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

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?

EPA: Greenhouses gases must be regulated

CO2 a danger to human health

The EPA is set to an provide an endangerment finding on CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. With an endangerment finding President Obama can set targets for greenhouse gas reductions without the approval of Congress. Thus, as the President heads into Copenhagen for a world wide conference on global warming he'll be able to assert that he has the authority to achieve drastic cuts in global warming emissions.

Report: Plug-ins would increase CO2 emissions in England

It all keeps coming up dirty coal

Are plug-in hybrids the key to global warming?

Absolutely not if coal is the source of plug-in electricity.

However, could coal-powered plug-in hybrids help reduce CO2 emissions as other clean technologies are added as power-generation sources?

That largely depends upon where one lives and a number of the factors, including whom you ask.

However, according to the UK's Environmental Transport Association, plug-in vehicles in England could actually "speed climate change" if coal is not replaced with alternative energy sources.

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?

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?

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.

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.

Can Democrats survive cap and trade?

A Congressional conundrum

I believe that humans have contributed to global warming. I also believe that human caused global warming might have actually prevented an ice age that would have had a devastating impact on the human population. Regardless, it's time to regulate CO2 emissions, even if you don't believe in human-made global warming.

Like it or not regulating CO2 is ultimately about efficiency, and with today's massively growing population, limited resources, and the ever increasing computerization of the world's economy, efficient, clean energy is the only sustainable way forward.

Still, a significant percent of Americans don't agree, and even more don't believe that now, in this recession, is the time to deal with such a monumental issue. Nonetheless, now that the EPA is set to label CO2 emissions a danger to health, doesn't the government have to act? Yet, can Democrats retain control of Congress if they push ahead with a cap and trade plan?

Obama ready to forget cap-and-trade?

Alternative energy tax credits instead

According to CNBC's White House correspondent John Harwood, President Obama is ready to give up on his cap-and-trade program in order to protect his plans for health care. Instead of cap-and-trade, Harwood claimed Obama would focus more on tax incentives for promoting alternative energy. Likewise, I'd assume that if Congress increases CAFE standards based on the EPA's new "health danger" designation regarding CO2 emissions, much of what cap-and-trade would have accomplished for the auto industry can still be achieved.

EPA ready to institute cap and trade, will voters comply?

Greenhouse gases to be a "health danger"

The EPA is ready to declare carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases a public health danger according to reports. If the White House accepts the EPA's proposal, sweeping change is forthcoming. Already, the White House has indicated that it wants Congress to act on this issue, such as in greater fuel economy standards - probably similar to those California is seeking - along the way to President Obama's cap-and-trade plan.

But will consumers balk?

Ultimately, such legislation will lead to higher auto prices - higher everything prices. Assuming cap-and-trade revenues will help subsidize these higher costs for low income consumers might be too big of an assumption for many voters. And with a majority of Americans now picking the economy over the environment, serious plans to regulate CO2 emissions could become a political braking point for the Obama Administration if the economy does not soon recover.

UN to tax oil for green investments

A "Green New Deal"

Adam Steiner, Head of the UN Environmental Program, thinks it time for a green tax on oil to raise money to "revive the economy and protect the environment, according to Reuters. The funds raised, some $750 billion, would be used for "improved energy efficiency for buildings and solar or wind power to create jobs, curb poverty and fight climate change."

EPA to hear California waiver arguments today

Do states have CO2 rights?

Today the EPA will open a public hearing on whether states should have the right to regulate CO2 emissions. Automakers, environmentalists and state officials will convene in Arlington, VA today to debate the matter.

Do state CO2 emissions matter any more? Does President Obama's cap-and-trade program make this issue less relevant?

Governator hypocrisy

The environmentalist?

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, whom has been pushing California to become a global warming leader, spent much of yesterday at the Geneva Auto Show hanging out with Bentley's CEO. I guess the governator is trading in his fleet of Hummers for much more efficient Continentals to fight his global warming battle?

Is cap and trade the best path to plug-ins?

Is now the right time?

$150 billion over ten years to help the US auto industry develop much more fuel efficient vehicles, especially plug-in hybrids. Sounds like a good idea, but from where will the money come? Is it enough?

Under President Obama's new budget, it will come from an emission's cap and trade system, or it won't come at all. Yet, is cap and trade the right approach? Is it the the right time?

There have been a number of economists whom have claimed that, inevitably, it's going to take $100 - $150 billion just to stabilize the US auto industry. However, if the yearly run rate for US auto sales sticks around 10 million units for several more years, US automakers will need many more tens of billions just to survive, let alone to develop more efficient vehicles.

And, what about consumers? With the latest Rasmussen Polls showing that the majority of American's now believe that global warming is caused by planetary trends, rather than CO2 emissions, is using a struggling US auto industry, via cap and trade, the best litmus test for plug-in viability?

Of course, is there any other option?

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?

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?

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?

Obama ready to let states decide emissions standards

California set to receive EPA waiver

Today, President Obama could make a decision that will have a drastic impact on the types of vehicles that Detroit produces. According to the AP, Obama is ready to "let California and other states set their own tailpipe emission standards — without having to get a waiver from the Environmental Protection Administration, as has been the case."

If California receives the waiver, automakers will have to cut CO2 emissions from autos by 30 percent by 2016, a move that many claim will require the production of, minimally, millions of hybrid cars and electric vehicles just for the state of California. And, with another 14 states having already adopted California's regulations, as goes California, so goes America.

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.

Global warming goes away if Big 3 go under?

Kill Detroit, kill CO2 emissions?

Despite my previous bailout post, I'm still an advocate of an automaker bailout with strings. A new string that environmental activists are now advocating is a bailout only if the Big 3 drop their suit against California and its desire to regulate CO2 emissions - an interesting idea.

Yet, I have some questions. Why are autos the environmental whipping boy? Don't houses and buildings cause far more environmental damage? Doesn't the food industry, especially the meat industry, cause more environmental damage?

Anyway. If automakers go bankrupt, do CO2 emissions go down? Does not bankruptcy only ensure that we drive gas-guzzling polluters longer?

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.

UK Study - Current grid can handle plug-ins and reduce CO2. Many adoption questions

Many decades before everyone in the UK is plugging in

A joint study by Arup and Cenex for the UK’s Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) and the Department for Transport (DfT) finds that plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles can reduce automotive CO2 emissions by 40 percent per vehicle utilizing the current grid.

Nonetheless, the UK study doesn't believe that plug-ins are ready to take over market share. At today's pace the study expects 2.5% of all cars to connect to the grid by 2020, 11.7% by 2030. If the UK takes aggressive measures to develop plug-ins, then those numbers rise to 4.9% by 2020 and 32% by 2030. Under an extreme scenario - the production of plug-in only cars by 2025 - then the numbers plugging in would be 10% by 2020 and 60% by 2030.

More on the study from GreenCarCongress.

Democrats ready to play hardball with Detroit?

Time to Californiacate Detroit?

The state of California wants to regulate CO2 emissions, which would require massive increases in fuel economy - meaning automakers would be forced to roll out tons of new alternative technologies, such as hybrid cars.

In Washington, California Congressman Henry Waxman has argued California's case, and he appears ready to take California's case to a higher pulpit. According to the Financial Times, Waxman "is challenging the dean of the House, John Dingell of Michigan, in his role as chairman of the House energy and commerce committee."

Dingell's protectionism of Detroit, at the expense of CAFE and global warming, according to FT, has irked both Waxman and House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi. Thus, if Waxman does replace Dingell, it would seem that fuel economy and global warming would play a far more significant role in the next session of Congress.

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?

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."

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?

Will global warming stickers on cars help?

Will consumers care?

If you live in California, the next time you go car shopping you might see a different sticker on your car of choice called an Environmental Performance sticker. Showing both a smog score and a global warming score based on EPA data, California lawmakers hope it will influence consumers to buy greener vehicles.

Can a sticker make consumers buy greener cars?

35 mpg by 2020, 75 mpg by 2030

Fuel cell cars only way forward?

While automakers are already complaining about the technological feasibility of 35 mpg by 2020, things could get far worse. In order to meet greenhouse gas emission reduction requirements currently being proposed, automakers would have to achieve 75 mpg by 2030 according to a top EPA official.

"There are a lot of strategies you need to consider -- both engines and fuels," Margo Oge, director of the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Transportation and Air Quality recently said in an interview. Automakers "need to be thinking of those investments for the long term basis," beyond the energy bill, Oge said.

