OCR Text |
Show The Paper That Dares To Take A Stand Page 8 The UTAH Independent August 9, 1973 D Continued from page 1 equipped with the converter failed after only 5,000 miles. Ford president Lee lacocca declared that the converters are supposed to work for 50,000 miles on the road. In early shipments from suppliers, 23 to 25 percent failed without any miles on them they didnt even hold up during shipping. The converter is made from either platinum or palladium, both scarce in this country but abundant in Russia and South Africa. Estimates are that it will cost 13 billion dollars between 1975 and 1980 just to import enough of these metals to meet the needs of the auto industry. It takes little imagination to realize what nation is likely to receive the bulk of that trade. As for vehicle economy, well forget it. At a Detroit meeting of the Society of Automotive Engineers in early May, senior vice president Dayton H. Clewell of Mobil Oil explained that the proposed converter would result in 1976 model cars using 39 percent more gasoline per mile than in 1970. If we could use a little lead and higher octane fuels, we could save 190,000 barrels of crude oil a day by 1985. And, not only will the converter reduce fuel economy, but so will the weight of the safety and devices. At that same Detroit engineers meeting, Ford executive Harold C. MacDonald compared the weight and fuel economy of the 1965 Ford and the projected 1975 model equipped with the required safety devices. According to MacDonald, a 1965 Ford V-- 8 with automatic transmission, power brakes, and power steering, weighed about 3,500 pounds and averaged 15 miles per gallon. In 1968, Ford gained 250 pounds with the first emission control devices and anti-polluti- The nvironment burnucrats ara ruining your car. mileage dropped 3 percent. Performance dropped 8 percent. The 1971 Ford weighed 4,150 pounds and avera 15 aged 13 miles per gallon percent decrease in gasoline efficiency since 1965. The 1973 model weighs 4,275 and gets only 12 miles per gallon. Ford studies have indicated that the 1975 model will average 11 miles per gallon and, adds MacDonald, an 18 percent loss in performance is - anticipated." Infuriating as all of this is to the consumer, the automobile manufacturers make a profit on all of that federally required gadgetry. And the giant gasoline companies are virtually pumping money as they use the increased demand to choke out independent competition, manipulate prices, and justify special tax incentives. As a result, the profits of the oil giants were up 27 percent on the average during the first quarter of this year, and some of them were up over 50 percent. On June 18, 1973, the New York Times revealed. that the created fuel shortage had boosted cumulative prices on gasoline by as much as $5 billion a year. The Department of Transportation and its National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are also in on the game. In early 1970, the National Highway Safety Bureau (now the e N.H.T.S.A.) issued a report, Vehicle For Motor Program Safety Standards , in which it listed what it would require of the auto industry during the next five years. In their issue for August 31, 1970, the editors of U.S. News & World Report summarized the Bureau's goals for the American automobile. These would require: A mechanical test a driver must pass to prove he is sober before his car will start. A device which would prevent a cars being started unless all of the seat belts are fastened. Safety belts and other devices designed to protect pregnant women, young children and adults. A gauge that automatically shows when tires are over or Lights that flash when the legal speed limit is exceeded. Specially designed seats that protect passengers from side colunder-inflate- d. lisions. The Bureau also wanted wraparound seats; the elimination of exterior protrusions from automobiles; speed control devices; special firewalls between the engine and passengers; federal bumper and roof standards; strength standards for doors; and, federal guidelines on locations of seats. All of this safety and antipollution equipment will not only cost the consumer a fortune, and earn extra profits for the manufacturers, but it is apparently going to cost some auto workers their jobs. On January 5, 1973, General Motors announced that it was planning to close a 1,020-ma- n tooling plant in Detroit because of styling cutbacks . . . said to be justified by the rising cost of adding on more and more safety and devices at the expense of improved engineering and styling. To an extent, government safety regulations are playing a major role in car design and equipment An auto manufacturer might have trouble justifying price increases for style changes, but that required safety' equipment is another matter. Among the new safety devices for which you will be paying in 1974 will be airbags (in some cars), plug-ugl-y standardized bumpers, and a seatbelt-ignitio- n interlock which will force the driver to fasten his