California: Most state lawmakers pick gas guzzlers despite economy drive

SACRAMENTO -- Assemblywoman Gloria Negrete McLeod drives around her Southern California district in a car that's easy on the environment and gets good gas mileage.

But most of McLeod's colleagues don't seem to share her dislike for gas guzzlers, at least in the state cars they pick. In the campaign to reduce dependence on foreign oil, they're not big role models.

Nearly half of the lawmakers who have state-purchased vehicles drive low-gas-mileage sport utility vehicles or pickup trucks, and most of the sedans picked by legislators through that program also have less-than-average fuel efficiency.

"Those are not the best choices of vehicles either for fuel economy or emissions," said Sandra Spelliscy, general counsel for the Planning and Conservation League, an environmental group.

"Elected officials should be setting good examples for the public. There are plenty of good cars out there for people to choose from."

The Legislature buys cars for its members to use on state business, and lawmakers who participate in the program pay a share of the cost. How much they pay varies depending on the price of the vehicle and the payment plan the lawmaker picks.

For example, senators can choose to pay off their cars in two or four years, with the state paying up to $500 a month under the two-year plan and up to $350 under the four-year plan.

If it costs more than those amounts, the lawmaker pays the difference. If it costs those amounts or less, the legislator pays 10 percent.

Typically, a senator's share comes to about $96 a month, said Greg Schmidt, the Senate's top staffer.

Lawmakers can pick any American-made vehicle they want. The Assembly also allows its members to choose foreign cars that use alternative fuel systems, said Jon Waldie, the Assembly's chief administrative officer.

Legislators can also get state credit cards to pay for their business-related gasoline purchases.

The program has been around since the 1950s, and it's cheaper than paying lawmakers mileage for their business-related driving, says Schmidt.

"I would have to add three or four people (to the staff) to verify mileage claims," he said. "That's the way I look at it."

McLeod's state car is a 2001 Toyota Prius, a hybrid sedan that has both a gasoline engine and electric motor and averages 48 miles per gallon of gas, according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates.

It also produces only four tons a year of greenhouse gases that are blamed for global warming.

In contrast, the most popular vehicle among California legislators, the Ford Expedition, a full-size SUV, gets as little as 12 mpg in the city and 16 mpg on the highway and produces 11 to 14 tons of greenhouse gases annually, depending on the year and style of the vehicle.

The most popular sedan driven by legislators, the Chrysler 300M, averages about 21 mpg and generates about nine tons of greenhouse gases annually.

The federal government requires that a manufacturer's passenger cars have a fleet average of 27.5 mpg and that SUVs, vans and light trucks average 20.7 mpg.

McLeod, D-Montclair, says she picked the Prius because she is "concerned about the environment and also about gas prices." She says legislators who approve environmental legislation "should put their money where their mouth is, so to speak."

But Assemblyman Mike Briggs, a Fresno Republican who is the vice chairman of the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee, says there are other considerations that go into picking a vehicle.

Briggs, whose state vehicle is a 1999 Ford Expedition, says he needs four-wheel drive to get around his mountain-and-valley district.

"Everything comes into consideration (in picking a vehicle), but the most important is the Assembly member needs to get from the snowy mountain area down to Sacramento without being impeded," he said.

Nine legislators don't take part in the program. One of them, Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Los Angeles, says she prefers to drive her own 1964 red Porsche convertible, which she says gets 24 mpg.

"When you drive a car for 40 years it's like part of the family," she says. "It's the best car ever made. I am in worse shape than the car."

I have to admit this one looks pretty dumb. It's particularly shameful to see a Porsche counted as a sensitive, economical choice! Maybe all the legislators should start driving Porsches!

This actually brings up an interesting point - that Porsche gets better economy, but is much worse for the environment than the Expedition; emissions have decreased amazingly since 1964. If you want something more environmentally sensitive, the Expedition is the better choice.

What they should be trying to do is encouraging people to buy new cars, even massive new cars, instead of keeping their old ones on the road. The new plan, of course, will do just the opposite.

