More than one way to attack gas prices

Re “You may not be getting all you pay for at the pump,” May 9

In a lengthy article, The Times decries the overcharging of consumers by 3 cents per gallon, or about 1%. With gas prices so high the concern is understandable, but the target for relief seems ill-chosen.

Looking at the proposed increases in fuel efficiency for cars and trucks, one realizes that these would lead to savings of close to 50%. The hype about the heated-up gasoline might be a convenient way to make a consumer justice issue out of skyrocketing gas prices. But who truly believes the 1% will actually make a difference?

It is time to realize the true consumer issue behind this story and make the choice to ask car dealers and lawmakers for more fuel-efficient cars and to consider alternatives to driving.

THOMAS GOTSCHI

Los Angeles

*

Commercial and military aviation figured this one out a long time ago. Jet fuel is measured in pounds. A pound of fuel delivers the same amount of energy regardless of temperature.

What does change when warm fuel is delivered is that an aircraft will hold fewer gallons. If gasoline were sold to motorists in pounds, the problem would be solved.

WALLY ROBERTS

San Clemente

*

Re “The low road,” editorial, May 9

The Times is correct about the sensibility of Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-Calif.) automotive fuel economy standards bill and about the unlikelihood of mandating the goal of 35 miles per gallon in the U.S.

However, any law setting fuel standards for vehicles is an inefficient way of dealing with our petroleum consumption. The most efficient way, one avoided by virtually all politicians, is a direct tax on carbon.

The real problem is that we cannot deal piecemeal with such an important issue as energy consumption and its consequences. We need a serious, comprehensive energy strategy for the 21st century.

GARY PETERS

Paso Robles