Global Warming and Foreign Oil Dependency: Do you really need any more reasons to go hybrid?

Around ninety percent of Europeans believe that humans are causing global warming.

Do you agree?

If you do, then you realize how important it is that humans start taking much more responsibility for their contribution to global warming. One of the biggest impacts humans can have on global warming, especially in the U.S., is to reduce their automobile fuel consumption.

On the other hand, perhaps you are not yet ready to buy into global warming?

O.K., well what about foreign oil dependency? How do you feel about funding terrorism against the U.S.? How do you feel about putting an important aspect of the American economy into the hands of leaders of countries where the majority of their populations see America as an evil empire?

Regardless of whether you are concerned more about foreign oil dependency, or about global warming, isn't it time for a revolution against oil consumption?

While many are now clamoring for E85 and other forms of ethanol to address this problem, I think E85 is nothing short of a boondoggle, unless flex-fuel vehicles become significantly more fuel efficient.

Flex-fuel hybrids, for example, are an excellent idea.

On the other hand, flex-fuel Hummers aren't such a great idea. If we all drive flex-fuel Hummers or similarly sized gas-guzzlers, then we'll need all the ethanol we can make just to catch up with our increased fuel consumption.

Ethanol can be helpful, but it won't offer help much without significant gains in fuel efficiency.

Current hybrid cars offer nice gains in fuel efficiency today, but the real advantage of hybrids is their potential. In just another generation of technology - available in just a few years - average hybrid vehicles might achieve 100 mpg.

In the Southern half of the U.S. solar powered garages could power - theoretically - all of the fuel needs of these hybrids.

In the Midwest, home grown ethanol could be a good fuel for hybrids, but also for power plants that plug-in hybrids could plug into for clean electric fuel.

Perhaps in other areas, natural gas, hydrogen or even wind power makes me sense. Regardless, hybrids are able to utilize any of these fuels.

Flexible, adaptable and powerful hybrid technology offers a revolutionary tool to fight global warming and foreign oil dependency.

Invest in the future, make your next vehicle a hybrid vehicle.

Are Democrats AGAINST the hybrid vehicle revolution?

In a bid to support geothermal power, Harry Reid today accused the Bush Administration of being "so oil-friendly that we have been able to get their attention on virtually nothing that is not oil related," Reid said. "They’re not that interested in renewables."

Hmmm??? While Democrats are looking to bail out the fuel inefficient Big 3, Bush did have the courage to tell Detroit to produce 'relevant' vehicles. Bush has also, on numerous occasions promoted hybrid vehicles and lithium ion battery development. In fact, Bush even went so far as to say that hybrid vehicles were the best way to change consumer behavior.

Is that the definition of "lack of interest"? Maybe, for a politician.

Moreover, Bush asked Congress to extend tax credits for hybrid cars, something which Congress chose not to do. Yet, now that Democrats have taken over Congress I've heard very little about hybrid vehicles and even less about tax credits for hybrid cars.

Instead, the whole Democratic platform now seems fixated on E85.

Even worse Democratic ranking members of Congress have already voiced their disinterest in raising fuel economy standards in the U.S. because they don't want to sacrifice jobs - Democrat supporting UAW jobs - for increased fuel efficiency. Quite a different tune the Democrats are singing now compared to just a couple of years ago when Democrats blamed Republicans for not raising fuel economy standards, even though key Democrats joined Republicans on that vote.

Can we stop playing politics, for at least one year?

I really wish Reid and some other Democrats would quit the partisanship. Didn't America vote for change? Well, let's start changing, please? Let's take the high road, Democrats. Lead by example.

Obviously, the Democratic Party wants to do as much as possible to tarnish the President in an effort to claim the White House. However, if they don't focus on doing something these next two years just to try to win the White House, they might just catapult Republicans back into power.

For years Democrats have done a lot of talking about what should be done, what Republicans didn't do, and they were right, the Republican Party failed the people and America.

Still, now its time for Democrats to stop talking and to start acting. When it comes to foreign oil dependency and national security, even global warming, nothing matters more than fuel efficiency.

Ultimately, the benefits provided by E85 are not going to amount to much if our energy consumption keeps going up. Democrats and the rest of Congress must focus on fuel efficiency. If they are not going to mandate tough standards, then help Detroit develop fuel efficient technologies, particularly hybrids and plug-in hybrids, and give consumers tax incentives to buy these global warming and foreign oil dependency fighters.

