Forget plug-in tax credits

Killing American fuel economy

Ethanol fans can't talk enough about how ethanol has helped America. Yet, when Congress struck a deal in 1988 to promote ethanol, they devised a tax credit scheme enabling 16 mpg gas guzzlers to have a fuel economy rating of 24 mpg. Thus, through the '90s, US automakers couldn't roll out enough gas-guzzling SUVs.

Yeah, that sure has helped America, not!

So, how are plug-in tax credits similar to flex fuel credits? They are not. Yet, I'd bet the first generation of plug-in vehicles are more about meeting new CAFE requirements than they are about killing the conventional vehicle. And, with billions in free money available both in cash handouts and tax credits, why not use that money to roll out enough plug-ins to attain green marketing cred and to help achieve new CAFE requirements?

Money for nothing and CAFE for free?

I say, enough government regulation. Let's make it easy. Increase oil taxes on gasoline, diesel, or any other petroleum products, and let consumers and innovators decide the winners. The flex fuel credit has proven that the government might have good intentions, but seldom do their intentions achieve intended results.

Waxman to make life tougher for automakers?

Higher CAFE requirements coming?

If I had to make a wager, I'd bet that a bailout for US automakers is inevitable, despite the recent hardball from Democrats. While that might irritate most, relax a little if your focus is fuel economy and global warming.

Now that Henry Waxman has replaced John Dingell as the leader of the Energy and Commerce panel, tougher CAFE and global warming requirements for automakers now seem inevitable. If Democrats hold to their guns, a bailout can be a good thing.

F Congress: Give automakers the money

Or do I mean F America?

Congress is in a tough spot. The majority of Americans don't want Congress to help the US auto industry, despite the fact that all of the Big 3's competitors receive heavy subsidies from their governments.

I understand. For decades the Big 3 built a lot of crap and, even after 9/11, they still didn't react to fuel economy. Profit was more important than national security.

Nonetheless, Congress has to give automakers the money and, we the people, should accept that because we the people are also responsible for the state of the US auto industry. We bought the gas-guzzlers. We demanded that gas stay cheap. We voted for politicians that made gas taxes and increased fuel economy standards dirty word for decades.

I know. None of that justifies the failures of the Big 3, whom helped brainwash the people into gas-guzzling stupidity. And, I know most Americans want the corporate big wigs of America, including those from Detroit, to suffer. Yet, it will be average Americans - all over America - that will suffer most if Detroit goes under. Now is not the time to seek revenge, it's time to turn a wrong into a right.

Gas prices - Why strings MUST be attached to any bailout

Detroit still far behind the Prius

Pop open the bubbly, ladies and gentlemen, it's party time. In 4 states gas has fallen below $2.00 per gallon. On Wall Street, the overwhelming consensus is $50 oil before $65.

But, is that a good thing?

When gas was $2.00 US automakers laughed at the Toyota Prius. Today, the Prius has already sold more than 1,000,000 Prius hybrid cars, yet there won't be one US made Prius-contender on the road until late 2010 with the Chevy Volt. Moreover, GM probably won't be selling the 100,000 Volts per year until at least 2014.

Fortunately, if gas prices remain low, America's gas-guzzling will decline thanks to CAFE, but CAFE regulations won't be strong enough to end foreign oil dependency. Unfortunately, as history as proven, US automakers will simply do as much as needed to achieve CAFE, and when foreign oil dependency again rears its ugly head, America will again be unprepared.

Thus, a bailout must include strings.

Can Democrats clean and green the US auto industry?

America's freedom fighter?

On the NYSE floor, an Obama win has already been priced into stocks, and there is a belief that an Obama win, coupled with a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in Congress, will lead to 'new deal' style projects and bailouts, such as the one needed for the US auto industry.

Can politicians cost-effectively manage both a successful bailout of the US auto industry, while increasing fuel economy and reducing emissions?

More important, if Congress is going to invest many billions more of tax payer money into the US auto industry, shouldn't fuel economy requirements be even more stringent than new CAFE regulations? For instance, shouldn't a massive bailout plan be structured around a real world plan to end foreign oil dependency by, say, 2025?

