On June 22, all three networks covered the Senate bill mandating higher automobile fuel efficiency. NBC's "Today" only ran an anchor brief on the story, but ABC's "Good Morning America" and CBS's "The Early Show" both ran short stories on the news.
On "Good Morning America" David Kerley spun it in a positive fashion hypothesizing the bill "should save you some money." They then played the clip of Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) hailing passage of the bill implying the United States will be less dependent on Middle Eastern oil. GMA did play a clip of General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner stating "we think there are ways to do it that are smarter," but there was no mention of the potential increased danger of automobile accidents as documented by the CATO Institute.
CBS's "The Early Show" ran a generally positive story on the bill, but did include some skepticism. Reporter Kelly Wallace asserting that "evironmentalists" are "hailing the compromise as a win for the environment and the consumer." CBS also ran the Senator Feinstein sound bite. However, Wallace noted some unintended consquences.
"But auto industry analysts say there could be unintended consequences. The last time Congress mandated fuel efficiency standards for cars, Americans ditched their station wagons for larger, heavier trucks on the road."
"The Early Show" also included the safety concern and ran a sound bite from Rebecca Lindland Global Insight, a skeptic of the new standards.
"[The American people] don't really want to change their lifestyle. They want to protect their family. Do you sacrifice the safety of your family and get a small, light vehicle in order to save a tree?"
—Justin McCarthy is a news analyst at Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I find it completely disingen
June 22, 2007 - 13:46 ET by Agnostic frontI find it completely disingenuious that Global Insight believes that the auto industry doesn't have the wherewithal to increase fuel efficiency while maintaining the same or better level of safety. Are less fuel-efficient cars necessarily safer? No. Safety does not have to go hand-in-hand with the weight of the car.
BTW, what the hell does saving a tree have to do with having more fuel-efficient vehicles?
I pretty much agree with you.
June 22, 2007 - 14:52 ET by ferrarimanf355I pretty much agree with you. I think the auto industry is hypocritical about suddenly being interested in saftey, nevemind the SUV rollovers that caused 12,000 deaths over the past decade.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/rollover/
Uzumaki/Ayanami '08. Because a ninja and an Eva pilot can govern the nation better that what we have now...
"...nevemind the SUV r
June 22, 2007 - 15:00 ET by MightyMouth"...nevemind the SUV rollovers that caused 12,000 deaths over the past decade"
Not to mention the number of very happy and rich trial lawyers that SUV rollovers have been responsible for.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
"I pretty much agree w
June 22, 2007 - 15:10 ET by ckc1227"I pretty much agree with you. I think the auto industry is hypocritical
about suddenly being interested in saftey, nevemind the SUV rollovers
that caused 12,000 deaths over the past decade."
Hmm, 12,000 deaths because of SUV rollovers, 402,000 other auto deaths unrelated to SUV rollovers. And how many SUV driver lives were saved because they were driving an SUV?I know of one from first hand experience.
I'll stick to my SUV.
"I find it completely
June 22, 2007 - 15:01 ET by ckc1227"I find it completely disingenuious that Global Insight believes that
the auto industry doesn't have the wherewithal to increase fuel
efficiency while maintaining the same or better level of safety."
You're probably right. I mean, I'm sure you know much more about making safe, fuel efficient cars than the car companies and those who are experts on the industry.
Personally, I'm tired of them holding back on the flying car with the time travel option that is fueled by garbage. It's a conspiracy, I tell ya. Damned evil, greedy-corporations-that-don't-want-to-make-money-even-though-eveyone-knows- they-are-evil-and-greedy.
Let's see...plastic is lighte
June 22, 2007 - 15:35 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveLet's see...plastic is lighter than steel.
Steel is stronger than plastic.
Hmmm...I would say that safety is related to weight, but not exclusively. There can be other factors however, many very light-weight "space-age" materials are very expensive and therefore not appealing/compelling enough to the majority of consumers.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson
Does the Senate think they ca
June 22, 2007 - 13:47 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveDoes the Senate think they can legislate the laws of physics and thermodynamics?
