Is the automaker bailout denying reality?

Time to rethink transportation?

The Brookings Institution has released a fantastic study on the relationship of the car and America that adds an interesting element to the auto bailout.

"America is experiencing its longest and steepest drop in driving, signaling a permanent shift away from reliance on the car to other modes of transportation. In the coming years, this shift will have far reaching implications for transportation, environmental, energy, and land-use planning."

Even before the run up in gas prices in 2007 and 2008, the report finds, American driving habits were starting to plateau. Since, however, American vehicle miles traveled dropped by 90 billion miles. Obviously, higher gas prices helped put a spike in this trend, but cheaper gas has had little effect on reversing this trend thus far.

Finish: Bailout warming: Love affair with the car over?

Fast Money talks gas tax

Time for a floor on energy prices?

The gang on Fast Money was talking gas tax the other day. Is it time?

Finish: Fast Money talks gas tax

Can Obama "bankrupt" the coal industry?

Leadership or naivete?

If elected, Barack Obama plans to put in place a cap and trade system that will "bankrupt" the coal industry according to The Record.

Considering the massive amount of coal that the US uses to generate electricity, such a system, it seems, could have a significant effect on utility rates for many consumers, as the replacements to this coal would be very expensive, especially in the short term.

Of course, if the US could get off coal and foreign oil, the technologies developed along the way would probably cover the short term costs in the long haul. Still, can anyone sell such a plan to the American people, especially in a recession?

I doubt it, but I'd love to see someone try. Hopefully, he'll throw in a gas tax as well.

Public transportation use up 6.2 percent

But tax revenue for projects down

Public transit use is up 6.2 percent compared to this time last year, according to MarketWatch as gas prices have forced commuters to rethink their commutes.

In a strange twist of irony, however, the decline in commuters using automobiles has led to a decline in gas tax revenue - the very same money that helps fund public transportation projects.

News from the Hybridcarblog

Americans love their trucks!

The whole CAFE issue continues to take much of the center stage in the automotive world - at least in terms of the clean and green audience.

Today, however, I say enough to CAFE. Sure, I think increasing CAFE is a step forward, but it is NOT a solution to either foreign oil dependency or global warming. Why can't Americans handle the truth? And, will the real fuel economy activists please stand up? Check out CAFE versus gas taxes, etc. for more.

More hybridcarblog.com stories.

- Sam's Club to sell lithium powered Smart Car?

- EnerDel to unveil lithium batteries

- Hybrid sales drop in September

Can America get off oil's crazy train?

$100.00 before $70.00?

Crude oil hit $84.00 per barrel today because a storm building in the Gulf of Mexico shut down a number of platforms, and if the storm actually develops into a rig-destroying hurricane, $100.00 oil could be just around the corner.

Many, such as Boone Pickens, have suggested that $100.00 oil is coming, but most have predicted that such a level would not be achieved until next year's summer driving season at the earliest. The sudden resurgence of hurricane season, however, has changed everything.

One wonders, how long can America's oil craze continue?

Iraq, 9/11, oil-funded terrorism, oil-funded takeovers of iconic American businesses and financial institutions. What will it take for America to declare war on foreign oil dependency? Will we drive the oil crazy train to economic collapse?

Isn't it time for Congress to reinstate Toyota's clean vehicle tax credits for hybrid cars to reward consumers for taking responsibility and to pressure automakers?

Isn't it time to consider a gas tax? Sure it will hurt, but the longer America waits to take serious action, the more it's going to hurt in the future, and it just might be fatal.

Energy security equals gas tax?

Hybrids not enough

"The United States should consider imposing a European-style gasoline tax if it hopes to improve energy security and tackle global warming," the head of Ford Motor Co. said Wednesday according to the AFP.

Congress and energy: Forget about it?

Wouldn't a gas tax be better than dead soldiers?

"The dance that is going on between automakers, Dingell and other members of Congress is disheartening to anyone looking for a meaningful energy policy that will make the U.S. less dependent on foreign energy sources and for the the U.S. to finally act like a world leader when it comes to energy consumption and pollution generation."

Great quote from an interesting article on the BusinessWeek Autobeat.

Here's another, "Without a sustained communications commitment, most Americans just won’t get the fact that we are already paying huge gas taxes to protect the source of Middle East oil. It’s being sucked out of our taxes already to pay for the War in Iraq and other foreign interventions. That is adding to the deficit, and costing thousands of American lives."

How can a gas tax to fund things like hybrid cars and biofuels be bad when were spending 100's of billions in Iraq and sacrificing 1000's of American lives for what - cheap oil to soothe our gas-guzzling egos?

Could a gas tax be America's best hope?

Without real action will the American dream go up in flames?

So, you don't like taxes, which makes you hate the idea of a gas tax. Furthermore, for working class Americans, a gas tax could make life extremely difficult, and it just might push the consumer driven American economy into a recession.

Nonetheless, what happens if an oil crisis irreversibly doubles the price of gasoline and other petroleum-based fuels sometime in the next few years?

Recently, I heard a statistic that America will increase its fuel consumption by at least 50 percent in just the next 20 years. At the same time, the IEA is reporting that an oil supply crunch in the next couple of years is going to make the U.S. significantly more dependent upon OPEC.

Well, isn't that great news!

Iraq is a mess that America is literally on the verge of handing over to Iran and Al Qaeda, as Iran develops nuclear weapons. Nigeria continues to unravel towards full scale civil war and Venezuela wants to partner with Iran to destroy American imperialism.

Yet cheaper oil prices are just around the corner?

Yes a gas tax will hurt, but not as bad as an unexpected foreign oil dependent driven catastrophe. So, let's use gas tax money to help Detroit build revolutionary automobiles, to help consumers buy hybrid vehicles and other clean technologies - in addition to more sensible vehicles. Plus, since a gas tax would be based upon the percent of petroleum content, biofuels would also become more cost effective.

America can choose to be proactive or reactive, but the problems caused by the politics of foreign oil dependency are only going to get worse. Will it be too late before America finally acts?

Mike Jackson plugs a gas tax

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

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

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

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

(Source: BusinessWeek)

More proof a gas tax could work?

Will $4.00 make any difference?