Incidentally, CAR Magazine (UK), which I read due to its humour, total honesty and amazing photography, rated the Prius as follows:

[AVOID Icon]
Save the planet without chaining yourself to bublldozers, eating muesli or shaving whales. That's the idea anyway, but the Pious is such an insipid driving device that all the emission-trimming cleverness gets effectively forgotten. Zero dynamic reward, identical fuel economy to the rather fun VW Golf TDI 130. Why?
Spec Notes: Depreciation reflects enormous trade suspicion.
Rivals: Honda Insight
But also try: VW Golf TDI.
OUR CHOICE: Are we missing something? Or is this the most pointless car on the planet?

I wish our auto magazines were this honest!

The TDI is a diesel. Diesels have enjoyed a rennaisance in Europe, both due to sky-high fuel prices and a driving experience now well up on their rivals. CAR recently completed a long-term test of the BMW 3-series diesel, which they called the best car in its class. They've cleaned up the emissions, too, so this might be yet another sensible path to follow if you really want to conserve.

It should be an election issue especially because of the hypocritical contrast to the following article, from just yesterday:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,51916,00.html

Carmakers Fuming Over California Bill to Cut Tailpipe Exhaust

Friday, May 03, 2002

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California lawmakers are moving to impose the nation's first restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions from cars and trucks, and automakers are fuming.

Global auto manufacturers say the latest restrictions could filter to other states, hampering supplies and sales nationally of popular sport utility vehicles and light trucks.

With more vehicles on the road than any other state, California has traditionally led the nation's emissions-standards policies.

Thursday's vote in the Senate was portrayed by opponents — who include the United Auto Workers Union — as an end-run around the federal government's failure to impose higher fuel mileage standards.

Carbon dioxide, one of many components of vehicle exhaust, is the same non-toxic gas exhaled by humans. It accounts for 80 percent of greenhouse gases; 98 percent of the atmosphere's carbon dioxide comes from burning fossil fuels.

Industry representatives say unlike toxic emissions such as ozone and diesel soot, no technology exists to restrict natural gases like carbon dioxide and methane, meaning their only choice for compliance is to build more fuel efficient cars.

Senate Democrats prevailed in the 22-13 vote. A similar bill already passed the Democrat-dominated Assembly; if the Assembly agrees to the Senate's changes, the bill would go to Gov. Gray Davis, who has not indicated a position.

Republican senators called Thursday's vote a "rush to judgment" and questioned the scientific legitimacy of global warming itself.

"There's enough evidence to debunk that," Sen. Maurice Johannessen said.

Depending on which version of the bill prevails, carmakers would have to reduce greenhouse gases in the nation's largest fleet by 2008 or 2009. It does not affect commercial vehicles.

Carmakers, who have had three years of record car and truck sales, say this time the state is reaching too far.

"It becomes enormously problematic for multinational manufacturers to make state-specific cars," said Kris Kiser, vice president of state affairs for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

Kiser, who represents the world's major automakers, said he's hoping for a Davis veto, calling the legislation an attempt to subvert federal decisions not to raise fuel mileage requirements.

California legislators and environmentalist maintained during committee hearings that carmakers only innovate when forced by legislation, and criticized the industry for hiring lawyers and lobbyists instead of paying engineers to build better cars.

"It's a very, almost reactionary industry from the standpoint of doing it the way they want to do it, and that's one of the reasons they're in trouble," said Senate President Pro Tem John Burton.

Nationally, minivans, sport utility vehicles and light trucks, which typically get lower fuel mileage, make up 51 percent of cars and trucks sold, said Paul Taylor, economist with the National Automobile Dealers Association.

The bill's opponents say making lighter and smaller cars is the only way to comply with the standards, meaning consumers will be offered less choices.

sc posted, Has anyone mentioned that most if not all "clean-air" fuel additives increase per-mile CO2 emissions?
That, plus the emissions like with the MTBE additive in Kali, are harmful to the enviroment and Californians.
Cut down the mileage per gallon of gasoline.
Cost more per gallon which also harms the economy.

The mandates remove competitive price pressure as no out of state refineries can ship gasoline at lower prices into Kali.

Of course no one cares.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.