Toyota's powerful DC friends? Are you kidding me?

Can you say John Dingell?

Boy the media's coverage of Toyota-gate has become almost laughable at times. Lately, the new angle is Toyota's political friends in Washington.

"Some members of Congress have been such cheerleaders for Toyota that the public may wonder how they can act objectively as government watchdogs for auto safety and oversight."

LOL! Wow. John Dingell anyone?

Has Michigan Congressman John Dingell ever acted objectively when it has come to the Big 3, especially when Dingell was the fricken Chairmen of the HUGELY important House Energy and Commerce Committee? Is the media kidding? I mean talk about subjective cheerleaders!

Those of us that have followed CAFE for the last several years, for instance, can only chuckle at the idea that somehow Toyota has more political friends in Washington than does Detroit. For decades DC power-brokers, such as Dingell, have ensured that Big 3 SUV profits were safe from CAFE regulations, despite an average of 10,000 deaths per year because of defective and inadequate designs, despite 9/11, and despite growing evidence that foreign oil dependence was becoming an ever greater threat to American national security.

I know, Toyota-gate has also caused almost 10,000 deaths in the last year. OK, at least a couple of deaths.

Toyota deserves a lot of criticism these days, but if the media really wants to make America safer, isn't it time to start focusing on some real issues?

And yet 10,000 deaths per year means so little

Weak roofs are just one SUV design defect

Perhaps you've had enough recall news for the week? Well, forgive me then, but I'd just like to use the Toyota recall to demonstrate the silliness of American culture.

Today, foreign oil dependence is a hugely important talking point, and that's it, it's only a talking point. Nobody wants to take any real action, at least not today. It's always about tomorrow.

Certainly, we can't do the obvious, simple stuff than can be done today, like making our vehicles smaller and lighter to easily increase fuel economy and reduce foreign oil consumption. Our personal safety is just too important.

And safety drives the US auto industry, right? That's why the Toyota recall scandal is SOOO important. It must be terribly important because it's possible that a few people died due to a design defect.

Ironically, however, every year around 10,000 people die in SUV rollovers, many of which are significantly due to design defects, such as overly high centers of gravity, inadequate roof structures, defective tires, defective door latches and overly narrow tire tracks - all of which are design defects that the auto industry has known about for decades.

Consequently, for decades, the US auto industry has been largely driven by an entirely defective automotive design that directly kills thousands of SUV drivers every year - mostly in single vehicle accidents - while guzzling massive amounts of foreign oil and killing everything else that gets in its way.

And yet 10,000 deaths per year continues to mean so little.

Obama renews 'clean' coal and biofuels plan to reduce foreign oil

Nothing like a good old coal ash spill

President Obama and a bipartisan coalition of governors plan to use 'clean' coal - still an oxymoron today - and biofuels as key resources to ween America off foreign oil dependence according to a White House press release.

Ironically, however, cost-effective clean coal technologies simply do not exist. And, according to a recent Oxford Study, even next gen biofuels will be significantly constrained by land-use issues.

So, why not natural gas?

Even if CO2 can be cost-effectively captured and managed, is coal technology really so much better for the environment than natural gas, for instance? Furthermore, natural gas doesn't require any magical breakthrough today to clean itself up compared to coal. More important, both natural gas and 'clean' coal - if such a thing ever exits - should be seen ONLY as interim technologies.

Is not an interim technology that is cost-effective and clean today better than an interim technology that might one day be clean and cost-effective? Are we being pragmatic, or just playing politics?

What do 100,000 Volts, Leafs or Prius hybrids per year really mean?

No impact on foreign oil dependence for 2 decades?

For several years now, Toyota has sold more than 100,000 Prius hybrids per year in the US. In fact, Toyota has sold more than 1 million hybrid cars in the US alone.

Yet, what effect have one million hybrids had on US foreign oil dependence? None.

Soon, GM will launch the highly-anticipated Chevy Volt, yet it might be a decade before GM is selling 100,000 Volts per year. Likewise, late this year Nissan will begin US production of the Leaf electric car. When Nissan's new production facility is fully operational, it will produce up to 150,000 Leafs per year.

Yet again, what impact will these vehicles have on foreign oil dependence?

Unfortunately, according to numerous studies, ALL electric vehicle sales in the US, combined, won't have any noticeable impact on foreign oil dependence for probably another TWO decades, and even then the effect might still be marginal.

Certainly, automakers have to start electrifying the automobile somewhere, and the Prius, Volt and Leaf are all noble and important products. Nonetheless, their impact upon the environment and foreign oil dependence will remain meaningless for decades.

Is this really the best that America can do?

A plan to be 40 percent electric by 2020?

Are Americans ready and willing?

Calling foreign oil dependency “one of the most devastating policy failures of our time”, ex New York Governor, George Pataki, called for new programs to ensure that America is 40 percent electric drive vehicles by 2020.

Today, most experts predict that electric drive penetration will be about 3 - 7 percent by 2020. Therefore, to increase the rate of adoption, Pataki suggests a number of new policies, such as rebates for EVs instead of tax credits, tax exemptions for automakers and incentives for battery development.

Mary Ann Wright, VP and Managing Director, Johnson Controls Business Accelerator for Advanced Energy Storage Solutions, was far less optimistic and claimed demand for such vehicles simply doesn't exist to achieve 40 percent electric vehicle penetration by 2020. Ultimately, "gasoline is too cheap."

What if you can't afford a Chevy Volt?

A fantastic car for 5 percent of car consumers?

In recent months I've been criticized many times for being too critical of US automakers. Ironically, a year ago or so, I was criticized many times for being too supportive of the Chevy Volt.

So, what's my deal?

Ultimately, I became interested in hybrid cars after 9/11 because I decided that America's foreign oil dependence was beginning to cause far more harm than good for America and the world. Thus, hybrid cars presented a great way to take immediate action today, while investing in the potential of fuel cell vehicles and all other battery-powered vehicles for tomorrow.

For this reason, I was very supportive of the Chevy Volt at first. Yet, as time has passed from the debut of the Volt, I've realized that the Volt has almost become a distraction to my cause.

Finish reading: What if you can't afford a Chevy Volt. Thinking about foreign oil dependence

Attack of the Republicans: Cap and trade is dead

Global warming?

Today's Senate race in Massachusetts is the big story on Wall Street. According to the pollsters this political race, again, epitomizes change. This time, however, it's not a change against Bush and Republicans. This time, the message is for Democrats that have either gone too far, or not in the right direction, at least according to the populist majority.

Even if Republican Scott Brown loses, the Wake Up call has been delivered. Issues such as any big 'cap & trade' program, according to the pundits, are now dead.

So, why not give foreign oil dependence a try? Finish reading: Attack of the Republicans: Cap and trade is dead

Long term consequences: The need for hybridization now?

Still on the road 20 years from now?

America learned many things from the recent Cash for Clunker program, yet one of the biggest takeaways should be the lasting impact of today's technology upon tomorrow's environment. In a fleet of hundreds of millions, old gas-guzzlers from decades ago still impact today's world significantly.

Unfortunately, neither upgraded CAFE requirements nor President Obama's initiative of 1 million plug-in vehicles by 2015 will be able to offset the impact of the many tens of millions of gas-guzzlers that will be produced over the next decade upon America's future. Consequently, the legacy of these vehicles ensures that America will still be very dependent upon petroleum - mostly foreign - for decades to come.

Felix Kramer, founder of the CalCarsInitiative and long time plug-in hybrid driver and advocate, recently told the LATimes that the only way for the US to make any serious, timely dent in oil consumption requires the retrofitting of existing gas-guzzlers into hybrid vehicles.

Moreover, such vehicles could be further converted to plug-in hybrids as the technology becomes cost-effective.

Quite simply, however, mass plug-in vehicle adoption is at least a couple of decades away. Even then, the legacy effects of 100s of millions of gas-guzzlers will still live on for decades longer.

Whether the answer is hybridization or not, based on the last 30 years of US oil consumption, can America really afford several more decades of foreign oil dependence?

Drill, drill, drill: The path to a stronger America

Let's drill our way to greatness!

In the 1970's the US imported 24 percent of its oil. Today those imports have increased to 65 percent.

So, let's drill, drill, drill. Certainly, we can find enough oil here in the US to replace our current consumption, right?

OK. Maybe that's not realistic, but we can find enough oil to reduce pressure at the margins and bring down prices, right?

Maybe. In fact, let's say that's true. But, would that really help America?

About a year ago, Congress 'invested' more than $80 billion in the US auto industry. Why? Because it's a key segment in the US economy, right? Yet, if cheap oil is so good for America, why has the US auto industry been on the decline for decades?

Likewise, why hasn't cheap oil led to greater innovation and manufacturing success in the US if energy was so cheap?

Of course, that isn't totally fair. US foreign oil consumption has led to many amazing innovations in the military sector. Of course, have all the costs been worth this great military strength? Has America really become safer?

Perhaps more drilling could lead to some temporary, marginal improvement in pump prices. Inevitably, however, more drilling - and cheaper gas - would assuredly lead to the same technological complacency and national security risks that cheap oil has nurtured for the last few decades.

If America is to be anything more than a military state in the next couple of decades, isn't our potential greatness inextricably linked to ending our petroleum addiction?

Only 17 percent of consumers might pay extra to plug-in

Forever a niche vehicle at best?

Haven't had time to fully read the latest plug-in hybrid report by Pike Research, but I just finished CNET's review. Overall, the report suggests that only 17 percent of US consumers might be willing to pay a premium for plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles.

And, if plug-ins do 'take off', they will probably be short range plug-in hybrids, such as the Toyota Prius plug-in hybrid rather than the Chevy Volt, or short range pure EVs, as plug-in vehicles with smaller battery packs will be more cost-viable for the majority of consumers.

As I blogged early this week in Great hybrid hoax: Adding a plug to hybrid cars?, this report seems to also suggest that conventional hybrid cars will make a more appealing buying case to the majority of US consumers for at least the next few decades.

Along those lines, since full hybrids such as the Toyota Prius can so easily be converted into plug-in hybrids, wouldn't such vehicles more immediately tackle global warming and foreign oil dependency today, while providing a 'cash for plug-in conversion' option tomorrow?

Can Congress fight foreign oil dependence and save Detroit?

Is foreign oil dependence a meaningless buzz phrase?

So, Nancy Pelosi is going to lead a Congressional caucus to the North American International Auto Show to see how Detroit's new automotive products are shaping up and to listen to ideas from Michigan's elected leaders.

Considering that Congress has invested at least $81 billion in the US auto industry, such a trip seems necessary.

And, without doubt, there will certinaly be photo ops with various plug-in vehicles, such as the Chevy Volt, and sound bites of how such vehicles are going to save Michigan and America, despite the fact that numerous studies claim such vehicles will have little impact on foreign oil dependency or CO2 emissions for decades. Nonetheless, I'm sure the trip will make for great PR.

Moreover, I'm sure there will be some references to new CAFE rules and how they've led to a plethora of new American small cars. Shoot, by 2020 the US auto industry's fleet fuel economy might even match our competitor's fleet fuel economy - well, at least what their fleet fuel economy is today.

