Even with Democrats, no Toyota hybrid tax credits. Does America suck?

Is leaving Iraq a solution or a distraction?

While Democrats keep beating the Leave Iraq drum, they continue to do little to resolve the problem that eventually pushed America into Iraq in the first place: oil. While there isn't anything that can be done to immediately end foreign oil dependency, there are small actions that create strong messages that could result in real action. Extending Toyota's tax credits is one such action.

Besides, Toyota deserves the extension. Hybrid cars, plug-in hybrid vehicles - these vehicles wouldn't even be on the world's radar if not for Toyota. Even today, the Big 3 - led by GM - can't get off the ethanol crazy train. Fortunately, even the mainstream media are finally starting to address the truth about flex-fuel vehicles and corn-based ethanol - its a scam (See BW).

--> Finish Democrats suck: Why no Toyota hybrid tax credits

Toyota hybrid tax credits: Where are the 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

CAFE leaders: Republicans or Democrats?

Aren't Democrats the ones making CAFE and global warming a platform?

Michigan's U.S. Rep. John Dingell, the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairmen who was irate with Nancy Pelosi and her global warming committee creation is now irked at Bush for increasing CAFE.

According to the DetroitNews "Dingell asked that key documents used to create the proposed changes to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards for cars and trucks be turned over by Feb. 1." Dingel wrote that he needed the White House to "provide us with all analysis and documentation prepared by the National Economic Council supporting the president's energy proposal."

Nancy Pelosi and some liberal Democrats have proposed far more dramatic CAFE changes, yet now Bush is too environmental for some ranking Democrats? Never thought I'd see the day when Bush, the oil man, was too much of an environmentalist for important Democrats.

Will environmentalists be as tough on Dingell and similar Democrats as they've been on Bush, or is partisanship more important than solutions?

Democrats preparing to move oil subsidides to biofuels?

Already, ethanol is an incredibly subsidized product, as is the corn from which most ethanol is derived. Yet, the profit margins for ethanol producers are actually greater than oil profit margins. For many, this isn't a problem because of the belief than ethanol is more green than petroleum, or that ethanol helps reduce foreign oil dependency. Many Democrats in Congress also have the same belief and those Democrats are preparing to roll back tax subsidies for oil companies and use them for biofuels according to the Detroit News.

Increasing CAFE according to GM's Bob Lutz

GM's Bob Lutz is not a fan of increasing CAFE requirements.

"That effectively hands the truck and SUV market over to the imports, particularly the Japanese, who have earned years of accumulated credits from their fleets of formerly very small cars," stated Lutz.

Unfortunately, Mr. Lutz is probably correct. Yet, one must ask why couldn't GM accommodate the market that not only made Honda and Toyota so successful, but that has now - possibly - put them at a serious competitive advantage over American automakers?

Still, Congress has their hands full addressing this problem. Democrats have done a lot of tough talking about increasing America's fleet, efficiency, but will the tough talk end as just that, talk? Will Democrats continue down this path if it means the collapse of the U.S. auto industry, and the loss of tens of thousands of Union jobs, especially with a Presidential election just 2 years away?

Congress: Flex-fuel plug-in hybrids not flex-fuel guzzlers

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.

Will the new auto alliance be all about ethanol?

Dave McCurdy, a conservative Democrat, will take over the leadership position of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. Now that Democrats are taking over Congress, one might expect huge changes in fuel efficiency and global warming pollution. But should we?

"The Auto Alliance made a fine choice in hiring Dave McCurdy as its president," U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Dearborn, said in a statement. "His integrity is unquestioned, his political instincts are sound, and his exceptional judgment will serve the Alliance remarkably well." (more)

McCurdy, a conservative Democrat, and Dingell, a protectionist Democrat unwilling to risk any union jobs in the auto industry in the name of fuel efficiency, will probably be a perfect match. They will make a lot of noise, but not accomplish much, at least regarding fuel efficiency. They will, however, make those invested in ethanol very rich.

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.

