Ford sends the wrong message

We all know Detroit is in trouble. But what are the automakers doing to resolve their problems? The short answer is nothing. They are doing business as usual and waiting for government bailouts.

Don't look to the automakers to help solve the world's problems. Quite the contrary. Ford is touting its new 365 HP Taurus SHO. Who on earth needs a 365 HP car to sit in traffic jams? But wait, that is not the whole story. The car is equipped with EcoBoost™ technology. What is that you ask? Well it sounds good doesn't it? And that is really what matters to Ford.

Whatever it is EcoBoost is doing, it is sending the wrong message. Ford claims you get a V6 engine with all the potency of a V8. Doesn't potency sound like either a sexual term or a drug property to you? No doubt Ford is hoping you will interpret it that way. A car on (sex) steroids. It is an unbeatable combination, especially if you add the feel-good EcoBoost™ to the mix. Green sex steroids for you America.

If Ford has truly devised a way to make engines more fuel efficient, they are also making it very clear why technology will NEVER solve our greenhouse gas problem. The reason is very simple: every time an innovation allows for better efficiency, the industry will use it to build bigger engines and then some. The net result is either neutral or in many cases negative.

Why would anyone need an eight cylinder car? Why do they need a six cylinder? The average commute speed is 27 mph in most areas. Cars not only pollute, they also make people lazy and fat. These fat people then develop all kinds of expensive chronic illnesses such as diabetes and hypertension. All of it to the infinite delight of big pharma, which is ever ready to supply medications to treat such life-long conditions. Can't make money if the patient dies or heals too quickly.

Ironically enough, those same healthcare costs are now cutting into Detroits margins? How is that for karma?

Take my advice. Say no to Ford and its potent dildo. Tell them to build a small fuel efficient car. And then use it as little as possible. You will be happier and live better too. Ride your bike to a breath of fresh air.

setback or progress?

It is now quite common to read stories about how the recession will roll back environmental rules and regulations. How the need to create jobs and keep the economy going will put environmental incentives on the back burner. How we will lose years of gains in a matter of months. How efficiency will suffer.

These stories are often found in publications such as the WSJ, Forbes, the Economist, and others that otherwise show little or no concern for environmental regulation. Not to be totally cynical and say that these publications often oppose pro-environment rules or promote rollbacks of such rules and regulations. How come these anti-environmental publications are suddenly so worried about green?

I think what these people are trying to tell us is that a thriving economy is good for the environment. That success lifts all boats. That we should work hard to keep the economy going so we can protect the environment. Remember, the more you buy the more you save. You can drink the kool-aid too.

I have previously remarked on how easy it is to attach a label of environmentalist to oneself. However, true environmentalism means less consumption. No new houses, no new cars, hybrid or otherwise, no thrashing perfectly good items to replace them with newer gadgets, no shopping at WalMart or anywhere else for that matter.

True environmentalism means going on a walk in nature on Black Friday. Turning off you TV instead of buying a flat screen. No driving to the mall and no bargain hunting. It has nothing to do with CFL's, hybrids, or efficiency. Efficiency does not matter to the environment. Absolute values are the only ones that matter.

Every item you buy to replace an older but functional item is a vote for environmental destruction.

Remember that none of the so-called environmental regulations has had much effect. Efficiency gains in gas and oil have been more than offset by increased travel, more driving, and larger homes. I could go on forever. The upshot is that these measures don't matter and their roll back or abolition does not matter either.

Reality is that economic slow downs are good for the environment because they reduce consumption. People spend less. They drive less. They stay home. They eat at home. Those are the only things that matter. Less consumption, less waste.

save the environment, write to congress

Here is one thing you can do for the environment. Write to your representatives and senators demanding that they keep gas prices high. High gas prices are the only known remedy to our key problems. Only high gas prices can fix our dependence on foreign oil. Only high gas prices can make Detroit look into alternative energy. Only high gas prices can cure global warming.

In case you wonder take a look at these numbers:

Since 1981, the number of cars and trucks on the road has increased 75% to 249 million.

Since 1981, the number of miles driven by Americans has doubled (no the country did not expand)

Since 1981, gasoline consumption has increased by 40%.

Since 1981, fuel efficiency has gone up by a whopping 60%, but clearly that has had no effect on conservation, quite to the contrary.

