Schwarzenegger Jumps on Obama’s ‘Proper Tire Inflation’ Bandwagon
Gov. distances himself from what Obama called GOP ‘ignorance’
Two weeks ago, the presumptive Democratic candidate for President of the United States, Barack Obama had the gall to suggest that proper tire inflation could actually reduce national gasoline consumption, thereby lowering our carbon emissions and reducing our demand for oil.
GOP strategists saw an opportunity to pounce on this bold claim by Senator Obama. And they, along with their friend Rush Limbaugh, lampooned and ridiculed Obama’s tire pressure assertion as a joke. The McCain campaign even went so far as handing out tire gauges branded with the slogan “Obama’s Energy Plan” to reporters traveling with Senator Obama. Let me just say this, whomever was in charge of that “brilliant” move at McCain HQ should be canned.
Today several more groups were added to the growing list of organizations that stand behind Senator Obama’s claim that properly inflated tires can indeed reduce gasoline consumption. Speaking on behalf of these groups, and helping to launch the EcoDriving initiative were the Republican Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger, and the Democratic Governor of Colorado Bill Ritter.
The pair were on hand in Denver on Monday (Schwarzenegger spoke via satellite link) to announce a new initiative from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the American Automobile Dealers Association called EcoDriving (EcoDrivingUSA.com), a comprehensive, nationwide effort to save consumers money at the gas pump, reduce fuel use and cut carbon dioxide emissions. The Environmental Defense Fund also participated in the launch.
By following a set of subtle and easy-to-use best practices, including proper tire inflation, for driving and vehicle maintenance, the group says a typical driver can improve mileage by about 15 percent. In addition, officials at EcoDriving claim that if just half of all drivers nationwide practiced moderate levels of EcoDriving, annual CO2 emissions could be reduced by about 100 million tons, or the equivalent of heating and powering 8.5 million households.
As part of their national campaign, automakers pledged to reach out to government, business, educators and more. Alliance members hope to engage all 50 states, as well as major consumer organizations, in EcoDriving. “We’re all in this together, so there’s a role for each one of us to play in being a part of the solution to these critical issues,” said said Dave McCurdy, president and CEO of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.
“Automakers are aggressively developing and introducing new technologies, but it takes 15 years or more for these technologies to become widespread on the road. EcoDriving helps consumers reduce carbon dioxide emissions today,” said McCurdy.
Related Posts:
- Poll: Americans More Likely to Vote for a Candidate who Supports Conservation and Efficiency
- Should President Bush be Telling Americans to Conserve Gas?
- Republicans for Environmental Protection: Ready for the Return of the Double Nickel?
Photo: Clemson via flickr under a Creative Commons License
Timothy-
The “very real consequences” of a warming climate have nothing to do with it, as the “theory” of manmade global warming is a complete fraud. There is not one single piece of statistically significant data to support the idea, which as such does not even qualify as a theory under the scientific process. All they have are computer models; models which all have been proven wrong when compared to actual climate data. It’s all a lie!
“further behind the rest of the developed world in terms of cleaning up the byproducts” – are you serious? Can you name these high and mighty countries? France perhaps – oh, but they use primarily Nuclear power… hmmm, which political party has done the most to stop nuclear power???
The reason that the Democrats don’t seem to ‘get’ why there is an argument about the tire inflation debate is 2 fold. 1 – We (at least most republicans I guess) know that proper vehicle maintenance will save on gas, that’s been common knowledge for decades now. 2 – The lie that the minute percentage of gain if everyone (you’ll never reach 100%) were to have perfectly maintained cars will somehow offset all the oil we could potentially get from Shale, ANWR, and Off Shore drilling is simply an insult to the collective American Intelligence.
Here we have a person with possibly the least experience in history who presumes to be president of the greatest nation on Earth, and now is condescending to our common sense in assuming that a significant percentage of Americans are un-aware that proper vehicle maintenance can save on fuel consumption. Obama is a joke, plain and simple. Democrat talking heads are just as short sighted for promoting this guy (I would have had a much harder time deciding between McCain and Clinton – than McCain and Obama). On the subject of drilling, it seems strange to me, that for months the number of years it would take to gain benefit went from 7-10, then 10-15, then 20, and finally it topped off a few weeks ago when several dems on TV said it would take 30 years to get anything. Now that it is becoming abundantly clear that the majority of Americans want us to start using our own oil, they are backing off of those ridiculous claims – and of-course we’re back down to 10 years. None of them will point out that the combination of Bush promoting drilling as well as the large support of Americans has ALREADY had an affect on the price at the pump!
How pathetic it all is that this is Obama’s/Schwarzegger’s/McCain’s/[insert puppet's name here] solution to high oil prices!
How about stopping unconstitutional wars and empire building in third world countries, Obomba? How about pushing alternative fuels, Sxhwarzenegger? How about a nice rest home, McCain???
“I think the Republican response was silly and did not require the attention that Obama gave to it.”