Sure automakers will need to use long term vision, which is scary, but how realistic is it to expect automakers to achieve such a massive increase in fuel economy when many members of Congress are still trying to figure out how to make gas cheaper for Americans?

Ford also planning plug-ins

A tool to fight greenhouse gas emissions?

Ford, spurred by a coalition of shareholders, has been devising plans to decrease global warming emissions. According to MotorTrend that means emerging technologies, such as plug-in hybrid vehicles, to contend with the Chevy Volt and the Toyota Prius plug-in.

While I'm not sure how much plug-ins fight global warming, I sure hope that Ford is serious about advanced technologies like hybrids.

Likewise, similar shareholder action is expected at GM.

So what? Plug-in hybrids might not reduce global warming

A Prius prepped for plug-in conversion

I've been a plug-in hybrid vehicle advocate, well, since I started advocating for regular hybrid vehicles. Still, I have issues with PHEVs and some PHEV fans. For example, I think buying one of today's hybrids is the quickest way to make tomorrow's plug-in hybrids a reality. So, if you need a new car today, don't buy a non-hybrid because you're "waiting for a PHEV".

Still, my main issue boils down to the infrastructure to which plug-ins must connect. Quite simply, the transference of power from big oil to big electricity doesn't excite me greatly. More important, too many utilities are using antiquated technology that could actually increase global warming emissions. All this leaves me with trust issues.

Finish: So What? Plug-in hybrids might not reduce global warming

Carbon capture: Another problem for PHEVs?

The government's clean coal con-job?

Autobloggreen has an interesting post regarding America's energy problems today. Clean coal, largely achieved via carbon capture, it seems, might be more myth than reality according to a growing horde of carbon sequestration critics. And, even in the cases where carbon sequestration might work, its costs, well, simply might not be worth the cost compared to alternative technologies.

This comes off the heals of other studies suggesting that in areas still using old coal technology, plug-in hybrids could produce more CO2 than if just gasoline were used to power conventional vehicles.

None of this suggests, even for one second, that further development of plug-in hybrids or electric vehicles should be delayed. However, these studies do seem to suggest that America's energy problems will not be solved alone by plug-in hybrids, the Chevy Volt, or any other type of automobile.

Lutz: Volt is the future. His global warming beliefs "immaterial"

Lutz's beliefs on global warming are "immaterial"

CNBC interviewed Bob Lutz this morning at the New York Auto Show, and his statements on global warming were a focal point.

Lutz claimed his statements were taken out of context, and that his beliefs regarding global warming are similar to many astrophysicists that hypothesize that solar radiation could be a big part of today's global warming. Nonetheless, Lutz claimed his beliefs about global warming are "immaterial".

According to Lutz, the only future for GM is take the automobile out of the global warming and foreign oil dependency equation, and the only way to do that is with vehicles like the Chevy Volt.

Global warming: Too much focus on cars?

Is the focus on cars a global warming sham?

Angus MacKenzie of MotorTrend was recently doing some research on global warming emissions and he found out that transportation accounted for 30 percent of US CO2 emissions, with cars accounting for 60 percent of those emissions. Thus, personal transportation - the cars and trucks we drive - account for just 18 percent of the total US CO2 emissions?

Sure Congress has achieved a plan to reduce these emissions by 30 percent, but how significant is 30 percent of 18 percent, Angus wonders. And, more important, what is Congress doing about the other 70 percent?

Shouldn't technologies, such as hybrid cars, be valued more for their potential to end foreign oil dependency, rather than to fight global warming? Has the auto sector become a CO2 scapegoat?

GM CEO challenges Bob Lutz on global warming

Shocking: A crass statement from Bob Lutz?

Not long ago, when GM's Bob Lutz challenged man-caused global warming, I didn't think much about his remarks. Anyone that has ever spent any time around Lutz wouldn't be surprised. Besides, while Lutz might not buy global warming, I've heard him speak passionately about the dangers of foreign oil dependency a number of times. And, ending foreign oil dependency would also achieve significant reductions in CO2 emissions. So, whatever.

Nonetheless, GM CEO Rick Wagoner recently contradicted the statements made by Lutz, acknowledging both global warming and the need for GM to accept this reality as a necessary business requirement.

Is global warming killing hybrid cars?

Global warming can't make hybrids mainstream?

Turns out hybrid vehicles aren't very profitable, especially in the short term. Thus, although Mercedes is moving ahead with its hybrid program, the automaker is doing so cautiously (more).

That's probably because consumer research continually demonstrates that while consumers are interested in better fuel economy, they are not interested in paying more for it. For example, a new study shows that only 11 % of new car buyers are willing to pay extra money for green vehicles.

What about foreign oil dependency? Why are hybrid vehicles sold and marketed largely as environmental vehicles, rather than foreign oil dependency fighting vehicles? Imagine the PR campaigns that could be created around freedom-fighters. Besides if America ended foreign oil dependency, such an act would put a huge dent in our global warming emissions.

Isn't it time to unite the people? Isn't it time to sell hybrids in a way that justifies their cost and investment in the future in a way that a majority of consumers can relate?

How much car do you really need? Part 1

Do you really need it, or do you just want it?

"Thus my point isn't that people shouldn't be allowed to buy whatever vehicle they want," states Karl on Cars this morning. "My point is that you should be honest about your lifestyle and fully recognize when you really need a large, utilitarian vehicle and when you simply want one. For example, do I need a Ford GT? Nobody needs a Ford GT! However, I'm fully ready to admit I simply wanted one, functionality and earth-saving desires be damned. I'm not sure how many SUV drivers really need one, but I fear many of these folks aren't ready to admit they simply want one.

And at this point I have to add what really kills me is when these same folks, sitting in the cabin of their 6,000-pound SUVs/Crossovers/full-size trucks that they don't really need, claim to be earth conscious and/or scream "No blood for oil!" or "We need to stop being held hostage by our energy policies that subjugate us to Middle East countries."

Whatever folks."

Click here to read the Karl's full story

Is the green movement a zealot-driven jihad?

Green critic John McCormick claims the green movement has turned into a jihad

"If reducing CO2 output is the name of the game -- and let's remember that no-one has proved that man-made CO2 has anything to do with the earth's natural warming trend ....," John McCormick states as he attacks the green movement's jihad against fuel inefficiency in today's DetroitNews.

Perhaps nature is solely responsible for global warming, an unlikely possibility. So what? Does that make foreign oil dependency any less of a threat to national security? Read more....

Audi A3 1.9TDIe: Who needs a Prius asks Angus?

A Prius killer?

Angus of MotorTrend has been driving an Audi A3 1.9TDIe for the last few days, a nice new diesel vehicle that is making Angus ask why anyone needs a Toyota Prius. Ultimately, according to Angus, the Audi is more fuel efficient than the Prius, except in extreme traffic, and the Audi performs better, so maybe there is no need for hybrid cars? Finish reading.....

GM prepares effort to fight state greenhouse laws

California's greenhouse gas law could slow vehicles like the Volt?

GM's CEO, Rick Wagoner, is urging auto dealers to help fight against states that are trying to set individual limits on greenhouse gas emissions, which really isn't a surprise. "We need to work together to educate policymakers at the state and local levels on the importance of tough but national standards," Wagoner told the dealers group. Otherwise, GM will not, "be able to accomplish everything that we otherwise could."

While I'm sure it wouldn't be easy, why not try to educate these policymakers about how much help GM and other automakers might need to achieve these higher levels as well? Discuss dollars and cents. Discuss lost jobs. Even establish a Davos-style conference in California for such a forum, but at least have a real conversation on these issues.

Republican Candidates Stand with California on Emissions?

McCain with CA and buddy Schwarzenegger on emissions

"I applaud the governor's efforts and that of other states in this region and other states across America to try to eliminate the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing climate change," said John McCain last night during a debate in California.

Other Republican candidates were supportive as well, though some not as vigorously. "I side with states being able to make their own decisions, even if I don't always agree with the decisions they make," stated Mitt Romney.

I'm sure Democrats will say the same, which irks me a bit. Most of these people are already in Congress. If they couldn't lead Congress as members on such issues, will they really be able to lead as President?

Automakers want to re-educate California on emissions

Auto companies ready to increase lobbying efforts in California

"Dave McCurdy, chief executive of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said in an interview that the industry's lead trade group would redouble efforts to "educate" states...... that a proposal by California to cut tailpipe emissions sharply to fight global warming could further depress the struggling U.S. industry."

