see the driving of SUVs as one of the most dangerous symptoms of it.
SUV alone (no other car accidents) have been stuided by the physician that
headed DOT safety in a way it was never before studied by the usually stupid
DOT (the same agency who lied about how it screwed up 911--all the hidden
tapes will come out and much of them still redacted are available). The
planes could have been prevented from reaching WTC and Homeland Security
actually was three feet from many of the hijackers on the way to the
airport.
No serious hearings have been held by Congress on 911 or on Iraq.
Back to SUVs:
BTW I know the oil use stats. They are all over the NY Times but we are
still funding terrorism in a huge way in the Middle East by being dependent
on their oil. People are stubbornly not going to change rapidly because of
safety or oil dependance. They will change because SUVs morph from the
little Jordash-Jeans momentum Polo Pony on the chest shirt that I see so
often at Technet and MSDN meetings. They will eventually reduce and already
are because they are considered not de riguer "like kuelll."
1) If you are in an SUV and have an accident in your UV only, you have a 16%
greater chance of death or a C2 fracture that will paralyze.
2) 1000 people die in the US every year due to the height of SUVS. The
American people's Congressional response (you know the paradigm and the
dynamic Congress are the whores; lobbyists are the pimps and the Auto and
oil companies are the johns):
The fronts are mandated to be lowered after 2009 when they are manufactured.
None ofthat applies to lowering the big ass dangerous trucks on the road
now. That means that the US Congress's attitude towards those SUV deaths
per year is an enlgithened "screw it so what duh"
The US hasn't updated refineries since the 1950's and 1970's actually.
I think Tom Friedman's articles in the NY Times have the oil consumption
situation dead on.
Friday June 2, 2006
GM keeps the gas flowing and U.S. soldiers in danger
By Thomas L. Friedman
Is there a company more dangerous to America's future than General
Motors? Surely, the sooner this company gets taken over by Toyota, the
better off our country will be.
Why? Like a crack dealer looking to keep his addicts on a tight leash,
GM announced its "fuel price protection program" on May 23. If you live in
Florida or California and buy certain GM vehicles by July 5, the company
will guarantee you gasoline at a cap price of $1.99 a gallon for one year —
with no limit on mileage. Guzzle away.
As the Associated Press explained the program, each month for one
year, GM will give customers who buy these cars "a credit on a prepaid card
based on their estimated fuel usage. Fuel usage will be calculated by the
miles they drive, as recorded by OnStar, and the vehicle's fuel economy
rating. GM will credit drivers the difference between the average price per
gallon in their state and the $1.99 cap." Consumers won't get any credits if
gas prices fall below $1.99.
"This program gives consumers an opportunity to experience the highly
fuel-efficient vehicles GM has to offer in the midsize segment," Dave
Borchelt, GM's southeast general manager, said in the company's official
statement. Oh, really?
Eligible vehicles in California include the 2006 and 2007 Chevrolet
Tahoe and Suburban (half-ton models only), Impala and Monte Carlo sedans,
GMC Yukon and Yukon XL SUVs (half-ton models only), Hummer H2 and H3 SUVs,
the Cadillac SRX SUV, and the Pontiac Grand Prix and Buick Lucerne sedans.
Eligible vehicles in Florida include the 2006 and 2007 Chevrolet Impala and
Monte Carlo, Pontiac Grand Prix and Buick LaCrosse.
Let's see, the 6,400-pound Hummer H2 averages around nine miles per
gallon. It really is great that GM is giving more Americans the opportunity
to experience nine-miles-per-gallon driving. And the hulking Chevy Suburban
gets around 15 miles per gallon. It will be wonderful if more Americans can
experience that, too — with GM-subsidized gas.
Our military is in a war on terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan with an
enemy who is fueled by our gasoline purchases. So we are financing both
sides in the war on terror. And what are we doing about that? Not only is GM
subsidizing its gas-guzzlers, but not a single member of Congress, liberal
or conservative, will stand up and demand what most of them know: that we
must have some kind of gasoline tax to compel Americans to buy more
fuel-efficient vehicles and to compel Detroit to make them.
Where are the presidential aspirants on this issue? I have yet to hear
John McCain, Mitt Romney, George Allen, Al Gore or Hillary Clinton support
at least a $3.50 floor price for gasoline, so that it will never fall below
that level and the alternatives can really flower and spread.
But if you go to GM's Web site, you will see an ad with a young
African-American boy saluting an American flag, above the following offer
for U.S. military personnel: "In appreciation of your commitment to our
country, GM extends a $500 exclusive offer to active duty military and
reserves when you purchase or lease select 2005, 2006 or 2007 GM cars,
trucks and SUVs — just show your military ID!"
That's really touching. First GM offers a gasoline subsidy so more
Americans can get hooked on nine-mile-per-gallon Hummers, and then it offers
a discount to the soldiers who have to protect the oil lines to keep GM's
gas guzzlers guzzling. Here's a rule of thumb: The more Hummers we have on
the road in America, the more military Humvees we will need in the Middle
East.
