The car press has become the propaganda
ministry of entities and individuals who either know nothing about cars or who
loathe cars.
Whichever it is, the end result is the
same: The writing of serially dishonest stories (and that ancient journalistic
term is most apt) that anyone who does know something about cars – even
if he loathes them – would notice immediately.
“The cost to implement tough fuel
efficiency standards for cars imposed by the Obama Administration for the
first half of the decade could be up to 40 percent lower than previously
estimated using existing conventional technologies, according to a report
from a nonprofit group released on Wednesday.”
Note the
italicized parts.
First of
all, it’s not “fuel efficiency” standards. It’s that plus
the imposition of carbon dioxide “emissions” standards, which can only be
complied with by burning less fuel. It’s not a small point. What Obama’s
minions did was to – for the first time in American regulatory history – lump
carbon dioxide in with proven harmful emissions that create or worsen smog,
acid rain and make it harder for people to breathe.
But C02
does none of those things.
It
hasn’t been proven to hurt anything. It is known to help many
things – such as plants to grow. More and bigger and faster – which leads to
more oxygen for us, plus food.
It has been claimed that vehicular
production of C02 contributes to this slippery thing called “climate change.”
But there are lots of assumptions there, not the least of which is how (and how
much) the “climate” will “change” as a result of what cars generate, C02-wise.
Whether you believe in “climate
change” is just exactly the point. It is a belief – as in a religious one.
Hence the shrieks, Jim Jones-like of deniers of the religion of “climate
change.”
The article does not explain.
It simply asserts – and package deals. The
assumption – purveyed as fact – is that the fatwa is necessary and
good; the obvious flip side of that being moral turpitude for questioning any
of it.
Then it gets worse.
“… could be up to 40 percent lower.”
The author of this as well as whoever
copy-edited it must have previously worked for a tooth-whitening company. Yes,
“up to 40 percent” lower! Which could be anything from 0 percent
lower, right on down the line.
And almost certainly is less than 40
percent.
No qualification or questioning. Just “up
to” 40 percent lower, which they know is to be read as “40 times lower.”
In the same manner that “lose up to 40 pounds” in a week means you’re not going
to lose anywhere near 40 pounds, unless you saw off a limb.
These hacks seem to like the “up to
40 percent” thing; it’s interesting that exactly the same figure was used to
smear VW over the emissions of its TDI diesel engines. These were alleged to be
“up to 40 percent” higher.
But might have been 1 percent higher,
too.
I’ve yet to read a single car press story
that points this out. It is despicable. If VW’s diesels exceeded the allowable
standards, how much, exactly? Why not spell it out? The truth is it
wasn’t much – a lot less than “up to 40 percent higher,” at
any rate – and we aren’t even talking whole numbers.
That was not elucidated, either.
So, the purveying of the fatwa’s costs
as being “40 percent lower” than originally calculated is sloppy at best,
disingenuous at worst. I believe it is the latter, because of what comes next:
“…according to a report from a nonprofit
group.“
And who might the “nonprofit group” happen to
be? Why it is something called the International Council of Clean
Transportation. And lookee, lookee here. It is funded by the ClimateWorks
Foundation – the same outfit that spewed the “up to 40
times higher” stuff about the VW TDI’s exhaust emissions.
Here is the mission statement of the ICCT:
“The International Council on Clean
Transportation is an independent nonprofit organization founded to provide
first-rate, unbiased research and technical and scientific analysis to environmental
regulators. Its mission is to improve the environmental performance and
energy efficiency of road, marine, and air transportation, in order to benefit
public health and mitigate climate change.”
Eric Peters [send him mail] is an automotive columnist and
author of Automotive Atrocities and Road Hogs (2011).
Visit his
website
Copyright © 2017 Eric Peters