EU softens CO2 stance - Is CAFE next?

Not only US automakers are suffering

The EU is "ready to grant automakers a three-year delay until 2015 to reduce the CO2 emissions of their new vehicles" because of the "global economic crisis" according to AFP.

With US automakers facing mergers and possible bankruptcies, does a similar fate await CAFE regulations?

While Honda and Toyota, are ramping up production of hybrid cars, US automakers are canceling large hybrid SUVs and delaying the launch of new, more fuel efficient autos, such as the Chevy Cruze. Thus, can US automakers afford to meet new CAFE requirements without significant financial help beyond the $25 billion already allocated? And, if they cannot, will Congress intervene?

Does a bailout take a bite out of CAFE?

Chevy Cruze delayed

A bailout to help GM and Chrysler merge now seems inevitable. So, why did Cerebrus buy Chrysler? That's right, to make money, and probably at taxpayer expense. Anyway, back to the bailout. It seems there are just too many jobs, healthcare and pension funds at stake for Congress to let the auto industry go under. So, when these companies emerge, one can only assume that means GM will then forever be too big to go under.

Whatever, right? It's the jobs. It's the economy.

Fine, but what happens if GM says it can't meet new CAFE requirements without tens of billions more of taxpayer money, or bankruptcy? How can the government enforce legislation like CAFE when the auto industry knows Congress won't let it fail?

Chrysler CEO warns of battery dependence

The battery-powered EcoVoyager

Chrsyler CEO, Bob Nardelli, told CNBC TV this evening that "great synergies" existed for automotive industry consolidation because of the financial environment, but he would not discuss a possible merger with GM.

Nardelli also claimed that new CAFE standards had created a "tremendous financial burden" on the automaker, and that it was important that America didn't turn foreign oil dependence into dependence on foreign batteries.

While I'd rather be dependent on foreign batteries than foreign oil any day of the week, if Detroit had taken some leadership on hybrid cars, this would be a non-issue.

Plug-in Ratings: Both Congress and the EPA confused

What's the value of plugging in?

When tax credits for plug-ins become available, neither electric range nor fuel economy will matter, only battery capacity - a move that appears to strongly favor GM's Chevy Volt versus the Toyota Prius.

However, when it comes to the EPA and CAFE, it's fuel economy that will matter. And that is the standard that Congress will judge automaker fleet fuel economy.

So why the double standard? Shouldn't there be just one way to judge plug-ins?

Dan Foley, of the Automotive X-Prize has been suggesting MPGe as a better rating "MPGe is a measure that expresses fuel economy in terms of the energy content of a gallon of gasoline, asking how much energy was delivered to the vehicle, and how far did it go."

Automaker bailout isn't a bailout?

Chrysler's idea of hybrid technology

Earlier today I changed my stance and suggested that Congress give Detroit automakers the money they are seeking, with conditions that mandate more change than just new CAFE.

Let's ensure the bailout leads to guaranteed change, I thought, but then I learned it's not a bailout. The Big 3 don't really need the money. It's for us - you and me - Joe Customers.

"It's not a bailout. It's an acceleration of technology into the hands of consumers who couldn't afford it," Chrysler's Jim Press said.

Huh? You can't find a hybrid today on a lot. Toyota is months behind demand for its hybrid cars, and is increasing production as fast as possible. Next year Honda will sell more hybrids than the Big 3 combined by a couple times at least. This money isn't about helping consumers, it's about one thing, bailing out Detroit's over-dependence on large SUVs and trucks.

Give Detroit the money, but....

Toyota's very fuel efficient Tundra?

The Big 3 continue to increase their efforts to acquire as much as $50 billion in loans from the US government - $25 billion of which was written into CAFE increasing legislation, and momentum is gaining in Congress.

Thus far, I've been against this bailout, but I think I've changed my mind. Perhaps the bailout can be the impetus for desperately needed change.

Finish: Give Detroit the money, but....

GM uses Volt to lobby for lower fuel economy standards

No game changer until well after 2015

The Chevy Volt will be an amazing piece of technology when it hits the road in late 2010, but it won't be a game changer until well after 2015. According to the DetroitNews, GM is currently lobbying the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to lower the increase in fleet fuel economy required between 2011 and 2015 because such a requirement could slow the rollout of the Volt.