Even oil man Bush understood that issue.

Let's hope Democrats and the rest of Congress can finally start helping America instead of just blaming each other for what is wrong with America.

GM already toning down its i-Car campaign?

About two weeks ago I made a post about GM's i-Car, a car many believe will be some type of plug-in hybrid vehicle. According to unconfirmed sources at that time, the i-Car campaign would be launched some time before the end of the year as a challenge to Toyota and its hybrid cars. Then, earlier this week, Bob Lutz told the AutomotiveNews that the future was all electric vehicles powered by fuel cells. In the interim, Mr. Lutz claimed a plug-in hybrid would probably be the best solution, and the reality of the i-Car campaign seemed, well, real.

Suddenly, it seemed GM was preparing to completely reinvent itself. Finally, I thought, finally.

Perhaps, I got a little too excited a little too quickly.

While the LA Times is reporting that GM is going to launch an electric vehicle prototype next year, there are already questions about how serious GM actually is about the i-Car program, at least in the short term. Maybe, now that Democrats have control of Congress, GM believes it can rest on E85 and flex-fuel vehicles for several years rather than actually doing something great.

Democrats appear ready to focus on alternative fuels as answer to foreign oil dependency

As I stated earlier today, when it comes to foreign oil dependency, don't expect any real change from Democrats. Rep. John Dingell, whom will become chairmen of House Energy and Commerce Committee in January, has been a strong proponent against increased CAFE standards and he appears to see E85 and alternative fuels as the main solution to foreign oil dependency. (more)

Hopefully, Democrats will extend a few crumbs towards hybrid cars and plug-in hybrid cars, but that might offend the UAW too much, so don't expect any new tax credits for hybrids.

This is the big change America voted for? Excuse me for not being overly excited. When push comes to shove, politicians are just politicians and Democrats aren't really much better than Republicans.

It all comes down to the people. Politicians don't lead revolutions, people do, and voting for Democrats is no revolution.

Some interesting quotes

"In recent years, attempts to increase fuel economy standards have been met with broad bipartisan opposition and we're hopeful that that opposition continues," said Charles Territo, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

"Energy policy and fuel economy standards for the past 20 years have been a bipartisan failure," said David Friedman, research director for the Union of Concerned Scientists' Clean Vehicles Program. "The next year will tell us a lot about how serious people are."

Stop the Madness: Hybrid Vehicles Not E85!!!!!!!

Last year ethanol producers received subsidies and tax incentives worth more than $5 billion dollars, and those subsidies will probably be much higher next year. Yet, even with those subsidies ethanol isn't cost effective unless gas prices are close to $3.00 per gallon.

So, is ethanol worth the price?

Supporters of ethanol claim that all this investment in ethanol for automobiles will eventually lead to better ways of producing ethanol, such as cellulosic ethanol.

I say it will simply lead to more flex-fuel Hummers and little decrease in foreign oil dependency. I say E85 is a feel-good way of accomplishing nothing, something both Democrats and Republicans love - talk, talk, talk, but do nothing.

Without raising the fuel efficiency of America's automobiles - significantly - America's demand for energy will continue to grow exponentially and it will outpace any reduction in foreign oil dependency produced by ethanol.

More important, even GM is now realizing the that the future of automobiles is probably electric. If this is true, then E85 simply becomes a distraction, even a boondoggle to those ends, at least for American automakers and the American economy.

Today, hybrid cars can increase fuel efficiency by 20 to 30 percent, which is a good start. Add advanced gasoline engines or clean diesel engines and fuel efficiency could be doubled - that's with just TODAY's technology.

But the real advantage of hybrids will be lithium batteries, and the ability to utilize electric power. Within 5 years it is quite possible that you could buy a $30,000 hybrid vehicle that might never have to be filled with fuel if you drive less than 40 miles per day, all it would need is a small electric charge at night.

Within 10 years a small fuel cell stack could be added to these plug-in hybrids and the majority of drivers might never need any other fuel than just a little occasional electricity. More important, all of this could happen much quicker if more incentives were provided for hybrid technology and lithium-ion technology.

Why not give those ethanol subsidies to consumers to purchase these vehicles? Ultimately, a change in consumer behavior is the quickest path to foreign oil dependence and a cleaner environment.

Yet, ethanol is the favored buzzword, the favored recipient of tax incentives and government subsidies.

