Author Topic: Drive less, Don't worry about MPG  (Read 2364 times)

Bags

  • Member
  • Posts: 8545
Drive less, Don't worry about MPG
« on: September 27, 2005, 03:40:00 pm »
I know, I know, cafe standards and mileage per gallon goals are longer term, but man alive...
 
 September 27, 2005
 To Conserve Gas, President Calls for Less Driving
 By DAVID LEONHARDT, JAD MOUAWAD and DAVID E. SANGER
 The New York Times
 
 With fears mounting that high energy costs will crimp economic growth, President Bush called on Americans yesterday to conserve gasoline by driving less. He also issued a directive for all federal agencies to cut their own energy use and to encourage employees to use public transportation.
 
 "We can all pitch in," Mr. Bush said. "People just need to recognize that the storms have caused disruption," he added, and that if Americans are able to avoid going "on a trip that's not essential, that would be helpful."
 
 Mr. Bush promised to dip further into the government's petroleum reserve, if necessary, and to continue relaxing environmental and transportation rules in an effort to get more gasoline flowing.
 
 On Capitol Hill, senior Republicans called for new legislation that they said would lower energy costs by increasing supply and expanding oil refining capacity over the long run.
 
 Even though Hurricane Rita caused much less damage to the oil industry than feared, the two recent hurricanes have disrupted production in the Gulf of Mexico enough to ensure that Americans are facing a winter of sharply higher energy costs. The price of natural gas, which most families use to heat their homes, has climbed even more than the price of gasoline recently.
 
 Households are on pace to spend an average of $4,500 on energy this year, up about $500 from last year and $900 more than in 2003, according to Global Insight, a research firm.
 
 Mr. Bush's comments, while similar to remarks he made shortly after the disruption from Hurricane Katrina pushed gasoline prices sharply higher, were particularly notable because the administration has long emphasized new production over conservation. It has also opted not to impose higher mileage standards on automakers.
 
 In 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney said, "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it cannot be the basis of a sound energy policy." Also that year, Ari Fleischer, then Mr. Bush's press secretary, responded to a question about reducing American energy consumption by saying "that's a big no."
 
 "The president believes that it's an American way of life," Mr. Fleischer said.
 
 Mr. Bush, speaking yesterday after he was briefed at the Energy Department, did not use the dour tone or cardigan-wearing imagery that proved politically deadly for Jimmy Carter during the oil crisis of the 1970's. Nor did Mr. Bush propose new policies to encourage conservation. But he was more explicit than in the past that Americans should cut back.
 
 Oil companies spent much of yesterday assessing the damage from Hurricane Rita, which seemed to spare many oil and gas facilities. Still, the gulf's entire oil output and about four-fifths of its natural gas production remained shut yesterday, less than a month after Katrina left the industry stretched thin.
 
 The Gulf of Mexico produces about 7 percent of the oil consumed in the United States and provides 16 percent of the nation's natural gas.
 
 About half of the 16 refineries that were forced to shut by Hurricane Rita have said they plan to restart production soon. But delays in refining pushed the average price of gasoline up again for the first time since Labor Day, to $2.80 a gallon for regular gasoline, according to AAA.
 
 Crude oil prices also rose yesterday on the New York Mercantile Exchange, closing up 2.5 percent, to $65.82 a barrel. Natural gas futures rose 12 cents, to $12.44 a thousand cubic feet.
 
 "We've been in a chronic situation here where supplies have not really caught up with demand," said Dave Costello, an analyst at the Energy Information Administration.
 
 In response to higher energy costs, households are likely to spend less on restaurant meals, clothing and other items. That would slow economic growth in coming months, but economists predicted that other forces - like a continuing housing boom and rising corporate investments in factories and equipment - would keep the economy growing.
 
 "I don't think we're talking about a recession or a near recession," said Joshua Shapiro, the chief United States economist at MFR, a research company in New York. "I think we're talking about growth that is slower than people expected."
 
 Households are now spending about $550 billion a year on energy, up by about $150 billion since the start of last year, according to Global Insight. Over the course of an entire year, the increase would be equal to almost 2 percent of overall consumer spending.
 
 Energy costs are likely to be a particular burden on low- and middle-income households, whose income growth has barely matched inflation over the last few years. Wealthier households have done better, government data show, and have helped keep economic growth healthy with spending on second homes, new vehicles and the like.
 
 Although more forecasters, including Federal Reserve officials, remain optimistic, some say that the spike in energy costs could lead to something of a tipping point for consumers. Families have already begun saving less money in response to higher energy costs, and they might eventually decide to rethink other parts of their budget.
 
 "The best leading indicator of consumer spending is real average hourly earnings," which have been hurt by higher energy costs, said Joseph H. Ellis, a former Goldman Sachs partner and the author of a forthcoming book on the business cycle. "I think we're heading into a very difficult 2006."
 