seatbelt before he can start his car. Auto manufacturers have estimated that at least 3 percent of these systems will fail in the new cars, and that electronic technicians will be needed to repair them. And it is no accident that application of these devices will boost the sticker price of the 1974 models by another $200. Still, if government safety and antipollution regulation of the motor industry continues, the automobile will become so expensive and impractical to use that many Americans will be forced into dependency upon a federally controlled mass transportation system. Which, as our federal transportation czars indicated at the beginning, is the ultimate point. In January of this year, EP.A. boss William Ruckelshaus hinted at the next step in the governments drive to curb your use of a private automobile. Suggesting ways of solving urban traffic problems, he mentioned several alternatives among them car pooling, vehicle-fre- e zones, higher vehicle taxes, limits on regisand mass transit. In the tration anti-polluti- ever-increasi- ... (D.-Ne- w said-Her- e 2-- so-call- president of Friends of the Earth. Brower claimed to have the solution to the population and pollution problems, which he presented in the following summary : Panelists in the John Muir Institute Symposium last September in Aspen outlined the five basic requirements for moving toward equilibrium and we need to work on all of them: (1) halt population growth, (2) create an ecological ethic that will influence all human affairs, (3) create an economic system not based on growth and not abusive of the earth, (4) organize voters to demand effective government action, and (5) form new international institutions to deal with the ecological crisis. Another who testified was Dr. Allen V. Kneese, director of the Quality of the Environment Program, Resources for the Future, Incorporated -an avatar of Robert Anderson and the Atlantic Richfield oil company. Kneese advocated federal subsidies for regionally controlled pollution treatment agencies. Denis Hayes, National Coordinator for Environmental Action, also testified. He railed against the Vietnam War, pollution, and corporate profits. And Pierre Prabervand. from the Ford- - backed Center for Population Planning deat the University of Michigan, West Africa scribed his experiences in for the as a consultant on population a return Ford Foundation, warning of the ecologists unless to primitivism were obeyed. Garrett DeBell, editor of the radical Environmental Handbook, represented Zero Population Growth. He told the We will only get a Subcommittee: when we stop quality environment valuing production and consumption for its own sake and think of the effect of the production on the quality of our lives. In describing what he would do to rid the country of the DeBell privately owned automobile, he I propose, was quite specific. declared, that the highway trust fund be immediately opened up for use in funding whatever means of transportation is best in a given locality. By which he meant, of course, whatever means of transportation the federal bureaucrats decide is best. He called for federal subsidies for railroads, mass transit systems, and bicycle paths. During Congressional Hearings on the Environmental Quality Education Act of 1970, another group of ecolosame gists appeared, but all echoed the 1970. on In 11, April line. Hearings J.G. Harrar, president of the Rockefeller Foundation, claimed that we should put considerably less emphasis on that form of economic growth that simply multiplies consumption of maYou know how the terial goods. Rockefellers and their foundations hate material goods." Harrar said he believed that the United Nations should develop an international program for dealing with worldwide pollution. Also testifying was Arlene W'eisberg of the Ford Foundations Wave Hill Center for Environmental Studies at Wave College in New York. She, too, supported the bill. Meanwhile, still other Congressional Committees were meeting to hear testimony from environmental faddists and interested executives. Appearing in March of 1970 before the House Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution was Richard C. Glogan, senior vice president of Engelhard Mineral and Chemical Corporation. Mr. Glogan expressed vigorous support for clean air legislation and told the Congressmen that his companys catalytic converter would help reduce exhaust pollution. During the same Hearings, Edward Lee Rogers, general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund, advocated international controls for automobiles. Robert Alex Baron, executive vice president of the Rockefeller-backeCitizens for a Quieter City, told the Subcommittee that in fighting noise pollution the Department of Health, Education and Welfare must be given a major role in any Federal noise abatement program. The testimony at such Hearings and the lists of those presenting it are monotonously repetitious. In one way or another all those appearing favored an increase