American automakers need to embrace change and adaptability - something E85 doesn't provide

Last week I questioned an editorial by the Detroit News regarding fuel economy because of its complacency, and it's inability to foresee and realize that change must be realized by American automakers. Today, however, Daniel Howes of the Detroit News is singing my tune, telling politicians to give up the blame game while also telling Michigan and the Big 3 that it's time to change.

"The only questions are how and how quickly. Not, why us? Nor who's to blame for tampering with what U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow likes to call "our way of life" -- as if Detroit's automakers, their unions and others are immune to the laws of supply and demand. They aren't, no matter how freely some politicians may be willing to manipulate reality to suggest otherwise."

"Apologies to Sen. Stabenow, but "our way of life" is strangling Michigan because it was never designed to adapt to a changing world, much less accept that the economy and competition would change."

Evolution is often driven by small constant changes. Toyota, for example, is driven by small constant changes focused on increasing efficiency. This process, or Kaizen, led Toyota to hybrid cars - a new platform to increase efficiency. Inevitably the efficiency potential of hybrids has barely been tapped. Moreover, hybrids are adaptable to flex-fuel, hydrogen, gasoline, diesel, biodiesel, or even electricity, and they can lead to advanced batteries and fuel cell development.

Ultimately, hybrids exude change and flexibility. Today's hybrids are gasoline-electric, but tomorrow's might be flex-fuel plug-in hybrids and not long after that they might by hydrogen hybrids, or plug-in fuel cell hybrid vehicles. Hybrid technology is changing rapidly, adapting to the future.

Today, Democrats and the Big 3 appear very close to becoming fixated upon ethanol, a fuel which requires little change for the Big 3. Ultimately, ethanol won't really make the Big 3 any more adaptable, and it just might lead to another decade of complacency. Alternative fuels can help America, but not enough. Only significantly more fuel efficient automobiles can lead to real change.

Detroit must "think anew", and ethanol just isn't new enough.

Are Democrats going to help the hybrid 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's fleet less fuel efficient today than 10 years ago

While GM claims to have more fuel efficient vehicles on the road today than any other auto manufacturer, GM's fleet is .05 miles per gallon less efficient than it was 10 years ago. Both Ford and Chrysler made slight gains. Toyota, on the other hand, improved fuel efficiency by 1.5 mpg over the same decade.

"Improving motor vehicle fuel efficiency is a win-win-win solution that would not only lower consumer costs and help decrease our dependence on oil, but also improve the future prospects of U.S. car companies," said Mark Cooper, the consumer federation's research director. "It is essential that the new Congress move quickly to approve higher fuel efficiency standards in order for these benefits to be realized."

Additionally the report noted, "It is significant that Ford and GM showed only marginal increases in the percentage of vehicles meeting CAFÉ standards and have suffered severe financial setbacks."

Kind of ironic that the same day the Big 3 and Democrats are blaming Bush for Detroit's problems, the facts seem to paint a bit different story. I thought the Democrats were going to rise above partisanship, end their ties with lobbyists and provide a new direction for America?

Auto lobbyists and Democrats meet to blame Bush for Detroit's problems

The Big 3's top lobbyists met with Michigan's top Democrats to prepare for President Bush's meeting with the CEO's of the Big 3. The message: Detroit's problems are not Detroit's fault.

While Bush has told the Big 3 to build more relevant automobiles, the Big 3 have not listened. Instead Detroit blames health care and unfair trade practices.

Regarding relevant automobiles, GM responded, "Five million who bought our cars last year think they're relevant," GM's sales chief Mark LaNeve told The Detroit News in May. "Twenty million owners that we have just in our database probably think they're pretty relevant. The 1.1 million (GM) jobs are also voters and probably think it's pretty relevant."

"There have been no steps taken by this administration to support manufacturing. They need to understand, and I hope the Big Three will be blunt and direct with the administration, that their competitors are not companies overseas. Their competitors are countries overseas," Senator Carl Levin said.

(Source: DetroitNews)

GM i-Car Campaign losing steam?