What is more dangerous to America, the loss of a Ford, for example, or increased foreign oil dependency and global warming emissions?

EPA rejects California tailpipe waiver

Governor vows to appeal EPA's tailpipe waiver decision

For the FIRST time in 30 years, the EPA has declined to provide a waiver to allow the state of California to regulate tailpipe emissions from passenger vehicles, despite numerous court rulings, including one from the Supreme Court, that supported California's position.

Yet, not only was it California, but sixteen other states - when combined - that represent a significant percent of Americans that were denied. One can only be left to wonder, whom exactly does the EPA protect, when the people cannot, even after Supreme Court affirmation, demand clean air via legal and precedented processes?

Thanks King Bush.

“It is disappointing that the federal government is standing in our way and ignoring the will of tens of millions of people across the nation. We will continue to fight this battle. California sued to compel the agency to act on our waiver, and now we will sue to overturn today’s decision and allow Californians to protect our environment.”

(Full Press Release)

Pelosi is a comedian and CAFE is the joke

Will Americans go from SUVs to small cars?

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

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

Flex-fuel credit all but guaranteed

Corn is a political force

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

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

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

CAFE is not the answer.

Heather Mills and Environmental Hypocrisy

What's worse: gas-guzzling or eating meat?

Recently Heather Mills showed up for a photo shoot to make the connection between global warming and eating meat in a gas-guzzling SUV. While Ms. Mills is right about the meat eating and global warming connection, there is also a big connection between gas-guzzling and global warming.

So does Mrs. Mills have a leg to stand on? Sadly, she does not - no pun intended.

Nonetheless, the point Mills is trying to make is a strong one. Al Gore, for example, talks about how dangerous global warming is, how the world is on the verge of collapse, but he could probably have a bigger effect on global warming by going vegetarian, yet this isn't part of Gore's inconvenient truth. Why?

Maybe the goal to being a good environmentalist is to do less lecturing and more living by example?

Hybrid Tax Credits & The Hydrogen Highway NOW

How Congress can empower America with an Energy Revolution

Global warming, foreign oil dependency, oil company profits, and especially CAFE are very common and important topics discussed regularly by many in Congress. Even Presidential candidates are one-upping each other with their CAFE plans.

Similarly, many environmental groups have also been particularly focused on CAFE. Yet, sadly, even the most stringent plan in Congress is going to do little to significantly affect either global warming or foreign oil dependence based upon America's history of year-after-year of increased fuel consumption.

And the other favorite of Congress, corn-based ethanol, might even be less effective than CAFE, or even harmful.

America needs an energy paradigm change, an Energy Revolution! (Finish)

Are utility companies afraid of the hydrogen highway?

Fuel cell cars: The greatest fear of power companies?

I've long been a huge fan of hybrid cars and, especially, of plug-in hybrid vehicles. For the last several years, I've believed that plug-in hybrids made fuel cell vehicles and, more important, the hydrogen highway irrelevant to a new energy paradigm. In fact, I started to believe that the hydrogen highway was the quickest path away from a new, clean and green energy paradigm.

Lately, however, I've been buying into the hydrogen economy, and I'm starting to wonder if utility companies and some of their plug-in hybrid-supporting friends are fighting against the hydrogen economy for all the wrong reasons. (Finish)

Foreign oil dependency & Global Warming: Michigan doesn't get it

Politicians in Michigan need to wake up

"Michigan's congressional delegation is urging the U.S. Health and Human Services Department to stop touting foreign cars to its employees.

In a letter to Secretary Mike Leavitt, Michigan lawmakers blasted an e-mail his department sent to its 67,000 employees advising them to avoid sport utility vehicles and recommending a number of foreign cars," writes the DetroitNews.

"It is our hope that your agency will refrain from sending out similar communications that make product endorsements, particularly by non-U.S. companies," the delegation wrote. "It seems to us the time and effort that went into producing this document could have been better spent preventing disease, assuring food and drug safety (and) improving children's health."

Wake up Michigan!

Honestly, global warming is the biggest issue facing the Health of America if it's real. Sure, global warming is a contentious issue, but global warming dissenters do not have absolute proof that human-influenced global warming is not real. Thus, there is nothing wrong with the Health and Human Services Department taking a stand - something the Big 3 should have done a couple of decades ago and at least after 9/11.

However, more to the point, the Health Department is not promoting foreign cars, they are promoting green cars. Sadly, American automakers just haven't been very green. Even more disappointing, being green coincides very closely with fuel economy, which also means that since 9/11, American automakers have done little to address foreign oil dependency.

How patriotic is that when foreign oil dependency has become one of the most critical issues to national security, even to the health and welfare of the American people?

Traffic congestion, MPGs and Hybrids

"Things are bad and they're getting worse," said Alan Pisarski, a transportation expert and the author of "Commuting in America."

According to a new study, traffic in America is increasing, and that traffic is costing Americans - on average - about a work week per year.

Traffic also results in the worst fuel economy and the highest emissions, unless you drive a hybrid, such as a Toyota Prius. For this reason, I feel that the EPA and automakers should highlight city fuel economy, rather than highway fuel economy.

According to experts, the majority of Americans will soon live in urban areas, urban areas like Los Angeles where almost 2 weeks per year are wasted. Unfortunately, there are few solutions for this congestion, which means the problem is only going to get worse and probably significantly worse.

While it's great that a lot of cars achieve 30 mpg on the highway, it's their fuel economy in the city that is becoming ever more important. Hybrid cars, such as the Prius or the Ford Escape hybrid - even the Chevy Tahoe hybrid - provide huge improvements in fuel economy in these conditions.

Sadly, traffic is a problem that took only a few decades to grow out of control, and it will have devastating consequences on fuel economy, foreign oil dependency and global warming if it isn't taken seriously into the next few decades.

Vermont ruling almost guarantees hybrid future

Will the EPA be forced to work with states on emissions?

"There is no question that the GHG (greenhouse gas) regulations present great challenges to automakers," Judge William Sessions III, sitting in the U.S. District Court in Burlington, wrote at the conclusion of his 240-page decision.

He added, "History suggests that the ingenuity of the industry, once put in gear, responds admirably to most technological challenges. In light of the public statements of industry representatives, (the) history of compliance with previous technological challenges, and the state of the record, the court remains unconvinced automakers cannot meet the challenges of Vermont and California's GHG regulations."

Many believe this ruling will now set a precedent that other states, such as California, are also seeking, enabling such states to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, something that almost guarantees the need for significant fleets of hybrid cars and other advanced technologies.

Sure, some critics, such as Karl on Cars, are going to complain that global warming is not being caused by humans and such changes are an expensive waste of time.

I say hold on.

Even if it is proven that global warming is not being caused by humans, the process of trying to end global warming emissions will have a huge impact on fuel economy and foreign oil dependency. Thus, even if you don't believe in global warming, isn't it time to address energy security?

AutoNation's CEO, Mike Jackson, on fuel economy

Bush, and the last 4 Presidents, have accomplished nothing regarding foreign oil dependency

"We've had five presidents in a row who have said our dependence on imported oil is a matter of national security. Actually, on this issue you can pick whether you're motivated by global warming or national security—it doesn't matter. If you look at the issue and want a serious energy policy that's going to make a difference—because in this period with these five presidents we've gone from importing 30 percent of our oil to 60 percent of our oil—so, obviously we don't have a policy that's dealing with this."

"When it comes to fuel consumption and fuel economy do not listen to what people tell you they are going to do, look at what they actually do. Take model year '06 with all the discussions about fuel economy and everything else, fuel economy for the cars sold will be basically unchanged. It's the same as the last 25 years."

So, what's Mike Jackon's favorite solution? A gas tax.

(Source: BusinessWeek)

Speculating on Toyota's new hybrid & hybrid plans

Toyota's next hybrid-only vehicle?

So, by 2009 Toyota plans to begin selling another hybrid-only brand. Will it be completely unique? Will it be a Prius derivative, such as a larger Prius or a smaller city Prius, as Toyota has previously discussed? Maybe it will be something even far more interesting, such as the FT-HS hybrid concept?

O.K., Toyota's new hybrid will not be the FT-HS, as Toyota has already stated that it would develop this concept vehicle as both a hybrid and a conventional vehicle.

Still, whatever vehicle it is, it proves that Toyota is not just serious about hybrid cars, but dead serious about selling 1,000,000 hybrids per year starting around 2010. So, what is this new hybrid and how does it fit in with Toyota's hybrid plans?