Pushing fuel economy to 35 mph will NOT achieve anything except lower out-of-pocket costs and more driving as a result. IT IS THE WRONG THING TO DO.

Abundant cheap oil in the 90s has fueled the popularity of the gas guzzlers and SUVs. It has enabled long haul commutes. It is responsible for the housing boom in far-out regions.

Do something good for America, write your representatives. Urge them to keep gas prices HIGH.

the fuel efficiency hoax

You can tell the primaries are near. Congress and the President are in lockstep about increasing biofuel use and getting better mileage standards for cars. The first item will delight Iowa farmers, while the second will appeal to California voters. Both states have early and crucial races and every dollar invested here is sure to bear fruit to aspiring candidates and their party.

This morning in a ceremony at the Dept. of Energy, the president signed a bill that will require automakers to increase fuel efficiency by 40 percent to an average of 35 mpg by 2020. Ethanol use will be ramped up to 36 billion gallons by 2022. Bush said the bill will "address our vulnerabilities and dependency on foreign oil." He said we will be "a nation that is stronger, cleaner and more secure." The new requirements are also expected to save motorists $700 to $1,000 a year in fuel costs. And therein lies the problem. Every time something gets cheaper, people use more of it. And that is bad news indeed.

A report by the World Resources Institute undermines the claim that boosting fuel efficiency standards for cars is a critical step to curb global warming. The author of the report was quoted as saying "Total emissions from this part of the transport sector are dependent on how many people drive, what they drive, and how they drive." The report blames a booming population that is ever more reliant on cars, and real-world driving conditions and poor maintenance that undercut all efficiency gains. The report argues for lighter cars and driving less. That sounds like common sense to me.

By the way, there is good evidence to support these claims. Since the early 1980's fuel efficiency for both cars and airplanes has increased dramatically, but overall CO2 emissions have grown by 25% in the US alone. People have more than made up for all the gains by buying larger cars and driving more. Fat chance reducing emissions in a hummer-crazy nation !

Unfortunately the only thing that reduces CO2 emissions under real life conditions is higher gas prices. Whenever gas prices go up and supplies run low, people drive less. They also car-pool more. A report by Lawrence Livermore National Lab found that the density of traffic over the Altamont pass is inversely proportional to gas prices. The higher the price of gas, the less traffic there is. And that makes sense to me.

But raising gas prices is a death-on-arrival strategy for any politician. Even keeping gas prices high would be considered a crime in this nation. Already the public is fuming at the high price of gas even though we pay far less than other nations. Nations whose real standard of living is as good or better than ours. Think what you may but there isn't much happiness sitting in traffic jams for over an hour a day.

And every time gas prices go higher, worries about terrorism and homeland security surface. It is not for nothing that oil barons like Bush are seen as strong on national security. Surely, prices are high because evil individuals are interrupting our gas supply. Or worse still, they are using OUR gas.

Of course one could try to convince people to drive less, or to buy a sensible car instead of an overweight SUV, but good luck with that. Even though everyone claims they want to save the planet, don't count on it when it comes to buying a vehicle. At that time the primary urges of the mating dance take precedence and our aspiring environmentalists are just as likely to drive out the door with an oversized, overloaded, gas guzzling vehicle that gives them a commanding view of the road and impresses their neighbors. Not some sensible "girlie" car, as our friend Arnold would say.

Those who are guilt ridden and those who want to appear cutting edge and "in", may even shell out the extra money to get a "Hybrid" badge on their monster machine. But who are they fooling ?

The reality is that we choose to be dependent on foreign oil. We only import about half of what we use. And we surely waste more than half of what we buy by hauling around an unnecessary 2,000 pounds of shiny metal, trim, leather, cupholders, stereo equipment, GPS's, and the like. Not to mention our grossly overweight and out-of-shape bodies.

scary stuff

ExxonMobil is running ads entitled Energy Security. These ads are meant to convince us that we should be open minded when it comes to energy. Open minded in this context means we need to "keep our doors open." We need to get energy from more places. Places like Iraq. We also need to "Increase access to energy resources in our own backyard." That is corporate lingo for drilling in the Alaska Wilderness, if you didn't know. And no matter how you feel about that, it is not the really scary part. Sooner or later we will do it in any case.

