I hate to feature the same guy twice in a row after ignoring his stuff for so long (he gets efficiently skewered pretty regularly at Folkbum's and Brew City Brawler, after all), but local right wing cheerleader/columnist Patrick McIlheran opens up such a can of "What the...!" in his latest column that I can't let it sit.
First of all, stop all that silly research into more fuel efficient vehicles. Toss those incentive programs for alternate energy sources. McIlheran reveals that we're are on a fool's mission:
Economists now point out that gas use rose even as car efficiency did because if you get more energy out of a buck's worth of fuel, you use more. They call it the "rebound effect." That, too, is unseen and easily ignored.
I guess the way it works is this: You get into your car - - it's a hybrid - - to drive to the grocery store for milk (because God knows you can't walk there; you live in a suburb). As you fasten your seatbelt, you suddenly notice: "Hey, I'm in a Prius hybrid! By golly, I'm not going to drive to the local Sendik's. I'm going all the way out to the Brookfield Sendik's!"
Damn. Energy savings negated. Foolish conservationists.
Yeah, right. Complete negation of savings; because, you see, "rebound" must mean "completely wipe out" rather than "somewhat deplete."
Also, McIlheran digs the Rebound Effect in this case, but "easily ignores" the it as it applies to highway expansion, (more and easier accessible highways increase traffic and congestion.)
So, why are we working to phase out inefficient vehicles? Because, McIlheran smarms, "they displease Mother Earth." It's just a tree-hugger pipe dream.
What a funny guy. He has forgotten, evidently, that there's a war on because we have to maintain this country's thirst for oil; a foreign policy based on the fat pipeline of crude flowing in this direction. People dying every day. Men, women, and kids.
That's what makes this next particular nugget so breathtaking. What will the costs be to us if we aggressively pursue higher fuel standards in vehicles?:
Some of the payment will be in safety, Kazman predicts. The National Research Council in 2002 reckoned that earlier downsizing costs a couple thousand lives a year in crashes. "They're waging a blood-for-oil war," [Sam] Kazman says of the mileage hawks.
So, there you go. Fuel efficiency will kill us.
Sam Kazman, by the way, is general counsel for the illustrious Competitive Enterprise Institute.
See if you can find what the following funders of CEI have in common:
- Amoco Foundation, Inc.
- Ford Motor Company Fund
- Texaco, Inc. and the Texaco Foundation
- Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers,
- Exxon Mobil
- General Motors,
- The American Petroleum Institute
Nice source. The company you keep ...
Highlights of CEI's activities from SourceWatch:
In March 1996, CEI's Michelle Malkin and Michael Fumento published "Rachel's Folly," which claims that dioxin is good for you.
CEI's Jonathan Tolman (who holds a bachelor's degree in political science), published a study that month titled "Nature's Hormone Factory," claiming that naturally-occurring chemicals produced by plants and other living organisms are as dangerous as industrial chemicals.
In December of that year, CEI submitted comments opposing the EPA's proposed air quality rule to limit particulate emissions, claiming that "the EPA has failed to consider whether the proposed standard may actually increase mortality due to reductions in disposable income that compliance efforts may produce. ... At all times regulation imposes costs that mean less real income to individuals for alternative expenditure. That deprivation of real income itself has adverse health effects, in the form of poorer diet, more heart attacks, more suicides."
CEI has also worked to cultivate a relationship with John Stossel, the controversial correspondent for ABC-TV's 20/20 program. When Stossel came under fire in August 2000 for citing nonexistent scientific studies on a 20/20 segment bashing organic foods, CEI set up a "Save John Stossel" website to help him keep his job. Stossel returned the favor the following year by working with [CEI's] Michael Sanera to put together a program titled "Tampering With Nature" that focused on attacking environmental education. In March 2001, a pesticide industry front group known as Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE) sent out an action alert memorandum to its members. "Mr. Sanera has been contacted by ABC News," the memo stated." A producer for John Stossel is working on a program on environmental education. He needs examples of kids who have been 'scared green' by schools teaching doomsday environmentalism in the classroom. ... He has some examples, but needs more. Would you send out a notice to your group and ask if they know of some examples. Then contact Mr. Sanera ... Let's try to help Mr. Stossel. He treats industry fairly in his programs." [16]
Apparently neither Stossel nor CEI applied similar standards of fairness toward the schoolteachers and students they interviewed. Prior to the program's air date in July, several California parents of children interviewed by Stossel filed a complaint with ABC, stating that they had been misled about the nature of the program and the types of leading questions their kids would be asked. Seattle teacher John Borowski also being approached by ABC producer Ted Balaker, who attempted to trick him into appearing on camera by claiming that he was making a documentary about Earth Day, while denying that he was working with Stossel and Sanera.
These CEI dogma-flingers are some great folks, huh?
Thanks for posting this. It blows my mind that people as dumb as McIlleran exist, much less find employment and make a living. I mean seriously, I fear for our society with people like him in positions of influence. Anyway, nice site.
Posted by: Mull Mott | January 22, 2008 at 12:30 PM