--> Finish: Speculating on Toyota's new hybrid and hybrid plans

Update: Congress struggling with fuel economy

Both the Senate and House are struggling

Forcing automakers to develop significantly more fuel efficient automobiles is proving to be no easy task - something which should be a surprise to no one.

According to Reuters, "The U.S. Senate struggled on Wednesday to reach a compromise on proposals to increase vehicle fuel efficiency, a major sticking point in broad-based energy legislation." In addition, " Unable to reach a consensus among Democrats, a House of Representatives committee said this week it would delay consideration of its fuel economy and global warming proposals until autumn."

Spain to tax auto CO2

Europe continues global warming action

"The Spanish government is close to imposing emissions-related taxes on cars, which will raise taxes for the more contaminating models and probably lower them for the least contaminating, the environment minister said on Thursday."

"The Economy Ministry has practically completed a package of measures that will provide maximum incentives for the least contaminating vehicles," Cristina Narbona said.

What does America's car culture say about American culture?

What does your car say about you?

I know many people whom live in the dumpiest apartment, yet they drive a Lexus or some huge gas-guzzling SUV. When their car payments and insurance are combined, these people are paying half a monthly mortgage on a car lease. Not only will these people probably never own a house, a recent study I read says they will probably die in poverty.

Then there are issues such as foreign oil dependency, pollution, smog and global warming that significant numbers of Americans seem to completely ignore.

Automobiles are an important part of American culture. Still, shouldn't automobiles say something about the substance of America - the vision of America? What do today's automobiles say about America?

Bill emerges in House to block states on CO2

Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va. has drafted a bill to stop 12 states from trying to reduce global warming gases. Bucher's Energy and Commerce energy subcommittee has scheduled a hearing on the legislation for Thursday. (AP Via Yahoo)

Cars and Global Warming: Forget about it?

Foreign oil dependency fighter

Hybrid cars, such as the Toyota Prius, are extremely clean and loved by numerous greens. Hybrids, such as the Prius, are also loved by national security hawks whom realize that if every American drove a vehicle as efficient as the Prius, America could end foreign oil dependency.

While some Americans argue about the reality of man-made CO2 caused global warming, few can argue that foreign oil dependency is not a significant threat to national security. Fortunately, however, fighting foreign oil dependency, inevitably, also fights global warming.

Perhaps, at least in the very near term, it would be better for greens to focus on foreign oil dependency, rather than global warming, at least when it comes to automobiles?

Re: The hidden hybrid PR coup

Hybrid success is purely because of Hollywood?

GM's Bob Lutz, just a few years ago, claimed that GM could have beat Toyota to the Prius hybrid car by spending just a fraction of one year's marketing budget on such a plan. Instead, GM spent that money marketing a new line of large SUVs.

But who cares?

Instead, Fortune's Sue Callaway wants us to believe that the only reason hybrid cars are popular is because of a hidden hybrid PR coup in Hollywood. So, if you bought a hybrid, apparently, then you are a Hollywood-wannabe, Sue seems to imply.

While I don't doubt that some have bought hybrids because of some Hollywood-influence, is it really so hard for hybrid critics to understand that many whom buy hybrids are incredibly committed to issues such as global warming and foreign oil dependency? Sure such a purchase accomplishes little on a global scale, other than send a message and invest in the future.

Still, what message are gas-guzzlers sending? In what future does gas-guzzling invest?

How about the hidden PR coup that has enabled automakers to spend billions marketing the most extreme foreign-oil dependency-increasing gas-guzzlers - despite 9/11 and two wars in Iraq - because of profit, at the expense of U.S. soldiers and U.S. National Security. Now that's a real coup.

CAFE: Can Democrats put Michigan in check?

Is Nancy Pelosi's biggest problem her own party?

Do Democrats really care about global warming and foreign oil dependency? While the answer to that question seems like a resounding yes, why is it that some Democrats are the BIGGEST laggards regarding real CAFE increases and real action on global warming? Isn't that supposed to be the domain of Big Oil-influenced Republicans?

At some point Democrats might have to ask, "Are Michigan Democrats really Democrats."

John Dingell (D) of Michigan is one of the biggest forces preventing a serious increase in CAFE, even though hybrid cars demonstrate that the CAFE requirements proposed for 2020 are essentially achievable today. Yet, Dingell has ripped....(Finish: CAFE: Can Democrats put Michigan in check?)

Gas gouging and oil profits: An irony of Democratic proportions?

Hillary would like to tax oil company profits

A number of Democrats have loudly attacked Big Oil - probably because many Americans buy into the Republican - Big oil connection, and Americans love cheap gas. Thus, many Democrats have continually raised the issue of gas-gouging and gas-gouging legislation. Yet, the Democratic party is the largest supporter of global warming legislation and action.

Isn't that too ironic?

What if Democrats can make gasoline cheaper through windfall taxes, gouging legislation, etc.? Wouldn't Americans just increase their gasoline consumption, thereby increasing both foreign oil dependency and global warming emissions?

Ultimately and unfortunately, aren't high gas prices a good thing for those whom believe in global warming? Not only can increased gas prices reduce global warming-causing gasoline consumption, but higher prices can make alternative fuels more competitive, while also increasing the cost-effectiveness of clean technologies, such as hybrid cars?

Isn't that a good thing?

Obviously, Republicans didn't achieve any effective legislation towards fighting global warming, or even foreign oil dependency (if you don't believe in global warming) - something which is supposed to be a core Republican value. Sadly, I don't think Democrats can achieve much either if they keep engaging in double-speak.

Politics as usual? Are we, the people, simply incapable of accepting the truth, so we are habitually lied to by politicians whom just tell us what we want to hear? Are the people just too selfish and apathetic to even care about the truth?

CO2: All the money in the world couldn't help Chrysler

Chrysler: Impossible to cut CO2 emissions by 30 percent

"I seriously doubt that if you gave me all the money in the world and the same for all the other automakers that they could find enough resources ... to do this work," Bob Lee, a vice president at DaimlerChrysler, testified in April. (Reuters via Yahoo)

Despite the fact that today's hybrid cars already achieve this ends, Chrysler could not meet this goal with "all the money in the world"? How can Chrysler be believed when it's so obvious they are lying? Is it too expensive to meet these reductions? That's debatable. Impossible, however, that's pure nonsense. Besides, even if global warming isn't real, meeting this requirement, which would probably require extensive use of hybrid technology, would also have the unintended consequence of ending foreign oil dependency.

How much would that be worth?

GM joins U.S. Climate Action Partnership (Don't move too fast on climate change lobby?)

Playing it both ways?

"General Motors on Tuesday became the first automobile manufacturer to join the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of corporate executives that wants Congress to enact an economy-wide mandatory cap on carbon dioxide emissions."

Interesting. GM can both fight against climate change legislation and join a Climate Action Partnership? Perhaps the word partnership should be replaced with lobby?

How about if you increase your fleet fuel efficiency, stop using flex-fuel to violate CAFE, and stop fighting California's global warming legislation? How about a couple of hybrid cars, not just hybrid SUVs?

Walk the Walk, please.

(Source: AP)

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).

Are U.S. automakers already dead?

Would the Volt electrify GM's profits?

There have been some very interesting stories in the media regarding the slide in pickup truck sales for U.S. automakers. In addition, SUV sales - at least on the larger SUVs - are also down, as gas skips over $3.00 per gallon on its way higher.

While U.S. automakers offer smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles, those vehicles are not money makers for Detroit. Pickups and SUVs offer the big profit margins that U.S. automakers need to survive. Thus, I wonder, can U.S. automakers survive if fuel efficiency rules the auto market?

Even if GM had developed the Toyota Prius and was the king of hybrid cars, rather than Toyota, would it even matter? The profit margins on the Prius are even more narrow than economy vehicles - many of which are not profitable.

Scary days. I absolutely want to see U.S. automakers thrive, but not at the expense of increased foreign oil dependency, and I won't even get into global warming. And, while Detroit might be able to compete at producing fuel efficient technologies, the real question is, can Detroit profit from fuel efficiency?

Scion: The perfect city Prius?

The perfect small hybrid?

The Toyota Prius has been a big hit amongst those interested in hybrid cars.

Scion has been a big hit with the under 35 crowd - an age cohort very interested in global warming and Iraq.

So, why not offer a smaller Prius as a Scion? Toyota has already expressed the possibility of expanding the Prius line, and one such derivative is a smaller city-Prius. Wouldn't Scion make the perfect brand for such a vehicle?

