# An email message I just received from Mr. Vic Doolan (former Pres., BMWNA)



## JPinTO (Dec 20, 2001)

Pollution issues affect every large city... (Toronto is rivaling LA for pollution) and traffic is overwhelming. 

Forget 50cents/gallon or 10c/liter as Ontario is proposing.... I'm in favor of an immediate doubling of gas prices. Either that, or put tolls on every single mile of highway. Half of my daily commute is a very expensive toll highway (11.5cents US/mile). People haul @ss on it, and the surface is pristine, because we're paying alot to use it.

This will have a huge disincentive for everyone (Myself included) jumping in their fat overweight car at the drop of a hat. "honey, get the kids in the truck... let's go for a spin". At double the gas price.... we'll stay home and car use will be for those times when it's really required.

That way we an stop breathing this death soup and the road congestion will lighten up. It sure would be nice if they take that tax windfall and repair some of the roads while the traffic is nice and light and invest in public transit.

There has to be massive disincentives to taking the car everywhere on a whim. The peak gas prices last year dropped traffic 30% in Toronto... it works.


----------



## DaveN323i (Jan 17, 2002)

dasWolf said:


> *
> 2) "F" Europe. They are basically a bunch of socialist countries The fact that energy is cheaper here in America is one of the reasons our economy has always been at the head of the class.
> 
> EOD *


Anything can be used out of context. That does not explain why Japan was the fastest economy eventhough it had one of the highest taxes on automobiles and gasoline. So, please don't start comparing apples with oranges.

The issue facing our governments are two-faced as some of us noted: Finite fossil fuel and the associated pollution generated from using it.

As much as people outside California hecker us, I am proud that California is the vanguard on these issues. And this is out of necessity, really. If the state government does not do anything and relies on Federal law, Los Angeles would be so thick with pollution, and Mr. Shafer would not be even be able to see the sea in Santa Barbara.

No matter how the manufacturers and oil companies whine, they are whining about their botton profit line. The late part of the twentieth century showed it. They moaned about the technology required for pollution controls. But after a few rough years (anyone still remembers BMW's thermal engines?), we got the current crop of lower polluting cars.

After reading what is at stake in the current California legislation, I have concluded that I should support it. It is forward looking. Anything is not going to be decided until 2005 and then only applies for manufacturing beginning in 2009. Manufacturers may not like having a government imposing on them on how to make the cars, but that has always been a fact of life.

What made me so angry is the way the letter tried to deceive me. Thankfully it was not from BMW but from a Ford executive. But I am sure there are other similar letters being circulated, trying to deceive the public with horror words.


----------



## Parump (Dec 25, 2001)

Plaz,

I think that your comments regarding judicious use of market forces with a guiding hand (I am hoping that I interpreted your libertarian leanings correctly) are insightful. Energy production, consumption, and legislation are among the most complex issues that we currently face.

Unfortunately, special interests often compromise our legislators' ability to reach long-term consensus for a sound energy policy. For example, why must the East and West coasts subsidize the conglomerates in the Midwest who grow and process corn? Not a single politician has cited the actual amount of energy required to sow the grain, fertilize the fields, and harvest the corn for a single bushel. You would be surprised to learn that the actual total sum in energy production is quite low and is also subject to debate. In the next several years we will experience increasing mogas prices unnecessarily considering that CARB gas can be formulated without ethanol.

A coherent, intelligent energy policy would provide incentives to slowly increase our energy efficiency while developing new sources.

Jon,

I certainly understand that BMWNA is concerned about capricious legislation that unfairly targets a single group such as the automobile manufacturers. However, I would gladly purchase a BMW 316i if BMWNA ever decided to offer them in the US market - a car that still incorporates great BMW engineering, handling, quality, and enables me as a consumer to help fulfill an energy efficiency mandate. Admittedly, the profit margins for BMWAG would be less due to competition from other manufacturers. However, isn't a little compromise by all of us the best and most equitable strategy for a sound energy policy?


