A Pamphlet from Don Stuart, Preserve Our Nation, LLC
Pamphlet #21 - 5/25/2009

Pass this pamphlet to your friends!

Lighter Cars are Dangerous Cars!

This pamphlet is not about weight. But I would like to make a comment about weight.

The new government CAFE standards will force car makers to build smaller and lighter cars. This will increase the number of lives lost in accidents.


Now the question is: Will the CAFE standards reduce the amount of gasoline used? What happens to the soccer moms or baseball dads who drive their kids and others' kids to games in car pools? An SUV can carry four kids and their stuff. With smaller cars, they may only be able to carry two kids and their stuff. Thus two cars will have to make the trip to the games instead of one car.

  • One SUV at 20 mpg makes one 20 mile trip to game. Result: 1 gallon of gas.
  • Two small cars at 40 mpg makes two 20 mile trips to game. Result: 1 gallon of gas.

So is this worth a higher death rate on our highways?
What about the time of the parents? Two parents instead of one.
Is this good for the economy?

The environmentalists are the ones who lobby against drilling within our borders, leaving us dependent on foreign oil. They are the ones pushing for smaller and lighter, more fuel efficient cars. Click here to read my Issue statement on Drilling.

So back to my original intent of this pamphlet.

But what is next on their agenda? Did you know that white cars reflect energy back into the atmosphere just like asphalt, buildings, roof tops, etc... in our cities? The environmentalist have been talking about this for years: Climate Change. Did you know that black cars absorb that energy and transfer it into the car?

So expect soon, that there will be a push from Obama's Central Planning Committee (OCPC) that only black cars will be sold in the U.S. This would also reduce the cost for Government Motors and Government Chrysler by using only one paint color. Worked for Mr. Ford!

Update: 5/28/2009 - Since writing the above, the OCPC (Obama's Central Planning Committee) has stated that white or light colored cars are best for the environment. Because the energy will be reflect into the atmosphere by white paint, the car air conditioner will not have to run all the time thus, allowing the car to get better gas mileage.

There is nothing like watching the environmentalist and the liberals fight. Stay tuned to see if we will be driving a Black or White car in the future.

Update: 5/30/2009 - Dr. Steven Chu, Obama's Secretary of Energy, has disputed my insight that we will be driving black cars. It seems he is recommending white cars. Not only is he for white cars but he is also for white roofs to reduce the amount of energy required to keep the buildings cool. Also, this would directly offset global warming by increasing the reflectivity of the Earth

"If that building is air-conditioned, it's going to be a lot cooler, it can use 10 or 15 per cent less electricity," he said. "You also do something in that you change the albedo of the Earth you make it more reflective. So the sunlight comes down and it actually goes back up there is no greenhouse effect," Dr Chu said.

"Now you smile, but if you look at all the buildings and make all the roofs white, and if you make the pavement a more concrete-type of colour than a black-type of colour, and you do this uniformly... It's the equivalent of reducing the carbon emissions due to all the cars in the world by 11 years," he said.

"It's like you've just taken them off the road for 11 years. It's actually geoengineering."

So now do I have to change my view of what color the OCPC is pushing?

The "greenhouse effect" is that our upper atmosphere reflects a majority of the sunlight back into space before it travels into the atmosphere. This reflection is caused by the upper atmosphere which is being depleted by containments from earth such as carbon dioxide. Thus, efforts are under way to reduce the destruction of the upper atmosphere to insure that the reflectivity of the upper atmosphere is maintained.

In my experience, we use heat exchangers to transfer heat from one fluid to another by passing the 1st fluid through the second fluid via pipes. So I conclude that the climate temperature rise is due to more sunlight passing through the atmosphere and heating it up just like in a heat exchanger. So what happens when we reflect the sunlight back again through the atmosphere and back into space? Aren't we again heating up the atmosphere farther?

I would think that heating the atmosphere up more, would exacerbate the effect of climate change by raising the atmosphere temperature more. What if we succeed in reducing the destruction of the upper atmosphere by reducing our containments put into the atmosphere? Would not then the majority of the sunlight reflected back to the upper atmosphere be reflected back to earth again? Thus would this create a cyclic system of sunlight coming down, reflected back up, reflected back down, reflected back up and continuing in a cyclic damping effect.

Would we not be defeating the purpose of all our efforts to reduce climate change and the rising of temperatures?

I would think that generating electricity from a nuclear plant and using it to cool our homes and office buildings would be more effective and better for the planet than further heating up the atmosphere. If we have electric cars, using electricity from the nuclear plant to charge our car batteries, would still be better for the planet.

Eventually this debate will be resolved. I look forward to seeing the complete analysis from the experts not the results from the Obama Central Planning Committee (OCPC).

The results are not in about our new national color.

National Color
  • Color of Cars: Black or White?
  • Color of Roofs: Black or White?
  • Color of Roads: Black or White?

Our Government at Work!

Learn what you can do to help save our Nation! Visit our Website Home Page!
Print this Page - Printable Version