Gasoline can only be so efficient...there is a finite amount of kinetic and thermal energy in a gallon of gasoline. Auto makers may be able to make engines a bit more fuel efficient, but they will eventually hit a wall (if they haven't already).
The senate would do better to implement legislation that phased out aging coal-fired electricity plant in order to build nuclear power plants instead. And to allow more oil refineries to be built in the U.S. as well as drilling in ANWR.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson
I agree, Meany, that Nuclear
June 22, 2007 - 13:56 ET by Agnostic frontI agree, Meany, that Nuclear power plants should be used to supplant all fossel fuel plants. Much cleaner (relatively) and much safer than they used to be. I disagree that cars cannot be made more fuel-efficient. They have no incentive to do so because the majority of people can still (barely) afford to buy gas. It'll cost the car manufacturers and consumers more up front, but the overall consumer savings, both in fuel costs and resource costs, would be enormous.
I didn't say they couldn't ma
June 22, 2007 - 14:07 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveI didn't say they couldn't make cars more efficient. I mean they can make them that much more efficient than they already are (see my link in my first post). Think about it: if Ford went to market with a sedan (seats four adults comfortably) that got 60 or more miles to the gallon, who is going to sell a crap-load of cars? For other car companies to overcome the initial market share of a high-mpg car would be difficult, especially if Ford's car was well built, reliable, and decently priced. There is incentive. Ford spent over a billion dollard on developing the Contour line a few years back...it was a relative flop. They have the money, the R&D, etc....the problem is gasoline can only do so much.
Also, you said tha nuclear power plants are "much cleaner (relatively)". There is nothing relative between a power plant that emits all kinds of chemicals and pollution and a powerplant that has absolutely ZERO emissions.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson
There is a problem with what
June 22, 2007 - 14:11 ET by Agnostic frontThere is a problem with what to do with the nuclear waste. However, that problem is much more easy to deal with than the pollution generated by fossel fuel plants.
The EIA scientists have appro
June 22, 2007 - 14:24 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveThe EIA scientists have approved Yucca Mountain in Nevada for permanent storage of nuclear waste. France has no problem with their waste (and they don't have permanent storage facilities). The only ones with the "problem" are the NIMBY people/politicians that feel that way because of ignorance/misinformation on the subject.
BTW, an average sized reactor produces about 1 cubic meter of waste in a year's time.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson
I think what he Ag is alludin
June 22, 2007 - 14:12 ET by dscottI think what he Ag is alluding to is the radio active waste, it is a problem, but could dealt with if we recinded idiot boob Carter's executive order ban on Breeder Reactors (they use the high level waste for the old fuel rods.)
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
You are wrong.
June 22, 2007 - 14:53 ET by c5thenGas, is no more expensive today than it was in the late 1970's if you adjust for inflation .
I just ran the numbers and compared two cars for a year of driving. One gets 25mpg and one gets 35mpg. Assuming they both drive the average of 12,000 miles the total gasoline savings that one can expect (with gas at $2.70 per gallon) is......wait for it......$370.
So today to get 35mpg you probably have to go with a Hybrid. Hybrids are running $5000 more to buy. So...to get your money back from the investment in a hybrid, you will have to keep it for over 13 years.
Even if the difference were double (25mpg vs 50mpg) you still have to drive the hybrid for 7 years to get any payback from the higher initial investment.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
I have a 98 Nissan Sentra. Wh
June 22, 2007 - 15:11 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveI have a 98 Nissan Sentra. When I bought it in 1998, it had 13 miles on the odometer...it now has 175,000 miles on it (around 40,000 miles of it were in Germany on the autobahns). I consistently get 36 miles to the gallon with normal driving (mix of city and highway). Strictly highway mileage can reach up to about 42-45 miles per gallon depending on terrain. No need for me to get a hybrid yet. It's been a good economical car, keeping up with tune-ups, oil changes, and scheduled maintenance have allowed me to continue to get the advertized mileage Nissan said it would get...and I only use about 30 gallons of gas and drive around 1200 miles every month.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson
you have a point there meany.