A new poll suggests that while $3.00 plus gas hurts, most Americans are getting used to it. And, while $3.00 gas is pushing more to consider more fuel efficient vehicles, it's mostly just causing consideration, not action. Will $4.00 be the magic number to force real change? Will we hit $4.00 this summer?

One thing is for certain. At $4.00 per gallon, there is no question about the cost effectiveness of hybrid cars, which makes me wonder, does this prove a gas tax could revolutionize America?

(Finish: More proof a gax tax could work)

Do the majority of Americans support a gas tax?

A fuel tax to fund alternative fuel research?

According to a survey released by the Civil Society Institute "more than half of Americans would support higher gasoline taxes if the money went to research into alternative fuels." (CNN)

I say, what a silly study.

While I favor a gasoline tax, I think the revenues derived from the tax should go only to consumers whom purchase hybrid cars, electric cars, plug-in hybrid cars, clean diesel vehicles, etc. Instead of using a gasoline tax to fund research, simply leave alternative fuels exempt from the tax. Thus, alternative fuels become more price competitive.

Giving tax revenue to fund research sounds too much like pork to me. Give it to 'the people', not to the people whom are owed political favors.

Poor fuel economy - Blame the consumers?

Yesterday, the director of the EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Margo Oge, told a crowd at SAE that automakers and energy companies needed to work together to achieve increased fuel economy and reduced emissions. Immediately, disagreement came from every direction, according to the DetroitNews. Is it hydrogen, is it ethanol, is it fuel cells, is it cleaner gasoline, is it hybrid cars?

While there was little consensus on any sort of answer to creating better fuel economy and reducing emissions, there was some consensus regarding consumers and their role in this conundrum. Typically, consumers want the cheapest fuel - regardless of emissions, regardless of foreign oil dependency - and consumers quickly tend to choose performance over fuel economy.

"The challenge we face is that a vast majority of our customers choose fuel based on cost and convenience even over concerns such as greenhouse gases," Shell Oil Vice President for Fuel Development Darran Messem said.

Steve Plotkin, transportation energy analyst at Argonne National Laboratory, added "Americans have chosen performance over efficiency for years," as he suggested that the government will have to mandate some standards.

I say forget mandates, let's do a gas tax. It makes consumers take action that will require a fuel economy-driven reaction from automakers. Ultimately, if consumers aren't part of the solution, then the problem will only get bigger.

Gas tax to fight foreign oil dependency and/or global warming?

Blah, blah, blah!

Sure you talk about global warming. Or, maybe you talk more about foreign oil dependency?

But what are you doing about it?

---> More on Would you support a gas tax to fight foreign oil dependency or global warming?

Canada: Tax the gas guzzlers, give rebates to hybrid buyers

The Canadian government plans to reward the makers and buyers of hybrid cars by offering a rebate of up to $2000.00 for hybrid purchases. On the other hand, gas-guzzlers could be taxed as much as $4000.00. (DetroitNews)

I still like the idea of a gas tax funded clean vehicle credit the best.

Gas tax best path to fuel economy?

I was told that a bunch of economists expressed to the Wall Street Journal that a gas tax was probably the best way to increase America's fuel economy. I think the idea is very interesting, however, only if the tax revenue is used only for clean vehicle tax credits for consumers. Thus, those whom buy E85 would only have to pay 15% of the gas tax, but if they drove a flex-fuel hybrid they would also qualify for a tax credit, such as the one in place for hybrid vehicles today.

Who is to blame for foreign oil dependency?

Automakers claim gas-guzzling consumers are key

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

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

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

What Congress could do right now: Extend hybrid tax credits and create a gas tax

Is Bush more green than Congress?

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

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

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

Power to the People

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

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

Prius sales defy reality and soar into the New Year

Are hybrid vehicles losing their appeal?

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

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

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

Could Phill power Honda sales?

Could natural gas give Honda some gas?

Yesterday, John Herrington, a former head of the U.S. Department of Energy, spoke about the importance of natural gas for California as an alternative fuel at the unveiling of a new CalSTEP program promoting alternative transportation fuels.

"Natural gas is an extremely low carbon fuel that is domestically produced," Herrington said. "It provides proven near-zero emission benefits unlike diesel or gasoline-powered vehicles, and is competitively priced at about $1.85 per gallon at our Clean Energy fuel stations."

Today, in California, only the Honda Civic GX still qualifies for HOV access, unlike any hybrid cars which have met their quota. Additionally, the Civic GX qualifies for a $4000 federal tax credit. Moreover, if GX buyers purchase Phill, the natural gas home refueling appliance, GX users can qualify for another $1000 tax credit.

It will be interesting to watch whether Honda can make any gains with Phill and the Civic GX under this new CalSTEP program.

Mad Money Host Calls for Gas Tax

O.K., I've been talking up the idea of a gas tax for a couple weeks now. Still, I know it's a crazy idea. It's so crazy I was originally against the idea, but I'm starting to feel maybe America needs to get a little crazy, especially at the consumer level. Then, as I'm flipping through TV stations, I catch Jim Cramer on Scarborough Country calling for a gas tax. "If you believe in national security, then we need oil higher not lower," Cramer told the host. Ultimately, Cramer said if natural forces don't take oil prices higher, then a gas tax is the next best path because only higher oil prices are going to force us to change.

Let's do it. I say we tax gasoline, which would make alternative fuels more competitive, and we can use the gas tax revenue to fund hybrid cars and other clean vehicle technologies.

Oil chief wants U.S. to reduce gas consumption

Shell's Chairman claimed Bush's proposed 20 percent reduction in U.S. gasoline consumption isn't enough. "Compared to that, Bush's proposal this week to reduce U.S. fuel consumption by a fifth was terribly feeble and a disappointment. Emissions from traffic are clearly less than half of total emissions," the newspaper quoted him as saying according to Reuters.

I'm not quite sure what the emissions statement means considering that the Chairman is not a proponent of mandatory carbon caps. Sounds like Chairman Jorma Ollila is engaging in some doublespeak?

Perhaps the Chairman would help fund a campaign for a gas tax since he cares so much, and he obviously realizes that the current cost of gas in the U.S. does not cover the environmental damage caused by gasoline consumption.