Inevitably, however, America will still be heavily dependent upon foreign oil. In fact, based on most data available, the US will be heavily dependent upon dirty foreign oil for several more decades, minimally, barring any new, aggressive change in Congressional policy.

Thus, I must ask, can Congress aggressively and swiftly fight foreign oil dependence and save the US auto industry, while not bankrupting the US economy nor increasing CO2 emissions? Is such a task simply impossible, or is it Congress that is the problem?

The great hybrid hoax: Adding a plug?

Better without the plug?

Depending upon the poll or survey, between 70 and 80 percent of Americans are interested in buying a hybrid car today. Many of them are interested because they are worried about pollution and global warming. Most, however, are interested in hybrid cars because they help reduce foreign oil consumption.

Unfortunately, hybrids are still too expensive, according to these same polls, for most Americans to act upon these various convictions. Most Americans are only willing to pay a little more to 'do the right thing'. Many, perhaps even a majority, are unwilling to pay anything extra for a hybrid, or any other foreign-oil dependency-fighting product.

So, what's the solution? More expensive plug-in hybrid cars and electric vehicles, of course, at least judging by the actions of today's politicians and US automakers.

Finish: The great hybrid hoax: Adding a plug?

Study: Plug-in hybrid impact minimal for decades

Not for the masses

A new study by the US National Research Council finds that plug-in hybrid costs are likely to remain high for decades, therefore, PHEV impact on foreign oil dependency and CO2 emissions is likely to remain low until after 2030.

By 2030, the council expects about 13, but up to 40, million plug-in hybrid cars to be on US roads, dependent upon numerous factors. However, in a fleet of 300 million vehicles, impact upon reducing CO2 emissions and foreign oil dependency before 2030 will be minor. Even to achieve the 13 million mark, 10s of billions in subsidies, minimally, will be required. To hit the higher mark, hundreds of billions will probably be needed.

Overall, the council expects production costs of plug-in hybrid vehicles - mostly in relation to battery technologies - to decrease by about 1/3 over the next decade. Thereafter, cost-savings will probably slow. Thus, it will take decades of cheap electricity to recover the upfront costs of plug-in hybrids compared to gasoline vehicles according to the Council - which will severely impact plug-in hybrid adoption.

A few UM plug-in study thoughts

Have automakers over-played the plug?

Like past studies, the University of Michigan plug-in study finds that a number of Americans, 42 percent in this study, are interested in plug-in vehicles. Of course, most of those interested are only willing to pay about $2,500 extra for a plug-in vehicle, which is also in line with most other studies.

The study also finds that foreign oil dependency is a much bigger plug-in adoption factor than is global warming.

Consequently, while there is a market for plug-in vehicles, there seems to be a far greater market for cost-effective, foreign-oil dependency-fighting solutions than what plug-in vehicles are going to address any time soon. For instance, other studies have suggested that as many as 80 percent of Americans are interested in hybrid cars, again, if the price is right.

Obviously, the price isn't right for most Americans today. Nor are there enough hybrid choices.

However, that will have to change if Toyota is to achieve its 30 percent hybrid sales goal by 2020. And, if they can achieve this goal, imagine how many potential plug-in hybrid consumers Toyota will have in its pipeline just as plug-ins start achieving scalability.

Some have called Toyota's plug-in plans "conservative". In reality, aren't Toyota's battery-powered vehicle plans not only more aggressive than every other automaker, but also more realistic?

Time to get real about hybrids and plug-ins

All about the dead Presidents?

Several months ago, a JD Power survey found that, despite declining gas prices, more than 70 percent of Americans were interested in buying hybrid cars. More than 40 percent of that 70 percent indicated they would pay as much as $5000.00 more for a hybrid.

At the time, however, hybrid sales were declining, as hybrid market share fell below 3 percent. Apparently, it's not easy to put your money where your mouth is.

Can we change this disconnect? Finish: Time to get real about hybrids and plug-ins

Saudi Arabia to America: Get real about oil

Do we need them far more than we care to admit?

Last week a Saudi Arabian oil minister claimed that American energy independence is "a concept that is unrealistic, misguided and ultimately harmful to energy-producing and - consuming countries alike."

Moreover, interdependence between Saudi Arabia and the US will last for decades.

Obviously, what else would anyone expect from a Saudi oil minister?

Nonetheless, isn't it true that America will be heavily dependent upon foreign oil at least another 3 decades? Is America's energy policy still "schizophrenic" and delusional?

Cash for clunker's shocking reality

Legacy costs

Cash for Clunkers is over. After $2.88 billion we've removed 690,117 fuel inefficient clunkers from society while providing a quick bump to a down and out auto industry.

Good news, right?

Regardless, according to CNN, those 700,000 clunkers represent just "2% of the approximately 42 million fuel hoggers still clunking along." So, we have a long way to go, but at least 700,000 15 mpg vehicles were replaced, on average, with 25 mpg vehicles.

Unfortunately, if by some magic wand Cash for Clunkers could have worked for ALL clunkers, even at 25 mpg across the entire US fleet, America would still be terribly dependent upon foreign oil.

Freedom: Guzzling funds Taliban

War on drugs? Why not a war on oil?

According to Richard Holbrooke, the US special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Taliban funding from Persian Gulf oil money outpaces funding from opium and heroin exports.

Good thing we'll only be dependent upon Persian Gulf oil for another 50 years, otherwise I might be a little worried.

Guzzle in peace! May Allah be with you.

What's wrong with tax credits for hybrid cars?

You're no plug-in, Ford hybrid

Today, Toyota is facing a battery shortage for its hybrid cars. By next year, however, Toyota might have enough batteries to produce 1 million hybrids per year.

Aside from Honda, no other automaker will produce even 100,000 hybrid vehicles per year until lithium is developed. Even then, many automakers might skip hybrids, instead preferring to put their lithium technology into limited production plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles.

However, if Toyota swapped its NiMH batteries for Enerdel's lithium batteries, for instance, it could produce either 100,000 electric vehicles or one million Prius hybrids. And, without question, 1,000,000 Prius hybrids would have a significantly greater effect on both foreign oil dependency and global warming.

Considering that plug-in vehicles could be 3 decades or more from achieving at least 20 percent marketshare, why is America's lithium focus only upon plug-in vehicles?

Without question, tax credits for plug-in vehicles are a worthy expenditure. Still, why only plug-ins? Why not put lithium into as many vehicles as possible?

Ultimately, wouldn't lithium hybrids lead to a much quicker and dramatic effect on America's foreign oil dependency and carbon footprint? Shouldn't that be the driver of any battery-powered tax credit?

Foreign oil dependence on TheStreet

Should plug-ins be the only path to foreign oil dependence?

TheStreet.com asked me to be a guest contributor recently, so they published Foreign Oil Versus the GM Volt this morning (although I didn't pick the title).

Ultimately, I've become very critical of the Chevy Volt compared to a year ago, when I was a fairly strong advocate. While I agree that it's important to bring this technology to market, such vehicles are decades away from making a major impact on America's energy paradigm.

More important, while GM can hype the petroleum-free driving of the Volt, such hype can't hide the fact that the Volt will be a limited production vehicle for most of the next decade and it won't be cost-effective and profitable until well into the 2020s. Thus, it will be 30 to 40 years before such plug-ins can provide a dramatic impact on ending foreign oil dependence.

So, I can't help but ask, how many more decades before foreign oil dependence leads to another bin Laden, another 9/11, another major gas spike?

Ultimately, the Volt isn't the source of my angst, my focus is purely on foreign oil dependence. Unfortunately, as the Volt moves closer to reality, it has become a tool for illustrating just how far away America is from tackling foreign oil dependence.

Lutz on Fast Money: Dodging questions on Volt viability?

The Vice Chairman at his best

Last night Melissa Lee of Fast Money asked Bob Lutz how many units of the Chevy Volt GM expected to sell. Instead of answering, Lutz switched the conversation to how much better the Volt is than the competition. Fine. Maybe it is on a technological level.

Lee then followed up by asking when consumers can expect to reap the benefits of the Volt. After a $7500 tax credit, Lutz claimed at $32,500 the Volt wasn't too much more expensive than Toyota Prius. Still, he never explained how long it would take the Volt to recover its additional expense compared to a Prius or a similarly sized conventional vehicle.

Yet, what happens when tax credits run out? Moreover, recently it was reported that even at $40,000, GM is still losing money on every Volt sold, as the first Volts will be sold below cost. On top of that, GM eventually - someday - needs to start recovering the $1 billion plus spent on production costs.

Thus, tax payers - now owing 60 percent of GM - are selling the Volt at a loss, at a time that the Volt program is already $1 billion+ in debt, and taxpayers are also going to provide a $7500 tax credit to help sell a vehicle that can't help GM's bottom line for at least a decade?

And, not too much more expensive than the Prius?

I don't know. $10,000 + a $7500 tax credit sounds a little expensive to me, especially considering that the Toyota Prius is already a tough sell for the far majority of Americans. Most Americans want an even faster payback, an even cheaper clean and green option.

And, while I agree with Lutz's sentiments about petroleum-free driving, without enticing a majority of Americans, EVs will have no effect foreign oil dependency even if they achieve 1,000,000 mpg.

In 10 or 15 years, the Volt might have a chance of becoming a profitable, top-selling vehicle in America. In the interim, competitors will be developing a plethora of Volt competitors. Yet, none of them mean anything until millions of reliable and cost-effective battery packs can be produced per year.

Until then - even as early as next year - Toyota could be selling 1 million hybrid cars+ per year.

So which car, the Prius or the Volt, will offer the greatest reduction in petroleum over the next decade?

Is it time to put cap and trade on the back burner?

The people continue to grow more skeptical of global warming

A few weeks ago I attended HybridFest in Madison, WI. While there I experienced some of Wisconsin's coldest summer days in recorded history. Certainly, such whether isn't proof that global warming isn't real, but it does cause pause, especially for those already skeptical of CO2 emissions and their effect upon global warming.

And, as the economy continues to struggle, more polls seem to indicate that public support for fighting global warming is declining. This simply isn't an issue that is going to unite the people into a positive, forward-thinking movement, at least not today.

Besides, what's the rush to cap and trade legislation? Other countries that have been more progressive on CO2 limits are largely failing to meet their emissions requirements. Might it not be time to think outside of the box?

For instance, foreign oil dependence is an issue that resonates much more with the people. Of course, that doesn't mean the people are willing to be taxed more to fight such dependence. Nonetheless, it is an issue that is a far easier to sell to the American public. More important, a serious declaration of war against foreign oil dependence could have a huge effect on CO2 emissions, on igniting innovations in efficient, aka green, technology in a package the people just might buy.

Ultimately, can America really move forward by forcing Americans to act against their beliefs? Might it not be worth rallying America around an issue in which most Americans can believe?

Everything about the car must change

It looks too much like a science experiment

In the last few days I've been hearing about how dumb hybrid cars are and how nothing more than diesel is needed in America. I guess these knuckle-heads believe that diesel isn't dependent upon foreign oil. Maybe one of them can explain that one to me some day.