The evil government -the government is always evil as you know, even though we voted it in place- is preventing access to 31 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 105 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. All of it in our backyard. And why would our government do such evil deeds ? It must be infiltrated by left-wing environmental terrorists. Or maybe aliens from outer space who are engineering our demise. Or maybe the U.N.? Or maybe they are all in it together?

Because according to ExxonMobil, with "the advanced technologies of today," we could recover all this oil and gas without damaging the environment. If you believe that you also believe in Santa Claus. But even if we managed to recover it without damage to the environment, we couldn't really use it, read burn it, without damaging the environment. But then again, regardless how you feel about that, it is not all that scary. Because that too will eventually happen.

No, it is the reassuring part of the ad that is scary. The part where ExxonMobil tries to convince us of the value of its approach. The part that reads, "Put another way, that much oil equates to over 8 years of current US crude oil imports." If eight years impresses you -as no doubt it is meant to do - think of it this way. If your doctor told you you have only eight more years to live, how would you feel ? Eight years is peanuts really. It is a blip. If eight years is all we have, we may as well forget it.

But wait, the ad is an ad, and so it engages in some subtle massaging and distortion of the facts. That is only 8 years of imports, not 8 years of use. We import only half of what we use. So four years is more like it, give or take a few months. And at present rates too, never mind the inevitable growth that ExxonMobil is preparing to "serve."

It is truly scary that we have less than five years worth of oil in our backyard. And that we feel the urgent need to exploit it now to fuel over oversized vehicles, and heat our oversized homes and otherwise waste it in excess.

It would be rather trivial for America to cut its energy use in half. And we wouldn't even have to take drastic measures. We would not even have to buy anything new or develop new "cutting-edge" technologies. All that is needed is for us to drive less, heat and cool less, and in general be sensible about life. And that doesn't mean we couldn't splurge every once in a while. But right now we are splurging each and every minute of every day. And it doesn't even bring us any enjoyment. Quite the opposite really. All we get is endless traffic delays, road rage, obesity, high blood pressure and the like.

We are this grossly overweight giant, who keeps eating and eating for no reason other than to consume more. And we all know what happens to such giants: their life-expectancy is dramatically reduced. Here is to your health, America !

mating dance

Like so many other animals, humans spend an inordinate amount of time and resources in mating displays. We may shake our heads at peacocks and wonder why a bird would jeopardize its survival by growing an unwieldy tail just to impress its mate, but we should take a look in the proverbial mirror.

Any teenager will tell you that there is nothing better than a set of wheels to impress the opposite sex. Preferably a very unwieldy but shiny and aggressive-looking set of wheels. And like a peacock's tail, the more inept the better. Because the handicap is an essential part of the attraction, think high heels and walking.

The mating dance car is a mockery of the real thing. A racing car that is no good to race, an off-road vehicle that can't go off-road. A truck that can barely haul more than a passenger car. And all of it loaded with unnecessary bulk and trim.

Unfortunately, this tendency to acquire impractical but somehow impressive pieces of moving metal is not limited to teens alone. Middle aged males especially suffer from a great need to participate in this quest. And lest the members of the opposite sex start shaking their heads at such infantile behavior, they should realize that they play a very important role in it. They make it work.

The whole debate about fuel efficiency is here in a nutshell. And everyone knows it, although few will say it out loud. We can build fuel efficient and practical cars. We don't even have to build them, they are out there. But who would want them? And I am not talking about high tech hybrids, which are really just a way to make efficiency palatable to the mating dance. I am talking about small cars, with practical designs, that are easy to drive, easy to park, and easy to use. But easy is the problem here. Easy is not sexy. Despite the high mileage.

You can already hear the rationale and justifications mounting. But what about safety you say? Aren't bigger cars safer? Well, there is little doubt that if you drove an Abrams battle tank around, few could cause you any harm. But that is missing the point. Because soon enough all your neighbors would have their tank too. Escalation is a poor way to solve problems. But it is quite popular nonetheless.

The roads would be safer if vehicles were smaller and lighter. If everyone rode a bicycle, few would die in crashes. Especially teens. Because teens are really into the mating dance, which by the way also includes reckless behavior and excess consumption. We are no different from other animals here. The mating dance is inherently a dangerous game. Call it selection.

And because we are no different, we too face the threat of extinction.