"GM's game-changing (extended range electric vehicle) technology should be treated as a low-volume application" through the 2015 model year, GM said in its filing, adding that it "strongly discouraged" NHTSA from assuming large numbers of vehicles would be built before then. It urged NHTSA to drop its yearly increase to 3 percent per year.

Back in April, Hybridcarblog reported that GM might use the Volt as an SUV fuel economy bargaining chip, and it now appears that prediction has come true. Sources within GM have claimed that less than 200,000 Chevy Volts would be built before 2015, therefore, the Volt will have little impact on GM's fleet fuel economy.

Should the Volt be an excuse for lower fuel economy standards? What if some unforeseen problem slows the Volt and E-Flex? Too many eggs in one basket?

Volt no hoax: It's a large SUV bargaining chip?

GM's critics have it all wrong?

There are many whom believe that GM's Chevy Volt is a publicity stunt, and that it will never see the light of day. According to WSJ, GM is absolutely sincere about the Chevy Volt, but for all the wrong reasons. GM will develop the Chevy Volt, but only as a bargaining chip to work with Congress to develop CAFE in a way that protects GM's SUVs. In a way, as ethanol credits fade, Volt credits will kick in. Read more....

0 - 60: Ignorance or arrogance?

Is there a difference?

There has been a lot of hot air coming out of the auto industry regarding CAFE's 35 mpg by 2020 - even though there are already a plethora of loopholes between here and there. So, is CAFE going to cost, as GM's Bob Lutz has suggested, about $6000 extra per vehicle?

Not if automakers are smart, according to MotorTrend's Angus MacKenzie. As an example, MacKenzie points to the Mercedes Benz BlueEFFICIENCY C-Class, which is reported to achieve about 36 mpg - a good bit more than the low 20's of a standard C-Class. So, how does BlueEFFICIENCY do it?

Reduced weight, reduced rolling resistance, reduced aerodynamic drag, and a smaller turbo-charged engine. And, most important and unflattering for gearheads, a reduced 0 - 60 time. All of this, Angus predicts, because of the smaller engine, will probably lead to an equally priced vehicle - just 2 seconds slower.

That's not rocket science, and for those just dying to have extra power, or an extra second or two off the line, hybrid technology could easily bridge the difference. A fleetwide average of 35 mpg is achievable today, but not for ignorance and arrogance, and it doesn't have to cost $5000 per vehicle.

Letter to NADA from Washington Post: Gas tax now

The good ole gas lines of the '70s!

"The new CAFE bill has the same flaw as the old CAFE bill," writes the Washington Post's Warren Brown this weekend in an open letter to Annette Sykora, Chairwoman of the National Auto Dealer's Association. "It does not ask consumers to do one thing, pay one thing, give up one thing or participate in any meaningful way in fuel conservation.

Later, Brown states, "the old CAFE bill did absolutely nothing to reduce the nation's overall consumption of gasoline and other oil-derived fuels. Gasoline consumption, in fact, has skyrocketed in America since the first CAFE law went into effect in 1975. Increased technical fuel efficiency plus cheap gasoline equals increased consumer demand for all that gasoline provides and supports and, thus, increased gasoline consumption."

Hence, "If Americans won't pay more for burning all of the oil-based fuels they use willy-nilly, perhaps they will be willing to support a military draft to send more of their children to the Middle East to fight and die for it.........Either way, we are going to pay. It's just a question of how much and when."

I'll second that.

Too much caffeine in CAFE?

CAFE: More jittery buzz than anything?

When Congress was working out the final details of CAFE, I was a perpetual cynic. First, if America were hitting the 2020 standards outlined in CAFE today, America would still be dependent on foreign oil. Second, there are still too many loopholes for flex-fuel credits and for light trucks. Third, the antiquated way of measuring CAFE means 35 mpg is really like 26.5 mpg. Thus, CAFE might make autos a bit more fuel efficient, but not enough to really accomplish anything very significant.