Could Davos 'Make Green Pay'

I watched a CNBC special yesterday called, Make Green Pay. Essentially, a panel and audience of business people attending Davos discussed a number of green topics seen as the key issues in the move from oil to clean energy. After a debate format, the audience then voted on 3 mandates.

First, the group overwhelmingly believed that nuclear and clean coal were not the best choice for the evolution from oil. Instead, new technologies, such as solar thermal, were seen as far better investments. Second, the group overwhelmingly acknowledged that government regulation would be key to making this transition happen. Third, the group was supportive of a global carbon tax, though the group was far more split on this issue compared to the other two. Primarily, there was concern that achieving global consensus on a global carbon tax would be extremely difficult and unbelievably time consuming.

Ultimately, it was clear that most everyone involved with the Make Green Pay show believed that the key to global warming and clean energy inevitably required innovative thinking - by governments, businesses and consumers. Essentially, the new energy paradigm will require an out-of-the-box mentality and responsibility.

For example, while many in America are concerned regarding global warming, they still demand cheap gas. Yet, $3.00 gas only covers the cost of drilling, refining and transporting gas - it DOES NOT cover the costs of environmental damage caused by gasoline. One way or another consumers will have to make this connection and accept some responsibility for this environmental damage.

Hmmm. Makes me think even more that a gas tax is a good step forward.

A gas tax and clean vehicle tax credits: The path to energy independence?

What's the best path to energy independence?

Why not make gas more expensive while using the gas tax revenue to reward consumers whom buy more fuel efficient technologies? Also, make that tax 85% less for E85, for example - let consumers reap the benefit of buying a flex-fuel vehicle if it works for them. Why should automakers receive CAFE credits - a tax saving loophole - for selling E85 functionality that is never used by the majority of consumers? In addition, empower the flex-fuel user - via tax credits - to save even far more with a flex-fuel hybrid vehicle.

--> Read the rest of State of the Union and Energy Independence: Power to the People!

A gas tax to fund clean vehicle tax credits?

Let gas-guzzlers fund hybrid tax credits?

It is not very common to hear support for a gas tax coming out of Detroit, but that is exactly what Daniel Howes is supporting in his DetroitNews column today.

"We Americans can have the collective attention span of 4-year-olds -- we want what we want when we want it and complain loudly when we don't get it," Howes begins his commentary as he ridicules consumers and "politicians-cum-nannies" whom have tried to blame everyone but gas-guzzling consumers for high gasoline prices.

Yet, once prices hit $3.00, consumer behaviour changed rather quickly, which is exactly why, Howes argues, that a gas tax - not the vilification of oil companies via taxes, etc. - would be the "quickest, if not the wisest, way to cut fuel consumption and change behavior".

Unfortunately, that's probably political suicide, even if it is the right thing. Inevitably and ultimately politicians are far more focused on maintaining power than on doing the right thing - but that's a whole other sad story.

Automakers and oil companies deserve blame, but consumers deserve at least as much blame. I think a gas tax is a great idea - as long as every cent of the tax incentive is given back to consumers whom buy hybrid cars and other clean energy technologies.

Ethanol industry wants more incentives

Forget concerns over rising food prices due to ethanol competition and a lack of land. Forget a 51 cent per gallon tax credit for ethanol blenders, in addition to massive tax subsidies for farmers whom grow corn. Forget the fact that ethanol from ground to gas tank is possibly the most subsidized industry in America. Despite all these things to forget, the ethanol industry still needs even more incentives to grow, including a huge ethanol pipeline to connect the Midwest to the East and West costs. (more)

Man, corn-based ethanol continues to create more and more questions that are harder and harder to forget.

Can Toyota achieve hybrid goals for 2007?

Toyota is hoping to leave all other automakers in the rear view mirror when it comes to hybrid vehicles. According to Just-Auto, Toyota "plans to sell 250,000 to 300,000 hybrid cars in the US in 2007, up from 192,000 in 2006."

With gas prices dropping, are such sales figures a reality, especially when Toyota's reduced hybrid tax credits are considered?

I hope Toyota is correct, and I hope that Congress extends the tax credit for Toyota hybrids. Toyota's success has made all automakers take another look at hybrid technology and serious competition is brewing. Congress should help keep it brewing by ensuring that hybrid technology remains accessible to consumers - regardless of automaker and regardless of dipping gas prices.

This Toyota FT-HS hybrid concept, pictured above, demonstrates what hybrid investment can accomplish, and this is just the beginning.

Tax incentives for hybrids, or oil companies?

Even in the final days of the current Republican led Congress, tax incentives for oil drillers are still of extreme importance. Even in these days of astronomical oil company profits, more tax incentives for oil companies are still far more important than tax incentives for hybrid cars and other clean vehicle technologies.

If filthy-profit rich oil companies can't afford to do more Gulf drilling without tax incentives, then too bad. If that means higher gas prices in the short term, then I guess it will just make alternative fuels and hybrid cars that much more cost-effective. Besides, the more we invest in alternative fuels and clean vehicle technologies, the less we'll have to be worried about the price of oil in the long term.

Hybrid tax credits protect Detroit more than National Security

Today, the Pentagon is one of the biggest proponents of energy independence. Why? Quite frankly, the cost of protecting America's oil habit is very expensive, and it is possibly the greatest threat to American National Security. Most citizens are even starting to understand the problems foreign oil dependency has and is creating. As a result, Congress created a new tax credit to help Americans purchase clean, foreign-oil-dependency fighting automobiles, such as hybrid cars.

The plan worked so well, that Toyota met its quota in less than a year, long before GM has even sold ONE full hybrid vehicle. Consequently, sales of Toyota hybrids have slowed in recent months. Sure, high gas prices have dulled people's interest in fuel economy, but it seems obvious that reduced tax credits are also an important part of the skid.

In America, where the virtues of capitalism, competition and free markets are loudly promoted in corporations and Congress, shouldn't such ideals also be used to fight for energy independence? If Toyota could sell another 60,000 hybrid vehicles right now, utilizing GM's unused credits before GM even offers a full hybrid, shouldn't they have that right?

Isn't protecting National Security more important than protecting Detroit's failures? Is America afraid to end oil dependency too quickly? Is the status quo really more important than National Security? Why are we punishing Toyota for doing too much to help America fight foreign oil dependency?