Foreign Oil Dependency: THE battle in the fight against global warming?

Could the fight against foreign oil dependency actually unite the people?

Watching a National Geographic show on global warming last night, I realized that I'm becoming anti-global warming activism. Ironically, however, I believe that - minimally - man is having a significant impact on the environment. I also believe that we should be developing technologies, such as hybrid cars, that help reduce carbon footprints.

So, what's my problem? Why am I so troubled by war against global warming? Finish Foreign Oil Dependency: The battle in the fight against global warming.

Hybrids and Biofuels: Forget the Politicians?

Does it really matter which Party is in control?

If you ask me, competition works better than politicians. I'm not saying competition works perfectly, but it works better than a bunch of rich, special interest-funded partisan politicians.

Consequently, I've been very bothered that Congress has not extended Toyota's hybrid tax credits - something both Republicans and Democrats have ignored. Yet, in the last couple of years, both parties have talked considerably about energy dependence, especially foreign oil dependence and/or global warming. Yet, very little has been accomplished to alleviate these problems.

Obviously, the task is not simple. Still, it seems to me that the quickest way to make automakers deal with fuel efficiency is simple competition. Force them to act or risk losing customers.

Thus, the more success Toyota has selling hybrid vehicles, the more pressure there is.....Finish Hybrids and Biofuels: Forget the Politicians.

Ford's Mulally wants to fight global warming

Let's get this sucka on the road then!

I think Ford CEO Alan Mulally has the potential to turn Ford around. First, Mulally is an efficiency aficionado. Second, he has proven himself at Boeing. Third, he wants to fight global warming, even telling reporters that he believes humans are responsible for the "vast majority" of global warming.

Whether he's correct or not regarding global warming, Mulally at least appears cognizant of the fact the fuel efficiency is going to determine the success of automakers selling vehicles in the U.S. - foreign oil dependency isn't going anywhere even if science proves the sun is causing global warming. Perhaps, some U.S. auto manufacturers might choose to focus on selling sub-$5000.00 cars in China and India, but it appears that Ford is prepared to try to sell fuel efficient vehicles in the U.S..

So, c'mon Mr. Mulally, let's see a few new hybrid vehicles, such as the Ford Reflex hybrid pictured above. Enough talking, time for a little walking. Show the world and the rest of Detroit that Ford ain't dead yet. Besides America could truly use some real leadership coming out of Michigan - apart from the Pistons and Red Wings.

Fuel Economy: U.S. automakers blame thyself?

U.S. automakers simply out of touch regarding fuel economy?

There is an interesting article on MSNBC.com this morning titled, Detroit Jumps Into the Fuel Economy Debate. Now that Congress and the Supreme Court appear to be getting more tough on fuel economy and global warming, automakers are trying hard to frame the debate over these issues in their favor. Yet, should we listen to U.S. automakers?

I'm not sure. Part of Detroit's argument is that forcing U.S. automakers to increase fuel economy will prevent them from developing hybrid cars and fuel cell vehicles. That seems like an odd argument. Don't mandate we make hybrid vehicles because then we won't be able to afford to make hybrids. Huh????

Finish Fuel Economy: U.S. automakers blame thyself?

Hydrogen-powered Volt update

How long, how loooonnnnggggg?

Larry Burns has posted an article regarding the Chevy Volt that is being displayed at the Shanghai Auto Show, for those interested. I have to admit that I was a bit disappointed to find out that the new iteration of the Volt - a rumor that hyped its way through the blogosphere for the last couple of weeks - is a fuel cell vehicle.

Yes, I believe fuel cells have great potential, but if an electric-gasoline version of the Volt is 3 years away, a fuel cell Volt is even further off in the distance. Quite honestly, I care much more about what GM and all automakers are doing today, and I would have been much happier with a dumbed down version of the Volt - a vehicle that could be sold, say, next year.

Imagine GM taking on the Toyota Prius head-to-head now, instead of 3 years from now. That's what America has been waiting for - an American-made freedom fighter. An American worker-supporting, foreign oil dependency-fighting, global warming-stopping, American-made vehicle. Is that so much to ask for?

Perhaps such a vehicle wouldn't resonate particularly well with a majority of the GM faithful, but such a Volt would, however, resonate with millions of Americans that don't particularly care for GM's environmental and fuel economy efforts.

Bright future for alternative fuels and hybrids in Europe?

How will Europe deal with CO2 emissions?

According to press releases from Frost & Sullivan, the future seems very bright for hybrid cars and alternative fuels, at least in Europe.

"As a medium-term strategy over the next three to five years, OEMs are expected to introduce micro hybrids, mild hybrids, ethanol, biofuels and LPG into their fleets to reduce CO2 emissions," notes Frost & Sullivan (http://www.automotive.frost.com) Research Analyst Krishnasami Rajagopalan. "These technologies offer increased fuel efficiency and reduced emissions, which help OEMs reduce their fleet average CO2 emissions."

"Going forward, reducing emissions below 140 g/km of CO2 will be possible mainly with the help of alternative fuels and hybrids (micro, mild and full). While OEMs are aware of this fact, further development or market acceptance of these alternative fuels and hybrids is restrained by the distribution network, availability and high implementation costs."

SAE: Fuel economy and safety one-in-the-same?

Some 35,000 automotive engineers will meet in Detroit this week for the Society of Automotive Engineers World Congress where fuel economy will be an important focus due to the growing political concerns regarding global warming and foreign oil dependency. Thus, automakers will show off a host of hybrid cars, clean diesels and fuel cell vehicles.

Nonetheless, safety will also be an extremely important issue. Inevitably, consumers still value safety far more than fuel economy. Still, it's a bit surprising that there is such a disconnect between safety and fuel economy. With numerous national security experts claiming that foreign oil dependency is possibly the greatest National Security threat to the U.S., why is fuel economy not correlated with 'safety' by either consumers or U.S. automakers?

Ultimately, isn't foreign oil dependency the ultimate safety issue?

Live Earth: Hollywood hypocrisy?

Hollywood loves to play the role of activist. Maybe one day they will stop acting.

"The likes of Madonna and Red Hot Chili Peppers will perform at Live Earth at Wembley Stadium on July 7, yet campaigners say they are among the least "green" individuals on the planet" (DailyMail).

Please stop. Instead, use your millions to make a difference, to build a difference. Adding a couple of hybrid cars to your collection of limos, Maybachs, and RangerRovers while buying a few carbon credits is not nearly enough for wealthy stars. And singing about global warming is definitely not enough. You need to do much more, especially much more than talk about global warming - publicity hounds!

Al Gore has been speaking and writing about global warming for decades, yet he STILL lives in an environmentally-unfriendly mansion. If Al Gore and Hollywood care so much about the environment they could easily afford to build eco-friendly houses that exist completely off the electric grid. Instead, they choose mansions and lecture to the powerless claiming 'blame the corporations'.

Fine. I'll blame the corporations, but I'll blame you just as well. Besides, you are the mouthpieces of corporations, right?

Would you support a gas tax to fight foreign oil dependency or global warming?

So, you're worried about foreign oil dependency? Or, maybe you're more concerned about global warming? But, are you REALLY ready to do something about it? Or, maybe you're all talk and no action?

"Raising taxes in the United States, say, ten cents a year until they reach $2, would stop people from driving their Hummers to get a quart of milk. For those who would be economically impacted, the extra money they pay in gas taxes could be returned to them as a tax rebate."

"But any system so simple and so fair hasn't got a prayer of becoming law in the current political climate, where politicians quake at the thought of asking voters to make sacrifices. And without incentives, consumers will continue to choose cupholders over good citizenship."

Alex Taylor, Fortune Magazine

Is a gas tax the best way to fight foreign oil dependency, and global warming?

Does Edmunds.com hate Toyota?

Is Edmunds.com biased against Toyota?

Yesterday, some eco-activists used Toyota to bring some attention to global warming. Essentially, the protesters questioned Toyota's environmental commitment and their apparent hypocrisy on the matter claiming that producing hybrid cars doesn't balance also producing gas-guzzlers.

“Building Priuses does not give Toyota license to mass-produce the Tundra,” said Sarah Connolly, the co-director of the Freedom from Oil campaign for Rainforest Action Network. “If Toyota really believed in curbing global warming, why did they argue with the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers in the Supreme Court that CO2 is not a pollutant and that the EPA should not have the right to help regulate greenhouse gas emissions?”

