Tire Pressure -- Democratic Facts vs Republican Gimmicks

[jsteele]

I wrote about this a bit yesterday, but want to bring more attention to it. Yesterday, Barack Obama encouraged people to ensure that their tires were properly inflated because proper inflation can result in significant fuel savings. In fact, he explained that if everyone properly inflated their tires, more oil would be saved than is likely to be gained from expanded off-shore drilling. McCain and his followers reacted by almost falling over laughing. The same guys that were not able to provide aid to New Orleans for days were able to produce and begin handing out engraved tire pressure gauges (saying "Obama's energy plan") within hours.

But, Obama was not alone in noting the advantages of properly inflated tires. As I posted yesterday, NASCAR has a page on their website specifically about this:

http://www.nascar.com/2006/auto/07/25/tires/

"With escalating fuel prices, the time is now for drivers to focus on simple things like proper tire pressure to maximize tire performance and increase fuel economy."

Two Republican governors, Crist of Florida and Ahhnold of California, have also touted proper tire pressure as a fuel savings method.

I am well aware of the fuel-saving possibility of proper tire inflation, but I was not sure that Obama's claim that more would be saved than gained through off-shore drilling was correct. I was therefore surprised that Republicans did not attack that specific point (instead, making a joke of the entire issue). Now, Time Magazine has weighed in on the side of Obama:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1829354,00.html

The Bush Administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 bbl. per day by 2030. We use about 20 million bbl. per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand two decades from now. Meanwhile, efficiency experts say that keeping tires inflated can improve gas mileage 3%, and regular maintenance can add another 4%. Many drivers already follow their advice, but if everyone did, we could immediately reduce demand several percentage points. In other words: Obama is right.

So, "Obama is right". Obama's suggestion could save several percentage points now, whereas McCain's plan might meet 1% of demand in 20 years. Which idea sounds more promising?

The point I want to emphasis is not only was Obama right, but that the Republicans are treating it like a joke. To Republicans, actual fuel savings -- the type of thing that could help our pocketbooks today -- is a joke. So, when you hear McCain talking about gas prices and their effect on all of us, understand that he really does not care. Real fuel savings is a joke, something turned into a gimmick. This is precisely what is killing today's Republican party. The party stands for nothing beyond winning by any means necessary. Whether it is dog whistle commercials matching Obama with Britney and Paris, or tire pressure gauges, the Republican party has nothing to offer beyond cheap gimmicks.

Meanwhile, if you do want to save a bit of fuel and contribute to the overall good, do as Obama says and check your tire pressure and get your car properly tuned. This behavior involves something in which Republicans claim to believe: taking responsibility for yourself rather than relying on the government to do things for you. If you don't have a tire gauge, maybe you can contact the McCain campaign and get one from them (they can also supply plenty of hot air).

[jsteele]

The Republicans really stepped in it with their tire pressure gauge gimmick. Today, Obama slapped them silly over it, saying "Its like these guys take pride in being ignorant"

[Anonymous]

Thanks, Jeff! I have been following this, too, and it makes me so mad to see people scoffing at some very practical tips. Same thing with changing your light bulbs. If we all made some very simple changes, we might ensure a brighter future for our kids and grandkids.

[Anonymous]

Nope, Obama is wrong.

You're not going to get an immediate 3-4% NATIONAL savings in oil consumption via the "tire pressure plan". That would presume that everybody's tires were under-inflated which simply isn't the case. How many people's tires are underinflated to the point of causing a big efficiency hit? I'd say less than 5%. So what's +3-4% of 5%, if even that? Far less than the 1% increase in NATIONAL supply from expanded drilling, and it's not just off-shore drilling that could be expanded. How bout ANWR? How bout all of the other restricted areas? How bout more nuclear that would lessen demand further? Expanded coal and shale?

This is why Republicans were all rolling over laughing, and yes the tire pressure thing is a GIMMICK. It sounds like when the last time I bought a car, the back-end sales guy was desperately trying to get me to buy into their $60 BS Nitrogen tire filling plan, talking about how much money I'd save. Pure nonsense because that "savings" assumes my tires would be improperly inflated in the first place. They're not, nor are most people's. Most dealerships and JiffyLube and other service centers check them for you, for free, even if you don't yourself.

Can we expect more gimmicky non-solutions like these if Obama is elected POTUS? Yet another reason why he won't be getting my vote.

[Anonymous]

Oh and this is also why "Democratic Facts" (re: thread title choice of words) usually don't carry much weight, especially relating to mathematical concepts. he he

[Anonymous]

I would be more concerned about Obama's lying commerical that "big oil" gave 2 million to McCain's campaign--companies cannot donate to the election--people can and they are capped at 2,300 per person--what you can track is what people do when they give in their donation so most likely people who worked in the oil industry from oil companies to drilling companies to gas station owners to actual longshoreman gave, of their own will and conscience to the McCain campain--and I am sure some have given to the Obama campaign. It was directly misleading because a lot of people do not know campaign rules.

[Anonymous]

Obama has received "$400,000 from oil companies". Exactly how that breaks down I do not know. But yes, incredibly hypocritical.

[jsteele]

Regarding tire pressure, McCain has flip flopped and now supports maintaining correct tire pressure:

http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/08/05/mccain-takes-air-out-of-tire-pressure-debate/

“Obama said a couple of days ago says we all should inflate our tires. I don’t disagree with that. The American Automobile Association strongly recommends it,” McCain said.

If you read the article to which I linked, you would understand that the savings are not based on everyone currently having incorrect tire pressure. The article acknowledges that many people have correctly filled tires. The savings comes from those who don't, correcting their tire pressure. It was nice for you to pull numbers out of your butt, but you can put them back now.