Why are there even quotas on the tax credits? There are no quotas on the tax incentives given to small business owners that buy the worst gas-guzzlers, yet there is NO incentive for small business owners to buy fuel efficient vehicles.

I guess that only makes sense to members of Congress.

While GM's Rick Wagoner can complain about unfair trade advantages and currency manipulation in places like Japan, Toyota has every right to complain about protectionist legislation coming out of the U.S. Congress.

If GM were forced to compete for those credits in a free market, you can bet they would have gotten more hybrids on the road much faster. Instead, Congress has essentially given them a safety net NOT to act faster.

Great job Congress! I mean its only our National Security at stake!

Energy Independence: Will America take action?

Oil dependence aids terrorists, funds dictators and gives millions around the world a reason to point their finger at the imperialist, capitalist and evil American empire. Gas guzzling greed has produced complacency and ignorance that has stunted automotive development by focusing on speed and power rather than than on efficiency and clean technology. This greedy, ego-driven focus - produced by cheap oil dependence - has severely weakened the U.S. auto industry and now threatens the U.S. economy.

And for what? So, that yours is bigger than mine?

American automakers, their unions and representatives in Washington complain about imports and outsourcing, yet turn a blind eye to our extremely dangerous oil imports. How can one import be so good, yet another so bad?

One political party protects the oil industry, the other political party protects the gas-guzzler builders. Yet, our environment and National Security continue to deteriorate as politicians blame each other for a problem each party has contributed in creating.

Now politicians on both sides of the aisle are preparing to make energy independence the core issue for 2008 - at least in terms of political soundbites.

Why are waiting until 2008? I don't care about the next election, right now. I don't care about lame ducks, right now. I care about today, right now.

Right now, Congress could renew tax credits for Toyota hybrid cars. Right now, we could give small business owners the same tax incentives to buy clean vehicle technologies that we currently give small business owners to buy the worst gas-guzzlers.

When America went to the moon, it inspired the development of so many technologies and industries. Right now, striving for energy independence could do the same, while increasing National Security and fighting global warming.

Why isn't America doing more? Shouldn't we be doing everything we can, right now?

--> More on hybrid tax credits, etc.

Who pays to increase CAFE?

A new survey by the Opinion Research Corporation demonstrates that, "more than three out of four Americans want the government to impose a 40-mile-per-gallon fuel-efficiency standard on American vehicles." (more)

Would those same Americans still want such a fuel efficiency standard if it was going to cost them an extra $5000 to purchase their vehicle? What if it was just $3000? What if it meant the collapse of the U.S. auto industry?

While surveys show that Americans are interested in fuel economy, far fewer Americans actually demonstrate this attitude in the show room. Sure, Americans might be moving out of some of the largest gas-guzzlers into slightly smaller gas-guzzlers, but the vehicles most Americans continue to purchase are nowhere near achieving 40mpg. Getting them to achieve 40 mpg isn't going to be cheap, at least not in the short term.

Consequently, I argued yesterday that tax incentives are key to achieving higher fuel economy. Ultimately, 40 mpg CAFE probably isn't going to happen, and if it does, there will be loopholes. Moreover, if Americans fully embraced advanced technologies, funded by consumer-based tax incentives, 40 mpg becomes a cake walk.

A carbon tax for gas-guzzlers?

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

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

Would that be fair?

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

Is that fair?

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

What do you think about a consumer based carbon tax?

Forget fuel efficiency because consumers don't want it?

This morning the Detroit News published an editorial against raising fuel economy rules because consumers aren't interested in fuel efficiency, they are interested in reliability, the paper argued. "Increasing fuel economy standards is again being pushed by advocacy groups, despite a clear mandate from consumers that other factors mean more when they go the showroom to buy cars and trucks."

As if automakers have done the greatest job in giving real choices to Americans. When you provide countless incentives to get someone into a gas-guzzler for less than a more fuel efficient model, many consumers will take that deal.

Additionally, the LATimes cited a report today showing that fuel efficiency is driving sales, at least in California. I guess the California auto market doesn't mean much to Detroit?

Also, while I understand consumer choice and believe in consumer choice, foreign oil dependency, according to multiple ex-CIA directors and many other security officials, is a significant threat to national security. Thus, is the paper arguing that consumer demand is more important than national security?

Let's also remember many Americans ARE choosing more fuel efficient vehicles.

Nonetheless, lets give consumer demand the benefit of the doubt. Let automakers build whatever they want. However, don't lecture me about the importance of America's auto industry when they are producing products that threaten MY national security. Don't ask me to buy American when it means giving money to terrorists and countries that HATE America.

In that case I will absolutely by a Toyota or Honda hybrid. I will ONLY buy fuel efficient vehicles, and I want the best fuel efficient vehicle money can buy - not some half-ass attempt.

Moreover, I don't want ANY of my tax dollars going to American companies producing products that threaten my National Security.

Consumer demand? Please! So, we should America remove all laws that ban any type of smoking because consumers demand cigarettes? Should we make all drugs legal because consumers want them?

While I'll acknowledge the fact that CAFE has largely been ineffective, I will not accept saying it is O.K. to build 14 mpg trucks that fund terrorism against fellow citizens because consumers want them. Something has to change. We can choose to make that change as a path to a more secure and prosperous future for America, or can we wait until our backs are against the wall and we are forced to change.

I guess it just goes to show how Old School so many Detroit-followers are still these day.

When I worked in the software field consumers NEVER wanted to upgrade, however, some software upgrades were required to make their software - their business - safer. Consequently, consumers really had no choice but to upgrade if they wanted to STAY in business.

The world changes, and when you work in technology you realize how quickly the world changes. Business at the speed of light, Bill Gates said of the digital world, which now includes automotive manufacturing.

Ultimately, companies that don't envision what customers will want in the future are doomed to the past. Whether Detroit thrives or dies WILL be determined by fuel efficiency - despite what consumer interest is today.

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.

Prius shortage over?

An increase in Toyota Prius production is finally catching up with Prius demand, which has lessened in the face of falling gas prices and reduced federal tax credits. Still, demand for the best selling hybrid vehicle is still very strong. Eventually such a trend should decrease the value of used Prius hybrids, which often sell for more than new ones. Nonetheless, it will take several months of dropping sales to actually create a surplus of Prius hybrids.

