Along with others on the left, Connelly believes (or believed) that American cars don't meet Chinese standards. Blair has the facts here. (Our favorite PI columnist wasn't alone in making that mistake, or similar mistakes. It is odd, by the way, to find leftists believing such implausible claims, claims that any decent auto mechanic would have found laughable.)
Wonder if Connelly ever corrected his error? If he hasn't, he still can — and readers would think more of him if he did.
(Those who wonder about the decline of American auto companies might want to begin their research with a Google search on these initials: UAW. It is, I think, significant that Japanese companies have done quite well manufacturing cars in the US and, although Toyota, Honda, and the rest pay well, they very seldom have union contracts.
Note to commenters: When Connelly's name is mentioned here, some are inclined to reply on his level, or even lower. For example, he sometimes describes Sound Politics as "far right", which it isn't. In contrast, I never call him "far left", because he isn't. I do call him "hyperpartisan", because he is. And I think Stefan's "contumelious" is also a fair description for Connelly.
In short, feel free to criticize Connelly, but please don't emulate him by including abuse in your criticism.)
Posted by Jim Miller at March 27, 2007 10:18 AM | Email ThisHyperpartisan, right on. Bloody unfair, frequently - the ends justify the means apparently. Misplaced, certainly - his columns are placed by the P-I on pages where news should go, not in the editorial or op-ed sections. Accurate and proper, occasionally. Take with full skepticism and many grains of salt.
Great work if you can get it.
Posted by: Hank Bradley on March 27, 2007 10:59 AMonly postman and rick anderson (not sure he's still reporting) are good local reporters
Posted by: righton on March 27, 2007 11:55 AMPostman=well written, liberal slant
Joel/Danny/Jerry/Nicole etc=poorly written and uniformly liberal
not sure he's worse of diff than nicole/danny/jerry/jean(oops moved up to councilman)
Posted by: righton on March 27, 2007 01:28 PMChina's fuel economy standards do appear to be higher than in the US, but that's nothing to crow about since the US economy standards are so low.
""This is good for China," said Yang Fuqiang, chief representative of the Energy Foundation's Beijing office.
Though not particularly stringent, the new requirements are stricter than U.S. standards, which haven't been updated for more than 20 years, Yang noted.
American fuel efficiency standards are calculated using the average fuel use of the entire fleet sold by an automaker. In China, similar to Japan, the standards require that each model sold meet the criteria, Yang said."
China enacts first fuel-efficiency standards
http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2004-10-08-china-fuel-efficiency_x.htm
Comparison of vehicle fuel economy and GHG emissions standards around the world:
"This analsys prepared for the US Pew Center on Global Climate Change tries to compare how nine major world regions have implemented or proposed fuel economy and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards. It finds that the EU and Japan - followed by China - currently have the most stringent standards in the world."
"The United States and Canada have the lowest standards in terms of fleet-average fuel economy rating, and they have the highest greenhouse gas emission rates based on the EU testing procedure;
http://www.euractiv.com/en/sustainability/comparison-vehicle-fuel-economy-ghg-emissions-standards-world/article-136969
Tim Blair's claim seems to be based on deceptive quotes.
"
But I see nothing on the face of these posts that's necessarily in conflict. Fuel efficiency standards are different from emissions standards. A car with very low emissions can still guzzle gas; likewise, a gas-sipper can belch dirty exhaust.
I'd be interested to see actual numbers posted for both standards. The numbers are what they are. If we Americans feel somehow chagrined for having lower fuel standards than China, then maybe the fix for that should be to raise our fuel efficiency standards, rather than obfuscate the issue.
Posted by: jay on March 27, 2007 05:07 PMI'm surprised to see support for fuel economy standards here. I expect to find myself alone in opposing them when I discuss the issue with my friends, all of whom are left wing and green (I'm left wing, green, and conservative.)
But these standards are a good example of meaningless top-down directives over the economy that end up having negative unintended consequences while failing to achieve their goal. Instead of adding or increasing government mandates or programs, government could most effectively address carbon pollution by reducing itself: remove the government subsidies that exist and encourage people to drive. The most basic form this subsidy takes is the use of non-user-fee taxes to pay for roads. And we're all set to take a giant step in the wrong direction! This will be next fall's RTID (Regional Transportation Investment District), which will add a sales tax that will pay for roads and will increase the already huge subsidy for driving.
Thanks for your time. Cheers, NLC#1