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

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

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

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

Don't expect Democrats to change much about foreign oil dependency

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

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

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

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

Some interesting quotes

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

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

Could ethanol become a boondoggle?

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

So, is ethanol worth the price?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it time to kill the Kyoto Protocol? Prop. 87?

Has the Kyoto Protocol become a joke?

In the next 20 years, energy demand is supposed to rise significantly and most of that growth is expected to come from China and India - two countries largely unaffected by Kyoto. How can this make sense?

Global warming advocates, such as Al Gore, claim we have to act right now or it might be too late. Still, even if all of the world, except China and India, began to meet their Kyoto requirements, the world would still fail because China and India would more than cover the difference and global warming emissions would still be far too high.

China, already the 2nd largest contributor of global warming gases, is seeing massive increases in global warming pollution every year. Yet, China is building a new coal power plant on average EVERY 3 days. At this rate, China cannot be given a free pass for another decade if a Kyoto type plan is going to be effective.

Quite simply, Kyoto was a good P.R. campaign that helped raise awareness of the global warming problem, but it is already meaningless, and it is time to move on.

Even in Europe, where global warming is widely accepted, the majority of countries are failing to meet their emissions requirements. Unfortunately, at this point in time, carbon caps are seen as too expensive in the short term and too costly to economic growth.

Inevitably, the world will have to think beyond Kyoto. Carbon caps, while a great idea, simply won't be enough. Technology and innovation are not only integral, but the keys to success.

More important, greater appeal has to be made to the consumers of the world.

In places like California, Proposition 87 claims to fight some of these problems by blaming the oil companies and taxing them for the problem.

Please. I guarantee loophole after loophole in 87 will ultimately lead to nothing - not even cheaper fuel - just the waste of billions of dollars. Propositions are about politics. If Democrats so strongly believe in this campaign why not ask the Democrat-controlled California Congress to do something?

First and foremost consumers have to change. Driving flex-fuel guzzling SUVs instead of gas-guzzling SUVs isn't going to change anything, except for maybe the final destination of energy profits.

In California the focus should be on fuel efficiency and getting every day people to participate in that battle. Big oil might be a problem in California, but a bigger problem is all the big Hummers, Expeditions, Tahoes, etc. filled with only one occupant 90% of the time clogging the freeways.

How does 87 or Kyoto address that?

Giving people excuses and someone to blame is simply counter-productive. The problem with 87 and Kyoto is that they require no action from the people. The people simply aren't part of the solution. Yet, it is only by rallying the people that real change will be achieved.

Of course blame is always easier than responsibility, and it makes for better partisan politics.

The War Against Global Warming: The Right Thing Or the Profitable Thing?

This week was a big week in the War Against Global Warming. California sued all of the major automakers for their green house gas pollution. Arnold Schwarzenegger, an unusual global warming advocate, has even given up his fleet of Hummers, and Sir Richard Branson is committing $3 billion to fight global warming.

Still, what does it matter?

It seems unthinkable to believe that California can win this case. Then, if it does win, the government will have to bail the Big 3 out of financial collapse, since Detroit's best still haven't figured out how to be profitable aside from gas-guzzlers.

How will that affect the economy and every day Americans? Chances are, it probably won't be a good thing - not in the short term, and this could create a backlash against global warming and its supporters.

Ironically, it seems fighting global warming; however, is exactly what Detroit needs. What country in the world could gain more by ending foreign oil dependency - a key contributor to global warming? To do so would require the kind of imagination, creativity and technological innovation that could truly make Detroit, and America, great again.

Why isn't Detroit striving for greatness? Is American about nothing but the economic prosperity of the few at the expense of the majority?

Ultimately, California should never have had to take this action. American corporations had plenty of warning, and were given plenty of signs over the last few decades. These corporations, unfortunately, chose profits over the people and the people willfully complied.

For decades the U.S., under both Democrats and Republicans, has stuck its nose into the affairs of the Middle East - not for humanitarian reasons, but for our own selfish economic reasons - even at the expense of human rights. The only thing we cared about was cheap gas.