Edmunds.com took license to title this action 2007 New York Auto Show: Anti-Toyota Activists arrested. In reality, these activists are not anti-Toyota per se, rather, these activists are anti-gas guzzling - a U.S. automaker speciality. Since U.S. automakers aren't really doing anything to help the environment, Toyota is the natural scapegoat to use for this global warming message. That's fine, but why did Edmunds use the story as an indictment against Toyota, instead of an indictment against gas-guzzling - the real point of these activists?

Karl on Cars CO2 stupidity

Is there a downside to taking global warming too seriously?

I'm not a global warming alarmist. I do, however, believe that humans should take the possibility of human-caused global warming seriously. Apparently, the Supreme Court feels the same, which irks many, including Edmunds.com's Karl on Cars.

Suddenly, Karl is more educated on the causes of global warming than are many scientists specializing in climate studies. Now that is a stupid idea.

Yes, humans might be a minor cause of global warming via CO2 emissions. Or, perhaps global warming is ultimately good for humans in its ice age prevention. Still, the alarmists might be correct and humans cannot act quickly enough. Ultimately, there is evidence supporting all 3 positions - that is a fact. Yet for Karl and many global warming critics, only one side of the story is important.

Finish Karl on Cars CO2 stupidity

Supreme Court CO2 ruling clears path to hybrid future?

According to the AP the Supreme Court decided 5-4 that the Federal Government should take a fresh look at regulating the CO2 emissions from automobiles, a development which could have a huge impact on hybrid vehicles.

Such a move has been tenaciously fought against by most major automakers, especially those in Detroit. Ultimately, the best way to reduce CO2 emissions is to increase fuel economy and to use hybrid technology. Hybrid cars, such as the Toyota Prius, not only cause a significant increase in fuel economy, they also cause a significant decrease in CO2 emissions by being able to use pure electric power instead of gasoline in stop-and-go driving conditions for example - the conditions that cause the greatest CO2 emissions and contribute to global warming.

Energy Security and Global Warming: What GM is doing

Is GM about more than just the Hummer?

When it comes the environment and global warming, GM is the favored whipping boy in the automotive sector, but is such a view of GM accurate? Just because GM isn't the leading developer of hybrid cars, does that mean they are not an environmental leader? According to GM's VP of Environment and Energy, Beth Lowery, that view is not correct and she is letting people know about it on the Fast Lane Blog.

Finish Energy Security and Global Warming

Toyota hybrid tax credits and Democrats

Why haven't Dems taken any action?

Many Democrats in Congress have made global warming one of their most important political issues - at least in terms of political speech. Yet, political action is still lacking.

Most of these hard-talking Democrats and some Republicans have demanded tough increases in fuel economy that could severely threaten the viability of U.S. automakers. Fine. This is an important issue and tough action will be required. Nonetheless, tough talk and little action accomplishes nothing.

Finish Toyota hybrid tax credits and Democrats

Consumers are key to gasoline dependence

Automakers claim gas-guzzling consumers are key

Can America achieve gasoline dependence? Not for many decades according to automakers. Quite simply it would probably take a decade just to replace America's new fleet with fuel efficient hybrid cars, clean diesels, etc. Right now, however, not enough hybrids are available, nor is there enough consumer interest in purchasing hybrids or clean diesels according to automakers.

Of course, I bet this would significantly change if there were more hybrids available in more segments, such as hybrid trucks. Also, pricing is hugely important, which underscores the vital necessity of extending and uncapping tax credits for hybrid cars.

Ultimately, if America is going to take foreign oil dependency and global warming seriously, it's going to be up to consumers and politicians - not automakers - to make it happen.

Why isn't ending foreign oil dependency more important?

America hasn't learned anything from the 70's gas lines, the Iranian hostage crisis or even 9/11

Recently, President Bush suggested the idea of reducing gasoline dependence by 20 percent in the next decade. America's Big 3 automakers responded that ending foreign oil dependency just isn't profitable.

On the other hand, Honda welcomed the idea, and Toyota was far less opposed than American automakers. So, which automakers are better for America?

Yet, foreign oil dependency has already cost Americans more than a trillion dollars, and it is certain to cause even far more money and problems in the next few decades if we can't even reduce dependence by 20 percent. Ironically, however, such a sum could easily fund the technology to end foreign oil dependency using today's technology such as hybrid cars, clean diesels, lightweight composite materials and bio-fuels.

So why don't Americans take foreign oil dependency more seriously? (Read More)

Top EU official to turn in Benz for hybrid

Stavros Dimas, the European environment commissioner, is going to trade in his Mercedes Benz for a hybrid vehicle in April. In an effort to lead the fight against global warming pollution by example, Mr. Dimas is going to purchase either a Prius or a Lexus hybrid, both of which provide a significant reduction in CO2 emissions compared to the Mercedes.

Mr. Dimas is also leading the fight in the EU to force automakers to significantly reduce automobile CO2 emissions by 2012, a moved opposed by European automakers, such as Mercedes Benz.

(Source: The Independent)

What's the problem? Congress, Hybrids and Clean Vehicle Tax Credits

Is Bush more green than Congress?

President Bush is certainly not going to win any awards for being the greenest President. Still, for at least 6 months the President has asked Congress to extend tax credits for hybrid vehicles. Yet, Congress has done nothing.

Sure, GM and DaimlerChrysler have not sold any full hybrid vehicles and are sitting on more than 100,000 full tax credits, while Toyota has already used every full tax credit. So, why should Congress do something that only benefits Toyota?

Because foreign oil dependency and global warming demand action now, not tomorrow, and not after a global warming committee is formed. NOW. Members of Congress have talked a lot of tough talk regarding global warming and foreign oil dependency, but they've taken very little real action.

Power to the People

Raise fuel economy by raising CAFE, Congress tells us. Fine. Do it. Automakers, however, will still need financial incentives. So, why not get started right now? Extend and uncap the tax credits for hybrid cars, and put those financial incentives into the hands of consumers, rather than executives more beholden to shareholders than to citizens and to consumers.

--> Read the rest of Congress, hybrids and clean vehicle tax credits

Hybrid Vehicles Dead? Toyota Prius sales soar in January

Are hybrid vehicles losing their appeal?

Despite lower gas prices and a federal tax credit that was reduced by 50 percent, the Toyota Prius had its best January on record, selling 8,299 units. The Camry hybrid posted sales of 2,801 units, the Highlander hybrid reported 1,810 sales, while the Lexus RX400h reported 1,245 units sold.

So, if Toyota sold more than 14,000 hybrid cars in January with only a reduced tax credit, how many more would Toyota have sold if it still qualified for the full tax credit? Considering the seriousness of foreign oil dependency, pollution and global warming, it is simply silly that Toyota is being punished for being too successful doing the right thing.

--> More on Hybrid vehicles dead? Prius sales soar in January

Big 3 Keep Begging But Give Nothing

Unlike Toyota, GM and DaimlerChrysler have not sold 1 full hybrid car in America

"The opening round of congressional hearings this year on global warming and alternative fuels showed one fact is clear: The climate for automakers on Capitol Hill is becoming increasingly unforgiving," claims the DetroitNews this morning.

Good. Can automakers blame Congress?

According to GM, the Big 3 doesn't need an increase in CAFE, they need more money - much, much more money. Yet, the Big 3 have already been given billions to produce vehicles like the EV1 and hybrid cars, yet what has America received in return?

Increased foreign oil dependency. (READ MORE)

Climate change demands fuel efficiency, not ethanol

"The most direct impact of climate change will be on China's grain production," deputy director of the National Climate Center, Luo Yong told the Science Times newspaper.

What about America's grain production? Is America some how immune?

Global warming and climate change are almost assuredly going to result in massive natural disasters, droughts and severe weather swings that could destroy entire crops for years or even decades. What condition would the U.S. be in if our food and fuel crops were wiped out by a climate change disaster, even if just for one year? How can you fight global warming if you don't have any grain to convert to fuel? How many people would starve?

Isn't it time to accept the serious possibility that going green by going yellow might be impossible and even harmful?

Technology provides the possibility of producing automobiles, even SUVs, that are 75 percent more fuel efficient than today based on Today's technology - not on fuel cells nor the hydrogen economy.

Carbon-fiber plug-in hybrid vehicles would enable the far majority of Americans to use only electricity to power their vehicles almost ALL of the time. Still, in an emergency, such hybrids could still use ethanol, gasoline, diesel, hydrogen etc. if electricity was not available.