Even worse, if CAFE legislation adds a few thousand dollars to the cost of large SUVs, for example, many in the auto industry believe this will only serve to keep older SUVs on the road far longer - making CAFE even less effective, especially in the short term. And new data by Polk, showing that Americans are keeping their cars longer, seems to lend credit to this thread of thought.

CAFE hasn't achieved much in the past, and it probably won't achieve much in the future. Why can't Americans handle the truth? Why does gas cost $8.00 in Europe, but just $3.50 in America?

Still no new hybrid vehicle tax credits: Let's take action

Give them credit

Congress has passed CAFE. By 2020 foreign oil dependency will end, significant reductions in global warming will be achieved, and all Americans will drive in any vehicle and achieve at least 35 mpg, while saving 100s of dollars in gasoline costs per year.

Now will reality please stand up?

It's time to put the power in the hands of the people. Tax credits for hybrid cars, clean diesel and bio-diesel conversion kits give the people the power to make smarter, clean and greener consumer purchases, while rewarding the companies making cleaner and greener energy and products. Power to the people, not the corporations! Join the Revolution! Read more.

CAFE: 35 mpg really means 26.5 mpg?

26.5 mpg by 2020 - Nancy's shot heard round the world?

Karl on Cars has a great article dismissing the new CAFE standards coming out of Congress. It turns out that CAFE doesn't measure fuel economy the same way as does the EPA; therefore, a CAFE standard of 35 mpg actually equals 26.5 mpg. Likewise, I assume CAFE strongly favors, easier to achieve, highway fuel economy.

When you add in the lower standard for trucks plus the ethanol credit, U.S. automakers aren't going to have to do nearly as much as one might think to achieve CAFE compliance. Essentially, the Chevy Tahoe hybrid is probably already close to compliance, so anybody expecting massive changes in America's automotive landscape might be waiting a whole lot longer.

Gotta love those politicians.

CAFE passes Congress: Sorry I don't care

Once again, take it easy Nancy

Well, CAFE has passed Congress, and all I can say is big deal.

A 6-fold increase in ethanol production - much of that coming from corn. Please. I mean, c'mon. Already, corn-based ethanol has increased food prices by 5 percent overall, but for some products, prices have increased much more. The cost of a gallon of milk, for example, is up 90 cents. How much higher will a 6-fold increase raise prices, especially if a big drought hits once we get there? Forget just costs, suddenly we might be talking shortages. Now that's smart.

I already made my thoughts pretty clear in my post Pelosi is a comedian and CAFE is the joke. But, for another perspective check out Warren Brown's article, Energy bill hangs on to the myth that we can have our oil and guzzle it, too.

Pelosi is a comedian and CAFE is the joke

Will Americans go from SUVs to small cars?

Nancy Pelosi has called the new CAFE standards "a shot heard around the world". Please.

There is no doubt that the new CAFE standards will lead to more fuel efficient vehicles, such as hybrid vehicles and more alternative fueled-vehicles. However, when you consider America's energy consumption, which almost always increases year-after-year, CAFE is not a solution - it's a dud heard 'round the world. Read more.....

Hybrid vehicles dissed by Energy Bill?

$100 million per year for hybrids and electrics?

At first glance one might think the proposed energy bill coming out of Congress includes some great incentives for advanced technologies, such as hybrid cars, plug-in hybrid vehicles and electric cars, but if compared to corn-based ethanol, the numbers are pathetically low. Finish.....

No new hybrid credits in CAFE, energy bill?

Where are the tax credits, Nancy?

According to the DetroitNews, many Michigan Democrats are prepared to vote against the final energy bill if certain details are not resolved. One of those issues is tax credits for hybrid vehicles. Apparently, Congressional leaders want to split CAFE requirements and incentives for achieving CAFE into two separate issues.

Some Democrats, such as Debbie Stabenow, state "The regulations are real, and the funding needs to be real."

How can you regulate something that is going to cost automakers 10's of billions of dollars without both helping struggling automakers and giving consumers incentives to change their gas guzzling ways? I'd argue that the incentives for change are MORE important that the regulations for change.

Flex-fuel credit all but guaranteed

Corn is a political force

The House and Senate are close to approving a CAFE bill calling for 35 mpg by 2020 and, even though ethanol causes more harm than good, ethanol credits will be extended.

