That is a lie. Fuel economy requirements are entirely economically feasible. Sure, if the industry -- along with the rest of the business community -- continues to put ideology ahead of economics, then, it will maintain it can't afford better fuel standards.
We are letting these executives get away with helping kill the planet AND deny people decent health care. And every person in America should be enraged because this is dumb economics, too (and, I will say, this as an aside: I am aghast that the Democratic candidates, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich -- I am not making a pitch for him -- are refusing to embrace single-payer even though the economics are clear and, instead, are all rolling out health care plans that keep the private insurance industry in the game.)
11 June 2007
Single-payer = less global warming
Jonathan Tasini writes this entertaining piece at Huffington Post.Tasani quotes the New York Times: "In a break with the past, automobile manufacturers have agreed that some increase in fuel economy requirements is appropriate. But they vigorously oppose the Senate bill, complaining that its requirements are too rigid and not economically feasible." Tasani replies to that the same way I would (albeit more succinctly):