As for how "big oil" gave money to McCain, it was done through PACs controlled by the the oil industry and through individuals employed by the companies. But, more ominously for the Maverick is the report in today's Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/05/AR2008080503502.html?hpid=topnews

Earlier this week, McCain drew questions about more than $60,000 in donations that were made this year to the Republican National Committee and his campaign by an office manager with the Hess oil company and her husband, an Amtrak track foreman.

Do you really think people of such modest financial means are giving McCain the equivalent of their kids' college fund? Clearly, oil money is being funneled through them.

For more information on McCain's whoring for big oil, read this report:

http://www.campaignmoney.org/files/Its_A_Gusher.pdf

Notice the huge increase in donations following his flip flop to support off-shore drilling.

[Anonymous]

Wouldn't we use less gasoline if we all lost our excess weight, too? I'll bet Paris Hilton could get behind that as a national campaign.

[Anonymous]

McCain did not flip-flop on off-shore drilling. His argument against the legislation at the time was that it did not give the individual states the decision making power, and did not include them in the profits. The new legislation does both. I don't understand how the press gets these things so wrong. They report the most ridiculous things about McCain and Obama as fact and expect you to believe it.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Regarding tire pressure, McCain has flip flopped and now supports maintaining correct tire pressure:

http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/08/05/mccain-takes-air-out-of-tire-pressure-debate/

oh please. It's abusrd to even think that he was "against" proper tire inflation in the first place.

jsteele wrote:If you read the article to which I linked, you would understand that the savings are not based on everyone currently having incorrect tire pressure. The article acknowledges that many people have correctly filled tires. The savings comes from those who don't, correcting their tire pressure. It was nice for you to pull numbers out of your butt, but you can put them back now.

oooooooooookaaaaaaaaay. How often do you see a vehicle parked or driving with a tire under-inflated enough that it's noticeable? Almost never for me, how bout you? Mildly low tire pressures that you can't visibly see yet do not cause a measureable drop in mileage. Yes, I've actually tested this, by accident.

Drill now so that when we're having this same discussion 10 years from now we'll be happy that we did something 10 years ago rather than whining now about how drilling won't do anything for 10 years and being absolutely NOWHERE 10 years in the future. And yes, do other things too, like keep your tires at the correct pressure, LOL.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:McCain did not flip-flop on off-shore drilling. His argument against the legislation at the time was that it did not give the individual states the decision making power, and did not include them in the profits. The new legislation does both. I don't understand how the press gets these things so wrong. They report the most ridiculous things about McCain and Obama as fact and expect you to believe it.

I'll concede that McCain's record is a mixed bag, but there is evidence to suggest this was a true flip-flop. In response to a candidates' questionnaire in 1999, McCain supported the federal moratorium on oil drilling. Also, in 1992, McCain voted to kill an amendment to the National Energy Policy bill (S 2166) which would have strengthened the role of coastal states in federal offshore drilling decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Regarding tire pressure, McCain has flip flopped and now supports maintaining correct tire pressure:

http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/08/05/mccain-takes-air-out-of-tire-pressure-debate/

oh please. It's abusrd to even think that he was "against" proper tire inflation in the first place.

Well after hearing McCain's chuckle and condescending attitude about Obama's remark on fuel efficiency, one can correctly infer that his intention was to humiliate and belittle such a "dumb" remark by Obama. So while McCain did not specifcally use the word "against" in reference to adjusting one's tire pressure, you can clearly infer that McCain was "against" the practical suggestion. You could only have missed it if you were comatose. Maybe McCain is jealous he didn't think of it first.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McCain did not flip-flop on off-shore drilling. His argument against the legislation at the time was that it did not give the individual states the decision making power, and did not include them in the profits. The new legislation does both. I don't understand how the press gets these things so wrong. They report the most ridiculous things about McCain and Obama as fact and expect you to believe it.

I'll concede that McCain's record is a mixed bag, but there is evidence to suggest this was a true flip-flop. In response to a candidates' questionnaire in 1999, McCain supported the federal moratorium on oil drilling. Also, in 1992, McCain voted to kill an amendment to the National Energy Policy bill (S 2166) which would have strengthened the role of coastal states in federal offshore drilling decisions.

OOhhhh, everyone can cut and paste from other blogs to defend their points Jeff, but the truth is that McCain has been very consistent about states rights and keeping ANWR closed to drilling. When you (or the blog) point to his vote to kill the energy policy amendment of 1992 you fail to note that his objection was not to strengthening the role of the coastal states, but to the energy pipeline inspection revisions contained in the same.

My point is that it is easy to take a paragraph out of context without actually reading the Bill, and the proposed amendment to that Bill. Everyone wants to skim over the surface of the issues and pick out only those items which favor their particular candidates and this is the part that saddens me about the whole process. As I have said in other postings, my main concern is where the money is coming from and who they plan to bring in with them. How about a little more following the money, and little less of childish back and forth over tire pressure?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well after hearing McCain's chuckle and condescending attitude about Obama's remark on fuel efficiency, one can correctly infer that his intention was to humiliate and belittle such a "dumb" remark by Obama. So while McCain did not specifcally use the word "against" in reference to adjusting one's tire pressure, you can clearly infer that McCain was "against" the practical suggestion. You could only have missed it if you were comatose. Maybe McCain is jealous he didn't think of it first.

Nope, he just thought it was ridiculous to offer as some serious solution that'll have a huge impact when it won't. I thought it was funny and I'm laughing (as are many others on the right), but not one single person is "against" maintaining proper inflation in your tires. It's a good idea for everybody, yes. Is it a serious solution that'll have a measureable impact? No.