Isn't it time to set aside political pork and payoffs? Isn't it time to get serious?

Hoping for a smart green revolution from Congress

There has been much buzz in the media regarding how the Democratic control of Congress is going to help the green revolution. While there is no doubt that Democrats will pass more 'green' legislation than the previous Republican Congress, there is still much cause for concern. For example, "The politics surrounding environmental issues have proved hard to predict, largely because the potential economic impact of stronger regulation tends to scramble partisan loyalties. Democrats from auto-making states, for example, have fought efforts to mandate stricter miles-per-gallon rules for vehicles." (more)

Currently, the top buzz words coming from the Democratic agenda have largely been focused on global warming and alternative fuels, especially ethanol.

Obviously, global warming is an important issue, but when there are studies that indicate that far more global warming pollution is caused by the livestock industry than all the emissions from all forms of transportation combined, one has to take pause. Of course we should make cleaner automobiles; however, why is the smaller problem the center of all the global warming attention?

Even worse, it seems the Democratic preferred answer to global warming is ethanol. First, corn-based ethanol is not very environmentally friendly. Yes, it might be more environmentally friendly than petroleum, but is it enough more? Without doubt, I say no. Second, ethanol is also seen as a way to protect American automobile jobs, but at what cost? I simply don't see how E85 Hummers, Expeditions and Nitros are really an answer to global warming, foreign oil dependency or American jobs - at least in the long term.

Over the last several decades, almost every single advance in fuel efficiency has only produced heavier and more powerful vehicles - resulting in greater foreign oil dependency and pollution. In order for America to truly fight global warming and foreign oil dependency, while protecting American jobs, very advanced technology will be required - as fast as possible.

The entire American automobile psyche must evolve.

Of course, ethanol can help, particularly if it is used to top off a flex-fuel plug-in hybrid vehicle that only needs a few gallons of liquid fuel every month - if ever. Yet, I have heard very little coming out of the Democratic camp regarding hybrid cars and real world legislation.

If America takes the slow road to advanced hybrid technology, Toyota won't. Hyundai probably won't either. And if you make it profitable for American automakers to make E85 guzzlers, then you can expect to wait far longer for American automakers to focus on flex-fuel plug-in hybrids.

Ultimately, American automakers and American consumers have to change dramatically, and that change will require significant help from the government. Hopefully, Congress will focus on the the future, not just today's political pork and paybacks.

Is global warming the MAIN reason to oppose ethanol

O.K., global warming isn't the main reason to oppose ethanol, however, global warming is the main reason to oppose ethanol as the solution to both foreign oil dependency and global warming gases. How can we put all our eggs in the alternative fuels basket when the same scientists warning the world about global warming also claim that today's global warming is going to lead to extreme weather, such as mini-ice ages, extreme droughts, massive hurricanes, flooding, etc, etc.? All of these conditions could wipe out the entire grain belt of the U.S. - our energy supply (not to mention our food supply) - for a year, for a decade, for a millennium.

While there is nothing wrong with pursuing alternative fuels, they cannot be pursued at the expense of efficiency.

Today, hybrid cars offer the greatest tool for efficiency. In addition, hybrids can utilize any alternative fuel developed. Most important, however, creating lighter vehicles with plug-in hybrid technology could easily increase fuel efficiency by more than 50%, even as much as 75% if carbon fibers, instead of steel, were used to build automobiles.

In the short term, alternative fuels are a distraction - an excuse - enabling automakers to continue to build more and more inefficient vehicles. 'Yes, it's a 12 mpg Hummer, but it uses flex-fuel' is neither the answer to energy dependence nor to global warming.

Global Warming - It's the cows, not the cars

So, you want a gas-guzzling SUV, but you're afraid that people will accuse you of destroying the environment? Too bad, they will probably keep harassing you if drive a gas-guzzling SUV. Nonetheless, you could stop eating beef and let them know that you are fighting the REAL source of global warming.

"Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together," states a new 400-page report by Britain's Food and Agricultural Organisation according to The Independent.

From fertilizer production to transportation to deforestation and pollution, eating beef is causing FAR, FAR more problems than even driving a gas-guzzler - at least in terms of pollution. Still, don't eat your veggie burger in your Hummer and think everything is O.K. - you're still funding terrorism and risking National Security.

CAFE or Tax incentives: Best path to increased fuel economy?

Whether you want to fight foreign oil dependency or to help reduce global warming, increasing the fuel economy of automobiles is one of the best paths to achieving both goals.

So, what is the best path towards increasing fuel economy?

Many environmentalists, for example, believe that increasing CAFE to 40 mpg in the next decade is the best path. Yet, critics point out that CAFE has achieved very little since its inception. As a result America continues to increase fuel consumption year after year, critics often point out.

Additionally, the majority of Congress - both Democrats and Republicans - believe that increasing CAFE to 40 mpg would destroy the entire American automobile industry.

While I am an advocate for increasing fuel economy and even increasing CAFE, I do not believe that simply raising CAFE to 40 mpg is a very good solution. Technology must be a key component.

Inevitably, America needs a vibrant auto industry to help keep the economy strong. Surely, inept leadership at the Big 3 deserves much blame for their current weakness and our oil problems, as does every President and Congress in the last 20 years. Nonetheless, however, the past is the past, and it is time to move forward.

I say we can do better than 40 mpg in the next 10 years, far better. Hybrid vehicle technology is proving that we can surpass 40 mpg in the next decade if we use new technologies and start thinking outside of the box, and we should.

By giving citizens the financial power to offset the cost of hybrid technology with tax incentives, there will be plenty of reasons for automakers to start building more and more such hybrid vehicles. Additionally, tax incentives and some auto industry subsidies are a move that will pay for themselves in the long run via less military protection of oil supplies. Furthermore, would you not rather help subsidize American auto-workers to build super fuel efficient vehicles based upon important developing technologies, rather than to pay for their unemployment benefits?

Ultimately, foreign oil dependency and global warming do not have to be a crisis. Instead, let foreign oil dependency and global warming be an opportunity for American automakers to fully embrace advanced technology as the path to high-tech American jobs, a strong American economy, and a clean and secure country.

Ending foreign oil dependency as quickly as possible is one of the most important things the U.S. can accomplish in the next couple of decades. Achieving this goal will take far more than CAFE, it will take open minded consumers and a lot of tax incentives.

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

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

Do you agree?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fuel efficiency (carbon) tax for gas-guzzlers?

In 2009 it will cost those living in London $48 dollars per day to drive in the city center, if they drive a gas guzzler. While this is a high fee, it is intended to reduce carbon emissions and make consumers responsible for their choices.

While President Bush hasn't been much of an advocate of the carbon trading system, many experts believe such a system is inevitable. Of course this carbon trading system would eventually have an effect on prices that consumers pay, but that price effect would probably be spread out amongst all products. Hence, the price of an economy car might see the same increase as the price of a gas-guzzler.

Would that be fair?

Consequently, would it be a good idea to create a carbon tax for consumers? Owners of SUVs and many other vehicles, such as gas guzzlers, regularly mention freedom of choice. Fine. Still, gas-guzzling does have an impact on the environment that affects even those whom choose not to drive gas-guzzlers to protect the environment.

Is that fair?

Thus, should these gas-guzzlers be forced to pay for their pollution and global warming emissions via a carbon tax or fee, especially when driving in urban areas where congested driving conditions cause the most pollution?

What do you think about a consumer based carbon tax?

Are Democrats AGAINST the hybrid vehicle revolution?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even oil man Bush understood that issue.

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

GM set to go hybrid, then all electric?

So, GM is canceling their hydrogen fuel cell program? Well, not exactly, but it appears GM is finally beginning to understand that the world doesn't have to wait for hydrogen fuel cells before getting serious about fuel economy and pollution.

"What started as a fuel cell project is now an electric vehicle project," GM's Bob Lutz told the Automotive News recently.

"A series hybrid could run primarily on electricity from lithium-ion batteries, with an engine as backup to replenish batteries, Lutz says. The backup engine could be a diesel or gasoline internal combustion engine. Backup energy also could come from a fuel cell."

Of course, Toyota has claimed this same idea for a number of years, although their approach is a bit different. Even fuel cell makers have been calling for plug-in hybrid vehicles because they make a smaller, cheaper fuel cell stack much more cost effective to add to a vehicle.

Still, the costs of the batteries, fuel cell stacks, etc for either an all-electric fuel cell vehicle, or a plug-in hybrid fuel cell vehicle, will probably be very high for several years and maybe even a decade or longer. Which is why current hybrid technology is so important.