in federal control over the environment of the United States and (therefore) over the people of the Hill-Lehma- n Ford-backe- d d BOLTS Complete ks Hooks, Links. Clamps, fencing, gates, posts. HAVE FUN SHOP INTERLAKE SALT LAKE OGDEN Who financad WD Old Dominion Foundations (both avatars of the Mellon foundations), and the Carnegie Foundation. Among the most vigorous public advocates were Robert O. Anderson of Atlantic Richfield, the Rockefeller brothers of Standard Oil, and Henry Ford II of the Ford Motor Company. The biggest financial backer of the ecology groups has been the Ford Foundation. It has poured millions into hustling population planning and environmental control of every sort -the stuff on which the ecology propaganda is based. In early 1969, for example, the Ford Foundation gave $200,000 to the Population Council; $100,000 to the Population Reference Bureau; $1 ,500,000 to the University of Michigan Center for Population Planning; $1 ,500,000 to the University of North Carolina Population Center; and, $1,000,000 to the Urban Institute. Later that year, Ford gave $150,000 to the Wave Hill Center for Environmental Studies. In late 1969, Robert O. Andersons Resources for the Future, Incorporated, gave $10,000 to the Carnegie-Mello- n University for pollution studies and ecology grants of $21 25 to Harvard; $35 05 to the University of California; and, $43,500 to the Univer- - sity of Massachusetts. In 1970 the Ford Foundation gave ecology-orientegrants of $250,000 to the National Audubon Society; $350,000 to Nature Conservancy; and $25 P00 to the National Academy of Sciences. In 1971 Ford donated $15,000 to Concern, Incorporated; SI 00 P00 to the Conservation Foundation; $285 P00 to the Environmental d i flip GEBQD Centrally 756 South Main Salt Lake City, Utah West (Just of Sears) Phone: IgFOOD 322-27- 00 & STORAGE WATER PURIFIER tht highly profitable oology msdnas? Located FAMILY SURVIVAL CENTER AT KETCHUM'S search on the environment, prepara-tio- n of position papers, and repeated appearance of experts before Congress to present the case for widespread attacks on the efficiency of the automobile, propaganda about population control, harassment of industry, etc. And it develops that the major backers of this spontaneous environmental movement were the Ford Foundation, the numerous Rockefeller foundations (Standard Oil), the Mellon foundations (Gulf), the Avalon and For Your Family Survival Needs. Visit Salt Lake s Newest, Most and PRODUCTS Wire. Nails, Screen, On June 22, 1972, Mr. Gloen compeny among the very tint U.S. firms accredited to do business from offices in Moscow. Also cleared at the same time were dental Petroleum and the Rockefellers Chase Manhattan Bank. wu FAMILY SURVIVAL CENTER & THE HERB SHOP STEEl AND WIRE Steel Rope, Chain, United States. Some, less sophisticated than others, boldly called for the destruction of the capitalist system; others suggested that regional or international" planning agencies might be able to cope with the pollution problem by applying controls of every conceivable sort. We are not children, of course. We know it took a lot of money for the ecology faddists to do what they did. Someone paid for all of that re- - ATlNTERLAKE YOURISAVINGSIEARN 200-pag- Nuts-Washers-Loc- 16, Congressional Record for May 1973, Representative Jonathan BingLibham York) parroted the and automobile eral line on the he mass transportation when in Congress we must keep unhammering away at this problem to provide til we develop a program the mass transit assistance which our urban areas need so badly. Instead of paving the country over with superhighways and consuming vast quantities of dwindling energy reserves in private pasrunning pollution-causin- g over them, this automobiles senger efforts on its concentrate must Nation so facilities upgrading the mass transit desperately needed in the cities. The objectives of the giant oil companies and the auto manufacturers might well be to use the ecology mania greatly to increase their profits. But the objective of the radical bureaucrats is to get you out of your private car and into a cattle car for people. Unless those financing the booming ecology propaganda turn off the bull horns, the bureaucrats will see to it that mass transportation replaces the American automobile. The chief promoters of antipollution legislation which began this folly were lobbyists representing assorted instant ecology groups from around the country. In a House document entitled The Environmental Decade (Action Proposals For The 1970s), we get a look at some of these early ecology groups as represented in Hearings before the House Subcommittee on Conservation and Natural ReMarch 13, and sources, February April 3, 1970. This Subcommittee, chaired by Representative Henry S. Reuss of Wisconsin, heard testimony from ecology experts in order to determine what role the federal government should take in solving the nation's pollution problems. Among those testifying was David Brower, DEHYDRATORS & |