"We're very close to a deal," U.S. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Lansing, said in an interview Wednesday. "The bumper sticker aspects of the bill may not be significantly altered, but we are providing enough flexibility and practicality to make this achievable."

In other words, enough loopholes will exist that this legislation will, ultimately, accomplish little in terms of either foreign oil dependency or global warming. By 2020, there will be many more cars on the road and many more drivers which will significantly increase energy consumption.

CAFE is not the answer.

A social revolution to get CAFE right?

Is the public for or against such vehicles?

I'm not a big fan of CAFE. Ultimately, I think 35 mpg by 2020 is largely worthless legislation that will be filled with loopholes. Still, new CAFE legislation will at least create a little momentum towards better fuel economy.

David Kiley of BW has an interesting blog on this topic. Ultimately, the government is going to have to provide uncapped tax incentives for hybrid cars, clean diesels, etc - something I called for this morning - to make CAFE worthwhile. Additionally, Kiley calls for a gas-guzzler tax that I love. Finish....

Ethanol blocking CAFE

Time to end the ethanol loophole

The DetroitNews is reporting that Congress is close to finishing off a 35 mpg by 2020 energy bill, however, "several congressional sources and auto industry lobbyists said the major issue is the fuel economy credit automakers get for making flexible-fuel or dual-fuel vehicles."

Thus far ethanol is a joke that has caused more harm than good. Sure, cellulosic ethanol holds promise, but corn-based ethanol should not be used as an excuse not to produce more fuel efficient vehicles.

Shouldn't CAFE be limited just to fuel economy? If automakers and Congress want to work on biofuels, incorporate that legislation into gas taxes. For instance, offer a lesser fuel tax for greener alternative fuels, but let's at least keep CAFE about fuel economy and fuel efficiency-increasing technologies, such as hybrid cars and clean diesel vehicles, for example.

No gimmicks. No excuses. 35 mpg means 35 mpg. Keep it simple.

CAFE? Whatever! Give me hybrid tax credits today!

Today's hybrid cars are the quickest way to plug-in hybrids

A number of the candidates running to be the next President have done a lot of talking about foreign oil dependency, but have offered few actual details other than CAFE, funding for battery research and ethanol.

Sadly, a number of the candidates also have jobs in Congress and they have not done anything about extending Toyota's and Honda's hybrid vehicle tax credits. Sure, putting many more hybrid cars on the road won't significantly reduce foreign oil dependency immediately, but it will significantly increase battery research and competition to create cost effective, fuel efficient technologies, such as plug-in hybrid vehicles.

CAFE? Blah, blah, blah. Give me something now! Why do politicians always talk about what they can do tomorrow, without doing ANYTHING today? As I stated in my earlier post on the hydrogen highway, politicians have no real vision for the future of America - it's all soundbites.

Walking the walk just isn't a requisite requirement for today's politicians.

Lithium: The secret weapon of the auto industry?

Bob Lutz stands next to the Volt at its debut at NAIAS

"Lithium battery technology is being husbanded in Japan. It's like a secret weapon," GM's Bob Lutz recently told reporters at a meeting of the Western Automotive Journalists association. Thus, many Japanese companies would not bid on the battery contract for the Chevy Volt.

Mr. Lutz also criticized the U.S. government for not being as aggressive as the the Japanese government with advanced batteries. Of course, maybe the government could criticize GM and US automakers for not being as aggressive as Japanese automakers on hybrid cars.

In addition to slamming the government, Lutz also attacked CAFE, calling a gas tax a more sensible approach to reducing fuel consumption. Also, even though Lutz defended ethanol, he did admit that corn-based ethanol has some problems and he stated that cellulosic ethanol was needed.

CAFE versus gas taxes, etc.

The choice for 40 percent of car consumers?

"Applying taxes to consumers is an unpopular and unpleasant solution. But dependency on foreign oil and global warming are unpleasant problems. If other consumer-level, demand-driven tools can be devised, so much the better. If not, then taxes on engine power and fuel may be neccesary. But mandating command economy efficiency standards will not address the problem, no matter what Hudson River water-drinking columnists might fantasize," writes Dan Carney this morning on MSNBC regarding the whole Friedman, NRDC attack on Toyota and CAFE.