If America is more focused on profits and cheap gas rather than people, maybe Hugo Chavez and Bin Laden have a bit of a point. While I still believe in America far more than either of those two thugs, I can't help but complain, Isn't it time America stands for doing the right thing instead of the profitable thing?

We must do better, and we must start right now, not when Detroit can perfect the fuel cell and get the government to build the hydrogen highway. Fuel cells and the hydrogen highway are simply excuses to do nothing today.

Yet, what day is more important than today? As citizens, as politicians, as corporations - we can all do better. If we don't, tomorrow might not be such a nice place.

GOP finally gets tough with Detroit?

I like Daniel Howes of the Detroit News, but I think he wrote an absolutely ridiculous article, Top GOP leaders sending message to Big 3: Drop dead.

"But meet with Detroit's automakers? Nah, why should the president care whether U.S.-owned automakers, burdened by fierce foreign competition and cumulative decisions that threaten to swamp them, are fighting for their collective lives? Instead, key Republicans and the White House are reprising President Ford's message to New York back in the mid-'70s: "Drop dead."

Wow! So, was it Democrats that have protected Detroit's fuel inefficiency for decades? Was it Democrats that forever blocked increased fuel economy standards? Was it Democrats that protected SUVs for decades?

Give me a break, Daniel. If not for Republicans preventing the Carter administration from ending the SUV craze, before it even started, Detroit would already be a very different place.

Detroit should have realized that cheap gas couldn't last forever - that warning bell has been ringing, quite loudly, for decades. Sure the auto industry is important for America, but not at the expense of our National Security. America is literally spending trillions of dollars to maintain cheap oil.

Screw the unions, screw trade barriers. It all comes down to product. Ultimately, GM and Ford blew it. The first hybrid cars should have been American, without question. No country has more to gain by increasing fuel efficiency. More important, if fuel cells are the holy grail for Detroit, then hybrids make fuel cells happen sooner.

I say Detroit should drop dead until it starts acting like an American company - you know - a company that fights for freedom, not increased foreign oil dependency.

Democrats helped create the American Gas Guzzling Culture

O.K., so Republicans have ties to big oil, that's obvious. But can you really blame high oil prices completely on Republicans, especially when the price of oil is decided in the open markets by traders trading future shares of oil every single second of the business day? How do you manipulate that? Still, Republicans deserve criticism for their close oil ties.

In addition to oil, Democrats ridicule the President's minor CAFE updates, and they are minor. In fact, they are essentially worthless. Yet, less than a year ago, when Congress had a chance to significantly update CAFE, did Democrats make a stand? Heck no. How would Democrats funded by the labor unions that 'protect' autoworkers explain this to the Union leadership, to the workers that would lose their jobs - and to a huge endorsement and source of campaign money?

In reality, when it comes to high gasoline prices, Democrats are very dirty.

That's what makes the new Harbour Report North America 2006 so darn interesting. The Harbour report studies the efficiency of automobile production in the U.S. Surprise, surprise Japanese automakers, even those in America with American autoworkers, are more efficient than American automakers.

While Detroit is closing the gap, this gap still exists and has existed for decades. Today it takes the most efficient Japanese automaker 7.33 hours less per vehicle in labor hours compared to the least efficient American automaker. Less than 10 years, in 1998, the number was 16.56 hours.

What does this number mean? Ultimately, if you spend less time per vehicle, it is because you have less problems, or better quality. Thus, American workers working for American automakers have been spending far more hours producing vehicles of far less quality than American workers working for Japanese automakers.

Again, this has been going on for DECADES. Is there really any wonder why Detroit has faltered over the years?

Detroits problems are far larger than just currency, or benefits, such as skyrocketing health care costs. For decades American automakers have been producing inferior products while spending a lot more time - thus money - doing it, and labor unions have been a huge part of that problem.

Sure labor unions have helped provide good wages and benefits for American autoworkers, but they have also contributed to creating an uncompetitive, inefficient American auto industry.