Anyway, I was reviewing a few articles this morning on the best American cars. Of course, none of them were hybrids. Consequently, all of them offered city mileage at 25 mpg or less, far less for some.

No problem, right? Just fill 'em up with batteries.

Of course, just to convert a Chevy Tahoe into a Tahoe hybrid requires about $10,000 worth of hybrid batteries and components. Yet, the Tahoe hybrid still only achieves a little over 20 mpg in city driving.

That just won't cut the foreign oil.

But, let's forget cost for a second. Let's think of an every day electric sedan that offers at least a few hundred miles of EV power, and one that can recharge in minutes, not hours. The geniuses over at MIT are working on such a vehicle. Unfortunately, the batteries alone cost $80,000, and costs can only be forgotten for so long.

So, just filling today's car designs with batteries and electric motors isn't going to be a solution for some time either.

Can the US auto industry survive well into the future, without completely re-inventing itself? Sizes, materials, powertrains, etc. Isn't it time to realize that everything about the car must change?

Bob Lutz as GM's savior

Is the Volt's grandfather the dude?

I hate Bob Lutz. Then again, I love Bob Lutz. Long time Hybridcarblog followers, such as KP, have often criticized my Lutz affection.

What can I say? I just love his gun-slinging, say-it-as-he-feels-it attitude.

Unfortunately, I disagree with most of what he says. Yet, from a business perspective, I'd argue that Lutz is much more attuned to Detroit success that I am.

Nonetheless, Lutz is now more in control of GM than ever. Considering Lutz's history on global warming and hybrid cars, is this really the right move for GM?

Is fuel efficiency really that important to the real world survival of GM? Or, is Lutz correct in assuming that fuel efficiency - when push comes to shove - is really only important to about just 5 percent of America?

Will America ever declare war on foreign oil?

What would it take?

As a $150 million dollar natural gas for transportation research bill works its way through Congress, I can't help but wonder, could America end foreign oil dependency with its own resources?

Could America draw a line in the sand and determine to be foreign oil free within 10, 15, or 20 years using some combination of natural gas, biofuels, batteries and whatever other tools are available today?

While natural gas is typically cleaner than oil, it's not renewable. Should that matter?

If we could end foreign oil dependency, but only minimally reduce our CO2 footprint along the way, could that still be a good thing? For instance, wouldn't ending foreign oil dependency eventually lead to a massive cost-savings, once military costs are factored into the equation? Couldn't such a savings be used exclusively for developing cleaner and more sustainable energy?

Is there a way to declare war on foreign oil that both those from the green side and the 'drill, drill, drill' side could find consensus? Is an aggressive move against foreign oil dependency even possible without such a consensus?

Will America ever declare war on foreign oil? Or will America's energy paradigm ultimately be dictated by forces beyond America's control?

Obama bent over a corn cob?

Beholden to the corn lobby?

I am not an ethanol fan. It's corrosive and inefficient. It's polluting our water systems, and it probably takes as much energy to produce ethanol as it provides, if not more. And, after many years of massive government subsidies, E85 is still only available at just 2 percent of the nation's gas stations - mostly in or around Illinois.

Thus, most flex fuel vehicles have never filled up with E85, yet the automakers producing these flex fuel vehicles have received a massive amount of flex fuel credits enabling the sale of a massive amount of gas guzzlers that would have otherwise violated CAFE.

How has that helped reduce CO2 emissions or reduce foreign oil dependency?

Yet, President Obama is now considering a move that would require ALL vehicles to be flex fuel vehicles, at a cost of at least $1 billion per year.

Isn't it time to take the corn out of politics, and out of the energy paradigm?

Hybrid shoppers: It's not about global warming

The global warming fighter?

A few years ago, Hybridcarblog ran a poll on "Why buy a hybrid vehicle?" There were four possible choices: 1.) Cool technology, 2.) Foreign oil dependency 3.) Global warming and 4.) Carpool lane access.

After running the poll on Hybridcarblog for a while, I moved it to a few Soultek pages and kind of forget about it, until the other day.

So far, there have been more than 28,000 responses to the poll and the results are a little surprising. 37 percent of respondents picked foreign oil dependency, 29 percent cool technology, 27 percent car pool lane access, but only 7 percent picked global warming.

While I wasn't surprised that foreign oil dependency was the top reason for interest in buying hybrid cars, I was extremely surprised that just 7 percent picked global warming.

Is the hybrid and global warming angle being overplayed? Are automakers, especially US automakers, completely underestimating the selling power of foreign oil dependency-fighting hybrid vehicles?

The great oil crash of 2010

But only the calm before the storm?

Speculation. Is it a dirty word? Should the entire future's market be shut down? Should their be higher margins and position limits on oil trading? The government might soon decide these questions, at least as far as the energy markets are concerned.

Yet, regardless of any government action, oil and gasoline prices are almost assuredly heading downward. Oil supplies are ridiculously high, gasoline inventories keep rising, and the world economy simply is not recovering. And, despite the fact that gas prices are far less than last summer, Americans are driving less. One way or another, the air has to come out of this bubble.

But is that really a good thing? Won't a few years of cheaper gas simply result in more complacency regarding the dangers of foreign oil dependency and in the stagnation of alternative energy development? Ultimately, isn't cheap foreign oil, like cheap cigarettes, bad for America?

Will cap and trade reduce foreign oil dependency?

Does it all come down to gas prices?

As the House quickly tweaks 1200 pages of cap and trade legislation, cutting chunks of it, unfortunately, into large slices of pork, I cannot help but wonder how much cap and trade will affect foreign oil dependency.

A couple months ago USAToday published research that suggested that by 2015 cap & trade would add between .16 cents on the low end to $2.58 on the high end to the price of a gallon of gas.

That's a lot of variability. If cap and trade only results in an extra .16 cents at the pump, it seems hard to believe that cap and trade's affect on gas prices would have much impact on foreign oil dependency. Of course, if the high end becomes reality, we'll significantly reduce foreign oil dependency, but we'll also kill the US auto industry.

Is cap and trade the right approach to foreign oil dependency? Is foreign oil dependency irrelevant compared to global warming?

$4:00 gas in 2010: How does the US fare?

Will trucks still sell?

I'm not predicting $4.00 gas in 2010. It's possible, but so is $2.00 gas.

Still, what if gas prices hit $4.00+ for all of 2010? Wouldn't the auto industry need another bailout? Would China bail the US out - hah! - again?

Earlier today I read that Chrysler's biggest worry right now is gas prices. Since it'll be at least a year before any of Fiat's more fuel efficient models hit the US, Chrysler worries that high gas prices could kill it's profitable vehicles - all gas guzzlers - and its business.

Yet, the odds on $4.00 gas in 2010 are pretty good.

Isn't it time to take foreign oil dependence a bit more seriously? With public polls showing such consensus on this issue, why is foreign oil dependency but a sound bite in the political arena?

Does the Volt really resonate in America?

More hype than reality?

GM is holding a technology briefing today that will include updates on GM's new, fully operational battery lab as well as more confirmation about a new fleet of pre-production Chevy Volts. None of this news, however, is really that new if you've been following the Volt story.

In a nutshell, however, the Chevy Volt is on track, even ahead of schedule. More important, GM believes it can significantly reduce costs, especially regarding the battery, by just the second generation. Nonetheless, the Volt will still cost a good bit more than both a conventional vehicle, as well as a conventional hybrid vehicle like the Toyota Prius.

So, can the Volt really be America's car?

Numerous studies indicate that most Americans are very concerned about foreign oil dependency, and they believe that hybrid cars are a strategically important part of ending this dependency. Yet, the majority of these Americans are not willing to pay extra for these strategically important vehicles.

Can a potentially revolutionary American hybrid, or range extended electric vehicle, change this complacent attitude? Or, are significantly higher gas prices the Volt's only chance of serious market penetration?

Carbon schmarbon: It's foreign oil dependency, stupid

Does global warming resonate with America?

Today, most Americans - most of Main Street - believe that hybrid cars are "strategically" important to the United States. Yet, most of these Americans have real doubts about global warming. So, how do most Americans reconcile this bit of irony?

Foreign oil dependency.

According to recent data, most Americans believe hybrid cars are "strategically" important because of foreign oil dependency, followed by saving auto jobs. For most Americans, global warming is not a reason to buy a hybrid vehicle.

Yet, Democrats, when discussing the issue of the oncoming auto revolution, always frame this conversation around global warming. Around carbon. Around cap and trade. Main Street, however, does not agree with Democrats on this issue.

Of course, once America also believed 'separate, but equal' was a fair policy until the government led America out of that insanity. So, the government leading the people, rather than the people leading the government, is sometimes a necessary evil.

Nonetheless, why not more of a focus on ending foreign oil dependence? Inevitably, ending foreign oil dependence would have a positive impact on global warming. Moreover, ending foreign oil dependency, like beating the Russians to the moon, is something almost every American could rally behind. Foreign oil dependence is the thread that can sew unity amongst the workers, industry, and and the government.

Ultimately, inevitably, American tax payers are going to risk as much as a few hundred billion on the US auto industry. Why not leverage this investment into a national campaign to end foreign oil dependency? Besides if you bring average Americans into this movement, it will probably be easier to work cap & trade legislation through Congress in the background.

Cake eaters: America and hybrid cars

88 percent of US adults believe hybrids are strategically important

Wow. I guess I can't say I'm surprised, but I'm certainly disappointed.

A recent study finds that 88 percent of US adults believe that hybrid cars are strategically important to 1.) Reduce foreign oil dependence, 2.) Save and create auto-related jobs, and 3.) To help the environment.

Unfortunately, only 23 percent of Americans are willing to pay extra for hybrids. 35 percent will only buy a hybrid if it costs the same as a comparable non-hybrid. Another 33 percent will only buy a hybrid if it costs less than a comparable non-hybrid.

So, a majority of Americans believe in the strategic importance of hybrid cars for national security, jobs, and the environment, but most are willing to invest NOTHING in these strategically important vehicles? Shameful. What a bunch of selfish, vision-less cake eaters.

Anyway, might this attitude change if more marketing tying hybrids and foreign oil dependency replaced some of the environmentally-skewed commercials of today, since that issue most resonates with Americans? Then again, since there are so few American-made hybrids, such a message would probably be pointless.

35 mpg by 2016: Still a bad addict

The 35 mpg+ Ford Fusion hybrid

Tomorrow President Barack Obama will issue new vehicle emissions standards that will include a green house gas emission reduction of about 30 percent, according to early reports. Thus, by 2016 CAFE will be increased to 35 mpg - the number CAFE is now to achieve by 2020.

So, by 2016 America will still be heavily addicted to foreign oil?

Obviously, this is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, it also demonstrates how dependent America will be upon foreign oil for many, many more years.

Also, I cannot help but wonder, can US automakers make enough profit along the way to such standards?

Made in America to suck foreign oil

Buy American or eat your import?

My father is a retired union worker. His entire life he's bought nothing but Fords and he would never consider buying a foreign car. Thus, he doesn't think much of my Toyota hybrid.