You want to do something patriotic, GM, Ford and Daimler-Chrysler? Why
don't you stop using your diminishing pools of cash to buy votes so Congress
will never impose improved mileage standards? That kind of strategy is why
Toyota today is worth $198.9 billion and GM $15.8 billion. GM is worth just
slightly more than Harley-Davidson, the motorcycle company ($13.6 billion).
President Bush remarked the other day how agonizingly tough it is for
a president to send young Americans to war. Yet, he's ready to do that, but
he's not ready to look Detroit or Congress in the eye and demand that we put
in place the fuel-efficiency legislation that will weaken the forces of
theocracy and autocracy that are killing our soldiers in Iraq and
Afghanistan — because it might cost Republicans votes or campaign
contributions.
This whole thing is a travesty. We can't keep asking young Americans
to make the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan if we as a society
are not ready to make even the most minimal sacrifice to help them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York Times News Service
_____________________
http://www.radicalleft.net/blog/_archives/2006/6/14/2031380.html
Thomas Friedman: G.M. - Again...Subsidizing Gas=Guzzling Hummers
by jo swift at 07:19PM (CEST) on June 14, 2006 | Permanent Link | Cosmos
Every American and Every American
Company Must Reduce Gas Consumption
As long as G.M. is giving away $1.99 gasoline for its gas guzzlers, I will
be a harsh critic.
On May 31 I wrote a column accusing General Motors of acting irresponsibly
by offering unlimited gasoline at $1.99 a gallon for one year to anyone who
buys certain of its midsize sedans, big S.U.V.'s or gas-guzzling Hummers in
California or Florida.
At a time when we are at war in the Middle East, with an enemy who is
indirectly financed by our energy purchases, it seems to me that every
American, and every American company, has an obligation to reduce oil
consumption.
No one should be making a huge gas-guzzling Hummer, and no one should be
driving one, and no one - certainly not G.M. - should be subsidizing people
to drive them.
After the May 31 column appeared, G.M.'s vice president for global
communications, Steven J. Harris, and his colleagues denounced my argument
in a formal statement and on G.M.'s corporate blog. This is an important
issue, so let me respond to their response.
To begin with, I would much prefer to see G.M. thriving and growing American
jobs - not selling itself off, limb by limb. But as long as G.M. is giving
away $1.99 gasoline for its gas guzzlers, I will be a harsh critic.
Pardon me if - at a time when China is imposing higher mileage standards
than America - I don't want to join the many congressmen and senators in
drinking G.M.'s Kool-Aid and not demanding that it become the most
fuel-efficient automaker in the world.
If more people in Washington insisted that G.M. focus on building cars that
could compete in a world of $3.99 gasoline, rather than creating an
artificial universe of $1.99 gasoline, G.M. would not be worrying about
bankruptcy today.
G.M. says that the cars chosen for its $1.99 gas giveaway were chosen
because of "their outstanding fuel economy and great consumer appeal."
It also says that G.M. makes more cars that get an E.P.A.-estimated 30 miles
per gallon on the highway than any other company.
Fact: G.M. also sells more cars that get 9 to 11 m.p.g. - the Hummer - than
any other company.
And even though G.M. justified the $1.99 program as giving consumers a
chance to drive some of its most fuel-efficient cars, it did not include its
best-selling, most fuel-efficient model, the Chevy Aveo (35 m.p.g. highway),
in the program, but did include seven gas-guzzling trucks.
G.M. still does not have a hybrid sedan on the market (one is due this
summer) - nine years after Toyota introduced the 45-m.p.g. Prius hybrid,
which G.M. scoffed at at the time.
Stephanie Salter, a columnist writing in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star, did a
spoof about G.M.'s $1.99 gas giveaway by imagining what other
less-than-healthy consumer companies might now do:
"Today R.J. Reynolds Corp. announced a new 'smoke more/pay less' instant
rebate program for most of its cigarette brands. Time-dated coupons will be
included in every pack of RJR cigarettes.
"Tobacco consumers who collect 10 same-brand coupons in five days can redeem
them for a pack costing $1. The only brands not covered by the coupon
program are the company's cigarettes with very low tar and nicotine
content."
Next, G.M.'s Harris asked: "How is offering a gas card that may be worth
$1,000 any different or more sinister than the $2,000 cash rebate that
Toyota's offering right now nationwide on its full-size S.U.V., the
Sequoia?"
Fact: Reading that question you'd think that G.M. was giving away cheap gas
instead of big S.U.V. rebates.
The truth: We called G.M. dealers in California who said that under the new
program they were authorized to offer $5,000 discounts on the 2006 Suburban
and Tahoe S.U.V.'s - which are like the Sequoia - in addition to G.M.'s
unlimited $1.99 gas for a year. I guess Mr. Harris just forgot that.
Yes, Toyota makes trucks and S.U.V.'s, just like G.M. I am not against
either. Some people need them, others enjoy them. But I don't think we
should be subsidizing gasoline so people who don't need them will buy them
or buy the most gas-guzzling versions. G.M. says its full-size S.U.V.'s get
better mileage than Toyota's.
All I know is that Consumer Reports rates all size S.U.V.'s for fuel
efficiency, reliability and performance. Toyota and Honda S.U.V.'s are its
top picks in every size category.
Thomas Friedman/NYT via Ed Strong
CH