----------



## JST (Dec 19, 2001)

CD-55 said:


> *
> 
> The purpose of CAFÉ was to reduce the rate of which we are INCREASING our RATE of consuming fossil fuels. The reason for doing so is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I am all for reducing our dependence from countries such as: Saudi Arabia (double-talking terrorist sympathizers), Iran, and Iraq. To think otherwise would be unAmerican.
> 
> BTW, some CIVICs get over 50MPG. *


But CAFE is silly. It mandates fines on automakers if they don't sell enough cheap, fuel efficient cars. Problem is, no one wants to buy cheap, fuel efficient cars. I've always found it massively entertaining (and perfectly predictable) that folks blame the big bad corporations for the existence of SUVs; they're not forcing anyone to buy them.

As much as I hate to admit it, the only way to really improve fleet fuel economy is to increase the price of gasoline. Trying to regulate consumer buying habits by fining corporations for selling consumers what they want is simply not the most efficient way of forcing people to internalize economic costs.

At the same time, I've had it up to my ears with California, and with the neo-Socialist right-coasters who ape every move the damn CARB makes. CARB's problem is not that they don't do good--many of their initiatives should be applauded. The problem with CARB is that they believe that they can regulate everything. Remember electric cars? Sure, just pass a regulation that says automakers have to sell them. Who gives a shit if electric cars are a big ball of suck that cost a lot, have no range, and are as desireable to the average consumer as anthrax? Who cares if the technology to build an effective electric car doesn't exist, and will likely never exist? Should we take notice of the fact that even "successful" electric cars like the EV-1 a) have battery packs that need replacing every couple of years, at substantial environmental cost, b) cannot be sold at a profit, and indeed were never actually "sold" at all (were instead leased), c) CANNOT be used in areas where it's colder than LA (batteries don't do so well in the cold, and electric heaters draw a goodly amount of current), and d) still use power generated by (primarily coal fired) power plants? Nah. Oh, yeah, and that power crisis that was caused by the failure to build enough power plants? How bad would THAT have been had the electric car mandate not been rolled back?

Idiots.

As for raising the gas tax, sure, why not? None of us on this board wouldn't blink at an extra $1 a gallon. For us, cruising around in our $40K German driving machines, gas is a miniscule part of our budget. But what about those folks for whom disposable income isn't quite as high? Ask someone pulling in 15K a year whether doubling their fuel costs is a good idea. Suggest to them that they plunk down 20K so that they can buy one of those fancy hybrids. And that, of course, is just the direct cost--how much of that fuel cost would come through in all of the other goods that we buy?

Gas taxes are some of the most regressive taxes out there (sort of like cigarette taxes, and don't get me started on those). It always amazes me that certain liberal politicians can stoop to inducing class warfare over the "unfairness" of an across the board income tax cut but then can (with a straight face) jack up the taxes on things like gas and cigarettes without mentioning how "unfair" those are.

Rant over.


----------



## jastevenson (Dec 20, 2001)

Glad to have the Cali gov's address.

Altho I don't live there, I shot him off an email saying that I STRONGLY SUPPORT the increase.

CAFE shoudn't have been shot down, so I am glad that Cali is taking matters into their own hands (despite the fact that I think the CARB is often wrong, as with the electric vehicle requirements).


----------



## EdCT (Mar 14, 2002)

Das,

A little historical perspective for ya.

Thirty years ago, all the right wingers were screaming foul at pollution controls and higher mileage.

Then in 1972, new legislation was enacted.

Today, we have cleaner water, cleaner air ( in most places) and higher CAFE.

In fact, today's V8's are approximately 100 percent more efficient than those of 1970.

The problem with many vehicles today, as I see it, is too much weight. We've got to switch to lighter AND stronger materials. 

Materials that are readily available but are currently expensive and I'm certain, ready to be blocked by the almighty steel industry.

There's a lot of money to be made in increasing CAFE's and reducing emissions. It's good capitalist legislation.

Ed


----------



## JST (Dec 19, 2001)

DaveN323i said:


> *I don't see anywhere in the legislation what the letter said, that is:
> 
> * Raising fees (up to $3500) and taxes on sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks and minivans in an attempt to discourage consumers from purchasing those vehicles
> * Imposing a tax of two cents for every vehicle mile traveled
> ...