That pretty much sums up almost every responce/claim/lie by the republicans, however I’m with Casey when she says most americans are idiots. It would be great if Obama didnt have to dignify republican claims with a response, but Americans are so easily swayed by baseless claims and half truths he has to counter them.
Sorry, forgot to respond to this:
“While we may be the “Saudi Arabia of Coal”, and while there may be billions of gallons locked away in western oil shale, going after either of those would only put us further behind the rest of the developed world in terms of cleaning up the byproducts of our fuel consumption.”
I’m not sure what exactly that’s supposed to me. As far as being efficient and environmentally friendly, we do a FAR better job in the US then they do in other countries. If you oppose domestic drilling for environmental reasons, especially if you’re thinking about the planet as a whole, then I’d think you’d rather have us drilling here (where we have better technology and environmental legislation) than pushing it off to Niger or Russia or other countrieas where they don’t give a damn.
Stepping over dollars to pick up pennies.
No denying that tips such as maintaining proper tire inflation help reduce fuel consumption. However, a far more significant approach, such as telecommuting and/or condensed work weeks should definitely be pursued by anyone (candidate or otherwise) who is serious about reducing fuel consumption.
Absolutely, Eric. Not only that, but serious consideration must be given to our laughable (on a national scale) mass transit infrastructure.
Disgruntled – Thank you for your remark that “There is not one single piece of statistically significant data to support the idea [of global warming] which as such does not even qualify as a theory under the scientific process.”. It helps explain your other denier-delayer remarks.
And not that it really matters whether or not you believe in anthropogenic global warming, you might want to check your sources on the definition of “theory.” Assuming you wouldn’t, I’ve gone ahead and checked Merriam-Webster for you:
Theory:
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another.
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art (music theory).
4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action (her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn) b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory (in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all)
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena (the wave theory of light)
6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject (theory of equations).
Not that I feel I need to defend the science, but there need not be statistical significance for one to theorize.
SMM Said
“If you do a bit a research you would see that his stance is that proper tire inflation would be more realistic for ‘immediate relief’ than additional off shore drilling. He states that we have oil than is currently not being full used, and additional drill sites would be less efficient. His platform is to put 150 billion (taxed from big oil) over the next 10 years towards electric hybrids.”
I hate to tell you this but there is no immediate relief on the scale that will effect pump prices, regardless how efficent our vehicles are through measures like tire pressure. First as I indicated the savings just are not there, second Obama clearly outlines a conservation program as part of his energy plan based around common-sense items like tire pressure and tune-ups, the effect is just greatly exaggerated due to green math. (1 person who was not doing it saves x, so x times the population = Y the new savings regardless of the reality that most are doing it now).
Windfall profit taxes on oil companies have been tried before, perhaps some history would help you as to the result.
“In its eight years of existence, the WPT raised $79 billion in revenue, the CRS later reported. But since those payments were deductible against income, affected companies enjoyed a lower burden under the regular corporate income tax, effectively reducing the net yield to about $40 billion — a far cry from early hopes.
Meanwhile, domestic oil production had fallen to its lowest level in 20 years. While demand had continued to rise, domestic producers had fallen behind in the search for new oil reserves. As a result, the United States had increased its reliance on foreign oil supplies. According to the American Petroleum Institute, the United States had derived about 32 percent of its energy from foreign sources in 1983. By 1986 that figure had climbed to 38 percent. Some analysts expected the trend to continue, although not everyone believed that taxes were driving the dynamic.”
Source Tax History Project: http://www.taxhistory.org
This is how we got here in the first place! Now democrats just seem to forget the past, like the energy saving policies they have resurrected from the 1970s, I remember and I am sure the industry remembers too.
I am a hypermiler (driving a V8!) with tire pressures at 44psi. The car handles great, and that pressure, in addition to hypermiler techniques give me a 50% over EPA mileage estimates for my 2000 Lexus GS400.
I average 27mpg in a 300hp V-8 car, which will hold me and my pocketbook over for another 5 years when it’s time to get a new (used) PHEV car with even more mileage.
Tire pressure, by my calculations for my car, added about an extra 15% (3mpg) to my car vice my previous pressures of around 30psi.
Ciao,
Doc Rings, MD
Timothy,
Under the scientific process, a theory is supposed to be based on observations. Therefore, you need OBSERVABLE DATA to form a sound theory. Of course, you are free to speculate all you want, but please don’t exclaim that your speculations are proven science, because they are not.
The theory was based on computer modelling. Fine, I have no problem with that. But, the fact is that those initial computer models, and every model since then, have proven to be wrong over the course of time. Current climate conditions are in no way out of the norm, when compared to the past several thousand years. And there is no data to support the idea that manmade CO2 emmissions are having the slightest effect on climate.
So why are so many people claiming it to be proven scientific fact? Easy, because it’s a means to an end; in this case a political objective. Lying weasels are bastardizing science to try to scare people into accepting political change that they otherwise would never accept. This has nothing to do with “saving the planet”, and everything to do with creating a global socialist government. It’s a flat-out lie!