However, despite the endless problems we had with almost every single Ford my father bought - although his recent Ford purchases have been significantly more reliable - I still considered a Ford for my last auto purchase.

Unfortunately, other than SUVs that I don't care for, Ford didn't have an offering for my fuel efficient motives. Thus, I went with Toyota, again. In fact, I've never bought an American car, but I would.

Today, "The Made In America" bus tour will kick off in Michigan to bring awareness to the plight of the US auto industry. Yet, I cannot help but wonder, how much FOREIGN oil will this American bus tour consume? Also, I can't help but wonder why so many of these "Made in America" folks seem so indifferent to the foreign oil they guzzle in their American autos.

Moreover, why can't these "Made in America" people converge these two fronts of domestic autos and foreign oil? To me "Made in America to end Foreign Oil Dependency" could sell. Is it just me?

Energy Independence: An American joke

Can the US auto industry end America's foreign energy dependence?

Chrysler isn't paying back $7 billion that the government lent to the automaker to stay out of bankruptcy. GM is losing billions by the week. Yet, the government is about to loan the auto industry up to $50 billion to help the US auto industry retool for greater fuel efficiency.

Then there are bailouts for auto suppliers, financing units like GMAC, cash for clunker programs, etc., but why dwell? The real point is, when will all of this bailout money lead to energy independence?

In terms of future fuel efficient, oil dependence-fighting vehicles, it's all about the plug, right? Yet, GM's Chevy Volt probably won't be profitable until the 2020s according to Obama's auto task force unless there is a tripling in gas prices. What happens in the interim? Why can't the Big 3 compete with Toyota's already profitable, 50 mpg Prius?

Thus, many claim that only a gas tax can push America off foreign energy. However, as popular as President Obama is today, even he couldn't push such an idea through Congress.

Today, America's Achilles heal, foreign oil dependency, is more exposed than ever, and by the time we truly realize the dangers of this sick joke, it might be too late. Ironically, however, now that gas prices have fallen, this issue isn't even on America's radar.

Will cap and trade increase auto fuel economy?

How much must gas cost to make the Fusion hybrid a big seller?

So, Bill Ford Jr. is now advocating a gas tax. It seems everyone in the auto industry is hyping a gas tax these days. It provides such a perfect excuse for Big 3 inaction on fuel economy. Of course, its hard to argue that Bill and others don't have a bit of a point.

Still, why now? Is it just because the White House has indicated a gas tax isn't even on the table, as it all comes down to cap & trade now?

I'm not really sure, but I have wondered lately how cap & trade would affect gas prices. One article in USAToday recently claimed that by 2015 a cap & trade program would add between .16 cents on the low end to about $2.58 on the high end to the price of a gallon of gas.

Certainly, an additional .16 cents won't accomplish anything. $2.58, on the other hand, would have a pretty big effect. Nonetheless, that's quite a range and a lot of uncertainty.

Obviously, cap & trade is about carbon, but is such a program too open ended if the goal is ending foreign oil dependency?

Obama asks Americans to join clean energy "mission"

Will Americans support cap & trade?

As I write this, President Obama is speaking in Newton, IA about the need for a new era of energy exploration in the US. Thus, based on the EPA's rule that CO2 is dangerous to America's health, it's time for the US to pass a CO2 cap & trade program. According to Obama, the "American people are ready to be part of a mission," a mission to end foreign oil dependency and move from dirty energy to clean energy via carbon trading.

Are you ready to join the mission? I am.

CAFE loopholes to increase oil dependency? More gas tax proof?

Just make it bigger?

So GM has a problem. New CAFE requirements will require that GM add hybrid technology to its Chevy Tahoe.

Good start, right? The Tahoe hybrid achieves much better fuel economy than the conventional Tahoe, especially in the city. Unfortunately, the added hybrid costs also suck out GM's profit margin, especially at today's gas prices.

Solution: Just make the conventional Tahoe bigger so it applies for a different class of fuel economy regulations and skip the hybrid version reports a scary article by BusinessWeek.

Hmmm. Waste tons of time and money creating complex, loopholed and ineffective legislation that swaps real costs for treasury bills owned by China, or initiate a simple, effective gas tax? And Congress wants to investigate credit swaps?

Time to revisit plug-in tax credit legislation?

Is its battery big enough?

There has been an AP story all over the Internet covering the difficulties of reaching President Obama's 1 million plug-ins by 2015 goal. Cheap gas, a struggling economy, bankrupt automakers, and excessively expensive technology, etc. make the goal impossible without massive help from the government.

Thus far the government has offered tens of billions in loans and aid to help automakers retool, in addition to plug-in tax credits for consumers worth up to $7500. While these tax credits are not as heavily skewed towards large battery plug-ins as originally proposed, they are still skewed towards vehicles that some studies have questioned in terms of efficiency.

Now, I don't want to argue against large battery plug-ins, but I do wonder if this legislation is as effective and efficient as it could be. Even worse, I wonder if this legislation is semi-counterproductive.

For instance, with plug-in profitability possibly a decade away, are plug-ins more about CAFE balancing than an aggressive attack on oil dependence? Also, will these vehicles be profitable after tax credits expire?

Is the size of the battery really the key this early in the game, or should there be more focus on putting lithium into as many cars as possible as quickly as possible?

Ford's $20,000 hybrid?

Ford's third gen Focus

I was checking out new pictures of the third generation Ford Focus on MotorTrend, and I couldn't help but think, why not make the Focus Ford's Honda Insight and Toyota Prius contender?

Imagine a $20,000 American hybrid!?

Hello! You wouldn't be able to keep it in stock. Even if the car lost money per unit for the next few years, imagine the traffic it would bring into showrooms. Imagine the positive press. And, eventually it would make a nice profit.

Make the gas version the econ model. Offer the hybrid in medium and luxury level trims. Maybe do the same for an EV version.

Isn't that the kind of choice America's freedom from foreign oil requires?

Is driving a Hummer a privilege, a right, or a crime?

Is responsibility a dirty word?

Is driving any vehicle you want a god-given right? Today, MotorTrend is asking its readers, "Is driving a privilege or a right?"

Initially, I thought it was a privilege, but I've come to think it's a right that all qualified citizens are entitled. However, that right can be taken away if certain laws are broken because the safety of the people is more important than any individual's right to endanger other people.

Still, what about the kind of vehicle you drive? Should consumers have the right to drive any vehicle they want?

Don't we make speed limit laws, etc. for the benefit and safety of the community? Likewise, shouldn't the government make laws outlawing vehicles that endanger the safety of the people? Hence, if gas-guzzling threatens the national security of the US, does it not threaten the people of the US?

Volt Shock: How do we fight foreign oil dependency in the short term?

How many more oil wars before we're free?

According to Barack Obama's auto task force, GM's Chevy Volt will be too expensive to help GM's viability any time soon. Obviously, if GM is struggling to survive, it can't afford to make too many Volts if it can't make any money off of them.

So, how is the US going to fight foreign oil dependency in the short term?

Recently, Congress enacted tax credits for plug-in hybrids that strongly favor large battery vehicles, such as the Chevy Volt, versus smaller battery plug-in hybrids like a plug-in Prius. Yet, according to the task force, these large battery plug-in vehicles are going to be too expensive to help either GM or America any time soon. Likewise, some studies question whether large battery vehicles are even wise at all.

The point is, doesn't Congress have to do a better job of incentivizing the fight against foreign oil dependency? How many more decades of foreign oil dependency can America (and the world) survive?

Playing tough with Detroit. Is a gas tax next?

Just a "sacrificial lamb"?

Last week I speculated that President Obama's task force would give GM and Chrysler the bailout money without any serious strings. Doing so, I argued, didn't make sense because GM and Chrysler just didn't seem very viable - especially not if the auto run rate in the US is only around 9 million vehicles per year, and much higher fuel requirements are in the mix.

Instead, Rick Wagoner, CEO of GM, is now gone, and the task force stated that neither plan was viable. And they aren't. While getting rid of Wagoner might not change much, some times real change requires a change in management. It just shakes things up. It happens all the time in professional sports.

Ultimately, I think this was the right move. However, if America is to challenge foreign oil dependency, while sustaining a viable auto industry, other moves need to be made. Somehow, everyday Americans need to be made part of this problem and they need to become part of the solution. While ideas like gas taxes are sure to enrage many, such ideas might be the only way forward.

Oil Prices Rising: Where's the demand?

Just a weakening dollar?

2 weeks ago Boone Pickens called $65 oil before it falls back under $40. We aren't there yet - only just over $50 - but the recent surge in oil prices suggests Pickens might be on to something, even far sooner than Boone might have believed.

It's not that oil prices won't ever decline, it's just that the trend is undoubtedly upwards. More important, once America's economy gets rolling again, coupled with the growing world economy, oil demand is going to outpace production and refinement, and prices will spike. It's just that simple.

But, why is oil rising so much today?

Some say its all just a hedge against the declining dollar. So, that's a good thing?

I say its just more painting on the wall that foreign oil dependency has no future, and the longer the US waits to address this issue, the more it's going to cost.

I know it's more fun to focus on AIG bonuses worth a few hundred million versus a risk of a few trillion, but isn't the future more important?

Hating GM, Obama and America: Why it's time to bail out the Big 3

Time to leave it all behind

I've loved hating GM over the years. Even the Chevy Volt is worth hating sometimes. We've been hearing about it for years and its still almost years away. Furthermore, most Americans need fuel efficient solutions that cost less than $20,000, but can still achieve 40 mpg in the city.

Where's that GM product?

Yet, whom do I really hate when I hate GM? Is not GM but a microcosm of America? Health care, social security and pensions are intricately intertwined between GM - and the larger auto industry - and America. In many ways, GM's failures are America's failures.

Finish: Hating GM, Obama and America: Why it's time to bail out the Big 3

2011: The next gas crisis

$60 before gas falls below $40

Boone Pickens was at it again today, pointing out that the US sent $13 billion to foreign countries for our foreign oil addiction in February - a month when US consumers are driving much less than in the past. Likewise, Pickens predicted $75 oil by the end of 2009, setting up an oil crisis similar to this past summer in 2011. (CNBC)

And from there, presumably, it only gets worse.

Gas tax, cap-and-trade: Can we go green without pain?

Don't energy prices have to increase?

There is no doubt that cheap gas has helped pump up the US economy. Unfortunately, Americans didn't use cheap gas to efficiently and intelligently create wealth, we used it quite inefficiently. American consumerism has devolved into bling, not necessity. Our car, for instance, had to be bigger, faster or shinier than our neighbors as we kept up with the Jones's.

Them days are over says the new sheriff in town.

Still, I've been watching a lot of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's testimony explaining that cap-and-trade tax revenue will help Americans deal with the future's higher energy costs via tax deductions and credits, etc..

Perhaps. Seems a little too perfect world for me to believe.

Nevertheless, considering the impact that foreign oil dependency has had on the world the last couple decades, coupled with the threat of global warming, shouldn't consumers have to accept their share of pain at the pump? Can US politicians put all blame for the inefficient consumerist habits of Americans solely on corporations? Or, do we the people also have to accept some responsibility?

