.jpg)
If you've ever wondered just how out of touch university faculty can get, look no further than the behavior of the University of New Hampshire's faculty union during its recent contract talks.
After shunning the Dalai Lama in September, President Obama must have shocked the Red Chinese when he spoke firmly for human rights.
More Editorials >>>
- > How about spending? An elephant forgets (10)
- > Tobacco shakedown: It's not 'for the children' (19)
- > Social blunders: Our President the yokel (69)
- > Board benefits: Nix health coverage (8)
- > The KSM trial: War? What war? (51)
- > Owned: You belong to Nancy Pelosi (70)
- > Paying for officers: Gatsas gets it right (16)
- > No guarantees: Eagle Times subsidy is wrong (34)
- > Abortion extremism: Shaheen falls on the far left (48)
- > Culture clash: Old NH meets new NH (5)
- > Dump Hackett Hill: It's a public money pit (4)
- > Unsung citizens: They say 'thanks' for us all (8)
- > A new right: Access to abortion funds (55)
- > Default or pay? Arena rock and a hard place (16)
- > To our veterans: A sincere thank you (15)
Andrew Cline has been editorial page editor of the New Hampshire Union Leader since October of 2001. His writing has appeared in more than 100 newspapers and magazines, including The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and National Review.A fuel-ish policy: Wrecking the U.S. auto industry
Print
Email
Mobile
Reader commentsPresident George W. Bush's executive order calling on federal agencies to act faster to regulate automotive fuel economy and increase alternative fuel supplies goes a long way toward making him seem green, but American workers will pay the price.
The President's push to make cars and trucks more fuel-efficient isn't lost on the domestic automakers. They've responded to consumer demand by creating gas-electric hybrids and flex-fuel vehicles and will continue to do so if there's a real market for these products.
Forcing unrealistic and unattainable mandates on them will hamper these efforts and drive their North American business operations further into debt. A better and more rational approach was offered by Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., at a speech at the Detroit Economic Club last Monday. The chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee rightly says pollution reduction plans should be across all industries and not be focused on increased fuel economy standards, which have never reduced our consumption of foreign oil.
Arbitrarily increasing the standard to 35 miles per gallon, or higher as many Democrats in Congress want, won't save the amount of fuel that's being suggested. It never has. Alternative fuels are part of the answer, but, like any strategies for reducing pollution, should be part of a broader plan. That's the path Rep. Dingell is leading Congress down and it's the most appropriate and realistic one being considered.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. © 1997-2009.
YOUR COMMENTS
When VW came out wiyh the original Rabit in the mid seventies I thought it was the perfect car. After trying auto sales in the early eighties I learned why everyone didn't drive one. People bought only cars with all the junk in them, while complaining about the cost of new cars. The auto industry can produce 50+ mpg cars but few would buy them. Making the industry meet standards will force them to curtail the availability of the big gas guzzlers (or small one) making the public live with cars more eco friendly. All passenger vehicles (including pickups and suvs) should be under the same rules regardless of production numbers. The auto industry just doesn't want to give up their cash cows.
- Robert Boyce, Manchester
The answer to reducing the amount of oil used by cars in the US is quite clear. Small cars with smaller engines are the only answer we have with today’s available technology that has proven to be cost effective. Hybrid technology still has not lived up to its promise because of the additional cost of these vehicles compared to their value.
If automakers wanted to increase fuel mileage, they should make smaller cars more comfortable and more user friendly. Small cars in the US suffer the econo-box label and automakers are doing nothing to change this. If small cars had comfortable adjustable seats and features that the larger vehicles have, they would be more popular. Why should a small car be noisey and hard riding? Because the automakers are cutting costs! Try to find a car which gets over 30 MPG on the highway with power seats! Many small cars do not even have cruise control!. I fear that the reason behind this is simple greed. Larger cars mean larger profits because Americans still believe bigger is better. And in this case, automakers are proving them correct!
- Clint Merriman, Manchester, NH
NOTE: If you have visited this page before, newer comments may be hidden. Press F5, or hold down the Ctrl key while reloading or refreshing the page. (Another option for Firefox users is the Clear Cache add-on.)