In the past Honda has already claimed it believes electric cars are integral to the future, and Toyota's hybrid efforts make them a player in electric cars as well. Even GM says the future is electric. Consequently, it is imperative that American automakers lead the way into this automotive revolution, rather than sticking to flex-fuel Hummers and Mustangs.

America's focus should be that in 10 years every American vehicle produced is either fuel-free or that fuel is simply a backup. The technology will be there within 10 years. The Japanese will be there. Will America?

Still, I'm all for ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, as a fuel to produce electricity, just not as an automobile fuel. Ultimately, transporting ethanol simply makes no sense in a liquid form, but in an electric form it makes great sense.

Consequently, E85 could become a distraction, even a boondoggle if it takes the clean energy and foreign oil dependency spotlight, and early talk from many Democrats seems headed in that direction.

The future is now. If we don't dare to dream, we just might wake up to a nightmare. New automotive technology, not alternative fuels, should be the priority for America, and the majority of our tax incentives and subsidies should be given to consumers to buy this new technology.

Flex-fuel lies, foreign oil dependency and hybrid vehicle tax credits: Rate Congress

"A public advocacy group on Thursday said Ford Motor Co. has avoided as much as $135 million in fines by marketing vehicles that are supposed to run on the gas-ethanol mix E85 that don't work and accused the company of running misleading ads." (more)

Moreover, aside from the obvious, the fact is that for years the majority of flex-fuel vehicles sold by both Ford and GM have not ever filled up with E-85. Yet, each company has avoided millions and and millions in fines by selling these vehicles.

"Public Citizen and other environmental advocacy groups have long complained that automakers get credits to meet federal fuel economy regulations by building flexible-fuel vehicles that are hardly ever filled with E85, since it's available at just 900 of the country's 170,000 pumps."

So, Congress gives small business owners huge tax incentives to buy the worst gas-guzzlers, provides huge tax incentives to oil companies, enables the big three to avoid 100's of millions of dollars in fines for violating fuel economy regulations - increasing our foreign oil dependency, and limits tax credits for Toyota hybrid vehicles because they are too successful.

That sure sounds like the right path towards achieving energy independence.

Even the President says hybrids are possibly the most important way to change consumer behavior. Yet, Congress hasn't passed proposed legislation to provide small business tax incentives for buying hybrid cars or other fuel efficient vehicles, nor has Congress passed proposed legislation to extend hybrid vehicle tax credits.

Good work, ladies and gentlemen!

We live in a country that blames the President for quite a lot these days. Fair enough. Let's extend at least as much blame to the current - do nothing, partisanship is more important - Congress.

Flex fuel lies, foreign oil dependency and hybrid vehicle tax credits - Congress is failing America.

Does cheap gas reduce the threat of foreign oil dependency?

Gas prices are dropping, and they are dropping fast. By Thanksgiving, barring any hurricanes, wars, etc., gas prices could hit $2.00 across the Nation.

So, does foreign oil dependency even matter anymore?

I say no. It won't matter enough to the average American, at least not enough to act.

Yet the oil issue will never go away. Even though oil experts claim we have only tapped 18% of the world's oil reserves, it seems we will never tap those supplies fast enough to keep up with demand. Oil companies, it seems, have mastered the art of supply and demand.

Forget E85. Forget hybrid cars.

If gas hits $2.00 per gallon, those alternatives simply make no economic sense to most Americans. Sure, maybe Democrats could take the House, Senate and Presidency and raise taxes significantly enough to subsidize E85 and hybrids, but such a move would end their leadership tenure almost instantly - the average American wants cheap gas and few taxes.

Once again, Big Oil and OPEC will have the last laugh, at least until the next spike.

After 9/11, Katrina, and Iraq, little has really changed. As soon as gas hits $2.00 per gallon, the words 'foreign oil dependency' will again mean nothing to the majority of Americans.

How can this be prevented?

Who cares? Clinton and his hybrid vehicle

I'm sorry. I don't really care about Bill Clinton and his new Mercury Mariner hybrid (more). I say, it's long over due. I say the Clintons, and EVERY single member of Congress, should have been driving a hybrid vehicle for several years now. Instead, a few members drive flex-fuel vehicles - that rarely see a drop of E85. That is not a worthy statement.

Too many members of Congress and many other politicians make bold statements about the price of gasoline, foreign oil dependency and the environment - yet, they drive gas-guzzlers. These people cannot only afford hybrid vehicles, they have the greatest responsibility to drive them.