According to the Detroit News much of the recent gain in American automaker efficiency has "come as a result of progressive operating agreements the company has negotiated with the United Auto Workers union. The deals limit job classifications and rely on a team-based approach to manufacturing."

Shouldn't this have been handled a decade or two ago?

Consequently, for decades, Democrats have significantly contributed to the trend of gas-guzzling in the USA. Despite their rhetoric, and perhaps unintentionally, Democrats are probably more responsible for the SUV craze in America than Republicans. While American automakers do produce fuel efficient vehicles, most of them are produced outside of the United States. U.S. automakers largely produce ONLY foreign oil gas-guzzling vehicles in the States, and to a large extent, Detroit has had no choice. Only gas-guzzling SUVs provide enough profit to keep the Unions happy and the company afloat.

When it comes to America's foreign oil, gas-guzzling culture, there is plenty of blame to go around.

Even worse, as we head into 2008, little seems likely to change. Recently Hillary Clinton sided herself with Detroit and has skewed her focus more towards oil companies and their lack of E85, rather than the monstrous gas-guzzlers coming out of Detroit.

Ironically, even oil man, President Bush, has told Detroit to build more "relevant" vehicles, such as hybrid cars. Without more fuel efficient vehicles, E85 will be a program that America spends billions of tax payer dollars on, yet it will result in little change.

Well, I guess that sounds about right for big party American politics.

E85 and Hybrid Cars: Hollywood, Democrats and Republicans

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

If CAFE meant bankruptcy for GM, still a good idea?

When Congress failed to pass legislation that would have increased CAFE less than a year ago, hardly anyone cared. Today, 10 states - essentially Democratic strongholds - are suing Bush for the problem.

Yes, the last time CAFE came before Congress, the majority of Republicans were against the legislation; however, enough Republicans did vote to change CAFE, if not for Democrats loyal to the auto unions also voting against CAFE increases. Ultimately, America's oil addiction has been perpetuated by both parties - even if one party is more at fault.

Still, can you blame some of these politicians? Their constituents probably would have lost even more jobs, and the entire American auto industry could have been pushed into bankruptcy if CAFE had been significantly increased.

On the other hand, Detroit should have beat Japan to hybrid cars, for example, but American leadership in automobiles has been missing for decades. Still, we can't wait forever for American automakers to get with the program.

So, all politics aside, if raising CAFE meant bankrupting GM, would the ends justify the means? Might bankruptcy finally be what is needed to get the American auto industry focused correctly, or is this going to far?

'A Prius in every pot': Not a kind smell

"It's taken over five years, but George W. Bush finally made a concession speech to Al Gore.

He conceded that America needs to conserve, by buying hybrid vehicles and developing new energy sources."

This is the lead to Maureen Dowd's A Prius in Every Pot editorial originally posted in the NY Times, in which Mrs. Dowd blames the entire gas crisis on Republicans, particularly Dick Cheney.

Just to be clear, Bush has been on the hybrid band wagon for at least year, even promoting plug-in hybrids last year, but why haggle over facts?

So, Mrs. Dowd would have us believe that Republicans like Cheney, Bush etc. would screw over Americans to make their oil co-conspirators rich at the expense of the entire Republican Party? So, these very rich Republicans are not only selling out their Presidential legacies, but the entire Republican Party, for a little more money?

That's just silly, especially since the current price of oil is decided in the open markets.

Certainly, Republicans deserve a great amount of blame for not helping to promote alternative fuels or alternative technologies, such as hybrid cars earlier. Democrats, on the other hand, deserve considerable blame for protecting the Unions of inefficient, gas-guzzling producing American auto companies.

For decades many Democrats have regularly joined Republicans, including recently, to prevent an increase in CAFE because they knew union members would lose their jobs.

More important, American citizens deserve much blame for not being more fuel efficient. When Europe pays $5.00 for a gallon of gas, did we really believe we could pay just $2.00 forever while always increasing our demand?

