riredale

Wait a second! Before we get back to MPG discussion, I wanted to chime in that the program on the Smithsonian Channel that discusses aviation crashes (can't recall the actual series title) has had some pretty interesting stuff in recent weeks. It's a little bit "6th-grade" in its narration, but it employs some pretty cool animations and it generally sticks with the facts and minimizes sensationalism.

In particular I was surprised by the evaluation of an Airbus A320 crash over Siberia, where the pilot allows his teenage kids to sit in the pilot's seat for a few minutes midway through the long flight. I learned that the Airbus autopilot had a mode where roll control could be disengaged (accidentally, in this case) while keeping control of rudder and elevator. Leave it to Airbus to design something weird (when compared to tried-and-true Boeing). A delayed realization of what was happening led to very high G forces and a botched recovery.

Okay, back to MPG. What had changed in the past decade is the realization that, with new oilfield discoveries, there is apparently no such thing as "peak oil" and thus forcing the MPG standard high is not necessary from a supply point of view. As for Global Warming, it has been known for over a century that CO2 tends to warm. The real question is, how much? Researchers in the past few decades have assumed a powerful positive-feedback process, but it now appears that the influence is far less.

I'd suggest a freeze on the current MPG standard. If California wants to forge ahead into the unknown, fine; the automakers can decide whether they want to follow them while 95% of the world chooses the milder standard.