If not for current hybrids, GM wouldn't even be having this conversation. If not for current hybrids, plug-in hybrids wouldn't even be a buzzword in the auto industry. If not for current hybrids, there wouldn't be enough upside to develop lithium-ion batteries for automobiles.

Today's hybrid vehicles, with today's hybrid technology, are an investment in lithium ion batteries and in fuel cells, in addition to being a way to begin to reduce foreign oil dependency and global warming emissions. With today's hybrid vehicles we can begin changing the world TODAY.

It's about time GM has gotten with the program. Let's just hope this revelation isn't just hot air! America, the world, needs GM to do the right thing now more than ever.

Toyota's huge hybrid vehicle mistake?

When it comes to hybrid vehicles, Toyota is the undisputed king. The Toyota Prius is by far the world's best selling hybrid, and Toyota offers the largest lineup of hybrids of any automaker.

Still, I think Toyota might have played its hybrid hand a bit better, or maybe there is a kink in Toyota's hybrid vehicle chain?

With low gas prices, sales of pick-up trucks are picking up, and GM and Ford are leading the way. This is one vehicle segment that American automakers understand well, and it is the most important vehicle segment for American automakers.

Consequently, Toyota's recent advertising campaign for its trucks has really surprised me, but not in a good way. Apparently, Toyota trucks are so tough that neither the Loch Ness Monster nor even a meteorite could damage one.

Please! Is Toyota serious? Is this how Toyota is going to challenge Ford and GM trucks?

Toyota, I believe, has to take a completely different approach, and I think a hybrid truck would have been the perfect buzz creator. For instance, imagine how easy it would be to attack the Chevy Silverado hybrid with a Toyota full hybrid truck - the emissions and fuel economy comparisons would be a joke.

Sure, hybrid trucks aren't going to outsell conventional trucks. Still, focusing on Toyota's hybrid trucks could bring a lot of buzz to all Toyota trucks, just as the Prius has driven much positive PR to all Toyota vehicles.

So, why isn't Toyota acting? Instead of a hybrid truck, Toyota has resorted to cheezy commercials?

Is Toyota's hybrid powertrain insufficient for some truck duties, such as towing a boat or camper? Is this a kink in Toyota's hybrid powertrain? Will GM's dual mode hybrid powertrain handle these tasks better?

Many might believe that truck drivers are nothing but a bunch of good ole boys - don't believe in global warming, don't tell them what to drive. While some might fit this profile, I bet a bunch of 'em fully believe in the dangers of foreign oil dependency and would be very open to hybrid trucks.

Toyota could have framed a new debate around hybrid trucks, Americanism and foreign oil dependency. Moreover, I'd bet they could have sold as many hybrid trucks as hybrid Highlanders, and considering the importance of the truck segment, wouldn't a hybrid truck have been worth a try?

Foreign oil dependency makes America stronger!

Do you think foreign oil dependency makes America stronger? In today's world, isn't that a stupid question?

Yet, it seems many Americans either believe that cheap foreign oil is good for America or that it poses little threat to America's National Security. Otherwise, how can the continued purchasing of gas-guzzlers be justified? How can the lack of hybrid vehicles from 2 out of 3 of Detroit's automakers be explained?

I often criticize GM for its lack of leadership in fighting foreign oil dependency. Does my criticism stem from my perpetual hate of anything GM? Absolutely not. It stems from the immense power GM has to take a leadership role in fighting oil dependency coupled with GM's refusal to do so.

Ultimately, I would gladly buy a GM hybrid vehicle - as long as it was a full hybrid vehicle. Unfortunately, GM just doesn't have any full hybrid vehicles available yet.

Why?

Well, just a few years ago important GM executives, such as Bob Lutz, publicly ridiculed hybrid vehicles and those automakers investing in them, which is particularly offensive since billions of taxpayer dollars were given to Detroit to develop similar vehicles back in the 90s.

Sure, GM has been claiming the future will be fuel cell vehicles, but they've been saying this for decades and they might be saying it a few more decades before it is a reality. Still, everything that can be done to fight oil dependency today, needs to be done today.

Quite simply, today, the hybrid vehicle is the best course of action in the war on oil dependency. The hybrid powertrain by itself is already efficient and will become even far more efficient. More important, however, the hybrid powertrain enables the integration of clean diesel, flex-fuel, electricity, hydrogen and fuel cells into the same powertrain.

Today's technology, such as a clean diesel hybrid, could produce vehicles that are 50 percent more efficient than today's vehicles. What are we waiting for? Too expensive? No way! There are enough subsidies already being wasted on big oil and other pork barrel legislation to provide the tax incentives needed for consumers to make clean diesel hybrids cost effective.

But, clean diesel hybrids are just one slice of the potential hybrid pie. In areas where ethanol makes sense, flex-fuel hybrids could be built. Add plug-in technology to both diesel hybrids and flex-fuel hybrids and you might only have to fill up on trips greater than 40 miles.

Imagine only filling your vehicle up a couple of times per year.

In the Southwest, such plug-in hybrids could make solar power far more cost-effective, enabling homeowners the ability to power their homes and their automobiles. Imagine never paying an electricity bill nor to fuel your automobiles. How's that for fighting global warming?

Of course these vehicles could also eventually develop into hydrogen powered hybrid vehicles, or fuel cell hybrid vehicles, but foreign oil dependency could be ended without either of these innovations. We don't have to wait for the holy grail, fuel cells. We just have to start demanding action right now.

To be fair, it's not as if GM is evil and Toyota is a saint. Neither automaker is doing enough. Nonetheless, considering the trends of the last few decades, such as previous oil embargoes, Katrina, global warming, and 9/11 isn't it finally time to say enough is enough?

And I say, it's especially time for GM, the most important automaker in America and one of the most important American companies, not to just act, but to take the lead. GM has the kind of loyal following to buy these war-effort vehicles and the political power to force the government to assist with subsidies and tax incentives for these war-effort vehicles.

Instead of using that billion dollar GM marketing budget to market gas-guzzlers, market the fight against the war on foreign oil dependency and global warming. It's our GM hybrid vehicle, it's our national security.

I don't think there is a company that could do more for America than GM if GM began to look at foreign oil dependency and global warming as a war, a war that GM was leading the battle against at ALL costs - even bankruptcy. That is simply a battle that GM would not and could not lose today.

Bob Lutz has admitted that GM could have taken a FRACTION of their YEARLY marketing budget to develop a hybrid to rival the Toyota Prius. Yet, they willfully continue to chose to spend that money marketing gas-guzzling - even AFTER 9/11. Stop!

Before 9/11 most Americans had their heads buried in the sand regarding the consequences of America's addiction to oil. Sometimes when something is so good, it's just better not to ask questions. After 9/11, however, there is no excuse not to act. Now America needs GM to do the right thing more than ever.

If 9/11, Katrina, Iraq and all the threats about global warming are not enough to get America to realize it is time to change, what will it take? Would the deaths of 10,000 or 100,000 citizens be enough? Do we need a third world war, or the loss of a major city, such as New York? Would that finally be enough?

Then again foreign oil dependency has nothing to do with 9/11, Iraq or global warming, right? Foreign oil dependency makes America stronger!

The real problem with Al Gore: Global warming, Japan and hybrid cars

Just as Al Gore is beating the drum on global warming and inciting his treehugging supporters into a frenzy, almost every government in the world is spending less money to fight global warming according to the NYTimes.

For example, U.S. spending into global warming research and development is half what it was just 25 years ago, but it isn't just the U.S.

"Internationally, government energy research trends are little different from those in the United States. Japan is the only economic power that increased research spending in recent decades, with growth focused on efficiency and solar technology, according to the International Energy Agency."

Ironically, many energy experts expect total energy use to increase by some 50 percent in less than 20 years, with most of this increase coming from China and India. If we can't get control of energy consumption now, how are we going to do better in the next 2 decades when issues such as Kyoto don't even include these countries?

This should be cause for serious concern if you believe Gore. If the world is almost past the point of no return, yet energy consumption is still rapidly increasing, isn't Gore's battle already over?

I say Mr. Gore is simply telling the wrong story. Mr. Gore is a politician at heart, rather than an activist, and in the back of his mind, I think, Gore is simply posturing for another run at the Presidency. Global warming, Gore believes, might just be his ticket back to the big white house, and I say he's right, but he's also missing the point and his opportunity.

(Full Story)