(Source: CNNMoney)

What's Up? Civic hybrid sales explode, Prius sales slip?

Sales of the Honda Civic hybrid were up 890% in October compared to October 2005, reaching 2,288 units sold. The Ford Escape hybrid and the Mariner hybrid hit 1,602 units combined, up 30.6% compared to October 2005. The sales of all other hybrid vehicles were down in October 2006 compared to October 2005.

So what is the story? Why are sales of the Toyota Prius, for example, down while the Civic hybrid is up? Or why are sales of the Highlander hybrid down, while sales of the Escape hybrid are up?

Well, I'd bet it all comes down to tax incentives. October was the first month that tax incentives for Toyota hybrids were cut in half.

While Prius sales were down about 12%, Toyota still sold 8,733 of the hybrid vehicles - far more than Honda's Civic hybrid. Nonetheless, it will be interesting to see what happens over the next couple of months. If gas prices begin to again go up, I think Prius sales will be fine despite the lower tax incentive. If gas prices remain stable, this downward trend might continue.

(Source: Green Car Congress)

Ethanol to increase food prices and fertilizer use?

Ethanol, ethanol, ethanol. GM loves ethanol. Most politicians love ethanol. Investors love ethanol.

I still don't love ethanol.

If GM loves ethanol, I have to raise my eyebrows a little. When politicians love ethanol I start thinking pork, and when investors love an industry that isn't price competitive without the help of the government - then I know my tax dollars are subsidizing their profit margins.

Then, today I read that now might be the time to start investing in fertilizer companies.

"Population growth and rising incomes have already driven the world's grain stocks-to-use ratio very low, with a record low 2006/07 ending ratio of 14.8 percent forecast. The growing demand for ethanol, in an already tight market, should take already rising crop prices even higher. These conditions encourage planting and yield maximization, which can be expected to increase world fertilizer consumption." (more)

So, save money on gas, pay more for your food? I guess there is no such thing as a free lunch!

Still, I'd gladly pay more for food to reduce foreign oil dependency and global warming pollution, however, I have a problem reducing my foreign oil dependency while increasing pollution into streams, rivers, lakes, oceans and groundwater via fertilizer and pesticide run-off.

I guess I'll still focus more on reducing fuel consumption, via better automotive designs, hybrid technology, etc, rather than on just switching to a different fuel. While I'm hopeful for cellulosic ethanol, I still have cold feet for ethanol in general.

Foreign oil dependency: Most Americans concerned, but irresponsible

According to a new survey most Americans are concerned about foreign oil dependency, and 87% believe the government can do something about the problem. Even more interesting, 41% believe it is "realistic to expect the government to maintain a steady supply of oil at a reasonable price."

Geez. Is there really any wonder that America is so dependent upon foreign oil? Talk about taking NO responsibility!!

What exactly do Americans want the government to do? The only thing that is going to reduce foreign oil dependency is using less oil. Sure, the government could ban SUVs, raise fuel economy requirements and offer tax incentives for hybrid cars and other clean technologies and fuels.

Inevitably; however, American citizens have to take some responsibility.

We're the ones driving gas-guzzlers. We're the ones who drive a block to the store to pick up a gallon of milk. We're the ones demanding bigger, heavier and faster vehicles - all of which decrease fuel efficiency. We're the ones driving Hummers with bumper stickers that say 'No blood, for oil'.

Sure the government can do more, it can force Americans to stop acting so irresponsibly.

Ford lies about flex-fuel and saves $135 million?

"A public advocacy group on Thursday said Ford Motor Co. has avoided as much as $135 million in fines by marketing vehicles that are supposed to run on the gas-ethanol mix E85 that don't work and accused the company of running misleading ads." (more)

Moreover, aside from the obvious, the fact is that for years the majority of flex-fuel vehicles sold by both Ford and GM have not ever filled up with E-85. Yet, each company has avoided millions and and millions in fines by selling these vehicles.

"Public Citizen and other environmental advocacy groups have long complained that automakers get credits to meet federal fuel economy regulations by building flexible-fuel vehicles that are hardly ever filled with E85, since it's available at just 900 of the country's 170,000 pumps."

So, Congress gives small business owners huge tax incentives to buy the worst gas-guzzlers, provides huge tax incentives to oil companies, enables the big three to avoid 100's of millions of dollars in fines for violating fuel economy regulations - increasing our foreign oil dependency, and limits tax credits for Toyota hybrid vehicles because they are too successful.

That sure sounds like the right path towards achieving energy independence.

Even the President says hybrids are possibly the most important way to change consumer behavior. Yet, Congress hasn't passed proposed legislation to provide small business tax incentives for buying hybrid cars or other fuel efficient vehicles, nor has Congress passed proposed legislation to extend hybrid vehicle tax credits.

Good work, ladies and gentlemen!

We live in a country that blames the President for quite a lot these days. Fair enough. Let's extend at least as much blame to the current - do nothing, partisanship is more important - Congress.

Flex fuel lies, foreign oil dependency and hybrid vehicle tax credits - Congress is failing America.

Bush worried falling gas prices will lead to foreign oil dependence complacency

"I believe so strongly that this country has got to use its talent and its wealth to get us off oil," Bush said. "Probably the fastest way we can begin to change the consumer habits -- is to promote hybrid vehicles."

President Bush made that statement earlier today in response to falling gas prices.

"My worry is, however, that a low price of gasoline will ... make us complacent about our future when it comes to energy," Bush said at a government-sponsored renewable energy conference in St. Louis.

I couldn't agree more. Already one new study has demonstrated that consumer interest is dropping significantly as gas prices are dropping, while interest in gas-guzzlers is rebounding.

Bush, who has asked Congress to extend the tax credit for hybrids earlier this year, again brought up tax credits today. Unfortunately, Congress has not addressed this issue. Perhaps, hopefully, once the elections are over an extension will be enacted. Otherwise, with dropping gas prices and smaller tax credits for Toyota hybrids, interest in hybrid vehicles could drop significantly.

