John McCormick from The Detroit News shares his thoughts on CO2
While I was reading this column, I almost thought I was perusing my latest copy of Car and Driver. Then, I realized that the writing was not as good, and the attempts at humor less successful. But, anyway, John McCormick did cover some of the points that Patrick Bedard consistently seems to touch on in his monthly column. Namely that global warming is either fake or that man's contribution to greenhouse gases is insubstantial.
One thing that McCormick wrote did make me think, though. Is it really fair to "double tax" certain automobiles based on both their gasoline consumption and their CO2 output? I'll go out on a limb and say yes. Why? Because the two items are different. Gasoline consumption is closely tied with a vehicle's emissions, but they are certainly two different measurables of a vehicle's impact on the environment.
Walking further out on that limb, let me suggest that the gas-guzzler tax and the so called Clean Air Discount Bill which McCormick's article is about (not a law - just a proposal at this time) should probably not be as high as they currently are. A higher gas tax across the board would have greater effect, and isn't that the point of both laws in the first place? With a gas tax, all vehicles are treated exactly the same, which seems to make more sense.
As always, we welcome your comments and suggestions. Remember, if you want to have some influence yourself, you can always contact Congress as was suggested by the Auto Alliance themselves.
[Source: John McCormick / Detroit News]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
burgoblossom 7:58PM (10/28/2009)
this reporter,John McCormic, is a crony!! In one of his reports " Obama Name Offers No Magic for Selling Lot Next to Chicago Home", basically implies that buyers will not purchase the house because of the name. He starts and finishes with bunch of crap that want to link dirty politics. I mean does this rat head know that price tags and the market is the only role in this? These so called "journalist" all they do is "cook" up stories and throw them to public!! It's pathetic and said, how many so caled "news reporters" or "journalist" can sit and write crap!! This is another example of the pandemic stupidity of sensational journalism!! These kinds of cronies should be held responsible for the crap they right. Does this profession have any due diligence? To what extent should these reporters, news station be held accountable for the crap they right to the public?
Reply
Jack S. 9:59AM (6/02/2007)
double tax? That clearly misses the point. Fuel consumption is because the driver was foolish enough to buy a gaz guzzler. The CO2 tax is taxing the driver for all the crap that is being imposed on everyone else.
His other suggestions have merit but that doesn't mean that those who choose to keep their SUV's should get off with out paying.
Reply
bioburner 4:47PM (6/04/2007)
Agreed. I think both taxes will be necessary. What happens when someone buys a "gas hog" but only drives 1 mile a day to work? A co2 tax will have little impact on this person but a gas guzzler tax might presuade them to think about MPG at new car shopping time. And it works the other way around too. A person who get the 50MPG hybrid but drives 35,000 miles a year will not try to consurve if there is no co2 tax.
So ya. the only fair thing for everybody is to have both taxes.
Reply
kballs 1:02PM (6/02/2007)
Yes of course, these measurements of atmospheric CO2 are completely unscientific made up drivel. Why is it that most car reviewers/writers hear no evil and see no evil (this includes Car and Driver, Motor Trend, Road and Track, and Top Gear)? All they care about is that the cars drive fast and get around the track in as little time as possible. If a car compromises this in the slightest for better MPG, lower environmental impact, and lower impact on resources, they raze it and call it a waste of money and time.
Grow up. In the real world, we need to get to work and haul our family around, and rarely is traffic light enough to break the speed limit or utilize that extra, not-compromised-for-tree-hugging speed. Not every car needs to be a super car. Point-a to point-b cars have their place (and why bother reviewing them against supercars when you know they are not?).
Reply
mikeinBuilding7 5:11PM (6/02/2007)
- I just want to say in the article you site, Mr. Bedard isn't saying global warming isn't caused by human activity.
- My next car might be a Prius or a Volt, but I too don't see the merit of the CA lawsuit, unless you can prove that GM, FORD, etc. funded Fake Science. CA should look to sue ExxonMobile for a real culprit.
- But, you are right the car magazine industry has been a long crazy mouthpiece for the oil industry, bashing anything that doesn't burn gas.
Reply
Onefastgta 8:33PM (7/05/2007)
So your saying that that person who goes through less than a gallon a week should go get a more fuel efficient car. LOL. People like that are not the problem.
Look I like collecting cars and these huge taxes they may be putting on cars that are hardly ever driven is stupid. Tax the people causing the problem. The people who use the most gas cause the most emmisions.
Reply