Don't blame Vic Doolan. Read his missive a bit more closely, and you'll see that he specified that the statute did not contain specifics, but that there were proposals at the CARB under consideration, which he went on to describe.

"AB 1058 provides no detail as to how CARB would achieve maximum reductions, but a March, 2002, staff report from CARB and the California Energy Commission provides extensive details on the various options for reducing carbon dioxide that are being considered actively, including..."


----------



## DaveN323i (Jan 17, 2002)

JST said:


> *
> 
> Don't blame Vic Doolan. Read his missive a bit more closely, and you'll see that he specified that the statute did not contain specifics, but that there were proposals at the CARB under consideration, which he went on to describe.
> 
> "AB 1058 provides no detail as to how CARB would achieve maximum reductions, but a March, 2002, staff report from CARB and the California Energy Commission provides extensive details on the various options for reducing carbon dioxide that are being considered actively, including..." *


Yes, but he used it to request opposition to the whole legislation. Like throwing the baby with the bathwater.

The fact is that they don't want the legislation. They just want to make money without any government intervention. This is typical scare tactics. They know that if the legislation passes, they have to wheel and deal with CARB, which deals directly with mileage and air quality. They would rather deal exert their lobbying pressure directly on the California legislature, and use other scare tactics such as loss of jobs, bad to the economy etc.

Anyway, from now on, I don't trust anything from Vic Doolan's mouth.


----------



## JST (Dec 19, 2001)

DaveN323i said:


> *
> 
> Yes, but he used it to request opposition to the whole legislation. Like throwing the baby with the bathwater.
> 
> ...


I honestly don't understand your objection. The legislation authorizes CARB to acheive an objective. Any discussion of the merits of the legislation would frankly be meaningless without some exploration of the alternatives that CARB might use to acheive that objective.

Of course the auto companies are going to lobby against increased regulation of their product (and of course they are going to do so both at CARB and at the state legislature); why is this surprising?

Lastly, I don't see anything particularly "scare tactic" about the message. It points out that certain legislation is being considered, that if the legislation passes it will be up to CARB to implement it, and that CARB is considering a number of ways to implement the legislation. It's not exactly objective, but it doesn't make any extravagant or outrageous "scare tactic" claims.


----------



## DaveN323i (Jan 17, 2002)

JST said:


> *
> 
> Lastly, I don't see anything particularly "scare tactic" about the message. It points out that certain legislation is being considered, that if the legislation passes it will be up to CARB to implement it, and that CARB is considering a number of ways to implement the legislation. It's not exactly objective, but it doesn't make any extravagant or outrageous "scare tactic" claims. *


Sorry, I associated the letter with the radio commercials. My fault (though I think both the letter and the commercials come from the same lobbying group). If you listened to the radio commercials here in California, you would think that the legislation would force people to abandon their beloved SUVs.

You can do your own research, read the legislation, and come to your own conclusion. I have concluded that there is nothing in it that warrants the kind of opposition coming from the auto industry.


----------



## JST (Dec 19, 2001)

DaveN323i said:


> *
> 
> Sorry, I associated the letter with the radio commercials. My fault (though I think both the letter and the commercials come from the same lobbying group). If you listened to the radio commercials here in California, you would think that the legislation would force people to abandon their beloved SUVs.
> 
> You can do your own research, read the legislation, and come to your own conclusion. I have concluded that there is nothing in it that warrants the kind of opposition coming from the auto industry. *


I understand why the auto industry is concerned about handing CARB a blank regulatory check; historically, CARB has been a lot less open to influence from the auto industry than the legislature has been. Depending on your beliefs, that's either a good or a bad thing, but the auto industry has learned from painful experience that CARB is willing to try all sorts of hare-brained schemes and is not willing to take seriously claims by the car companies that something is impossible. If I were an auto exec, I'd want to keep as much power out of their hands as possible.