Will CAFE fix America's oil problems?

At today's level of foreign oil consumption, 35 mpg across the fleet will not end OPEC dependence, especially when foreign oil consumption increases almost every year. And, based upon past legislation, it can be assumed that there will be numerous loopholes in whatever CAFE legislation is ultimately passed.

While CAFE is getting some people hyped up, its not a real solution. It is, at best, a step in the right direction. On the other hand, making consumers responsible for their purchasing decisions utilizing a gas tax that better reflects the real cost of gasoline could have much quicker and much more dramatic effects than CAFE ever will.

So, won't the real activists please stand up?

Why do environmentalists attack Toyota?

Where would the CAFE increase argument be without the Prius?

A few weeks I made a post about NRDC's plans to send a message to Toyota regarding their partnership with the Big 3 against a significant rise in CAFE. That campaign has begun.

"During the past two weeks, about 8,300 NRDC activists sent e-mails and faxes to Toyota urging the company to support a Senate energy bill that would set a 35-mile-per-gallon requirement by 2020," according to the AP.

I find this campaign disappointing.

Now I don't disagree with NRDC's claims that Toyota is acting hypocritically. I disagree with the battle. Nonetheless, in the last 15 years Toyota has been the ONLY automaker to decrease automobile emissions. Ultimately, Toyota is barely trailing Honda in overall fleet fuel economy, and the automaker is on pace to pass Honda. So, why attack the company actually doing MORE than any other automaker on the issue NRDC cares about most?

More important, however, would Congress change their mind if Toyota advocated for a higher increase in CAFE? Please?! In terms of CAFE, it's all about Detroit. Every member of Congress that is taking a tempered approach to CAFE is trying to protect Detroit's automakers.

"They market every night the Prius and the Toyota Camry — we're the green car, huh? Then watch the football games, and they're marketing the Toyota Tundra — like the biggest vehicle ever made," Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., a Camry hybrid owner, said Wednesday in a speech at an environmental conference.

Actually, I think the Hummer is bigger, Ed. And, aren't those big vehicles Detroit's bread and butter? Aren't these big vehicles why some in Congress are fighting CAFE? So, why not focus on the real problem? Then again, that is the politician's trick, right, Ed? Focus on inconsequential issues instead of focusing on the real problem.

--> For more on this topic check out Autoblogs Toyota and GM fire back at NY Times Tom Friedman

Forget CAFE this year?

No compromise on CAFE?

"The likelihood of Congress passing legislation by the end of the year to raise the fuel economy of the nation's cars and light trucks is diminishing.

Even as the White House on Friday called for Congress to take action, observers said the odds are low of House and Senate leaders overcoming procedural hurdles to begin work on compromise legislation." More..

NRDC focuses on how green is Toyota

The NRDC wants to send a message to Toyota regarding CAFE and they want you to help

"As I type this, Congress is working on an energy bill that could significantly increase fuel economy standards for the first time in 30 years. However, it might surprise you to learn that Toyota – the company that brought hybrids into the mainstream and markets itself as a ‘green’ automaker – is actively lobbying AGAINST increased fuel economy standards.

Toyota is a member of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the auto-industry funded lobbyist organization that lobbies against increasing fuel economy standards. The AAM thinks that a 35mpg standard is ‘unattainable.’

It’s time to send a message to Toyota. It’s time to tell them that if they want to be known as the industry leader on fuel economy, they must start acting like it," writes the NRDC.

Why I can't focus on Toyota

While I was also disappointed with Toyota's decision to join almost every other automaker against CAFE, I'm not that surprised. In fact, I don't really think Toyota cares if the most strict CAFE plan is legislated into action. I think Toyota is just siding with America's Big 3, whom have been the harshest critics and lobbyists against any serious increase in CAFE because they have the most to lose if such a plan is approved.

I'm quite confident that Toyota can successfully react to any new CAFE legislation.

