Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 09:04:19 -0500 From: "Walt Kienzle" <wkienzlenopsam.net> Subject: Re: GM to increase SAAB lineup
I don't think we are as far apart on this as you think. All the examples you cite (including CAFE, which is not a pollution topic; I am of the opinion that fuel economy became a separate issue from pollution at least a decade ago) are an evolution of existing laws. Sure, make adjustments in the standards over time on an evolutionary - not revolutionary - basis. That doesn't mean we need more laws. While many "trucks" are used as passenger vehicles, how would you actually go about reclassifying them? What if they are used as child haulers during the week, and a true work vehicle for projects on weekends? Or a work truck during the week, and a family trip vehicle on weekends? What if someone buys a compact pickup truck because it is all they can afford? (I can go to a nearby dealer today and drive home with a brand new GMC Sonoma pickup for about $15,000 minus any rebates currently available. Final cost would probably be about $12,000) Would reclassing this model mean that truck manufacturers would only make and sell the more profitable big pickups because the compact ones aren't worth their time and effort? I see this as a place where CAFE standards caused the problem by exterminating full sized station wagons that were economical compared to SUV's and good for hauling people. An earlier posting pointed out that the Volvo wagon (and other European estate models) cost about the same as a SUV. Big Volvos, wagon or sedan, have always cost quite a bit more, maybe double the cost of a stripped Chevy Caprice or Ford Crown Victoria, so that reasoning doesn't apply in the US. If the change you propose is made, then I predict that the more economical SUV's would disappear and people would be forced into bigger, gas guzzling, road hogging Suburbans and there would be even more to complain about. Walt Kienzle "'nuther Bob" <undisclosednopsamsclosed.com> wrote in message news:080p9v4ahnoha95rslpra3d4cgt37m6qqdnopsamcom... > On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 09:15:16 -0500, "Walt Kienzle" <wkienzlenopsam.net> > wrote: > > >I think there are quite enough laws on this already. Effective enforcement > >is where our efforts should go. > > > >Walt Kienzle > > I can't agree with that. First, the laws specify certain allowable > amounts of pollution. Some of those limits are too high. For example, > current regulations allow gobs of acid rain from the polluters in the > Midwest to fall on the NorthEast. That needs to change. Likewise, CAFE > standards don't include "trucks", as they were considered "working" > vehicles when the original legislation was written. Today, most > pickup trucks and SUV's are used as passenger vehicles. They need > to be reclassed properly. > > Pollution control laws need to evolve as pollution increases beyond > acceptable levels within our current regulations. Stagnant regulations > do not protect the public as new pollution problems are found. > > Bob
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