Hybrid cars would have kept GM viable?

Cheap oil built this country

Over the weekend, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel claimed that America was facing a "day of reckoning" regarding health care and energy dependence while discussing GM's financial plight. Emanuel blamed GM for not investing in fuel efficient technology and for instituting an outdated health care plan (as if the UAW had no part in that).

So, am I to assume that if GM had started building hybrid cars at the same rate as Toyota, it wouldn't be in financial trouble?

That's just nonsense. Even when gas was $4.00 this summer most Americans still weren't sure that hybrids were worth the extra costs. Had GM invested in such technology, they'd be better positioned for the future, but their financial woes would be just as bad.

And, obviously, health care is an issue. It's true that GM gave too many benefits to the UAW. Still, how much of America's health care woes are simply related to our obese, lazy lifestyle?

While it's true that America is facing its day of reckoning, it's not all about GM's failures or national health care, it's about every day Americans getting off their asses and taking some personal responsibility.

Climbing Hubbert's Peak in a Prius

Could it be true?

I remember several years ago, when I covered Southern California real estate on the side, how a number of experts warned that a real estate bust was looming. 20, 40 even 50 percent declines in real estate values were predicted several years before the current crisis hit.

A few years ago I rushed to put some real estate on the market in anticipation of this crash. Ironically, that was the same time many major pension funds were rushing to increase their exposure to real estate, and when mortgage brokers and bankers were doing some of their most scandalous work.

Yet, apparently, nobody in Washington, including Congresses headed by both Republicans and Democrats, and their numerous horde of aides and research assistants, ever heard a whisper of this bubble talk.

Likewise, today, nobody in Washington ever mentions the topic of peak oil. Foreign oil dependency is a good sound bite at best. Apparently, Washington firmly believes there is an extremely adequate supply of oil for the World, well, at least for America, for many more years. The Saudi Royal Family has given us their word.

Plus, there is always plenty of tar sand. Or maybe we'll get lucky in the Arctic - if global warming pans out and after we defeat the Russians for the rights.

However, while not popular in Washington, the number of experts starting to talk about peak oil is growing. The End of Oil and the Hydrogen Economy were two of my early favorites that covered this subject. Recently, I really enjoyed ZOOM. And the other day I watched A Crude Awakening, a documentary on Peak Oil that includes interviews with a wide array of experts from academia to policy (Graph link).

While all Peak pundits hope beyond hope that their peak predictions are wrong, they all believe that peak oil could be very, very near - as within the next decade. Or maybe its already happened.

And, the downside of Hubbert's Peak - the speed at which oil production can decline - is far, far, far faster than America or the world can react. Will we be prepared?

Obama's Auto Team: Foreign-made non-hybrids

One Prius in the bunch

Of the eight members so far named to the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry and their 10 senior aides, two own American vehicles according to the DetroitNews. Just one owns a hybrid.

I don't know if that means that Detroit is in trouble, but this news bothers me nonetheless.

It reminds me of when Barack Obama told constituents at a town hall meeting that gas-guzzling SUVs were bad, and then he left the meeting in a gas-guzzling SUV. Of course, not long after he purchased a Ford Escape hybrid.

Most of these people are professional politicians, or people whom live off the political system, yet so far in their lives they haven't cared enough to act on foreign oil dependency or global warming? Are they all oil-loving closet-Republicans?

Crude Awakenings on peak oil - Are we doomed?

"Oil is our God"

Just finished watching A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash.

Black blood. Excrement of the Devil. Blood of the Earth. Whatever you want to call it, oil - and its cheap abundant energy - is the root of our technological civilization. It is the life blood of today's world.

However, thou giveth, thou taketh away.

Quite quickly peak oil could wipe out the civilization that cheap oil created, or at least that's the message of Crude Awakening.

Once oil is gone, it will be immensely difficult to replace. And, even if it can be replaced, the replacement will almost certainly cost much more than oil, much more than $3.00 per gallon - MUCH more. Yet, today, there is no real world solution to cost-effectively replacing oil that has been proven technologically feasible.

Moreover, there is little hope of politicians - anywhere in the world - taking the lead on this issue according to experts in the film. Quite simply, the truth is too hard to swallow, but if peak oil is real and near, today's economic crisis will be the last good times most of us ever see.

Ultimately, America needs less cars, much more public transportation, efficiency at all levels, and a huge gas tax to wake Americans up to the reality of the future. The days of cheap energy are over or soon to be over. The sooner that is accepted the better the chances of surviving this imminent catastrophe.

How bad could it get? Worse than you can imagine.

How about the end of the airline industry, for instance? I mean you'll NEVER fly anywhere again. And that isn't even the extreme end. Without oil's cheap energy, the planet is incapable of supporting more than a couple billion people, at best, which means the majority of the people in the world would need to die.

No political issue today in America should be more important than ending foreign oil dependency, as a start. We cannot move fast enough towards efficiency and towards alternative energy.

Sure President Obama is taking more steps than George Bush, but they are baby steps, and without a few giant leaps, the game might already be over.

Kill Detroit or give me a moonshot

Can't we all just drive Segways?

Of course not. We need automobiles. Yet, maybe automobiles aren't as important as they used to be, and that should be embraced. Still, automobiles are going to continue to be an important part of America's future.

Thus, a viable auto industry is essential to America's future. Even Japanese automakers want a strong US auto industry. Without those jobs, many more Americans won't be able to buy new Honda's and Toyota's.

Fortunately, I've been pretty impressed with how Obama and Congress have dealt with Detroit so far. Instead of just rushing tens of billions to them, viability plans have been required - plans that require serious negotiations with all vested parties. Similarly, some pretty strong statements have come out of the White House and Congress. (Then again, who knows what is going on behind closed doors. Perhaps Nancy Pelosi has already assured Ron Gettelfinger of the bottom line.)

Nonetheless, without everything going perfectly in the next few years, the Big 3 are not going to be viable, as I blogged yesterday. Even worse, if the future is going to be driven by efficiency, the Big 3 have a horrible record, especially in terms of profitability.

And, without a serious surge in gasoline prices - even greater than this past summer - I just don't see how the Big 3 can compete at efficiency if the nation moves towards a model that California, and many other states, are embracing. That's Honda's specialty, not GM or Chrysler.

Ironically, however, the kind of gas price surge that would make efficiency profitable would probably keep the annual run rate of vehicle sales below anything the Big 3 can survive without major re-organization.

So, why don't we accept this as reality? Change is inevitable. Can we really hope and subsidize our way out of such a conundrum?

America needs a bigger, transparent vision of the future when it comes to energy and automobiles. Inevitably, we need a moonshot or a far more serious, honest reorganization plan. Otherwise we're gambling a lot of money on terrible odds.

If taxpayers are going to have to subsidize the US auto industry for the next decade, let's be honest right now. And, let's make those subsidies dependent upon a real plan to end foreign oil dependency by 2020.

Millenial drivers ready for intelligent transportation?

Do you really need it?

A number of my neighbors drive large SUVs. None of them are married or have kids. Most of them are single. They own neither a boat nor a camper. Not even a few motorbikes or bicycles.

Others own fancy sports cars full of horsepower - impossible, however, to use on most occasions in the clogged streets of my northeast Los Angeles neighborhood.

Foolishness. Waste.

Fortunately, "Millennial" drivers crave iPods over horsepower. Email access, iPod and laptop hook ups reign far more supreme than size and power.

Is it evolution at work?

Combined with studies questioning America's love affair with the automobile, global warming, foreign oil dependency, etc., is not a new automotive order ripe for the making?

Possibly more important, are bailout viability plans even capable of assessing exactly what America's automotive future should be, or at least could be?

Bailout Nation: Calling Big 3 haters and supporters

Are the Big 3 ready?

"Get me a plan that works."

That's what President Obama is hoping for on Tuesday, when automakers present their restructuring plans to the Treasury Department. Is such a plan, however, even possible?

Auto sales sunk 37 percent in January as automakers struggled for survival. GM, for instance, is slashing 10,000 white collar jobs and offering early retirement to every hourly worker as it tries to raise cash from partnerships in China and Korea. Additionally, GM is trying to unload brands such as Hummer.

Serious changes are occurring within the auto industry, which is good, but is it enough? And, what about the product?

In recent weeks and months, all of the Big Three have been showing off their EV plans as proof of how they will help America reduce foreign oil dependency and global warming? But is this all just poppycock?

If these cars are going to save the Big 3, the Big 3 will need to sell millions of such vehicles EVERY year, right? When is that going to happen? 2020? Later?

Yet, in just a few months, California might put into law emissions requirements that will soon make most of the Big 3's money makers unfit for sale in the Nation's most important auto market. How will GM or Chrysler compete with the Toyota Prius or the Honda Insight in such an environment?

So, what should Obama and Congress do? Undoubtedly, a new bailout is inevitable, but should America's new energy vision focus only on protecting the Big 3, or should it be more focused on achieving results, on achieving real change?

For instance, why not do just enough to keep the Big 3 afloat, while providing massive consumer-driven tax incentives for highly efficient, manufactured in America, vehicles made by any automaker? Besides, isn't competition the mother of innovation?

Making hybrids cool to the car guy

Plug-in conversions could be one way

A few weeks ago I was hanging out with a friend of a friend during part of a bachelor party weekend. While everyone else was golfing, we hung out at the Sports Book in the Venetian Casino. As we didn't really know each other, we eventually got into jobs, life, etc. And, inevitably, we got into cars as my new friend, Bruce, is an absolute car nut.

And, Bruce hates hybrid cars.

OK. He doesn't hate hybrids, but he finds them boring - a common criticism amongst car guys.

Today, MotorTrend is featuring an article, Why Gasoline-Blooded Enthusiasts Will Learn to Love Hybrids, written by a car nut. Pretty interesting piece, especially from a car guy, about the things that might help push car enthusiasts into more electrified vehicles.

Still, I say, screw car nuts.

How about all the problems that foreign oil dependency has caused the world the last few decades? Isn't that reason enough to make the switch to efficiency? Besides, as MotorTrend points out, there are lots of cool things about electrification that can appeal to car enthusiasts, such as blazing fast speeds.

Ultimately, however, we're not making the switch to hybrids and efficiency because it will be funner in the long run, but because it's the only option left for America's auto industry. Yet, if we make the switch, we might find that our new cars aren't just more interesting to drive, but the world we drive them in has become a much better place.

Almost $20 billion on foreign oil in December - Is America stupid?

And that's a cheap month

For months America's oil demand has been crashing, despite considerably lower gas prices than just 6 months ago.

The price of a barrel of oil has declined to less than a third of 2008 highs.

Yet, America still spent $19.3 billion on foreign oil in the month of December.

And THAT's a BAD month, at least as far as the exporters of America's foreign oil are concerned. For America it was a fricken bargain.

Almost $20 billion a month is a deal!?! Are we stupid?

Nearly in depression and we're still on pace to spend a quarter trillion on foreign oil costs this year, and that doesn't even include the billions we'll spend on oil tanker lane security, etc. (Let's not even get into war costs)?

This isn't insanity?

