Losing control of the fuel efficiency debate

Vapor? So be it. You can read the sam stories I do.

You know the official newsgroup rules. You made the claim. You provide the info. You've read it, so you know where to find it. Links now, or your statements are vapor.

I defy you to provide a link to a story in your area from fifteen years ago, pertaining to something very specific to a five square mile area.

But the following should provide you some entertainment, or comic relief, depending on your viewpoint:

Note the very first sentence in the preface. At least they got their groups in priority ranking. Also note that wetlands "assessment" is arbitrary, with the courts not having struck down "any assessment method".

Another example is a drinking water reservoir about 30 miles north of me in Escondido. Lake Hodges is a naturally-filled supply, with no feeder pipes from the California aqueduct system. That currently is being remedied by construction of a pipeline from another lake which has that supply line, thereby allowing indirect lake level management. During the past few years, the water level had dropped significantly there, which allowed unbridled tree growth in formerly flooded areas. Trees attract birds and bugs, so wildlife moved into the new trees.

During the project, tree-cutting was planned to make way for needed pumping equipment. Guess what? Enviro-whackos moved in and delayed the start of the construction. Can't disrupt the crows and sparrows, now can we? That they're as common as flies has no relevance to these nutjobs.

Next step? Heavy rains two seasons ago. The lake filled to capacity, flooding the area with the new trees. The birds and bugs are gone. The trees are now underwater, decaying, and adding to the algae bloom problem encountered every summer. The water is now horribly contaminated with algae and, while still treatable, is far more more expensive for the taxpayers due to increased treatment costs.

All for an area that wasn't even suppose to have trees to begin with.

You live in a weird state. Here (NY), the Department of Environmental Conservation reviews all such plans, and actually pays attention at public comment meetings. They're especially sensitive to fishing interests, since that pastime generates so much tourism business. Maybe things are worse where you live because you have water issues to begin with.

Ya' think? Look at who we send to D.C., or local politians. We'll only be here for another three or four years.

Not soon enough for me.

Partly true. The eco-nuts are the worst.

Imagine for a moment, if you will, how much more serious the general population would take true ecological troubles if the frivolous nonsense would stop and these idiots would disappear.

True.

I'm still interested in a look at the Interior department's legal budget, which you alluded to earlier. I assume you have access to their financials, but are hiding them for some odd reason.

Not hiding 'em. A few years ago one of their reps was interviewed. The figure was his.

'Course, he could've been hiding. (Notice how I use apostrophes whenever possible?)

That's apostrophe's.

Heh.

Oh, yeah. Sorry.

And I meant "lying" not "hiding".

on Thursday 22 November 2007 08:00 am, someone posing as Nomen Nescio took a rock and etched into the cave:

This is actually a good article...

'A hypothetical Camry that weighed 2,525 pounds (1,148 kg), and had a 1.4 liter, 128-horsepower engine could accelerate to 60 miles per hour in 9.2 seconds, but would average 42 miles per gallon (5.5 liters per 100 km.) The same exercise applied to a Ford F-150 pickup would produce a vehicle that weighs 877 pounds less than today's vehicle, gets around on a 162 horsepower engine and averages 27 mpg, compared with 17.3 mpg today."

Now, I would not be driving a compact Camry or be found in a Ford truck, but the concept works.

If we all stop carpooling, we'd remove much of the weight from the car/truck and thus get better mileage.

I like that!

The Camry is not compact, it is the same size as all of today's other "full sized" cars, park one next to a 71 Torino, they are very close to the same size...

And said F-150 pickup wouldn't be able to get out of it's parking space when you actually tried to use it, i.e. tow something or load a few sheets of drywall.

And then there are those of us who need the 350/3500 class pickups, which get about 11 MPG. Try that idiotic "exercise" with my 3500 and it wouldn't be able to make it over a speed bump when loaded with the

13,000# of camper and trailer it periodically moves.

As I noted before, until the public at large gets some education and understands the difference between "Efficiency" and "Economy", nothing of value will be accomplished.

All cars are bigger that in the past. The current Civic and Corolla are bigger than the Accord and Camry just 6 or 8 years ago. The feds rate today's Camry as a mid size car. The Taurus on the other had is a full size car, even though it sells for thousands.. Americans apparently do not want to buy small cars. If they did the Civic and Corolla would out sell the Accord and Camry, rather than the other way around

Don't you understand, the environuts and government knows what you need better than you? ;)

on Monday 26 November 2007 08:35 am, someone posing as My Name Is Nobody took a rock and etched into the cave:

Funny how everyone disagrees with me.

All I know is I ride in a camry with the seat all the way back and my knees either hit the dashboard (if I'm a passenger) or the steering wheel (if I'm driving.)

Now, a buddy of mine has a '95 Camry which seems to have a little more room on the passenger side.

Don't even think of squeezing me in the back seat.

I much prefer my midsize Chevy Avalanche!

Well For 25 years that happened to me with my 38 inch inseam in every single Ford car built, part of the reason I drive a truck...

Unfortunately some who need that F-150 carrying capacity a few times per year use them full time, wasting fuel and blocking our view.

on Tuesday 27 November 2007 03:59 pm, someone posing as My Name Is Nobody took a rock and etched into the cave:

I'm 38" as well - 6'4" overall. I kind of enjoy watching my poor wife climb into the Avalanche while I sit down into it. :P

That is in large part a function of our screwed up taxes and insurance. I use my 7,000# truck for grocery shopping in large part because having a second small car would cost me a fortune in extra taxes and insurance vs. a very small fuel savings. Fortunately, the grocery store is a 6 mile round trip, and I work from home full time so it's not an issue anyway.