Reason.tv: Morticians Association of America Endorses President Obama's Tough Fuel Efficiency Standards

 

Putting things off … It's what we humans do. Thankfully, President Obama has stopped putting things off when it comes to global warming. He's insisting on tough new fuel efficiency standards, and that means our children will enjoy a cleaner environment.

The new standards mean more of us will be driving smaller, fuel-efficient cars. And since smaller, lighter cars-even when they are extremely well-designed for safety-mean more of us will have to plan for our final day sooner than we anticipated, we urge you to follow the president's lead and think ahead.

Don't put off planning for your final day. We're the Morticians Association of America, and we salute President Obama.

Written and produced by Ted Balaker with Paul Detrick. Narrated by Rin Palmer. Approximately 1.13 minutes.

For more videos, visit Reason.tv and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel.

Comments

[Lester Hunt]

Morituri te salutant!

[a name]

lighter cars dont necessarily mean smaller ones, just lighter materials.

[JW]

No blood for oil!

[PeeDub]

Of course, those of us that already drive smaller cars probably have to start committing more to our 401k's. It's always something!!

[Gilbert Martin]

Well since all the cars big or small are going to have their engines ruined by ethanol fuel, it doesn't matter anyway.

We'll all be walking everywhere.

More change you can believe in.

[Flex Nasty B.I.G.]

For the love of Zeus, please stop mocking environmentalists and automatically pooh-poohing all of their concerns. You're alienating a huge chunk of the population, and making libertarians look like backwards Fox News zealots.

Some popular environmental concerns may be overblown or misguided, but the general idea that "hey, it'd be cool if there weren't high levels of mercury in my kid's drinking water" is totally reasonable.

There are plenty of solutions (to genuine environmental concerns) which are consistent with markets and property rights. You know it and I know it, but everyone else has the impression that libertarians are all about raping the environment and leaving 57-gallon drums of toxic chemicals in the river. Reason.tv videos are not helping.

I know you're trying to buddy up to the right, but some of us see promise in converting those on the left as well. We need to show them market-oriented solutions instead of just bashing them.

[AnonCowHerd]

My Dodge Ram 2500 won't be affected by the ethanol problems...it's diesel.

[R C Dean]

We need to show them market-oriented solutions instead of just bashing them.

Well, I think before you can get to the solutions, you need to be clear on what problem you are trying to solve.

Reducing CO2 footprints is a solution in search of a problem.

And in case you haven't noticed, we skeptical libertarians are winning this fight in the public mind. Of course, given Our Masters demonstrated willingness to extend their control regardless of public opinion, that may not mean much . . . .

[Gilbert Martin]

"but everyone else has the impression that libertarians are all about raping the environment and leaving 57-gallon drums of toxic chemicals in the river"

I rather doubt that you have been appointed the spokesman for "everyone else".

[JW]

You know it and I know it, but everyone else has the impression that libertarians are all about raping the environment and leaving 57-gallon drums of toxic chemicals in the river.

We aren't? :::rolls barrel back into shed:::

We need to show them market-oriented solutions instead of just bashing them.

I think we libertarians have been telling the guvmint to get the hell out of the energy and car business for some time now, since all they seem to do is screw those industries and markets up, and since individuals are better at deciding what type of vehicle fits their needs best. They don't seem to be listening.

[Aresen]

Wait a minute!

You mean Soylent Green is actually intended to be used as fuel?

[Gilbert Martiin]

"I think we libertarians have been telling the guvmint to get the hell out of the energy and car business for some time now"

True.

However I have a feeling that when he says "market based soluctions" it really means we must accept the premises of the radical environmentalists and accept that government must mandate certain outcomes and the "maket" part only comes in as part of a mechanism to meet those outcomes.

[Flex Nasty B.I.G.]

However I have a feeling that when he says "market based soluctions" it really means we must accept the premises of the radical environmentalists and accept that government must mandate certain outcomes and the "maket" part only comes in as part of a mechanism to meet those outcomes.

Please don't put words in my mouth. What I mean is that we ought to recognize that transactions sometimes result in externalities. (ex: toxic junx being pumped into communal air or water as a byproduct of commercial activity) To extent that such externalities actually exist, the affected parties have the right to an appropriate level of response, whether that means an end to it or some sort of compensation.

Is that is unlibertarian? Please do explain.

[slutmonkey]

I have to admit this made me chuckle, but I can't endorse the use of this kind of cutting sarcasm because it doesn't help bring anyone to the libertarian point of view. At best it's a joke that's offensive to the opposition. At worst it fosters resentment for people who like Obama (that's like 70 percent of the USA right now isn't it?) or have environmentalist tendencies.

I'm not saying we should praise this legislation, but this is counterproductive to fighting both the legislation and the thinking behind it. No matter how angry Obama's policy makes us we need to continue to offer smart answers--not smartass answers.

[Flex Nasty B.I.G.]

slutmonkey said it much better than I did. My concern really wasn't so much with the substance of any environmental legislation, but that videos of this sort turn off more people to libertarianism than they attract.