Yet, had oil prices stayed where they were this summer, we might have spent the entire costs of the current stimulus package - now near Vote in the Senate - on our foreign oil consumption bill alone.

What does that add up to after 10 years?

Sadly, aside from Boone Pickens, and his Pickens Plan, no one is really talking about this crisis. I'm not saying his plan is right, but his attack on the costs of foreign oil is absolutely spot on. This crisis is an opportunity for great, return on investment, change.

America can't rally around that?

Tax credits for guzzlers - Does it ever end?

One last dance on the Congressional gravy train?

I've had a hard time not commenting on the plan, now part of the stimulus package before the Senate, to give consumers a tax credit for buying new cars. So, I'm just going to get it out of my chest.

Are you kidding me? Foreign-oil sucking, 911-causing, gas GUZZLERS?

This is change?

I say, F cars right now, unless we're talking a serious change, such as a plan to end foreign oil dependency by 2020. If not, just give Detroit enough money to stay above water for now. That's it. We'll sort it out later when there is time for a better plan.

Besides, if it doesn't kill you, it only makes you stronger, right?

I mean, really, if you wanna spend a trillion dollars today, there should only be one focal point: the real estate and the mortgage mess.

Isn't that the root of our problems in the first place? So, why focus on anything else right now?

Don't have any ideas?

Here's one. Since the banks screwed us on this thing in the first place, let's just force them to lower rates on ALL mortgages significantly, or something like that.

They owe us, right? Direct and simple. Transparent.

But tax credits for gas guzzlers? Excuse me, I have to go to the bathroom right now.

Save Detroit? I think I need help!

Still not enough

Somebody call my shrink. I need help.

The US auto industry angers me to no ends. Of course, everyone angers me to no end lately, and all this Obama hope is the root of it. Talk about transference.

It's not that I don't have hope. It's that I don't believe one person is enough. Obama can't save us from ourselves. We're the ones - ALL OF US - that need to change. Yes, some more than others, but all of us.

Instead, however, we just want Obama to fix the world, to make everything alright as we pick up another sack of Big Mac's in our gas guzzler and plant ourselves on the couch every day after work.

Whatever.

That's not democracy. This isn't just about Obama, or Democrats, or what ever label you most love using. This is about all of us. It's about the World.

Therefore, I think Obama and Democrats need to stick the stimulus package up their collective asses.

Why?

Because it isn't nearly enough. This isn't any damned moonshot. What is our goal as a Nation?

End foreign oil dependency by 2020.

Give us a moonshot!

Since we're going to bail out the Big 3 one way or another, why not use Detroit to make it happen? Put forth a plan that ends foreign oil dependency by 2020. Period. Put up a trillion dollars and make it happen. The return on investment will easily cover the costs of implementation faster than solar power ever will.

Besides, what does America stand for anymore?

Let's end foreign oil dependency NOW, and lets use the automaker bailout as the impetus.

Have I completely lost it?

Obama and UAW love equals a green Big 3?

The key to fuel efficiency and global warming?

Less than an hour ago, President Barack Obama signaled his support for the Middle Class by supporting some new measures to make labor unions stronger. Since Obama has strong ties to labor and campaigned on many labor issues, this isn't really surprising news.

Yet, is the UAW, via the Big 3, the key to making the US auto industry lean, green and efficient?

Under Obama, does the road to less CO2 emissions and less foreign oil dependency have to go through Detroit?

For many years, environmentalists have hated the Big 3 which, ultimately, includes the UAW, for endlessly fighting against increases in CAFE or decreases in CO2 emissions. The Big 3, for many in the green movement, have become Public Enemy #1.

On the other hand, however, environmentalists love President Obama and Democrats in general.

Are these irreconcilable differences?

Can Obama, or should Obama, rely on the US auto industry to be the driver of change, because of its connection to labor, when it comes to more stringent environmental regulations and foreign oil dependency reductions? Is embracing the Big 3 the quickest and most efficient path to change, or the quickest way to failure?

Is it time for Obama's Hollywood hot shots to dump their foreign-made Prius hybrids and buy American-made Tahoe hybrids?

Can Obama survive cheap oil?

God bless oil

There are times when I think the whole green movement is going to accomplish nothing, but lots of lost cash. Why?

Not long ago Brazil announced a major oil find. Such finds, and a number of other factors, have some energy analysts predicting a possible, although short term, glut in the oil market within the next decade. Yet, such gluts can last years.

Today, oil prices fell $4.00 on falling demand and an increase in inventories, and Valero warned that it might actually have to shut down refineries due to lack of demand.

Oil supply is overwhelming demand, and with several months of a severely recessed economy almost a certainty, it's hard not to assume that supply could overwhelm demand for the next few years.

Couple that with potential new oil supplies, such as those in Brazil, or new operations in Libya, for instance, and a serious glut in oil demand could be imminent. The oil market has experienced such cycles in the past. Eventually, that has to mean lower gas prices.

Sure, cheap prices are unsustainable. Yet, how many Americans will continue to support Obama's green, efficient plans for autos if gas is cheap for the next four years?

Without a permanent floor on gas, it seems that Obama's green plans could come back to haunt Obama, and the green movement. Inevitably, cheap gas is not good for America. It's like smoking. It's a cancer upon our society. And, at some point one must ask is gas really cheap?

Forget the trillions we'll spend in Iraq. Today, it costs many billions for the Coast Guard and Military to secure US oil lanes out of the Persian Gulf - even at peace time - yet, those costs have never been included at the pump. Why?

Foreign oil has costs. It's time to accept them. It's time for a new gas tax - a tax the government returns to consumers via tax credits for compliant vehicles.

Dump Detroit if they can't compete with the Prius

How can Detroit compete in the future without a Prius-contender?

President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress have some new and refreshing ideas for America. To fight foreign oil dependency and global warming - while creating jobs - Democrats are proposing huge investments in cost-inefficient green technologies often built by inefficient companies.

To make these green technologies more cost-effective, many - including this blogger - have suggested a gas tax. Thus far, however, President Obama has been against the idea. In these economic times, it's hard to blame him for such a stance. Still, eventually, some tough decisions must be made.

US automakers are struggling just to survive and if US auto sales don't pick up next year, it's going to be hard for these automakers to survive without a massive bailout. As a result, many are suggesting tax incentives for the consumers of US-made vehicles - most of which are gas-guzzlers. That's not very green.

Yet, this is the conundrum Obama and Democrats must manage. Is it really worth it to create a false market based upon gas-guzzler sales? Maybe the reality is, is that Americans are going to be purchasing less cars. That could be the new automotive reality, and there have been a few studies suggesting that America's love affair with the car is over.

Even more important, there is a good chance that California will soon be regulating its own emissions standards. That means vehicles like the Toyota Prius and the Honda Insight might quickly become the best selling vehicles in California, and as many as 17 other states. Yet, what will Detroit automakers sell? They have few, if any, hot, fuel efficient models.

Some will undoubtedly claim that GM can sell the Chevy Volt, for instance. Well, GM probably won't be selling many Volts by 2016 when California's 30 percent reduction goes into effect. And, even if GM can increase production, the Insight will cost $20,000, the Volt $40,000. Can the Volt really be enough, especially if gas prices don't increase drastically?

Even Ford, with its new hybrid technology, still doesn't have a Prius-contender. While its new Ford Fusion hybrid is compelling, why is Ford only planning to make 25,000 of these hybrid vehicles? More important, if you're rolling out a new hybrid drive, why would you not challenge the standard, the Prius, as Honda did? Can you not compete?

By 2016, when California emission standards go live, Toyota could be selling a million hybrids per year, a majority of them Prius hybrids, yet Detroit might not yet have a competitive - in terms of technology AND costs - product. Can you really bank on Detroit in that reality?

Energy Moonshot: What are you going to do for your country?

It's not just up to Obama

I've been very cynical in recent days. It seems so many believe that President Barack Obama is going to save the world, or at least America. But is such an expectation even fair?

Do we really need Obama to, ultimately, save us from ourselves?

We blame Bush for Iraq, for instance, yet if we, the people, hadn't been driving gas-guzzlers for decades, would war in Iraq have ever been possible? Yes, I know that's overly simplistic, but Americans - as the worlds greatest consumers - have to accept responsibility for how consumerism affects the world.

Unfortunately, however, we live in an age where auto unions call buying foreign cars un-patriotic, even though the American-made cars they make require the unsustainable consumption of war-causing, terrorist-supporting, foreign oil.

The hypocrisy in America is endless.

Fortunately, however, for the first time in decades, we have a President that is epitomized by change. Thanks to Obama, change is in the air. It's believable and everywhere. Equally as important, we have many in Congress ready to spend trillions on change.

But is that enough?

Perhaps the real question should be, are we, the people, ready for change? Can we, the people, even expect great change without being willing to commit to great change?

Thus, instead of just focusing on what Obama can do for us, on this historic day, we should focus on what we can do to help Obama achieve change. This is our moonshot, as the citizens of the world's most important democracy, to prove that choice isn't always made by what's good for us as individuals, but what's good for all of us, as humans.

American-made hypocrisy: Buying imports and foreign oil dependency

Are American-made gas-guzzlers really patriotic?

With bailout talk heating up in recent weeks, I've received a number of e-mails and blog comments calling import buyers un-American. So, I guess I'm not very patriotic, however....

After 9/11, I decided that I had to kill my foreign oil footprint. And, today, I rarely drive, as I've built most of my life around LA's public transportation system, often to my inconvenience. When I do drive, however, I drive a foreign-made hybrid because in LA congestion, foreign-made hybrid cars offer the best fuel economy of any mainstream autos, PERIOD.

Like, ex-CIA director, James Woolsey, I believe foreign oil dependency is the greatest threat to American national security. In fact, I think regularly driving an American-made gas-guzzler is unpatriotic. I don't care if it's made in America. The foreign oil it guzzles is contributing to what Boone Pickens has called the greatest transfer of wealth the world has ever seen, while bin Laden has called it the greatest theft the world has ever seen.

So, take your American-made gas guzzler and stick it where the sun don't shine, cuz without tons of American national security-threatening Persian Gulf oil, you couldn't drive your gas hog. And waving your American flag can't cover up that hypocrisy.

Cramer calls out OPEC conspiracy

Killing alternative energy

Today on the Lightning Round of Jim Cramer's Mad Money, a caller questioned Cramer about solar plays under Obama. Cramer essentially responded that cheap gas is killing solar power and stated that OPEC had helped push oil prices lower to help offset interest in alternative energy.

Obviously, there are many out there espousing similar beliefs, but not many with the pulpit and Street cred of Cramer. While some consider Cramer a crackpot, it's still a pretty interesting statement.

Give the Big 3 a break, Take 2

How serious are we about ending foreign oil dependency

President Elect Barack Obama made a lot of strong statements during his Presidential campaign about energy security and green jobs, even touting $150 billion over 10 years to develop the green economy.

$150 billion will help, but it's a drop in the bucket needed for an energy revolution.

