America's only hope for energy independence?

Only fuel cell hybrids can save us?

Most these days claim fuel cells are a dream, but are America's plans for energy independence or serious reductions in global warming emissions any less of a dream?

Study after study demonstrates the fickleness of consumers towards embracing hybrid cars, especially plug-in versions. Likewise, according to most studies, achieving energy independence and serious reductions in global warming emissions via battery-powered vehicles requires gas prices as high as $7.00 or $8.00. Ironically, at such prices, most consumers would buy cheaper cars, not more expensive plug-in versions, studies have suggested.

More important, however, what are the chances of selling such a gas tax to America, or a robust enough cap and trade plan? It seems neither has any chance, despite the overwhelming evidence indicating the need for either one or both. Ultimately, Americans want everything without giving up anything.

Certainly, the key might not be fuel cell hybrids; however, can anything other than a major technological breakthrough - a dream - save America? Equally important, is there any chance America can achieve any such breakthrough without a leap of faith forward?

When America decided to reach the moon, for instance, our leaders didn't ask if it was possible, we had to make the impossible, possible. Is clean energy independence any different?

$7.00 gas only way to curb global warming emissions?

Harvard's eye-popping study

To reach President Obama's global warming emission's cuts, according to a new Harvard study, gas prices will have to reach $7.00 per gallon.

Sadly, tax credits for hybrid cars and EVs were not seen as an effective path towards reducing emissions, as such tax credits can actually make people drive more according to the soon-to-be-released study.

However, if actions are not taken, vehicle miles traveled, and therefore emissions, are expected to increase 30 percent between now and 2030.

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?