10 MPG Flex-fuel 2007 Chevy Tahoe

According to a study done by Consumer Reports, the 2007 Flex-fuel Chevy Tahoe achieves 14 mpg when filled up with gasoline. If E85 is used, on the other hand, it will achieve 10 mpg. What a deal! Let's hope the Tahoe hybrid can do a little better. O.K., a LOT better! (more)

E85 versus hybrid cars, AGAIN!

I have not been a big fan of E85 or Flex-fuel vehicles. If you are a consumer that has such a vehicle, and regularly fills up with E85, I applaud you. However, I DO NOT applaud either GM or Ford for flex fuel technology. For many years this technology was simply used to violate CAFE, and I seriously doubt that a line of Flex Fuel Hummers or Tahoes is really going to help the world.

If GM was installing this inexpensive technology in all vehicles, especially their small cars, I'd be a little more supportive. Nonetheless, the potential of ethanol driven from cellulose is definitely worth further investigation.

Still, I do not believe ethanol offers anywhere near a complete solution to America's oil and/or fuel problems.

For decades, the idea of a war for clean water has been gaining steam and even the Pentagon has alluded to such a possibility. Further, a new report by the WWF environmental organization, for example, warns that many First World cities are already facing serious water shortages and the problem is only expected to get worse -much worse - and significant blame belongs to agriculture. (more)

In the very near future, clean water could be worth more than oil, yet vast amounts of water will be required to irrigate and process our ethanol crops. And, what about the pollution from chemical fertilizers and other pesticides that will run off into our ever more important aquifers, lakes and rivers? Is it really worth it?

Certainly, ethanol is an interesting resource to explore, but if automotive companies only focus on fuel, rather than significantly better designed and significantly more fuel efficient vehicles, such as hybrid cars, ethanol addiction could easily lead to as many problems as foreign oil dependency.

Obama's gas guzzling hypocrisy

Illinois Senator Barack Obama told an audience that gas-guzzling was a major problem for the U.S. and that higher mileage hybrid cars and other fuel efficient technologies were the solution. Of course, Mr. Obama left in a GMC Envoy. According to his press secretary, "The vehicle senator obama travels in while in illinois is a Flexible Fuel Vehicle (FFV), which can run on e85, a blended fuel made of 85 percent ethanol. So he in fact was practicing what he preached at the town hall meeting in Metropolis yesterday when he said we must drive fewer gas-guzzling vehicles." (more)

Keyword in that sentence is can. Since there are hardly any E85 stations in Chicago, where Mr. Obama resides in Illinois, are we to believe that Mr. Obama regularly fuels his flex fuel vehicle with E85? Without E85, isn't Mr. Obama gas guzzling? Also, since E85 is in such limited supply, isn't all fuel-guzzling bad?

Bush blowing off U.S. automakers? Get real Detroit

Not long ago President Bush told U.S. automakers to make more relevant vehicles. Automakers answered, that they didn't have to, E85 would save America. Yet, the science behind E85 is not nearly as convincing as the E85 rhetoric coming out of Detroit. Some scientists claim it takes more energy to produce ethanol than ethanol provides and that ethanol is purely a huge pork-barrel distraction. Others claim that only cellulosic ethanol - which isn't yet reality - can provide any real help to America's oil addiction.

Still, even those that think ethanol can provide help are quick to note that if Detroit doesn't produce more fuel efficient vehicles, ethanol won't help much.

So when Bush blows off Detroit's request for a meeting to discuss what Washington can do to 'protect' American automakers, can you really blame him? According to the Detroit News besides asking for government help, the Big 3 want to use the meeting as a PR campaign - It's ethanol or bust.

"The automakers have been trying to meet with Bush to discuss soaring health-care costs, energy and trade issues. The Big Three have been waiting to follow the summit with an announcement about their commitment to producing more flexible fuel vehicles."

Give me a break!

How about a commitment to fuel efficiency? It's as if Detroit wants mandates on the oil industry, a massive government bailout, but they don't want to be forced to change. We can all drive Hummer-like gas-guzzlers filled with E85 and the world will be perfect - right!

While Detroit does have some legitimate legacy issues, many of those issues were self-created. More important, Detroit's failures cannot be completely pinned to legacy issues. When it takes 16 more labor hours for Detroit autoworkers to build a car versus Japan, as it did for DECADES, you have to realize there is a problem. Yet, Detroit did very little.

Over and over Detroit has stubbornly refused to change.