Additionally, Toyota is greener than any of the Big 3, and a new study demonstrates that in the last 15 years, Toyota was the ONLY automaker of the Big 6 to cut average vehicle emissions - that includes even Honda. Toyota achieved this decrease in emissions by developing and producing hybrid cars, such as the Prius, knowing such cars would lose money for years.

That's the kind of leadership I want from Detroit. Thus, my CAFE focus is squarely on Detroit, and I guarantee that is where the CAFE focus of Congress is as well. So, why not focus on the real source of the problem?

Grassroots CAFE rallies?

Obama will be a focus of the UAW in Chicago this weekend

This weekend automakers and their unions will hold rallies in Chicago and St. Louis in an attempt to gain support for a "balanced CAFE approach like Hill-Terry" writes the DetroitNews. That approach would require a 35 mpg mandate for cars and 32 mpg for light trucks by 2022 versus 35 mpg for all vehicles by 2020.

Sadly, even 35 mpg by 2020 will do nothing to reduce foreign oil dependency when consumption increases by a few percent every year. Ultimately, the entire current CAFE debate is an absolute joke and a complete waste of time.

Hot on the heals of my Chevy Tahoe hybrid test drive, I am empathetic to GM's concerns, for example. 35 mpg could kill not just the Tahoe, but the Tahoe hybrid, the Yukon hybrid, the Escalade hybrid and on and on.

Still, if GM is able to develop lithium batteries for the Chevy Volt and for the plug-in Saturn Vue hybrid, then GM can turn the Tahoe hybrid into either a lithium powered Tahoe, or a plug-in Tahoe hybrid. Such a vehicle, I'm confident, could hit 35 mpg by 2020 - probably pretty easily.

If not, which is more important, the ability to buy a Tahoe hybrid or the end of foreign oil dependency?

Still, when studies suggest that as much as 70 percent of the real cost of gasoline is hidden, some of that hidden money needs to be redirected to help automakers. Inevitably, while cheap oil and gasoline has helped automakers via highly-profitable gas-guzzlers, it has also helped the government hide, literally, trillions in military spending - that should also be addressed.

Don't like CAFE? Fine. Let's create a gas tax. Buy any vehicle you want, but start paying more of your share of the real cost of gasoline.

Finally, if automakers want to educate the public on the costs of 35 mpg, then I say SHUT UP when it comes to CAFE rallies. If U.S. automakers want to educate the public, then educate them on the dangers of foreign oil dependency and the realities of what it would take to end foreign oil dependency.

Study claims 35 mpg CAFE is 'economically feasible'

If the Volt is 'technologically feasible' by 2010, then how can 35 mpg not be?

Congress and Detroit. Two peas in a pod? If there was ever a common element between politicians and automakers, it has to be vision. Or, more precisely, a lack thereof.

O.K., the House of Reps. is going to delay any action regarding fuel economy until Fall - something that will make automakers breathe a little easier the next few months. While automakers show off fancy cars, possibly able to achieve 100 mpg by 2012, they also continue to argue that 35 mpg is not 'technologically feasible' by 2020 - a claim I disputed on Tuesday.

Yet, not only is 35 mpg easily 'technologically feasible' by 2020, it is even more economically feasible than not achieving this higher level of CAFE, according to a new study cited by Edmunds.

"Detroit's automakers would collectively earn $14.4 billion by 2017, the study says, under the toughest standards being considered by Congress: a combined car and truck average of 35 mpg by 2018. The U of M auto brain trust calculates that indexing mileage targets to vehicle size wouldn't penalize Detroit with its truck-heavy lineups the way the existing car and truck standards do. Instead, the domestic automakers would be allowed to aim for a lower target — around 33 mpg — while Japanese rivals that are top-heavy with passenger cars might need to average 38 mpg. "

Why doesn't Congress get off its ass and do something meaningful? Forcing, while helping, Detroit to build as many hybrid cars today, while developing tomorrow's plug-in hybrids, seems to be the best thing Congress could do for Detroit - and America.

So, show some vision already!

What is "technically feasible" fuel economy?

Aren't automakers duping consumers?

A 'technically feasible' approach to fuel economy has become the new buzzword among automakers, including Toyota, the king of hybrid cars. Yet, if a