(Source: Reuters via Yahoo)

Interest in fuel efficiency dropping with gas prices

According to Cars.com there has been less consumer interest in the Toyota Prius hybrid since gas prices started dropping. According to Cars.com consumer searches for the Prius have dropped by 37.8%. Cars.com claims this is part of a general drop in consumer interest for fuel efficient vehicles, whereas interest in gas guzzlers has increased.

I've long claimed that consumer interest in hybrid cars would be affected by gas prices. Still, gas prices, almost assuredly, will go back up and so too will interest in hybrids. Still, part of this drop in fuel efficient interest, especially for the Prius, might also have had something to do with reduced tax credits for Toyota hybrid vehicles.

Nonetheless, let's face it, the problems associated with foreign oil dependency, and oil dependence in general, aren't ever going away. Those whom choose to ignore this fact will pay the consequences. Hybrids might not make perfect sense today for everyone, but they will in a few years.

Plus, maybe a downturn in interest will create a buyers market for those interested in the Prius, especially a used Prius.

(Source: Car & Driver)

Tax credits: Hybrid cars versus plug-in hybrid cars

O.K., even oil man, President Bush, says we gotta end our foreign oil dependency, and I think the majority of Americans agree. Consequently, the big talk lately has focused on plug-in hybrid vehicles, and even the largest utility in California is now promoting plug-in technology (more).

I say, 'hold on'.

Plug-in hybrids are an excellent direction to push automotive technology towards, and getting the government involved is both wise and necessary. However, the current tax credit for hybrid vehicles is a far more important issue - for now.

Right now, the market for hybrid cars is dominated by the Toyota Prius. Yet, the Prius and every other Toyota are going to soon see smaller tax credits, quickly followed by no tax credits.

This is how Toyota is rewarded for doing the right thing? This is how consumers are rewarded for doing the right thing? But, back to plug-ins.

Plug-in hybrid technology just isn't cost-effective - at least not mentally - for most Americans. While the technology might pay for itself in the long run, Americans think about today, maybe tomorrow, not 7 years from now.

Plug-in hybrid technology just isn't there yet. Current hybrid vehicles are a hard enough sell for most with tax credits, but without.....?

That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for plug-ins. We absolutely should strive for plug-in hybrid vehicles, and nothing pushes automobiles towards plug-in technology faster than current hybrid vehicles. The more current hybrids that sell, the faster plug-in hybrids will hit the market.

Plug-in hybrids are a great idea, a great idea that might never see the light of day if tax credits for hybrid vehicles are not extended.

Almost certainly, millions of small business owners have received far more tax incentives for buying gas-guzzling SUVs, so I think the government can afford tax incentives for foreign oil dependency fighting hybrid cars - even if they are Japanese.

Join our campaign for extending the tax credits on hybrid cars.

Some hybrid vehicles break even in just 3 years!

According to a study by Edmunds.com, many hybrid cars now pay for themselves over time. For example, both the Toyota Prius and the Ford Escape hybrid can pay for themselves in just 3 years when gas is $3.00 and you drive at least 15,000 miles per year. Additionally, the Saturn Vue, Camry hybrid and Civic hybrid will pay for themselves in 6 years.

Of course, good things never last. Because tax credits for hybrid cars are capped at 60,000 vehicles per manufacturer, the full tax credit for the Prius and other Toyota hybrids, will only be available until Sept. 30. After that time, Toyota hybrid buyers will only qualify for half the tax credit.

As for the other hybrid vehicles, you still have plenty of time.

More hybrid vehicle incentives coming?

"Congress today will examine ways to entice more people to buy and use hybrid vehicles as the list of government-issued perks to gas-electric hybrid owners grows longer." (DetroitNews)

While there will probably be little immediate action today, let's hope Congress, minimally, ends the cap on tax credits for hybrid vehicles. Besides, isn't it about time America get's serious about fuel efficient technology?

Congress letting tax credits for hybrid cars expire

Thanks to a protective and short-sighted U.S. Congress, tax credits for Toyota hybrids are running out. While the President and some members of Congress have suggested extending this credit, Congress doesn't seem very interested at this point. Check out the NYTimes article, U.S. Hybrids Get More Miles Per Congress on this issue. Why isn't Congress acting? Congress constantly harps about high gas prices and the threat of foreign oil dependency, yet they do so little - other than TALK, TALK, TALK. I say fighting oil addiction is more important than protecting the U.S. auto industry if they can't or won't compete. Let's extend the tax credits for hybrid cars! (MORE)

Would you support a $1.00 gas tax?

Mike Jackson of AutoNation thinks the gas tax should be increased by $1.00 per gallon to get American gasoline consumption under control (more). In reality, gas taxes in America are low, would raising them be a good idea?

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.

Now that CAFE is dead, it's all about the tax incentives

High gasoline prices are only the most obvious, negative result of America's foreign oil dependency. The worldwide geopolitical crisis that America is facing in an effort to maintain its dependency on oil is the real, but less visible, problem.

Now that CAFE is essentially dead, or at least rendered useless, the only thing that can make a difference are tax incentives. Congress must give consumers strong tax incentives to buy hybrid cars or to use bio-diesel, for example.

If automakers don't want to develop such technologies - they don't have to - but let consumers reward those that can and will.

It is simply ridiculous that vehicles, such as the Hummer, can receive a $25,000 small business tax deduction - a tax incentive far greater than any hybrid receives. When the Hummer achieves 35 mpg, then it might deserve such a deduction.

It's time for Americans to make a stand and demand that we stop giving so many incentives to oil companies and the likes, and that we give those incentives to consumers that reduce their oil use, or that move beyond oil.

American automakers have thus far failed America, oil companies have failed America, and if Congress doesn't pass a strong set of tax incentives for consumers, not corporations, to buy clean technologies, they will continue their failure of America.

Let's not let it happen. (More)

Do Foreign Automakers really provide American jobs?

Starting today the Level Field Institute, founded by American automakers, retired automakers, and dealers are going to attack claims that foreign automakers provide American jobs.

I say stop complaining about foreign cars and start lobbying Detroit to build cars that foreign car buyers want. Not everyone in America wants a gas-guzzler or a truck and many are offended by how little effort and concern, over the decades, that Detroit has put into fuel efficiency.

Fuel cell, blah, blah, blah.