That doesn't mean that the auto makers are right--on that point, as you note, you have to draw your own conclusion.


----------



## DaveN323i (Jan 17, 2002)

*Reviving this item*

I was reading the NY Times, and I thought this article was of interest:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/12/business/12HOND.html

Another article shows that the auto industry has been able to stall the California legislation. Too bad, because it is aimed primarily at changing the consumers' habit for wasteful SUVs (my own opinion).


----------



## dredmo (May 28, 2002)

i can only pray this bill does not pass in any way, the liberals in california have done enough to screw up this place, we dont need them to do more. they already have decided its best to take my paycheck and pay for free cable for people on welfare in california, now they want more from me even though both my cars are ULEV rated...

i have already called with my veto request


----------



## CD-55 (Dec 19, 2001)

dredmo said:


> *i can only pray this bill does not pass in any way, the liberals in california have done enough to screw up this place, we dont need them to do more. they already have decided its best to take my paycheck and pay for free cable for people on welfare in california, now they want more from me even though both my cars are ULEV rated...
> 
> i have already called with my veto request *


Aaah come on!! I say we just give up on CA, give it to the liberals and let them do what they want there, so long as they keep all the BS in CA.


----------



## dredmo (May 28, 2002)

thats a good idea but i live in cali sadly  :bawling: :tsk: 

and if we did do that they would form up, they would seperate from USA and be the socialist republic of california

that way janitors and movie stars can both afford cheese and civic hybrids


----------



## DaveN323i (Jan 17, 2002)

CD-55 said:


> *
> 
> Aaah come on!! I say we just give up on CA, give it to the liberals and let them do what they want there, so long as they keep all the BS in CA. *


I disagree. I don't know where the liberal label came from. Isn't CA the state who started Ronald Regan and Richard Nixon's career, a couple of the most conservative politicians in the country.

I am not going to debate on the free cable flame, but I think CARB did a good thing in leading the rest of the country with the pollution control issues. Remember that we in California, specially Los Angeles area, are the biggest polluters. Without the CARB standards, neither the rest of the country nor Europe would have the cleaner air we have today.

I would like people to stop using labels to discuss issues. I have read and posted the legislation language. Please read it and decide before labeling liberal vs conservative. The environment is the issue. We don't want our state to be like Mexico city, Bangkok, or Sao Paolo.

I don't think it is such a bad idea in forcing manufacturers to find better ways to build the SUVs that some of us dearly want. The New York article on Honda clearly indicates that there is at least one manufacturer that thinks independently of the group mentality that the rest of them follow.

So, please, if you have a good point, write it. But don't give me this liberal vs conservative argument.


----------



## dredmo (May 28, 2002)

hey theres no question some is good, but this is way too much, and there is no label here, its a fact. These guys are liberals who want everyone to drive a civic hybrid. It is just another example of some of the crap they do in cali. all this law will do is piss alot of people off, and force many of them into buying hybrids and echos. most people cant afford to say ill pay 50c per gallon and 2c per mile cuz im rich.

basically every middle class people, already dealing with the high taxes and extremely high cost of living in california, are going to be twisted into paying for a vehicle CARB wants you to buy. 

There is no way i can support a bill that is aimed at taking away my ability to choose a vehicle. This is a bunk anyways since your everyday commuter is not the source of the problem.

Industry and busses and cattle and things of the sort have been proven time and time again to be the #1 gross pollutants.

i already pay 2.09 per gallon of gas in eureka cali, give or take 15 cents or so depending on the day.




and btw cali is about the most liberal state by far in america. no, berkely does not represent the majority, but the majority is close to being as left as that city


also with your comments about forcing suvs to be built better for the environmeent, i agree 100%. the issue should be taken up with makers not citizens.

BMW, and GM both have designs on engines that will get over 60 mpg with gas.... im sure the numbers are higher when you bring hybrid in etc... but unless im wrong the oil companies bought those patents or some crap.... so take this lawmaking crap out of it, or shove it down the auto makers throat... it should not be shoved down the citizenbs throat though


to me, these are good points


----------