June 22, 2007 - 16:14 ET by PKyou have a point there meany.
however:
its not so much the feds that cause the heartburn its the local fools. the los angeles area has been nimbying about an lpg unloading terminal now for about 35 years.
think about this.
lpg gas is a byproduct out of the wells in the persian gulf. they have to burn it in huge flares to get rid of it. for 30 years the europeans have been collecting this stuff and transporting it to major terminals in holland. no problems.
the nimby's worry about explosions (the only place that it is economically practical to put one of these facilities is about 6 miles from the nearest habitation. ) but they worry about explosions.
(they also ignore the fact that there was an explosion of a garden variety crude oil tanker much closer into habitation that threw the equivilent of a 20 unit apartment building up onto the pier about 100 yards and the major result to the public was a lot of windows on san pedro hill had to be replaced. )
if i were a conspiracist i would speculate that there is a group of professional "nimby stirers" that attack any and all beneficial projects for economical reasons. this stuff just doesn't add up to anything else.
C
The Heritage Foundation came
June 22, 2007 - 13:53 ET by dscottThe Heritage Foundation came out with a report http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1512.cfm on the effects of the new bill in the Senate proposed by Democrats. The net effect is higher fuel prices with little increased supply. As the old saying goes, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Click the link to see what the price of gas will be like in your state by 2016 if the Democrats have their way.
After a close reading of the Heritage Foundations report on their calculations, it should be noted that population increase was not factored into these estimates. I confirmed via email with Mr. Beach that indeed the population increase projected by the Census Bureau of some 22 million people to 2016 was not considered since they needed a proper baseline to calculate the effect of these policies. The bottom line here is the estimates by the Heritage Foundation are extremely conservative in their projections.
The Democrat Party bears much if not all the blame for current gasoline prices. It was their magical thinking policies that increased demand (unrestrained immigration) and constrained energy production (blocking nuclear power and refineries) for the last 30 years that have brought us to this point. What are they going to do in 2025 when the population reaches 350 million and gas hits $10/gallon? Who will they blame then? Will they be driving electric cars? I think not, since there won’t be enough electricity to charge them in any event. Why? The same foolishness they perpetrated with the refineries, they have also done with nuclear power and other forms of electrical generation. Will we be driving hydrogen powered cars? I think not, it takes oil, coal, natural gas or nuclear power to produce the hydrogen. The train wreck is coming because the Democrats are the engineers of this runaway locomotive.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
So the twelve years that the
June 22, 2007 - 14:01 ET by Agnostic frontSo the twelve years that the Republicans controlled Congress play no part in the current gas prices? Why didn't they allow more refineries to be built during the first six years of Bush's term of office? You state that the lack of refineries is one of the major reasons for the high gas prices, yet the Repub's had ample opportunity to change this, and despite the image of being in tight with the oil industry, failed to do so.
That is correct, the Dems blo
June 22, 2007 - 14:04 ET by dscottThat is correct, the Dems blocked every attempt and placed enough regulations to make it a financial loser for the oil companies in this country, hence they continue to build refineries in "other" countries. Once the bills are passed and the regulations are in place, it is virtually impossible to reverse their implimentation.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
This problem go back to Jimmy
June 22, 2007 - 14:20 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveThis problem go back to Jimmy Carter and beyond. The roots of today's gas prices and lack of supply are found in the environmental movement of the 70's and the lobbying of congress by environmentalists ever since then.
BTW, in real inflation-adjusted dollars, gas prices aren't much different than prices 20-30 years ago.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson
This problem go back to Jimmy
June 22, 2007 - 14:18 ET by Mean Gene Dr. Love**edit** I replied to the wrong person.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson
This is a "GREEN"
June 22, 2007 - 14:04 ET by JayTeeThis is a "GREEN" Bill, not a Fuel Efficiency Bill.