And to be fair, just what did President Clinton accomplish to reduce America's average fuel economy in his 8 years? According to statistics, nothing.

O.K., since gas prices weren't that high then, Americans didn't really care about this issue, so we just guzzled more gas. Was this also Bush and Cheney's fault?

Let's not forget, gas-guzzler sales really took off during the Clinton Administration, when Dowd's hero, Al Gore, was in office.

Inevitably, too many Americans, including most members of Congress, waste energy and guzzle gas. Earlier today I posted an article about how the members of Congress contribute to gas-guzzling. Most members of Congress are horrible conservationists and most drive gas-guzzlers, regardless of party.

With this kind of leadership to follow, is there really any wonder why America is in this energy crisis?

Inevitably, Democrats, Republicans, automakers, and many American citizens share the blame for America's oil problems. Too bad professional mudslingers, such as Mrs. Dowd, can't be more open-minded, dare I say fair-minded, for it is precisely this type of myopic, provincial vision that has caused this crisis in the first place.

Most in Congress lazy gas-guzzlers?

Congressional Hypocrisy?

When members of Congress went ONE block to a gas-station news conference to sound off on high gas prices, almost all of them drove, and the majority of them drove gas-guzzlers.

One Senator did drive a Prius hybrid car and John McCain actually made the extremely difficult, one block journey, on foot - an amazing feat!!!

"Since George Bush and Dick Cheney took over as president and vice president, gas prices have doubled!" charged Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), standing at an Exxon station on Capitol Hill where regular unleaded hit $3.10. "They are too cozy with the oil industry."

"She then hopped in a waiting Chrysler LHS (18 mpg) -- even though her Senate office was only a block away." (Washington Post)

So, Mrs. Boxer's plan is to drive one block, stop and wastefully idle, and then drive one more block? Now that's the way to fight high gas prices!

The actions of both Democrats and Republicans demonstrate why gas prizes are too high: Americans drive gas guzzlers and they are lazy.

At least these politicians could have driven some more hybrid cars, biodiesel or ethanol cars on this huge 2 block journey to help promote the kinds of technologies that can fight these high gas prices.

Apparently, most in Washington just talk about making a difference, instead of actually making a difference. It's people like Mrs. Boxer that are causing high oil prices. She who live in a glass house should not throw stones.

With such leadership, is the current state of America really that surprising?

'I don't care' about hybrid cars

Democrats often complain that George Bush doesn't have a mandate. I agree, but if Al Gore had won because of the popular vote, would he have had a mandate? Since both Bush and Gore could only muster up about 25% of the vote, wasn't the real mandate of the 2000 election, "I don't care"? In fact, has not only 'I don't care' become the mandate of most modern elections, but the mantra of America?

Speaking of politics, how about those tax incentives? No, I don't mean tax credits for hybrid cars and other fuel efficient technologies. Shoot, $3400.00 is small change compared to the $25,000 tax deduction you can take for buying a Hummer.

But who cares? If I can afford to gas-guzzle why should you care?

Sure, Nigerian rebels are kidnapping American oil workers and threatening to bomb foreign oil ships, and Iran is signing huge oil deals with China as it builds nuclear bombs. But who cares?

I mean so what if China started copying American oil consumption? Just because there wouldn't be close to enough oil for the world, who cares?

And that global warming mumbo-jumbo melting ice caps agenda, maybe that's just a part of your 'evolution' theory?

I say God bless American politicians. We cap tax credits for hybrids because we don't want too many of them and we cap them by manufacturer so that we can protect GM. Yet we don't put any limits on tax deductions for Hummers and other gas-guzzlers - we don't even monitor how many are using the deduction. Now that's American!

We're saving GM - isn't that what is important? With flex-fuel technology no one uses, faulty CAFE testing, and tax deductions we can make sure that GM will never have to take fuel efficiency seriously.

This is America, monkey boy, we don't have to think about the future or take responsibility for our actions and consumer choices - that's bin Laden's logic, not American logic.

