Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Elizabeth Lowrey's avatar

This is excellent, and I think the article I submitted to the Guardian would add an intriguing element as well. I think it will be in the fall release, but essentially it’s looking at the fire occurrences that have increased since this program began, along with the skyrocketing total losses, due to heat. After sitting down with a family member who worked for years as an engineer for an American automaker, with first hand knowledge of the systems, I have gained knowledge that there is a known issue, what I can’t find YET is why it hasn’t been corrected. I think the costs associated from the additional risk, to life, property, and environment layered with your very clear and convincing stance on the overall program, should demand that the government holistically look at its impact. It’s a failure.

Mike's avatar

I was part of ATA TAG back in the Clinton years when Carol Browner’s EPA told us in meetings with them ‘they didn’t care how much it cost the industry’ to comply with their mandates. Not much has changed, even though we expressed ultimately trucking companies pass this cost along to consumers and the general public.

1 more comment...

No posts

Ready for more?