O.K., Detroit has reduced this labor gap to 8 hours, yet it still seems painfully obvious that Detroit needs to be more efficient if it wants to be competitive. Additionally, why did it take so long to even address this issue?

Perhaps if the Big 3 were announcing a huge transition to hybrid cars, or the development of some other fuel-efficient, real-world technology, Bush would be more inclined to meet with them.

However, if the best the Big 3 have to offer is E85, then it is obvious that even after 9/11, even after Katrina, even after $3.00 gas, Detroit still doesn't get it.

The world has changed and it's time for Detroit to do the same. If they can't do more to change, then they shouldn't expect taxpayers to do more to bail them out.

E85 and Hybrid Cars: Hollywood, Democrats and Republicans

I just finished replying to a CNN Commentary by Robert Redford on Kicking the Oil Habit. Lately, the idea of kicking the oil habit has become a hot topic, but there is growing partisan spin using this platform for political gain. I find this unacceptable. Ultimately, both parties have enabled America's oil addiction, and most Americans have happily helped. Lately the favorite buzzword of many politicians has become E85 or ethanol. Yet, far too many scientists note that ethanol will never end America's oil addiction, nor even foreign oil dependency, if we don't move towards significantly more fuel efficient vehicles, such as hybrid cars. Yet, it seems that not only are politicians misguided, but even cultural leaders, such as Robert Redford, whom are too focused on partisanship, rather than real leadership and solutions for such a serious issue. (Full Story)

GM and E85: Fool's Gold?

Flip, flop. Mandates on the oil industry are bad, mandates on the oil industry are good - that's the position of Hillary Clinton on mandating that the oil industry put E85 pumps in half of America's gas stations. Hillary Clinton, like all good politicians, has learned to stand for votes, rather than convictions. While she has publicly stated that ethanol mandates would hike fuel prices and VOTED against them, now she knows ethanol mandates will hike auto worker votes in her direction. Convictions or votes? Votes or convictions?

Despite Hillary's strong convictions, I say, E85 is Fool's Gold for GM. (Full Story)

Congress and Detroit: The Dangers of E85

It will take years before ethanol, especially E85, makes a noticeable dent in America's gasoline consumption. Still, in a decade, if 10% of gasoline consumption were reduced in favor of ethanol, would it matter?

Perhaps not as much as first thought. First, in 10 years demand for fuel is going to go up. Second, without subsidies ethanol offers little in terms of free market competition, it simply isn't cheaper than gasoline. Sure, it does reduce foreign oil dependency, but how much and is that enough?

(Finished in Comments)

Congress and CAFE: Two Peas in a Pod

Not long ago I referenced a story that ridiculed Congress and its conservationist policies. On a day members of Congress went to a gas station about a block from their offices to speak about high gas prices, almost every member was driven, spoke as their vehicles idled, and then was driven back one block to their offices. Even worse, most members were in gas-guzzlers. As if that were not enough, most members regularly drive gas-guzzlers.

This is Congressional leadership? Reminds me of what my old football coach used to say, "Anybody can talk the talk, but only champions walk the walk.

Apparently, there aren't many champions in either Congress or the White House these days, maybe there hasn't been in a long time. In today's world LEADERS would be driving hybrid cars, bio-diesel cars, or maybe flex-fuel vehicles fueled with E85, not Tahoes, Escalades, and BMW 760's. Maybe a REAL leader would even - dare I say - walk!?

Today, Congress is focused on CAFE, something they didn't act on just a year ago, but it's good politics now that Americans are angry about high gas prices. It seems success in Congress is driven by doing little and blaming someone else for the problem.

While I am an advocate for increasing CAFE, the plan is really going nowhere. The boldest move that has reasonable support - although probably not enough support - is to raise CAFE by 10 mpg in 10 years. In 10 years, with millions more Americans driving longer commutes while in more congestion, 10 mpg will basically accomplish, well, nothing.

The best case scenario for this plan is that we'll only be importing as much oil in the future as today. Whooohooo!

Nothing short of an automotive revolution is going to change America's oil addiction, and 10 mpg is far from a revolution. Unfortunately, only dire catastrophe will wake Americans up to such a realization, and without REAL leadership coming from Congress and the White House, such a catastrophe appears inevitable.

Energy Secretary Disses Hybrids?

U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman called on Americans to embrace ethanol, but did little to promote hybrid cars or clean diesel at the SAE conference in Detroit.