Pollution, global warming, terrorism - who cares? In America cupholders are more important than fuel efficiency - at least for real Americans.

The importance of hybrid technology

Yesterday, President Bush told reporters covering the G8 that the U.S. seeks to utilize technology to help fight not only global warming, but foreign oil dependency as well.

Environmentalists were not impressed. Nonetheless, many environmentalists act like both radical Republicans and Democrats - it's either their extreme view or the highway.

While I would like America, and the world, to suddenly embrace conservation - it just isn't going to happen. The history of the world has been advanced by technological innovation. End of story.

Bush and Detroit have habitually pointed to the 'hydrogen economy' as the ultimate answer. Today's terrorist activities and the current escalating oil crisis demonstrate that the world cannot wait 2 or 3 more decades before achieving a solution.

Hybrid cars, especially the Toyota Prius, prove that the U.S. doesn't have to wait for the hydrogen economy. If everyone drove a Prius, it would drastically change America's foreign oil dependency, as well as pollution emissions.

Nonetheless, just as with conservation, the Prius is not the answer, but hybrid technology does provide a solid solution. It has become quite clear that Americans not only want choice, but they want power and size. The Prius, unfortunately, does not address those preferences.

Still, as Prius hybrid technology has been added to vehicles such as the Lexus RX400h, the Toyota Highlander hybrid, and the Ford Escape hybrid, the potential of hybrid technology begins to emerge.

It's still not enough many critics will argue, and they are right. Fortunately, that is the beauty of hybrid technology. The advances made in hybrid technology from the first generation Prius to the second generation Prius, for example, were simply fantastic. Like the technology behind notebook computers, hybrid vehicles could easily double, triple, even quadruple - not only their fuel efficiency, but their performance - in just the next several years.

This doesn't require a completely new energy infrastructure, nor does it require somehow making $1,000,000 fuel cell vehicles more cost effective.

And it isn't just Toyota. Honda will be releasing an updated hybrid powertrain in both its Civic hybrid and Accord hybrid that could truly challenge the Prius. As other manufacturers begin offering their proprietary hybrid technology, gains could be exponentially made.

The time for talking about the technology of the future is no longer acceptable. American consumers must demand that automakers either act today, or perish tomorrow, and hybrid technology is the first step.

The politics of gas and the importance of hybrids

This morning oil prices went higher and should push beyond $60.00 per barrel sometime this week. So what should America do? Well, if you are a California Democrat, such as Fabian Nunez, we should lower gas taxes and raise the sale's tax on everything else (more).

Suddenly, Democrats are starting to sound an awful lot like oil-controlled Republicans. The conservationist, environmentalist, anti-war party wants to increase foreign oil dependency so as not to offend consumers at the pump? Pure hypocrisy.

Unfortunately, it isn't just California Democrats, but many Union-controlled Democrats as well. Case in point, raising fuel economy standards in the U.S. While the majority of Republicans are against raising such standards - surprise, surprise - enough voted for change that Democrats could have made it happen, but they didn't.

Instead, Democrats, such as Nancy Pelosi, ridicule and blame the Republican party for every oil ill, when in reality, the Democratic party has conspired with the Republican party to maintain the status quo. The phrase think globally act locally could well be utilized by Democrats. Rather than blaming Republicans, change the turncoats in the Democratic party and make something happen.

Until then, BOTH sides of the aisle stink.

Obviously, Democrats, just as Republicans, care more about re-election than actually standing for something. The Union edict of Buy American or Eat your Import doesn't apply to America's foreign oil dependency - the main driver of pollution, global warming, terrorism, and two wars in Iraq. Isn't that convenient?

Hybrid cars might not be the perfect solution to foreign-oil dependency, but they are a huge step in the right direction. Unfortunately, selfish and ego-centric Americans appear unwilling to change their driving habits towards smaller vehicles, regardless of the costs. Thus, emerging hybrid technology can help create a bridge between larger vehicles and fuel economy.

The United States is a country that has succeeded via technology, and hybrid technology can help begin solving foreign oil dependency today. Instead, American politicians are going to promote cheaper foreign oil dependency. Brilliant!

Hybrid cars and marijuana!

O.K. there really isn't a direct connection between marijuana and hybrid cars.

Still, yesterday, I wrote an entry Marijuana, Hemp, and Hypocrisy discussing a perspective of the Supreme Court ruling affirming federal jurisdiction over state's rights and marijuana.

Essentially, I argued that the issue should have never come before the Supreme Court - this is an issue for Congress and I discuss the hypocrisy behind government campaigns, such as Hemp for Victory and the continued law against growing hemp in America. Basically, since hemp is almost like marijuana - even thought it can't get you 'high' - it still has to be illegal because it is related to marijuana.

Yet, I find myself amused about stories of Henry Ford growing fields of Hemp to fuel his automobiles. And how Dupont and Mellon, Treasury Secretary of the U.S., and petroleum supporter and investor, conspired against hemp - in the guise of marijuana - to eliminate not only a competitor of the petroleum industry, but cotton, tobacco, and almost every other important industry of the day.

Then there are stories of how tire, petroleum, and auto industries bought out the original Los Angeles light-rail system, dismantled it and created freeway sprawl as well as today's most important automotive market - certainly no motive-driven collusion.

Ultimately, the story claims that Ford was against petroleum because it was so dirty - even then, in the early 1900's, oil was dirty and polluting. Ford was interested in biodiesel, hemp-biodiesel, but the robber barons were interested in petroleum.

And where has petroleum taken us?

The damage that foreign oil dependency has caused to America is beyond measure - SMOG, 911, and multiple wars in Iraq are nothing compared to the coming environmental costs.

Yet, Ford sells Ford Explorers and receives a tax advantage from the government because those Explorers 'could' fill up with ethanol gasoline, but don't. Thus, Ford receives a tax credit for fuel efficiency, even though it isn't. Good to see the government hard at work!

American automakers have become incapable of competing in the fuel efficient vehicle segment, so the government creates loopholes and tax incentives for America automakers to increase America's foreign oil dependency. Someday, they've said for decades, fuel cells will take care of the all the world's problems.

Thus, Congress - Democrats and Republicans alike - continue to ignore the importance of fuel efficiency to reduce foreign oil dependence, to help reduce funding for terrorism against the U.S., to help American auto companies become more competitive, and to help the damned environment.

If you don't believe in pollution, stop using your plumbing and just crap in the backyard for a few months and then tell me there is no such thing as pollution or global warming. What is wrong with people?

Those whom argue against global warming constantly try to say the science is not 100%. While that is true, the science? What kind of idiot can say pollution isn't a problem based on science, when the essence of science is based on the principle that for every action is an equal and opposite reaction?

Efficiency is the essence of natural science and fuel efficiency should be a national priority for America, but it isn't. Instead, the U.S. Congress rewards Ford for building gas-guzzling SUVs. Unfortunately, it is obvious that U.S. politicians and corporations represent money, not people.

Demand nothing less than hybrid vehicle efficiency and register to vote! The only thing that can change America, is the people.

Gas Prices, the Energy Bill and Congress

Since the Energy Bill passed the House of Representatives, I have scanned the media for a positive assessment of the Energy Bill.

I have been unable to find one.

A majority of Americans, ones that live near the poverty line - the ones you never hear about on the O.C. or on reruns of Beverly Hills 90210 - are coming up shorter and shorter each month because of gas prices. But, who cares about a bunch of hillbilly, disenfranchised Americans that don't vote anyway?

Definitely not Congress. Gas prices are skyrocketing and the blame falls on both Democrats and Republicans alike. The last President to really push fuel efficiency was Jimmy Carter, according to USAToday.

While it seems obvious that Republicans have oil-lined pockets, Democrats are not nearly as innocent as outspoken Nancy Pelosi-(D)California, would have us believe. Instead of blaming Republicans, perhaps she should start by questioning the UAW-controlled-Democra