Moreover, it's terribly ironic and hypocritical for the American auto industry to expect Americans to protect American jobs when it also means increasing foreign oil dependency.

I have long believed that American companies, not Japanese, should have marketed the first hybrid cars. I can hear Bob Lutz now, "Hybrids don't make business sense!"

Well, then, why are you now building them, Mr. Lutz? Not to mention that Americans provided $1 billion tax dollars for the Big 3 to build them in the 90s. For Mr. Lutz, it makes much more sense to spend billions every year marketing the American virtues of guzzling foreign oil rather than investing in fuel efficiency. Now that's American leadership!

The Big 3 should have one cause today, ending foreign oil dependency. Yet, today, GM and Ford success, even survivability, is still hinged upon the success of today's worst gas guzzlers.

Stop blaming Americans for buying foreign cars and start making America a safer and cleaner country. If GM and Ford had cars that equaled the capabilities of the Prius, they would sell better than the Prius.

I know, I know, they just aren't profitable, foreign oil dependency is so much more cost effective.

Gas guzzling, Iraq, 9/11 and Fixing Foreign Oil Dependency

Gas guzzling kills

I love discussing the connection between gas-guzzling, wars in Iraq, 9/11 and other forms of terrorism.

"There is no connection between Iraq, 9/11 and gas guzzling," so many often say.

Really? So, why do we care so much about the Middle East, but not other areas of the world? Why did we stop Saddam in the first Persian Gulf War? Was it about human rights? If so, why didn't - and why don't we - care about the slaughter of millions in Sudan, or Rwanda?

Do we really care that much about people from Qatar?

One only need listen to Bin Laden's own words to understand that there is a clear connection between America's need, or greed, for foreign oil and 9/11.

But back to the point. Whether it is the cost of gasoline, fear of foreign oil dependency, or a desire to protect the environment, many realize that America's oil addiction cannot continue.

So, which is a better tool to fight this dependency, CAFE or tax incentives?

I say put the power in the hands of the people. Congress and corporations have had decades to make a difference and the only thing they've accomplished is perpetually increased foreign oil dependency.

I say let Ford and GM do whatever they want. Put the power in the hands of the people!!

Instead of increasing CAFE, take that high CAFE number and give a huge tax incentive to EVERY customer that buys a vehicle that meets that CAFE number. That's the best way to promote technologies, such as hybrid cars.

Increase CAFE and automakers will just find some kind of loophole to do nothing.

If you want to buy a gas guzzler, no problem, but you'll pay high gas prices and receive no tax credit. Buy a Prius, buy an Escape hybrid, even a Tahoe hybrid and you get a HUGE tax credit - as long as it meets that high CAFE number - plus you'll you use less gas.

Tax incentives for Hummers? Please!!!!!! This must end, as must any other corporate welfare and loopholes for automakers, as must tax incentives for oil companies.

Give this money to the people and let the corporations fight for customers. By, of and for the PEOPLE, not the corporations!!!!

Time to Declare War on Foreign Oil Dependency?

I think America is at War, a war that most Americans refuse to acknowledge, and the fight for independence from foreign oil dependency is shaping up to be the most important war America has ever fought.

Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey has become a huge advocate for ending America's foreign oil dependency, and he is very outspoken about the dangers of America's oil addiction.

"If you want to see who's paying for all that [extremism and terrorism], next time you pull in to fill up, turn the rearview mirror a little bit so you can look at yourself for a minute as you get out with your credit card," Woolsey said during a meeting with reporters and editors of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

Yet, Americans don't really think about that - to our direct connection to extremism and terrorism - instead we think about how expensive is $3.00 oil. Sadly, $3.00 oil is nothing compared to what could happen.

Aside from the problems in Iran, Nigeria, Venezuela, aside from hurricanes, aside from rapidly growing oil demand in China and India, an attack on Saudi oil refineries could have an even greater impact on gasoline prices.

How bad?

Today oil is at $70.00 per barrel, but if Saudi oil refineries were damaged - not destroyed - oil could easily climb to over $150.00 per barrel. Add intensified problems with Iran, or another major hurricane and who knows how high oil prices could climb.

What would a year of $7.00 gasoline do for the American economy? How high would $7.00 gas push the cost of groceries and other commodities? How would $7.00 gas help your commute?

What We Can Do

Fighting this war isn't a battle between ethanol versus biodiesel, or clean diesel cars versus hybrid cars. All of these technologies and alternative fuels MUST be utilized. Conservation MUST be utilized.

While politicians can blame one another, and citizens can blame politicians, automakers and the drivers of gas-guzzlers, blame will not win the war. While many in Congress blame other members, or the President, how many members regularly drive a hybrid car, fill up with ethanol or biodiesel, or maybe even walk a little more? Not very many according to recent reports. What about citizens?

Ultimately, little can be done in the short term to fix gas prices or to reduce foreign oil dependency. Today, average citizens must try to conserve, buy hybrid cars, use ethanol where available, or give bio-diesel a try. Moreover, we have to think about the future. We must make Congress and the President create more tax incentives for clean automobiles and clean fuels, not for Hummers and for oil companies.

Finally, we need to let automakers and politicians know that if they can't, or won't, help us fight this war, we'll find alternatives to them.

Join our campaign to make Congress Act.

$500 per person tax rebate for high gas prices?

"To ease the sting of higher gas prices," U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Lansing, "has called for a one-time, $500 per person tax rebate for people earning up to $119,950 annually. It would be paid for by rolling back $5 billion in tax breaks for oil companies." (DetroitNews)

Is this a good idea?

On Hubbert's Peak, $3.00 Gas Is Cheap

This morning President Bush said that America needs to end its dependence on oil, but he also noted that such a move will neither be fast nor easy. Again, Bush plugged not only hybrid cars, but plug-in hybrid vehicles. Moreover, he also asked for more tax incentives for buying hybrids and stated that all hybrid buyers should receive the current tax credit.

According to many scientists, $3.00 gas is only the beginning of why we should move on hybrids and other fuel efficient technologies as fast as possible. For if Hubbert's Peak has been reached, or is just around the corner, then America and much of the world will not be able to react fast enough.

On Hubbert's Peak, $3.00 gas is cheap.

