[Nettime-bold] not parody (fwd)

[david turgeon <david.t@steam.ca>]

make the date 2012 instead of 2002 & you would have had a perfect 
futurefeedforward story for bruce sterling to forward to us.  this, 
however, is a true press release from cato.  despite all my cynicism i find 
it's quite a wonderful world where people are being paid to write things 
like these & get away with it, though i would suggest that they go the 
extra mile & file it under "fiction" the next time around.

the following quote sums up the spirit:

"If people want to drive fuel efficient cars, that's their right.  But
forcing people in cars they don't otherwise wish to drive -- or indirectly
taxing them through the regulatory standards for not choosing to
drive cars that environmentalists like is not only wrong, it's
dangerous."

hmm-mm.  that wasn't from the onion, either.  to its credit, the text 
teaches us that:

"Gasoline con sumption in the United States is only
responsible for 1.5 percent of all human- related greenhouse gas
emissions."

me thinks you've got to have a rather large national ego to consider 1.5% 
of the world's emissions an insignificant figure, but keep in mind 
that:  1) i'm not a scholar;  2) i'm not the director of natural resources 
studies at a neoliberal think tank;  3) i'm utterly & most unescapably 
canadian & thus unable of the higher reasoning attained by the high priests 
of the US constitution.

have a nice day
~ david

-- snip --

>CATO INSTITUTE NEWS RELEASE
>March 12, 2002
>
>CAFE DEFEAT SAVED LIVES, SCHOLAR SAYS
>
>WASHINGTON--Sens. Tom Daschle, D-SD, and John Kerry, D-MA, conceded
>today that they lacked the votes in the Senate to pass a major
>increase in the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards.
>Jerry Taylor, director of natural resour ces studies at the Cato
>Institute, called it "a tremendous victory for human health and the
>economy."  He had the following comments:
>
>"Environmentalists who supported an expansion of CAFE standards for
>cars and light trucks are allowing their hostility to energy use to
>override their common sense.  For instance, the National Academy of
>Sciences reported last year that the current standards are directly
>responsible for the deaths of 1,300 - 2,600 motorists a year.  That's
>because automakers find that the cheapest way of incr easing fuel
>efficiency is to reduce the size and weight of the cars they sell,
>making them more dangerous to motorists in a crash. Dramatically
>expanding CAFE standards would accelerate this trend and would
>directly result in the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands of
>Americans.
>
>"While the costs of expanding CAFE standards is steep, the benefits
>are ephemer al.  Expanded standards certainly wouldn't reduce foreign
>oil imports.  For instance, since the CAFE standards were first
>introduced, the average fuel economy more than doubled for new cars
>and grew by more than 50 percent for new light trucks, but imported
>oil has increased from 35 to 52 percent of U.S. consumptio n. Reducing
>oil demand would remove the most expensive oil sources from the mar
>ket first, and foreign oil is the cheapest oil supply source in the
>world. Dome stic producers, not foreign oil producers, would be hit
>hardest if gasoline demand were to decline.
>
>"Nor would an expanded CAFE standard do much about global
>warming. Gasoline con sumption in the United States is only
>responsible for 1.5 percent of all human- related greenhouse gas
>emissions. The EPA reports that expanded CAFE standards wont
>appreciably change that figure.
>
>"If people want to drive fuel efficient cars, that's their right.  But
>forcing people in cars they don't otherwise wish to drive -- or indirectly
>taxing them through the regulatory standards for not choosing to
>drive cars that environmentalists like is not only wrong, it's
>dangerous."
>
>Jerry Taylor is available for comment at 202-789-5240. To schedule an
>interview , please contact Joan Kirby at 202-789-5266.
>
>The Cato Institute is a 501(c)(3) nonpartisan public policy research
>foundation dedicated to broadening policy debate consistent with the
>traditional American principles of individual liberty, limited
>government, free markets, and peace.

_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold