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?

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.

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

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?

Should Obama save the Big 3 at any cost?

25,000 per year for years now

Last night I was watching an interesting NOVA program called The Big Energy Gamble and how AB 32 is going to drastically change the auto market in California. Essentially, if California moves forward with AB 32, automakers will need to sell many millions of hybrid cars or EVs in California alone, in order to meet CO2 emissions requirements.

And, there are many states considering similar laws if California's continues to move forward.

Toyota, the king of hybrid cars, is well on its way to helping California meet its goals, and Honda is ramping up its hybrid production as well, although even Honda has some serious work ahead.

The Big 3, on the other hand, seem pathetically far behind. Possibly, Ford has some plans, but as the automaker has only been able to make 25,000 Escape hybrids per year, and has the same 25,000 cap for the Fusion hybrid, I have some serious worries. Sadly, GM and Chrysler seem even further behind.

Yet, as the bailout deadline approaches, the UAW is already calling on Obama for help. If this were the end of all bailout talk, a little extension wouldn't be a bad idea, but this is just the beginning.

GM's latest prediction for 2009 auto sales, for example, is even worse than 2008. According to Big 3 Congressional bailout testimony, GM's prediction for 2009 is unsustainable if it continues for a few years, regardless of any bailout money. UNSUSTAINABLE. The auto industry, as we know it today, would collapse.

Even if things get better, the Big 3 are still in no position to make a serious stab at fuel economy, especially if the requirement is as aggressive as AB32 - something Obama has supported. According to an economist from Moody's during Congressional testimony on the bailout, the US auto industry will need about 100 billion over the next few years just to survive.

How much more it take to make the Big 3 green?

Not one of the Big 3 has yet developed a cheap hybrid to challenge the Prius. Do they really believe that millions of Americans are going to be able to afford $40,000 Volts in five years? Will GM even be making 100,000 Volts per year by then?

President Obama's plans for an energy moon shot should move forward, and I'm sure it will, but should our moon shot be limited to the Big 3's ability to make it happen? Might it not be better, for instance, for the government to regulate standards and requirements, put all incentives in the hands of consumers, and let ALL automakers COMPETE for consumers, even if it means the UAW loses 1/2 its workforce because its products don't compete?

Or, should Obama save the Big 3 at any and all costs and make the Big 3 essential to our moon shot?

Should automaker loans become a bailout?

How much change does Barack really want

So, Barack Obama wants the Energy Department to quickly provide the $25 billion in loans that automakers are to receive to help meet increased CAFE regulations because of tough financial times. Yet, such regulatory efforts, according to reports, often take 18 months or more to structure.

Lest we forget, these loans - which cost tax payers several billion to fund - were specifically created for fuel efficiency projects, such as new hybrid cars. They are not, as the auto industry reiterated numerous times, a bailout. Thus, how much can retooling a factory help today's bottom line for the Big 3?

More important, if rushed and loopholed, is not a bailout exactly what these loans are in danger of becoming? Should the US auto industry be bailed out at any cost? Is the Nationalization of the US auto industry inevitable?

Barack's automaker bailout?

but, still need to build more relevant autos

"Obama's plan to help the Big Three cope with stricter fuel-economy and emissions standards starts with a 10-year, $150 billion commitment to clean energy, with part of the money going to help automakers retool their factories to build alternative-fuel cars. In addition he would double funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, a program that currently assists manufacturers in upgrading to more efficient technology. Lastly, the candidate would use money from a $10 billion venture-capital fund to create a program in Michigan that would focus on bringing eco-friendly auto technology from the lab to the market. All told, Obama says he plans on "committing the kind of resources we haven't seen in decades here in Michigan."" (more)

Pandering? Pork? A good idea? Much ado about nothing? What about tax credits for consumers that make more intelligent automobile purchasing decisions? Why not let automakers compete for this money in some way that requires consumer to put some skin in the game?

Foreign oil dependency: Can America change?

Fine here, but not on the highway?

A while back President Bush told U.S. automakers to start making more relevant vehicles, much to the chagrin of the auto industry. Then Barack Obama echoed much of that same sentiment, and now John Edwards has called on Americans to give up their SUVs.

Are Americans ready for such a change?

While hybrid cars, clean diesel vehicles and biofuels offer the future much cleaner vehicles, it will take years before such new technologies can cost-effectively replace conventional vehicles - at least in the short term thinking of American consumers.

Downsizing could have a much more immediate impact. And, coupled with new technologies, downsizing might just put the end of foreign oil dependency in America's sights.

Still, can such talk lead to the White House or does it doom a campaign?

Hybrid tax credits - Give me something to believe in Barack

Time to give Toyota some credit!

Congress sucks. Numerous Democrats and Republicans have been speaking about foreign oil dependency and global warming for at least a couple of years now, yet they've done little, despite the fact that a majority agree action is necessary.

O.K. Forget the past.

Barack Obama has now claimed that if he becomes President, he's going to push and to help U.S. automakers to develop hybrid cars. In addition, he also wants to change the tax credit for hybrid vehicles so that there is no cap by manufacturer - something Obama has also proposed as a legislator.

So, what are we waiting for? Foreign oil dependency and global warming are important, but not important enough .......(more).

Obama to U.S. automakers: Make more hybrids

Maybe Barack should drive a more fuel efficient vehicle?

Barack Obama wants U.S. automakers to make more fuel efficient vehicles, especially hybrid cars. To achieve this goal, Obama would like to provide healthcare assistance to U.S. automakers so that automakers could utilize half their healthcare savings to invest in producing hybrids.

"For years, while foreign competitors were investing in more fuel-efficient technology for their vehicles, American automakers were spending their time investing in bigger, faster cars," Obama has stated according to a text of the Illinois senator's remarks that were provided to The Associated Press (more).

And consumers, such as Mr. Obama, have been buying these vehicles. Do consumers not share some of this lack of vision?

Mr. Obama typically drives a gas-guzzling SUV. Of course Mr. Obama, when questioned about his inefficient vehicle, claims its a flex-fuel vehicle. Sadly, since Mr. Obama spends much of his Illinois time in the Chicago area, he can't utilize flex-fuel because there are simply so few E85 pumps in that area. So, Mr. Obama has been a part of the problem, not the solution.

Even worse, it's not just Obama, it's the far majority of politicians of both parties. Leadership?

Read Obama's plan in comments