So, where or what is Hubbert's Peak? It is the tipping point when global oil production begins a permanent decline. Some scientists think this point was hit in late 2005, others think it will be reached within 20 or 30 years.

In the next 20 or 30 years, global oil demand is predicted to skyrocket. What happens if we reach Hubbert's Peak in 5 years or 10 years? What happens if we've already reached the Peak?

Flex-fuel gas-guzzlers are irrelevant in today's ethanol world

Next month President Bush is going to meet with the Big 3 about energy and the environment, pensions and health care, and currency problems with Japan. Unfortunately, building more "relevant" vehicles probably isn't going to come up.

When Bush told Detroit to build more "relevant" vehicles, auto executives were not too happy. In their minds, huge gas-guzzling vehicles are relevant, which must explain why almost every flex-fuel vehicle - those that can run on ethanol-mixed fuels - are extreme gas guzzlers.

Without tax incentives and even with incentives, ethanol isn't always cheaper than gasoline, so flex-fuel vehicles aren't helping the consumer by offering cheaper fuel costs.

O.K., so is Detroit building flex-fuel vehicles to fight foreign oil dependency?

That doesn't make sense either. If you want to fight foreign oil dependency, then why not offer flex-fuel capabilities in all vehicles? Why just offer flex-fuel capabilities only in vehicles that might fail CAFE?

Today, their are just 600 ethanol pumps covering ALL of America, compared to about 180,000 gasoline pumps. Just a little over a year ago - when GM churned out most of it's flex-fuel vehicles - there were only about 300 pumps. This is why GM never told anyone about the flex-fuel capabilities they added to many gas-guzzlers for a number of years - there was NOWHERE to fill them up and in most states there still isn't.

Now GM is trying to take credit for such actions.

In today's world, flex-fuel gas guzzlers that receive CAFE credits can only be called one thing, irrelevant. Flex-fuel gas-guzzlers neither offer the far majority of Americans cheaper fuel nor do they help fight foreign oil dependency.

While ethanol offers tremendous potential, today's gas-guzzling flex-fuel vehicles do not.

Bush plugs hybrid vehicles, asks Congress to extend tax credits

Tax incentives for clean vehicles, such as hybrid cars, are great legislation. Unfortunately, tax credits for hybrids are capped. Consequently, before the end of this year, Toyota hybrids will not qualify for the full tax credit.

At least for this year, that could change.

"The easiest way to promote fuel efficiency is to encourage drivers to purchase highly efficient hybrid or clean diesel vehicles," President Bush said in an address to the Renewable Fuels Association summit in Washington.

"If the automakers sell more than their limit, new purchasers are not eligible for the full tax credit.

"And so here's an idea that can get more of these vehicles on the road, and that is to have Congress make all hybrid and clean diesel vehicles sold this year eligible for federal tax credits," he said. (DetroitNews)

Congress shouldn't stop with the clean vehicle credit. Congress should also add hybrids to the $25,000 small business tax deduction, which currently only applies to the worst gas guzzlers.

Could Hummers survive without the $25,000 Tax Deduction?

You would think that sales of GM's Hummer would be almost non-existent with $3.00 gasoline, but Hummers are actually selling quite well.

So What Gives?

It's ironic how many Hummers I see that advertise some kind of service, or maybe it isn't. It seems quite obvious that many Hummer buyers are taking full advantage of the $25,000 small business tax deduction.

If not for this deduction, I assume many of these advertisers/buyers would buy something else

How can the government justify this deduction in light of terrorism, Iraq and America's growing dependence on foreign oil? How can the government cap smaller tax credits for hybrid cars and other clean technologies, yet not cap much larger deductions for the worst gas-guzzlers?

In fact, while I feel bad for GM's business story, if the only way GM can survive in today's world is via tax-subsidized gas-guzzlers, then it's time to let GM go under.

Congress can do much better. We must make Congress act. Join the Hybrid Car Revolution Campaign.

In the '70's it was small cars, today it's hybrid cars

Hybrids will prove America wrong, again

I remember my parents picking me up from grade school one afternoon in the late '70's. Across the street from school, my father noticed my teacher's new Honda Civic. He laughed and said, "Who would ever want to drive a small riceburner like that? Honda is a motorcycle company, not a car company."

Well, needless to say, the rest is history. Not only did Honda do well selling cars no one "would ever want to drive", but so too did Toyota and Nissan. Just a few decades later, these 'riceburners' have knocked the American auto industry against the ropes and a TKO is very possible.

My father was a Union machinist and back in the '70's buying such a vehicle, regardless of how reliable it was or much gas it saved, was simply un-American. And it wasn't just my father, but most of America that felt that way.

Many Americans still feel that way today, which is why I think so many Americans are SO against hybrid cars. If hybrids take over much the same way riceburners did, it might just spell doom for American automakers.

According a Detroit News poll, the majority of Detroit-area readers don't believe hybrid vehicles will be around long. (See the Poll)

I say, get your head out of the sand. Don't make the same mistake twice.

The days of cheap oil appear to be over, and there probably isn't a windfall tax that can do anything to change that. A windfall tax can't stop problems in Iran or Nigeria. A windfall tax can't stop a billion new drivers from China and India.

The world has changed. Fuel efficiency and pollution will be the key drivers of not just automotive technology, but of all technology. In fact, clean and green technology is not only possible, as the Toyota Prius hybrid car so beautifully demonstrates, but it is destined to improve greatly, while getting significantly cheaper.

$3.00 gas is only the beginning, the beginning of the hybrid car revolution. Flex fuel hybrids, diesel hybrids, gasoline hybrids, hydrogen hybrids, and fuel cell hybrids - hybrids are THE future.

High gas prices: Not just big oil, but ethanol

While most Americans have no problem blaming big oil companies for high gasoline prices, they aren't the only energy producers experiencing huge profits. Ethanol producers are also enjoying tax incentives, tariffs and, ultimately, profits.

"The increased demand has sent ethanol prices through the roof. Tom Kloza, a gasoline-markets analyst for the Oil Price Information Service, figures ethanol producers such as Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) are enjoying profits as high as $65 out of every $115 barrel. That's contributing to the gasoline price run-up as refiners pass those costs along."

BusinessWeek Via MSNBC