« Nissan to Introduce Tier 2 Bin 5 Diesel in US in Maxima in 2010 | Main | VeraSun Announces Sixth Ethanol Plant; Total Capacity of 670 Million Gallons »
New Senate Bill Targets Gasoline Use Reduction of 45% by 2030; $2.3B for Batteries
18 April 2007
US Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Pete Domenici (R-NM) introduced legislation to reduce the use of fossil fuels by improving efficiency in vehicles, buildings, home appliances and industrial equipment. Bingaman and Domenici are chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
The bill—the Energy Efficiency Promotion Act (S.1115)—sets the goal of reducing gasoline usage by 20% by 2017; by 35% by 2025; and by 45% by 2030. It also requires federal and state fleets of civilian vehicles to reduce petroleum consumption by 30% by 2016.
Other transportation-related provisions of the bill include:
Authorization of $500 million over 10 years for basic research for batteries, and $800 million to transition the basic research to first-of-a-kind batteries the automobile and electric utility industries can use to improve energy storage. Authorization of $1 billion over ten years for four centers to work with the industries to develop advanced manufacturing technologies for batteries to be globally competitive.
Authorization of $60 million for the Department of Energy to research and develop light-weight materials such as advanced carbon composites and light-weight steel alloys for the construction of vehicles.
Amendment of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to authorize the Secretary of Energy to issue loan guarantees for facilities for the manufacture of parts for fuel-efficient vehicles.
Authorization of federal awards to manufacturers and suppliers for 30% of qualified investment for incremental costs incurred to re-equip, expand or establish a manufacturing facility to produce advanced technology vehicles.
The bill will be the subject of a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on Monday.
April 18, 2007 in Batteries, Fuel Efficiency, Plug-ins, Policy | Permalink | Comments (45) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/17820402
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference New Senate Bill Targets Gasoline Use Reduction of 45% by 2030; $2.3B for Batteries:
Comments
I love when politicians do that, say they want to reduce polution, or gas consumption, or anything, but give no ideas on how it's going to be done. They might as well say "i want a 100% reduction in 10 years." they need to actually speak to engineers, and car companies, and tell them how it's going to be done(not ask).
Posted by: Brad | Apr 18, 2007 9:09:29 AM
Now we're talking! Could they actually be waking up in Washington? I just hope the money doesn't wind up in the hands of USABC. (i.e. funneled off into oblivion). I like the emphasis on manufacturing since that is the key problem with advanced batteries today (price). Now, what are the odds of this getting past?
Posted by: Neil | Apr 18, 2007 9:21:02 AM
Brad, politicians should not play technological favorites that are themselves special interests. When Kennedy set a goal to land on the moon by 1970 he did not stipulate how it would happen. That he left up to the engineers. Policymakers need to be as loose as possible as to HOW the goals are met so the market can work out the best way to accomplish this.
Posted by: Cervus | Apr 18, 2007 9:23:59 AM
I know I am repeating myself, but run hybrids on CNG/SNG and you can reduce gasoline consumption immediately, using proven technologies. Advancing other methods is good if they have merit up and above this. We need to get something done NOW...not 10 years from now.
Posted by: SJC | Apr 18, 2007 9:45:14 AM
Yeah, let's have Congress actually do the design work and just tell the engineers how to do it. We could have the car originally designed by a special House subcommittee. By the time that version is reconciled with the Senate version we'd lucky if it didn't have 7 wheels of varying material and pushed by horse... of course eating lots of midwestern corn as the fuel source. It would also undoubtedly have a very large hauling capacity so it could drop by every congressional district unloading bags of money.
Posted by: rhapsodyinglue | Apr 18, 2007 9:55:08 AM
Again, the problem is being defined as one of technology. If we can just have better batteries, cars, fibers,biofuels, etc., we can meet our goals, especially those which are a long ways away. We have had tremendous technological change over the last three decases with no improvement with respect to gasoline burned or gas mileage. Auto companies and consumers keep moving the goal posts-- increasingly absurd levels of performance, bigger trucks, bigger SUVs. This is a treadmill. No amount of money will get us out of this mess.
The main problem is not engineering; it is economics, politics, and cultural attitudes.
This is all directed at the supply side; we need incentives on the demand side. Changes in driving behavior and demand could start bringing down gas consumption tomorrow. But no politician will do the obvious; raise gas taxes until enough changes in driving and purchasing behavior to occur to bring down consumption.
Posted by: tom | Apr 18, 2007 10:19:31 AM
This is a significant move in the right direction, I think the timescale is too long for the investment size.
Numbers of interest
1. This is about 2/3rds of 1 quarters profit for Chevron
2. This is about 0.4% of the defense budget for 1 year
To figure out the priorities, always follow the money!
As always, it is a single simple sound-bite friendly action rather than a more holistic solution to the problem
Personal Transportation Policy for the US
Posted by: Kevin | Apr 18, 2007 10:20:39 AM
awwhh yeah baby, watch Cobasys sales take off.
