Mad Dog’s first show

January 28, 2003 | Wayne

This post was written by guest author, The One and Only Wayne.

This is a paper I wrote for my Comp 2 class last year. It’s a fictional talk show. There are a lot of number and facts, which can make it a little disorienting, and it’s long, but I don’t care, so you’ll have to deal with it. I’m not going to post the bibliography or whatever, but everying thing here could, at some point, be backed up.

Transcript

Program: Hard-Hitting, In-Your-Face Stuff, with Mad Dog
Episode: E194D8938-”Will Americans be Driving in Ten Years?”
(Audience cheers as Mad Dog enters studio)

Mad Dog: Alright, shut up.

(Audience continues to cheer)

MD: Seriously, you guys need to shut up so I can talk, fer cryin’ out loud!

(Audience finally calms down)

MD: That’s better. Hey people, and welcome to my show, Hard-Hitting, In-Your-Face Stuff with Mad Dog. I am, in fact, Mad Dog, so shut up and listen. Today’s topic involves something that is very near and dear to my heart.

(Various audience members break into fits of laughter)

MD: HEY! I’ve got a heart!! Stop laughing or I’ll have two! That’s right, I’ll rip your heart and show it to you, you pale-skinned little punks!

(Audience, fearing for its life, decides to pay attention)

MD: Like I was saying, today’s topic involves something important to millions upon millions of people here in the good ol’ US of A. I’m talking about driving. More importantly, I’m talking about gasoline. I’m talking about fuel economy. I’m talking about being able to pour $20 into my tank and cruising down the highway for the rest of the day, without having to worry about hitting empty. Today, my guests include everyone from a honest-to-goodness scientist, to government officials, to industry insiders. We’re gonna get the skinny, ya know? With that, my first guest is Dr. Johnny Boopshin, from the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Johnny Boopshin: Hi Mad Dog, it’s really super to be here!

MD: Just get to the point before I replace your teeth with baked beans. And why are you wearing your lab coat on my show?

JB: Yes, well, I’ll cut to the quick. The fuel economy of the average new passenger vehicle peaked in 1988 and is now less than it was 10 years ago (Questions and Answers on Fuel Economy).

MD: But aren’t carmakers always telling us how efficient their cars are? What’s the deal?

JB: Well, the stagnation of the Federal government’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards since 1985, doubling of annual vehicle miles driven in the last 25 years and the recent explosion of SUV and light truck sales have eaten away at the nation’s fuel efficiency (Questions and Answers on Fuel Economy).

MD: So the government has something to do with gas mileage, huh? I guess it’s a good thing I’ve got this next guest. Introduce yourself pal.

Robert Murphy: Hello, my name is Robert Murphy. I work at the United States General Accounting Office as the General Counsel.

MD: What do you have to say about the government standards being “stagnant?”

RM: Let me explain the CAFE before I respond to that. Section 32902(a) of title 49, United States Code, requires the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe by regulation, at least 18 months in advance of each model year, average fuel economy standards–for automobiles manufactured in that model year. As for the standards being “stagnant,” I’ll be the first to admit that there hasn’t been much change in the last few years. I’ll use light trucks as an example. The light truck CAFE standard for model year 1998 was established at 20.7 miles per gallon (mpg). The NHTSA, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, interprets section 323 of the Appropriations Act as requiring it to prescribe the same light truck CAFE standard for model year 1999 that applies to model year 1998.This action is consistent with NHTSA’s action in 1996 when it established the 1998 model year standard as the same as the 1997 model year standard, 20.7 mpg, based on similar language in its 1996 Appropriation Act (Office of the General Counsel).

MD: That sure is a lot of words, man.

RM: Thanks?

MD: Okay, so we know about trucks, now what about cars? Please welcome Sven McBoring. Sven has memorized the entire United States Code, which is basically a list of everything that this country uses to make decisions. Thanks for being on the show, Sven.

Sven McBoring: It’s really an honor to be here. I’ve been a fan of the show since the time you got in a fight with the entire audience. That was great TV.

MD: Thanks. You know that I broke thirty-eight ribs that day, and I stole three souls.

(Murmurs from the audience)

SM: Thirty-eight. Wow. I’m impressed.

MD: That’s because I’m impressive. Anyway, what’s the deal with fuel standards for passenger cars?

SM: Here’s how it breaks down: the average fuel economy standard for passenger automobiles manufactured by a manufacturer in a model year after model year 1984 shall be 27.5 miles a gallon (United States Code). You can see that.

JB: Can’t you see?!! He just pointed out the problem! CAFE standards increased new car and truck fuel economy by 70 percent between 1975 and 1988. In 2000 alone, CAFE saved American consumers $92 billion, reduced oil use by 60 billion gallons of gasoline, and kept 720 million tons of global warming pollution out of our atmosphere. The original schedule for CAFE improvements ended in 1985, leaving Congress and the administration responsible for future improvements — none of which have been pursued, leading to the current drop in fuel economy of the national vehicle fleet (Questions and Answers on Fuel Economy).

MD: So, the government isn’t doing jack to help things. I just wonder why carmakers aren’t doing something on their own. Dr. Boopshin, have you got any information about this?