Not long ago, Al Gore suggested it would take $400 billion to develop a new, national smart grid - the kind of grid many experts claim is necessary for the widespread adoption of electric vehicles. Perhaps a company such as Better Place can alleviate the need for a such a super grid for EVs, but that's a different story.

Then, we need the electric vehicles, vehicles that are going to cost far more than conventional vehicles for many, many years. Finish: Give the Big 3 a break, Take 2

Autos: Let the new world order begin

Everything soon as efficient as the Prius?

By 2020, if all goes well, the average fleet-wide fuel economy of the US fleet will be 35 mpg, a far cry from the fuel efficiency required to end foreign oil dependency. On the upside, there could be more than a million plug-in vehicles on the road by 2020.

Unfortunately, even if automakers are selling 1 million plug-ins per year in the US by 2020, probably an aggressive number, that would still represent significantly less than 10 percent of total yearly US auto sales, and we'll still be very dependent upon Persian Gulf oil.

Yet, achieving that million EV mark is going to cost many, many billions in government tax incentives. Even then, most automakers will make little profit off these vehicles. In fact, the move towards fuel economy is probably going to mean that total US auto sales per year will decline, even significantly.

Sadly, getting serious about fuel economy probably means significant job loss, not gain - at least in the US.

Is Congress even considering these issues as they ponder the legitimacy of the Big 3's plans for the future? We'll soon find out, but one thing is certain: bailing America out of its foreign oil dependency will cost far, far, far more than US automakers are seeking in loans.

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.

Bail out automakers to save the Chevy Volt? Part II

I still love the Volt, but it's time for some reality

On Monday, after reading some stories supporting a US automaker bailout to save the Chevy Volt, I slammed the suggestion (more). It's not that I don't believe in the viability of the Volt, it's that I don't believe the Volt is the critical piece of this discussion.

After watching the CEO's of the Big 3 testify before Congress Tuesday, I believe that even more. Both Ford and GM insisted that the new CAFE requirements - 35 mpg by 2020 - were the absolute most achievable limit. Any new strings for the bailout, they argued, should not include higher fuel economy standards.

Hence, by 2020, most US-made vehicles will still be conventional vehicles - though conventional vehicles with direct injection and other technologies that will increase fuel economy - not vehicles like the Volt.

More important, while 35 mpg fleet fuel economy means foreign oil dependency from the Persian Gulf will be reduced by half, America will still be terribly dependent upon foreign oil in 2020. This reality, not the Volt, should be the focus of the bailout talks.

Why can't automakers help end foreign oil dependency by 2020? If EVs and hybrid cars can't get us there be 2020, what other technologies, fuels, etc. can get us there? Can cellulosic ethanol be significantly increased in the next 10 years? Can natural gas help? Something else?

The US auto industry needs government help, and I'm inclined to help. However, if the government and US tax payers are going to partner with the US auto industry to achieve success, why not strive for revolutionary success?

Re: Why Americans hate Detroit

The icon of American stupidity

Was it intelligent or morally ethical for GM to develop the Hummer brand as it was dismantling the EV1 program?

Of course not. It was asinine to anyone that cared about foreign oil dependency or the environment. Unfortunately, at the time GM rolled out the Hummer instead of the EV1, MOST Americans didn't care about either global warming or the environment.

So, GM followed the American ideal - "Show me the money."

Today, Republicans in Congress are aghast at the idea of an automaker bailout. Yet, I bet most of them drive gas-guzzlers.

There is no doubt the Big 3 have demonstrated little leadership in fighting global warming and foreign oil dependency, and Americans hate that because it's a reminder of how stupid most American consumers have been acting. Blaming it all on the Big 3 while that big gas hog sits in the driveway is so much more convenient.

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.

Bailout BS: Fixing the US auto sector in 3 easy steps

Tough love for Big 3 includes giving the Prius some credit

I've had enough automaker bailout talk. Let's be frank, US automakers deserve bankruptcy. Yes, in the last few years, automakers have made many important changes, but a few years doesn't rectify decades of bad decisions and unreliable automobiles. Of course, most US auto consumers need to have their gas-guzzlers repossessed as well.

Yet, what good would this destruction create? 10,000 new Tesla employees? Less foreign oil dependency? The end of CO2 emissions from autos?

No. So, here's what Congress should do in 3 simple steps. 1.) Bailout US automakers enough so that they can survive another 3 years. 2.) Add unlimited consumer tax credits through 2015 for hybrid vehicles, EVs, natural gas cars, and any vehicle that can achieve at least 35 mpg on the EPA's city - NOT HIGHWAY -cycle, and 3.) Create a scalable gas tax immediately. This puts a bottom on oil prices, funds the tax credits, and sends a message - more transparent than Congressional regulation - to automakers that gas-guzzling is dead.

Canada afraid Obama serious about ending foreign oil dependency?

Oh so green, Canada?

For years the US has been the big anti-environmentalist bully on the block, choosing to ignore Kyoto, for instance, to protect our economy. With President Elect Barack Obama preparing to take over the White House, some of our critics are now worried we might fight foreign oil dependency and global warming a little to quickly.

Canada, one of our drug dealers - I mean oil suppliers - is afraid that an Obama Presidency could hurt Canada's oil sands projects - and the Canadian economy. Isn't that ironic?

Source: GlobeandMail

Don't buy a hybrid! Share a hybrid

Hybrid car sharing

WeCar, is the new car sharing division of Enterprise. It doesn't reinvent car sharing, although it does use only hybrid cars in its fleet, which is pretty cool. Still, this whole car sharing thing really has me intrigued.

Foreign oil dependency. Global warming. High fuel prices. Financial crisis. Are more expensive hybrid cars and electric vehicles really the answer? Instead of just replacing our 13 million per year fleet of vehicles, why not less vehicles? Isn't it gluttonous consumerism, not just gas-guzzlers, that is really strangling America?

Bikes, scooters, tiny one-person microcars, and public transportation might not offer much bling for consumers, but for daily commuting, such forms of transportation are far more efficient, cost effective and environmentally friendly than a plug-in Prius or a Chevy Volt. And all of these approaches can be supplemented with car sharing.

Instead of buying a Volt, might not the future be a better time to share a Volt?

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?

UK - Cost, not environment, drives consumers

Global warming not enough for most consumers

US studies have indicated that a significant percent of Americans are worried about global warming, foreign oil dependency, or both. Unfortunately, despite this worry, the majority of those concerned about these issues are only willing to buy a car that helps fight these problems if it makes obvious financial sense.

Well, auto consumers in the UK aren't much different.

Covering the study, GCC notes, "While 20% of Britons are now saying they look at CO₂ levels when buying a new car, the survey found that 75% of motorists would purchase a lower-emissions car only if it saved them money. Almost two-thirds of people surveyed (61%) believe that cost is the most important consideration when others buy a more environmentally friendly car."

OPEC cuts fail to stop oil crash

The crash before the storm?

Despite a significant cut in oil production by OPEC, oil prices are down more than $3.00 today as I write this post. Likewise, gas inventories have grown and cheaper gas is inevitable. 

Ironically, for now, this price decline might not mean much to consumers whom are fearful of a deeper recession. Thus, a rush back to guzzlers is probably unlikely. Likewise, automakers have made at least a partial commitment to reduce the size of their SUV and truck fleets. So, it seems, we'll never fully go back to our gas-guzzling ways.

Hence, in 2020, will America still be just as dependent on OPEC, or almost free of OPEC dependency? 

Foreign oil dependency: It's in the government's hands

Converting a Prius to a plug-in Prius

A lot of Toyota Prius drivers, as well as the owners of other hybrid cars, can't wait to be able to plug-in their hybrids. Plugging in significantly increases fuel economy and, therefore, significantly reduces both carbon and foreign oil footprints.

Sadly, however, all hybrid drivers combined make up a minuscule percentage of American drivers. Converting all of these drivers into plug-in hybrid drivers would have very little overall effect on either global warming or foreign oil dependency.

Many more need to be converted into hybrid vehicles and other fuel efficient technologies. FINISH: Foreign oil dependency - It's in the government's hands

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.

How much lower can gas prices go?

A Saudi Arabian oil refinery

On Friday I was shocked to hear that world-wide oil demand is down to its lowest levels in 15 years. Thus, OPEC is considering production cuts to stop falling oil prices. Yet, if the now world-wide recession sticks, can oil prices go anywhere but down until an economic recovery occurs?

In the last month the price of gas has dropped $.32 cents to $3.35. A year ago the price was $2.76. How soon, if ever, will that price be breached?

New tax credits for Non-plug-in hybrids needed?

Tax credits helped drive the Prius

There is no doubt that tax credits for hybrid cars, especially the Toyota Prius, helped sell these vehicles. But, are new tax credits needed to keep moving these vehicles?

Probably not, considering that most hybrid dealers have been adding massive dealer markups to these vehicles. Of course, if the economy keeps tanking all car sales will suffer.

Still, what about a tax credit for non-plug-in hybrids that rewards significantly higher fuel economy - say for hybrids that achieve at least 60 or 70 mpg combined fuel economy? Or, at least a tax credit for plug-in conversions?

If Congress truly wants to end foreign oil dependency, isn't a more aggressive, comprehensive incentive program required?

Can OPEC affect US politics, automotive future?

Dirty politics?

OPEC is meeting today and there are many that are assuming that OPEC isn't going to do anything drastic, at least not yet. However, because of slim margins in world oil supply and refining capacity, OPEC - many analysts believe - can cut production and keep oil prices above $100 per barrel. Nonetheless, those same analysts believe the sweet range for OPEC is between $80 and $100. This keeps profits high for OPEC, and it reduces gasoline prices a bit in the US.

These analysts believe that OPEC is trying to help trend oil prices lower because high gas prices make alternative fuels and alternative technologies, such as hybrid cars and EVs, far more cost effective, which is a threat to OPEC.

Is OPEC powerful enough to stunt alternative technologies in the US, and are Americans foolish enough to fall for such a stunt?

Hybrid rationale: Oil-rich Arabs to buy Hummer?

Where gas guzzling is free

Since, according to Boone Pickens, the famous oil man, America's foreign oil dependency has led to one of the greatest transfers of wealth in world history, a few Gulf Arabs are interested in buying the most iconic gas-guzzling brand, Hummer. Ohhh, the irony.

And yet people that drive hybrid cars are the foolish ones, but sending the Gulf all our money and subsidizing their gas at our expense isn't a problem?

How many billions to bail out US auto industry?

A Hemi-powered hybrid

In recent weeks a lot of the mainstream auto press has come to the defense of the US auto industry claiming that no one foresaw $4.00 gas. No one except those with their eyes open.

Let's just be honest. The US auto industry built their entire business model around trucks and SUVs, period. For a plethora of reasons, US automakers wouldn't even try to compete with companies like Honda for the small vehicle segment, for fuel efficiency, even despite events like 9/11, Katrina, etc. which seemed to demonstrate quite clearly that oil dependence was leading to ever greater problems. Instead, US automakers blindly kept all their eggs in one very inefficient, but profitable basket.

Now that basket is broke and the eggs are cracked.