 In Washington, two House committees are expected to consider proposals this week that have been blocked in the past by environmental objections. Beyond making it easier to build new refineries, one proposal would allow states to opt out of Congressional bans on coastal oil drilling, and another would allow drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which has been controversial for years.
 
 "Families who are paying more than $3 for a gallon of gasoline cannot afford to watch Congress block more clean U.S. energy production while they suffer," said Representative Richard Pombo, Republican of California and chairman of the Resources Committee.
 
 The oil and gas industry supported the moves. John B. Walker, chairman of the Independent Petroleum Association of American, said areas now off limits offshore and in Alaska "could supply our nation with more than 100 years of natural gas - and save U.S. consumers upward of $500 billion."
 
 Environmental groups said drilling advocates were trying to take advantage of anxiety from the storms and rising gasoline prices to push proposals that did not survive in the recently passed energy bill.
 
 "It is kind of sad," said Kevin Curtis, legislative director at the National Environmental Trust. "There is nothing here that helps the consumer at the gas pump short term."
 
 While attention has been focused on gasoline prices, the spike in natural gas prices has the potential to pose a bigger economic threat.
 
 Households that use natural gas will pay an average $1,130 to heat their homes this winter, an increase of almost $400, according to federal government estimates. The price of natural gas in futures markets has more than doubled since 2000 and is six times what it was throughout the 1990's.

brennser

  • Member
  • Posts: 3760
Re: Drive less, Don't worry about MPG
« Reply #1 on: September 27, 2005, 03:42:00 pm »
yeah, keep that Escalade in the garage!

Re: Drive less, Don't worry about MPG
« Reply #2 on: September 27, 2005, 03:45:00 pm »
I think they made a comment on GMA this morning that the for the President's 5 limo, 4 suv motorcade to travel 5 miles to dinner last night, it cost $600 in gas.
 
 Does this mean that 9 vehicles burn 200 gallons of gas while travelling only 5 miles?

markie

  • Member
  • Posts: 13178
Re: Drive less, Don't worry about MPG
« Reply #3 on: September 27, 2005, 03:52:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by Xavier Bush, Power Forward:
 
 
 Does this mean that 9 vehicles burn 200 gallons of gas while travelling only 5 miles?
The motherfuckers motorcade is never just 9 vehicles. Oh and on top of that there is always the ambulance.

ggw

  • Member
  • Posts: 14237
Re: Drive less, Don't worry about MPG
« Reply #4 on: September 27, 2005, 03:59:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by MTB-Markie:
   
Quote
Originally posted by Xavier Bush, Power Forward:
 
 
 Does this mean that 9 vehicles burn 200 gallons of gas while travelling only 5 miles?
The motherfuckers motorcade is never just 9 vehicles. Oh and on top of that there is always the ambulance. [/b]
And if Jenna was with him, you know she was huffing some hi-test.

sonickteam2

  • Guest
Re: Drive less, Don't worry about MPG
« Reply #5 on: September 27, 2005, 03:59:00 pm »
i dont what is funnier,
 
  George Bush telling the country that driving less will conserve gas, or the fact that he felt like he had to do it!!!!!

Re: Drive less, Don't worry about MPG
« Reply #6 on: September 27, 2005, 04:06:00 pm »
I don't remember the exact total. But even if they were only getting 5 MPG, that would mean the motorcade would have to have 200 vehicles in it.
 
 Something was way off in the math.
 
 
Quote
Originally posted by MTB-Markie:
   
Quote
Originally posted by Xavier Bush, Power Forward:
 
 
 Does this mean that 9 vehicles burn 200 gallons of gas while travelling only 5 miles?
The motherfuckers motorcade is never just 9 vehicles. Oh and on top of that there is always the ambulance. [/b]

markie

  • Member
  • Posts: 13178
Re: Drive less, Don't worry about MPG
« Reply #7 on: September 27, 2005, 04:13:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by Xavier Bush, Power Forward:
  Wah!
Internal combstion engines use a lot of gas when they are started. I would consider the motorcade to be at least around 30 vehicles. Several of them being sub 10mpg Suveeeees.
 
 And I bet there is a lot of sitting around with engines running.

Sir HC

  • Member
  • Posts: 4059
Re: Drive less, Don't worry about MPG
« Reply #8 on: September 27, 2005, 04:20:00 pm »
Realize that those "SUV"s are really a step down from tanks.  They weigh a lot more than an average vechicle and accordingly get a lot worse gas milage.  5 MPG would not suprise me.  And as stated, they probably keep them idling the whole time just in case a fast getaway is needed.  The motorcade sounded like it was 10 vehicles plus the extra (motorcycles and the ambulance and the like).