It does nothing to open up "Access" to drilling sites so the Oil companies can explore for Oil. Nothing to INCREASE American Reserves.
It does nothing but Penalize the Auto Industry. The American Consumer has to Penalize the Auto industry, not Congress. Then the Auto Industry will comply..in spite of Congress.
Look like the 14% approval rating for Congress is safe. That must be the number of Tree Huggers in the US.....and they RUN CONGRESS while the other 86% of us look on.
Here comes the voters......Here comes the voters.....in 2008....watch out Dems!
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
If the government didn't mand
June 22, 2007 - 14:07 ET by Agnostic frontIf the government didn't mandate it, we'd still be driving cars without seatbelts. Consumers didn't demand seatbelts, and the car manufacturers sure as hell weren't going to invest time an effort into them without legislation. Sometimes the manufacturer needs a little nudge.
Hmmm... buy a car with seat
June 22, 2007 - 14:11 ET by MightyMouthHmmm... buy a car with seatbelts or one without seatbelts? Tough choice as a consumer. Yeah, you're right I need the government to tell me the proper thing to do. I am just waiting for a legislative mandate before I start flossing.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
That's not the point, is it?
June 22, 2007 - 19:58 ET by balboaThat's not the point, is it? There were no seatbelts before the gov't. mandated them, right? So you had no choice.
"If the government did
June 22, 2007 - 14:49 ET by ckc1227"If the government didn't mandate it, we'd still be driving cars without seatbelts."
Right, and I don't soak myself in gasoline and set myself on fire because of the little warning on the gas pump that says "flammable".
Livin' in Alaska, I'm jus
June 22, 2007 - 16:06 ET by Army BratLivin' in Alaska, I'm just waitin' for some nutcake imported lib from the lower 48 to try and legislate the wearing of warm clothing in the winter...
In 89 I got creamed by a semi on my lil' 650 Kawi and couldn't ride for a while. I bought an 89 Daihatsu Charade that carried me 200,000 miles at 54 hwy and 43 city before it got too ugly to do my work out of. My other choice at the time was a Geo Metro...EPA 68 hwy and I can't recall what the city mileage was. When I tapped the front fender with my middle knuckle just above the arc, I left a dent. The Daihatsu didn't dent so I bought it.
What the hell happened? 68 MPG in 89 for cryin' out loud! Where should we be now? Happy Trails...
ABi've been driving full size
June 22, 2007 - 16:24 ET by PKAB
i've been driving full sized chevrolet pickups since 1979.
i have been driven into in the rear against the bumper 13 times.
i drove away from every one of them. (the worst bent the bumper somewhat but two weeks later an idiot highschool kid hit me and straightened it out.)
more of half of the incidents were people with cellphones stuffed into their ears.
most of the rest were drunks.
at least half of the other guys had to be hauled off on a flatbed wrecker because they were junk back to the firewall.
i have driven geo metro's as rental cars.
i drive detroit iron in self defense.
by the way my insurance agent puts his family in a hummer 2 for the same reason.
C
OMG! Yer not cripp
June 22, 2007 - 19:41 ET by Army BratOMG! Yer not crippled yet? If I'd been hit that many times I'd be drivin' a freakin' tank! I guess I'm pretty lucky. I have nearly a million miles of drivin' in various cars and on motorcycles and have only been hit 4 times. Once on my bike. My point is though...we should be driving safe,highMPG cars by now. If they got 68 MPG in an 89 Geo, (without batteries that cost a bunch to replace),even if it is a death trap...they should be doing a hell of a lot better by now. Of course, in reality, it's all market driven. We get what we ask for as consumers. Still...68 MPG in 89 and nothing close to it,in the U.S. I understand that Toyota has a Yaris in Europe that gets close to 70 MPG on diesel. i replaced the intake manifold,heads, ignition system carb,exhaust system,(installed headers) and cam on my 72 pickup with a 350 in it and took it from 17 highway to 26! A lot of mods but Detroit ought to do better than me. Happy Trails...