So, it will be up to Congress, with the help of US taxpayer money, to bail out the US auto industry, at least that's the hope of a non-partisan Michigan delegation, according to the DetroitNews. Billions in loans. Billions in tax breaks. Billions to retire old gas guzzlers. Almost a billion for a battery fund. Billions and billions to cover the costs of ignorance and denial.

Nothing like good old American free market lobbyism, I mean capitalism.

July 4th: Ready to celebrate our foreign oil dependence?

Let's celebrate Independence with dependence!

As I read Manny Lopez's article 'Made in America' often is foreign this morning, I was reminded of the 'Celebrate Foreign Oil Dependence Day' that this site promoted last year. As we prepare to celebrate our independence this 4th of July, I cannot help but ask, how independent are we really? Hopefully, this fourth of July reminds us of why independence is important and inspires us to revolt against our foreign oil dependence.

Why buy a hybrid vehicle?

Umm. Do you really need to ask?

That's a question I hear regularly. This morning a man asked this question and then provided a list of small vehicles sold outside the US that achieve better fuel economy than the Toyota Prius. Yes, most were smaller-than-the-Prius diesels, and they outperformed the Prius primarily in highway fuel economy.

So, why buy hybrid vehicles?

I say forget that a diesel vehicle could be a hybrid vehicle. Forget that even clean diesel is still dirty. Forget that it takes more oil to make diesel than gasoline, thereby offsetting much of diesel vehicle efficiency, at least for those concerned about oil dependency, especially foreign oil dependency.

I advocate for hybrid vehicles because neither diesel, nor gasoline, will ever end US foreign oil dependency. On the other hand, hybrid cars are all about batteries, and battery R&D will lead to 100 mpg hybrids, well over 100 mpg plug-in hybrids and full electric vehicles.

I mean, really, don't pollution, global warming and foreign oil dependency provide enough reasons to support hybrid cars?

The problem with US automakers

The poster child of denial?

As I've browsed through the news today, one headline stuck out: When pickup sales dived, automakers changed plans. The article explains how Ford (and GM) realized, way back in May, that small cars and fuel efficiency might be the keys to survival.

May, 2008? Hello? 9/11, War, Katrina, and you didn't believe the dangers of foreign oil dependency might force change until May, 2008?

A few months ago, a source inside GM told me that $3.00+ gas prices had been forecasted as a possibility by GM years earlier. Coupled with Toyota' hybrid success, this forecast moved GM to begin working on the Chevy Volt. That and Bob Lutz couldn't tolerate a company like Tesla beating GM to cost-effective electric vehicles. Of course, that didn't make large vehicles any less important.

The fact that it has been largely impossible for US automakers to steer away from such a heavy focus on large, fuel-inefficient vehicles - despite the obvious evidence - begs the question: What is wrong with US automakers? Certainly, cheap gas, the UAW, healthcare costs, etc. didn't make the job of change any easier, however, can these issues really justify such denial?

Oil tops $140, $7 gas by 2010?

Oil futures torching the economy

Oil futures topped $140 per barrel today for the first time ever. And as if the news couldn't get worse, a new CIBC study suggests that oil will hit $200 per barrel by 2010, equating to $7.00 per gallon gas.

Americans disappointed in US energy policy

Time for an energy revolution

Americans blame the federal government, foreign oil companies, Congress and Middle East tensions for the lack of a quality energy policy in the US according to a new survey reported on BehindtheWheel. Of course, we should probably be blaming ourselves a bit for thinking there would never be any consequences for guzzling foreign oil as if it was free.

While both Presidential candidates have announced plans to tackle this problem, can either really be expected to succeed without some serious changes in Congress?

Warren Buffett talks oil

Forget windfall taxes

Warren Buffet, an open advocate for Barrack Obama, is on CNBC as I write this post. Thus far, he has stated that today's oil prices are driven by supply and demand, not speculation. He said for everyone speculating that oil prices will go higher, another is speculating that they will go lower. Additionally, he called windfall profit taxes on oil companies a very bad idea. He claimed if you tax oil companies for windfall profits, then you should tax corn, copper and steel producers, for example, for windfall profits as well.

On a final, unrelated note, Buffett claimed the tax code needs to be reworked and that the super rich need to be taxed far more and everyone else, far less.

McCain offers prize to fight foreign oil dependency

$300 million for a new battery

If President, John McCain would like to create a $300 million prize for a battery that is at least 30 percent cheaper than today's and has "the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars." Likewise, he would give automakers a tax credit of $5000 for every zero emission vehicle.

I'm glad to see McCain focus some attention on this issue, but what about consumer incentives? Apparently, today's hybrid cars are worthless to McCain, so I guess McCain will just drill until the perfect solution is achieved?

Bumper stickers a sign of insanity?

But don't take away my guzzler

During the build up to the latest war in Iraq, there were protesters near my office every Friday. And, as I would watch some of these protesters arrive, I was shocked at how many drove SUVs, BMWs and other not-so-efficient vehicles with 'no blood for oil' bumper stickers. I could never understand how someone could say no blood for oil, but drive a gas-guzzler. Now I understand.

According to new research cited by Edmunds, those with bumper stickers on their cars are more likely to engage in road rage. So, I guess those hypocritical protesters couldn't help it, they were just crazy?

What if we drilled offshore 20 years ago?

Katrina nailed rigs, but they didn't spill

What if America had drilled offshore for the last few decades, would America be as dependent on foreign oil as today? I have no idea, but I'd bet that we'd be in the same situation. Nonetheless, there are many Americans - probably not a majority - whom believe that greens are to blame for not allowing any drilling. And, what, other than foreign oil, has replaced this lack of drilling? Thus, when greens talk about global warming, these constituents do not trust them.

So, why not open up some drilling, on the condition that there is guaranteed money for other alternative energy products? While Democrats keep claiming we can't drill our way out of foreign oil dependency, you can't do nothing and end foreign oil dependency either. The job of Congress is to create consensus-driven legislation, not to just blame the other side and never accomplish anything.

Plug-in hybrids: The key to both biofuels and the grid?

Should plug-ins be an integral part of energy policy?

Blackouts. Every summer, at least once, I come home to a defrosted freezer thanks to a blackout. But, what if a number of Americans drove plug-in hybrids? On days when electric loads were getting too high, the grid could tap into numerous plug-in batteries and avert a blackout, and give me a fat paycheck - helping to offset the costs of my battery. Smart legislation could make that happen.

Likewise, the world now knows that ethanol is not going to end foreign oil dependency, but cellulosic ethanol and other biofuels still have potential, but limited potential. However, a bio-fueled plug-in hybrid would need very little liquid fuel on a day-to-day basis. Thus, smarter biofuels coupled with plug-in hybrid technology could be perfectly complimentary.

Plug-in hybrids can help radically change America's energy paradigm, but such a task will require a new, comprehensive energy policy. Sure it might be expensive, but isn't national security and a technologically-advanced economy worth the costs? Isn't it time to DEMAND this from our well-financed politicians?

Enough? DOE gives $30 million for PHEV projects

Time to get real about energy

The US Energy Department has given the Big 3 $30 million dollars to help fund some plug-in hybrid vehicle projects. The Big 3 had sought $500 million (more).

Wow, the US spends billions every year just on the coast guard and military costs of securing oil tanker lanes - a sum not paid at the pump, but rather through hidden taxes. Yet, the government can only spend $30 million on the technology that has the potential to end foreign oil dependency altogether?

Foreign oil: $40+ billion fricken dollars per month

Foreign oil profits to buy Chrysler building

$40+ billion per month. That's the cost of foreign oil dependency. Sadly, that doesn't even include the billions per year that the US spends on Coast Guard and military costs to secure shipping lanes for oil tankers. Then, add in war costs, and the amount of money being 'exported' to major oil exporters isn't just alarming, it's disgusting.

Congress can talk about exporting jobs, outsourcing, etc., but imagine what Congress could accomplish by funding a revolution against energy dependence. I don't just mean tax credits for hybrid cars, I mean what if the US had invested that kind of money into solar power, wind power, smarter biofuels, etc - talk about jobs and exportable technology! Unfortunately, Congress - both Democrats and Republicans - have just been too busy eating lobbyist-funded pork.

We, the people, have allowed and enabled politicians to sell out America in the name of militarily-secured, cheap foreign oil. Has it been worth it? Are we going to do anything about it?

Fear pushing oil higher?

What happens to oil if Israel attacks Iran?

As I write this, oil has just shot up to almost $139 per barrel, based upon almost no new news, except for the latest sabre-rattling between Israel and Iran. Many are calling this latest run up in prices pure speculation. Maybe, but if Israel and Iran start fighting, it is easy to imagine much higher oil prices.

I can see it now, a $10,000 Prius dealer markup.

Oil glut 2011: A real hybrid killa?

Hybrid demand: Oil giveth, oil taketh away?

Just finished watching some great CNBC coverage on oil and it really made me hone in on two thoughts. First, oil traders have not factored the possibility of hurricanes into the current price of oil. So, if a hurricane hits the Gulf, expect jumps in gas prices. If a hurricane hits hard, plan on moth-balling your car for a few months. Second, most oil experts believe that an oil glut is inevitable once oil companies begin converting dirtier oil resources into refined product, though many predict such a glut is still 2 to 3 years away. Ironically, that potential oil glut could coincide quite nicely with the first generation of plug-in hybrid vehicles.

Will a $40,000 Chevy Volt, for example, still resonate with consumers if oil takes a big hit and gas prices suddenly drop significantly?

Kaizen: America's oil crisis

Crisis is simply an opportunity for innovation

Tonight CNBC will host a segment, America's Oil Crisis, a name that I find a little funny. I don't see today's oil situation as a crisis, but rather an opportunity for change. America needs a real energy policy.

Ultimately, cheap oil has retarded American innovation. We've been fat, dumb and happy gas-guzzlers. Yet that cheap oil has only been possible because of diplomatic collusion with dictators and other repressive regimes. Likewise, while oil has been cheap, the US has never added the cost of military protection of oil to pump prices - we pay that cost in taxes and wars.

The other day a venture capitalist was on CNBC discussing the significant amount of capital that is pouring into energy efficient solutions, such as solar power, alternative fuels, transportation, etc. He noted, however, that a big drop in oil prices would significantly reduce this capital. Now that would be a real crisis.

Oil: Democrats are morons

Of course, Republicans aren't any better

Led by Democrats, today a Judiciary Committee is going after oil companies and traders to reduce the price of gasoline. At the same time, many of these same Democrats are calling for the US to get off foreign oil. So, their plan is to 'manage' the price of gasoline lower to reduce foreign oil dependency?

High gas prices are changing consumer behavior in a big way. We're going smaller. We're taking public transportation. We're buying hybrid cars and other more fuel efficient automobiles - something Congress has never been able to accomplish, despite spending billions of tax payer dollars for this purpose. Even more important, massive amounts of capital are flowing into R&D for foreign oil dependency-fighting technologies.

Nothing will get America off foreign oil faster than high prices and new technologies. Ultimately, high gas prices, not Congress, are pushing America towards intelligent behavior. Yes it hurts, but in the long run, we'll be better off, unless Congress again screws it up.