  • Guest
Re: Drive less, Don't worry about MPG
« Reply #9 on: September 27, 2005, 04:20:00 pm »
<img src="http://www.swankpad.org/spiegel/misc/misc1.jpg" alt=" - " />
 Bush also recommends fucking less
 Bush also recommends shitting less
 Bush also recommends cussing less
 Bush also recommends sucking less
 Bush also recommends blowing less
 Bush also recommends eating less
 Bush also recommends drinking less
 Bush also recommends breathing less

Dr. Anton Phibes

  • Member
  • Posts: 1089
Re: Drive less, Don't worry about MPG
« Reply #10 on: September 27, 2005, 04:29:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by MTB-Markie:
 
 
 Does this mean that 9 vehicles burn 200 gallons of gas while travelling only 5 miles? [/qb]
The motherfuckers motorcade is never just 9 vehicles. Oh and on top of that there is always the ambulance. [/QB][/QUOTE]
 
 So,that's what they're carting Cheney around in now?? Makes sense.........

godsshoeshine

  • Member
  • Posts: 4826
Re: Drive less, Don't worry about MPG
« Reply #11 on: September 27, 2005, 05:09:00 pm »
i think  this article was linked on drudge or something similar awhile back
o/\o

Bags

  • Member
  • Posts: 8545
Re: Drive less, Don't worry about MPG
« Reply #12 on: September 27, 2005, 05:25:00 pm »
I don't think you can criticize the President for having a heavy-duty, highly secure motorcade.  He is the president, after all, and certainly a major security risk.  And he's all that's between Cheney and the title to the position Cheney largely already holds.
 
 Also, I'd concede the Bush makes up for the issues below by taking the additional vacation time.  While he's the most traveled president, he's also the most vacationed.  Perhaps they balance each other out.
 
 "Almost every vehicle Bush uses is custom-made to add security and communications capabilities, and the heavier weight of these guzzlers further drives up gas and jet fuel costs.
 
 The White House declines to discuss travel costs related to the presidential entourage, and did not respond to a request for the overall effect of higher fuel prices on its budget.
 
 It is not Bush's choice to be ferried around in a less than fuel-efficient manner. Those arrangements are dictated by tradition and the Secret Service, whose mission is to protect him.
 
 But Bush is one of the nation's most-traveled presidents.
 
 He has visited 46 countries, some of them several times, during his presidency. He has been to all states except Vermont and Rhode Island."

Bags

  • Member
  • Posts: 8545
Re: Drive less, Don't worry about MPG
« Reply #13 on: September 27, 2005, 05:26:00 pm »
Wednesday October 1, 2003
 
 Dear Yahoo!:
 How many vacation days has George W. Bush taken to date as president? How does that compare with Clinton?
 Vince
 West Hollywood, California
 
 Dear Vince:
 While the president of the United States is never completely on vacation, most commanders-in-chief manage to enjoy a respite from the daily grind during their stay the White House. George W. Bush seems to have taken this to the extreme early in his tenure as president. A humorous, fake resume for Bush suggests that he set the record for most days on vacation by any president in U.S. history -- a bit of an exaggeration, but still cause for some teasing.
 According to an August 2003 article in the Washington Post, President Bush has spent all or part of 166 days during his presidency at his Crawford, Texas, ranch or en route. Add the time spent at or en route to the presidential retreat of Camp David and at the Bush family estate in Kennebunkport, Maine, and Bush has taken 250 days off as of August 2003. That's 27% of his presidency spent on vacation. Although to be fair, much of this time is classified as a "working vacation."
 
 Bush isn't the first president to get away from his work. George Bush Sr. took all or part of 543 vacation days at Camp David and in Kennebunkport. Ronald Reagan spent 335 days at or en route to his Santa Barbara, California, ranch during his eight years in office. Of recent presidents, Jimmy Carter took the least days off -- only 79 days, which he usually spent at his home in Georgia. That's less than three weeks a year, which is closer to the average American's paid time off of 13 days per year.
 
 What about Clinton? As of December 1999, President Bill Clinton had spent only 152 days on holiday during his two terms, according to CBS News. A former staffer noted Clinton was such a workaholic that "it almost killed Clinton to take one-week vacations during August." In 2000, Clinton cut his summer vacation short to just three days, so he and his wife could concentrate on her Senate race and fundraising for Democrats. While we couldn't find the exact tally for Clinton's last year in office, it's reasonable to expect he didn't increase his vacation rate. And in barely three years in office, George W. Bush has already taken more vacation than Clinton did in seven years.

markie

  • Member
  • Posts: 13178
Re: Drive less, Don't worry about MPG
« Reply #14 on: September 27, 2005, 05:30:00 pm »
Oh come on, the motorcade is a joke, isn't it? I mean how would you even know it was the pres if he was just in a regular car driving along.
 
 The same with the helicopter thing. I am sure if a terrorist could buy 1 S.A.M. 7 he could stretch to buying 2.