JB: Automakers have a history of not incorporating cost effective technologies that benefit consumer safety and the environment until they are required to do so. As a result, government has had to step in to protect consumers by setting safety, fuel economy and emissions standards. One of the most recent in a line of examples is the air-bag that is now required in all new vehicles — automakers resisted this technology even in the face of clear demonstration of its safety benefits and calls from consumers for safer vehicles (Questions and Answers on Fuel Economy).

MD: I just don’t get it. Why are companies so resistant to increasing fuel economy? To possibly answer that question, as well as some others that may pop up, is Robert Lane owner of BlueOvalNews.com, a website that reports inside information about Ford Motor Company. Robert, where does your information come from?

Robert Lane: Everything I publish comes from internal Ford documents, press releases and magazine articles. Let’s just say that I’ve seem some interesting things over the years, especially when it comes to Ford and fuel economy and emissions. Bill Ford told congress that C.A.F.E. “just isn’t the way to go.” Maybe Bill Ford doesn’t believe that government regulations are the way to go because Ford’s upcoming diesel engine will be BANNED in an estimated 20% of its market within four years after it’s introduced because it cannot pass emissions standards in several states–what does that say about Ford’s commitment to cleaner air quality for future generations in the remaining states? But the topic here is fuel mileage, right? Well, Ford has lobbied against improved fuel efficiency standards, and then taken advantage of those lax standards to push auto design advances in precisely the wrong direction” - and all under the banner of being green (Lane).

MD: That doesn’t make much sense for the environment or economy.

JB: It might not make sense, but it does fit. A number of automakers have pledged to build more efficient automobiles, but these promises result in approximately a 5 percent increase in the fuel economy of each company’s fleet by 2005. This would barely slow the growth in gasoline use, consumer costs and environmental pollution (Questions and Answers on Fuel Economy).

MD: Maybe my next guest will have something to add about Ford Motor Company. Please welcome Janet L. Fix, who works for the Detroit Free Press.

Janet Fix: Hey, Mad Dog, how’s things?

MD: Eh, you know. Just doin’ the talk show thing. So, have you got anything that might help clear things up?

JF: Well, I recently spoke with Jac Nasser, who is now the former CEO of Ford Motor Company, about the government’s CAFE standards. “Personally, I’d eliminate it,” he said. At Ford, “we’d like the chance to do better on fuel economy, voluntarily, like we’ve done on clean air,” he said (Ford has ideas about helping environment).

MD: Well, if it doesn’t work, what will FoMoCo be doing instead?

RL: I’d like to address that, if I may. Ford Motor Company desperately wants to create the impression that they alone at setting the auto industry’s environmental standards because they plan on introducing four more SUVs in 2004. I’ll use the Ford Explorer as an example. The Explorer’s 2001-2010 fuel economy powertrain improvements require major investments as Ford plans to boost the fuel economy of the Explorer 2% year over year. In order for Ford to achieve that goal they have to boost engine efficiency by 14% and cut the vehicle’s weight by 5%. Consider that the 2001 Explorer will average 20.5 m.p.g. while the 2010 will average 25.6 m.p.g. - that’s an increase of only 5.1 m.p.g in almost a ten year span. When averaging in both the standard Explorer with the FFV Explorer, the numbers tell a different tale. The standard 2004 Explorer will average 22.9 miles per gallon, but when averaged in with FFV Explorers the average increases to 26.4 miles per gallon. But how many people are really going to purchase a propane powered Ford Explorer? What Ford Motor Company has proven is that anything can be accomplished by using averages and statistics (Lane).

MD: Alright people, any closing comments?

RL: I would just like to say that the paintbrush that Ford Motor Company is utilizing, paints a pretty picture. However, once their true colors come shining through, utilizing their own documents, the paint falls right off of the canvas (Lane).

JB: I’ll sum things up this way: With consumers saving money and automakers being spurred to develop more fuel-efficient vehicles, new jobs can be created and the overall economy will see an increase in wages. By 2010, more than 40,000 new jobs could be created in the automotive sector alone, and the nation’s wages and salaries could increase by over $3 billion dollars. By 2020, over 100,000 new jobs could be created in the automotive industry and national wages and salaries could increase by over $10 billion (Questions and Answers on Fuel Economy). This alone seems like enough to make increased fuel economy worthwhile.

MD: Anyone else? Okay, I guess I’ll present my final thought of the day. I wanna start by saying that today’s show my have raised more questions about the topic than it answered, but that’s not always a bad thing. It creates a desire to learn more, to find a sense of closure that is sorely lacking. Dr. Boopshin brought up some very good points concerning the technical and economic aspects of increasing fuel mileage, while Robert Lane brought those points to life by using an example that everyone is familiar with. Through their own testimony, those representing the Federal government basically admit to doing nothing to improve the situation, and we didn’t hear as much from Ford as I would have liked. It’s had to say what will be done in this ongoing debate, but I believe that everyone can, or at least should, agree that someone has to get something done, because we can’t afford not to.

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment. You may also want to subscribe to updates so you don't miss anything in the future.

cars, guests, oil, politics, Wayne