"It should be our common goal that E85 become a nationwide fueling option," Bodman said. "In the coming days, I will be asking that we do more to make consumers aware of the flex-fuel option both when they are considering a new car purchase and for existing owners of flex-fuel vehicles."(DetroitNews)

Additionally, the Secretary plugged electric cars and hydrogen fuel cells as the 'answer' to America's energy problems.

It's ironic that since GM, Ford and Toyota fuel cell vehicles will be hybrid vehicles, that the Secretary didn't promote hybrids, minimally, as a bridge to not just fuel cell vehicles, but electric vehicles as well. Plug-in hybrid vehicles, for example, can function as electric cars, while also providing gasoline, diesel, ethanol, biodiesel or even hydrogen as a supplementary or primary fuel source.

On the other hand, there is a good chance that if someone buys a flex-fuel vehicle, especially if they live on either coast - they will never fill it up with E85, since they won't be able to find any gas stations that carry ethanol.

In fact, if you are worried about the environment, or foreign oil dependency, many flex fuel vehicles cause much more harm than good. Since many flex fuel vehicles are large trucks and SUVs, flex fuel capabilities were only added to avoid penalties for missing CAFE requirements. Consequently, flex-fuel technology is often only serving as a loop hole that increases foreign oil dependency and pollution.

And the government is good at loopholes. According to some, Bush's new CAFE requirements - intended to make more fuel efficient trucks and SUVs - might lead to bigger, more fuel inefficient trucks and SUVs thanks to another loophole. (AutoWeek)

Why should we be surprised since the government already gives unlimited, $25,000 tax deductions for small business owners to buy the most pollution and foreign oil dependency causing vehicles, yet gives much smaller, capped tax incentives for hybrids?

It seems the government and the Energy Secretary are either ignorant, incompetent, or too focused on protectionist legislation designed to protect American corporations, rather than to actually make America a safer place. Apparently, only gigantic, inefficient corporations can save America.

Yes, ethanol is important, but so to is clean diesel, biodiesel, and even clean gasoline. More important, hybrid technology can make any of these fuels much more efficient, while clearing the path to fully electric cars and/or fuel cell hybrid vehicles.

Let's put the power in the hands of the people, not the corporations. Join the campaign for hybrid vehicle tax incentives.

Oil: Why are Americans so irresponsible?

CNN did a very interesting survey on oil.

"Although Americans don't believe the country faces an imminent energy crisis, most believe there are "major problems" --- from potential oil shortages to possible terrorist attacks -- and they are harshly critical of the leadership on the issue from the White House, according to a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll."

Yet, only 1 in 4 Americans believe consumers brunt any responsibility and only about the same amount blame automakers. While Bush receives much of the blame, oil companies are the most hated.

So, what are Americans doing about? Buying more oil.

In reality, what can Bush really do? Most energy experts note the majority of the problem is refinery capacity. Yet, there has been little support the last few decades to build new refineries and even if Bush said, build ten more, they wouldn't be online until long after he's out of office.

Yet, Dems like Hillary Clinton complain that Bush isn't being tough enough with Iran, at the same time Iran is devising plans to use oil as a weapon against the U.S. If problems with Iran escalate, gasoline prices would easily surge beyond $4.00 or $5.00 per gallon.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't

Lame duck Bush simply can't win, even though there is little he, or anyone, can really do about short term oil prices. All we can do in the short term is conserve.

Then there are the oil companies. I'm tired of this one. Too much of the oil industry is controlled outside of the United States. We, the consumers, need to buy less oil - that's it.

Of course that's hard since automakers haven't provided a lot of choice when it comes to fuel efficiency. GM still doesn't have any hybrid vehicles on the road - no their 'mild' hybrid doesn't count. Additionally, GM's 'GoYellow' compaign is complete B.S., since there aren't any gasoline stations with E85. So, who is GM kidding?

Apparently, most Americans!!! It's too expensive for GM to build hybrids, but not too expensive to spend $3 billion per year on advertising lying about ethanol and other 'professional grade' technologies.

In reality Congress deserves far more blame than the President and if any President deserves blame for oil, you'd have to blame Clinton, the first Bush, or Reagan.

Ultimately, however, Americans should blame automakers and themselves for buying the billions of dollars of propaganda that the big 3 have been selling to America. The right to gas guzzle isn't about American freedom, it's about American stupidity.

And these people laugh at us for buying hybrids.