[Stretch]

IIRC (which I probably don't), you're actually more likely to die driving an SUV. Yes, if an SUV and a small car get in a collision, the driver of the small car is more likely to be killed but, that only takes into account multiple car accidents.

SUV's handle more poorly, have longer braking distances, roll over more easily and therefore are more likely to be in fatal one-car accidents.

So, the effect of this legislation is likely to be a 'push' in the fatalities.

full disclosure, I drive a '95 Explorer.

[Brad]

You have to consider the fleet mix, not just vehicle weights.

Based on the most recent data available, in 2004, the occupant fatality rate per 100,000 vehicles was indeed 4.69 higher for sub-compact cars than for full size cars, but it was only 0.69 higher compared to mid-size SUVs, and 0.02 less than compact pickup trucks.

If we replaced all the SUVs on the road in 2004 with sub-compact cars, we could expect only 160 additional traffic fatalities per year.

Meanwhile, a 1998 NHTSA study estimated that SUVs' extra weight and incompatibility in crashes with other passenger cars, pedestrians and bicyclists (and the difficulty of seeing children) contributed to an additional 2000 deaths in that year. Rae Tyson, an NHTSA spokesman, says, "I'm sure that number is much higher now."

[Tulpa]

Reason.tv needs to start selling subscriptions so I can threaten to cancel mine. What an ill-conceived, stupid, and frankly insulting post this is.

[voxpo]

Oh, I thought it was pretty good. I mean, I agree libertarians have to be putting forth solutions, but a little parody is nice now and then, too. The last three times I shopped for a car I favored higher weight as a positive for safety. As a safe driver, I'm suspicious at the outset of any law that might result in my driving a lighter, and therefore less safe, vehicle than I would otherwise have chosen.

[johnny john john]

voxpy:
Why would you buy a heavier car?? Safer for you, more dangerous for everyone else (Obvious by physics; the more mass, the greater the impact force). And why would anyone buy a less efficient vehicle???

Everyone always claims to be "safe driver", but shit happens. You will never be fully aware of your surroundings 100% of the time, and that's when accidents happen.

Full disclosure: I ride my bicycle to work and don't want to get run over by a heavy car

[cookie]

For singles .... I found a hot place where you can find your rich and sexy partner...
Try your best to enjoy life..[========SugarBabyMeet.com ======]
HOPE YOU CAN FIND YOUR LOVE

[John Galt]

What is really interesting about the Markey/Waxman bill is that it is proposing an U.S.A. average fleet mpg increase from today's level of about 25.5 to 36.5 mpg in 2016

That is an increase of just under 40%.

Estimates say that this will add approximiately $1,300 to the average cost of cars? Trucks?

In any case. There is now a patented product which was invented by Zion Badash in Israel. You can buy this part which has no moving components and attaches to all gasoline engines for just $208 retail in a qauntity of 1. Clearly if all car manufacturers were to build this part into all of their cars the added cost at retail would be a lot less $208 and probably below $100.

So today it is possible to achieve the 2016 goals of the Markey/Waxman bill for under $100 a verhicle. Not only that but this part also significantly reduces emissions and increase the power of the vehicle to boot.

Anyone want to bet that you won't find these on new cars. It would be too easy and too clean a solution.

Go to link for website of the Z5.

http://www.z55555.com/

YouTube video on the Z5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_Ded9eoxIM&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.israel21c.org%2Fbin%2Fen.jsp%3FenDispWho%3DArticles%255El2536%26enPage%3DBlankPage%26enDisplay%3Dview%26enDispWhat%3Dob&feature=player_embedded

[Mike Laursen]

All Obama did was move an existing MPG mandate deadline up by four years. And yet I've seen blogs gushing about how this is REAL CHANGE.

[Tim]

If the environmentalists were about market based solutions they would propose a simple carbon tax. If they are about political expediency, control, and rewarding special interest groups they would pass a complex cap and trade system, fuel efficiency standards, and a variety of subsidies to well connected alternative energy providers. The latter is a wonderfully complex system that allows politicians to pick winners and losers and increase tax revenues without facing much public scrutiny as it is all done in the name of the environment; as we unfortunately found out with corn ethanol the programs ultimately don't always even help that.

[Jorgen]

I'm with the haters. Small cars are dangerous because of all the big cars on the road; legislation that makes it hard for your neighbors to buy SUV's actually makes you safer. Plus, people take more driving risks in safer vehicles, so removing folks in pickups and SUV's who feel invulnerable from the road is really a boon to everybody else. Libertarians get this when we're talking about seatbelt laws, that making someone wear a seatbelt is going to make them drive faster; how is this different? There's plenty to criticize about this, but I think the problem is making mandates about what sort of products are manufactured in this country rather than choosing a mechanism that is more respectful of individual choice, such as putting a per weight vehicle tax into effect, or just hiking the gas tax. Or better yet, instituting a comprehensive cap and trade system or carbon tax and then not getting into the details of whether people buy smaller cars, or make fewer trips, or move into nearer suburbs or just pay for their pollution.