Posted by: Richard | Apr 18, 2007 10:53:44 AM
It is good progress no matter the caveats. Getting politicians on both sides of the aisle to tilt against petroleum is an achievement of significant worth. As to solutions, the legislation calls for:
"Federal and state fleets of civilian vehicles to reduce petroleum consumption by 30% by 2016."
So, that means starting in product year 2009, hundreds of thousands of fleet vehicle purchases could be PHEV. The US Postal service has 289,000 vehicles in it alone. Extrapolating across State owned fleets there are a million vehicles needing retrofit/upgrades or replacement over nine years. Anyone think there's not enough incentive for automakers here? The Phoenix EV is eligable right now.
Posted by: gr | Apr 18, 2007 11:03:41 AM
Questions:
Is the idea to reduce gasoline from fossil fuel by 20%, or all road vehicle fuel by 20%?
Clearly the road immediately ahead uses lithium ion batteries for short trips (40 miles or less) and renewable fuel (bio-diesel or ethanol or next generation biofuel)for longer trips. Does this legislation pave the way, or does it put pot-holes in the path?
While one year goals are lame, so are 15 or 20 year goals, what we need are 3 year goals, and 7 year goals.
The money to encourage investment in production facilities is a move in the right direction, but without blowing off the NIMBY blockers, the facilities will be located outside the USA. Wait and see.
And funding for this could come from a surcharge above market price for high consumption of fuel. But nothing will be done at least until the next major disruption in supply. Wait and see.
Posted by: Van | Apr 18, 2007 11:43:26 AM
The political cultural side may be tougher to handle than the engineering. People like their lifestyles. When you tell them to buy and drive a more practical car, you are going against what they perceive as their freedoms. Even if a major situation caused them to have to drive smaller cars, they would want larger ones (in the U.S) This is why politicians stay away from the "hair shirt" ideas of less is more.
I recommend that we look for ways to give people what they want and society what it needs. If people want room, ride, quiet and space in a vehicle, then fine. That does not mean it has to be big, heavy and fuel inefficient. I really think people do not care WHAT the car runs on, as long as it runs, is convenient and affordable.
Posted by: SJC | Apr 18, 2007 12:30:05 PM
Van,
I wouldn't say a ten year goal with regard to cars is lame. As I read it they aren't saying that in ten years the cars being sold will have 20% better mileage but that in ten years all cars then on the street (which will actually be more cars than now) will consume 20% less total gas than the fewer number of cars on the street do now. That to me implies a pretty quick change in cars being sold and/or fuel infrastructure. Of course as someone pointed out, this could mean a big switch to biofuels rather than better mileage.
I bet those targets turn out ot be rather squishy and malleable... but maybe I'll be surprised.
Posted by: rhapsodyinglue | Apr 18, 2007 12:45:36 PM
just read the review in the english paper The Sunday Times of the new
Cadillac SUV type , with has just been launched in europe , on test the
car was shown to return less than 12 mpg about 10 mpg US ,
You guys over there have bigger problems than I thought!
Posted by: andrichrose | Apr 18, 2007 12:49:20 PM
Brad -
I agree with Cervus on this one, politicians should articulate the targets society wants to set for energy security/environmental reasons. Once the externalities are known, engineers will respond by solving the problem - as long as it's not completely unrealistic.
A 20% fleet average reduction in 10 years is easily doable, especially considering how primitive many of the engines used for trucks and SUVs still are: gasoline instead of diesel, V8 instead of V6, low compression ratios, two valves, OHV cam drive etc. Same with the transmissions.
The technology already exists and all of the Big Three already have it in-house thanks to their European subsidiaries / parent. The Japanese are, if anything, even further ahead. However, as Bob Lutz pointed out, higher MPG means higher prices for the vehicles. Note that his $6000 number referred to 4% annual improvement compounded over 10 years, which adds up to ~40% - this Senate bill is much less draconian).
On the other hand, a government subsidy as large as $2.3 billion to battery developers seems totally inappropriate. First, it favors batteries over all other alternatives. Second, throwing a lot of money - bureaucratic strings firmly attached - at an engineering problem does not necessarily produce results any faster, nor are they always better. Third, it creates yet another avenue for political patronage (read: campaign contributions, corruption risks etc.) based on expensively laundered tax revenue.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Apr 18, 2007 1:04:27 PM
If the US wants any battery manufacturing to take place in their own country they are going to have to put money into it. Other countries like South Korea are already investing in battery tech. Bureaucratic strings may not help solve engineering problems, but if the engineers aren't employed they aren't solving anything.
Posted by: Neil | Apr 18, 2007 1:27:05 PM
They talk about achieving something by 2030 without specifying how much to achieve by 2010.
http://www.iangv.org/content/view/17/35/
Now, there are 6 million CNG (Nat-gas) powered vehicles and its the developing countries which are leading the list.
This is another fast growing area with
3 countries having million + vehicles
9 countries having 100,000 +
24 countries having 10,000 +.
Posted by: Max Reid | Apr 18, 2007 1:31:09 PM
Want to reduce gasoline usage? Increase the price.
How do you do that? Increase the gas tax.
Want an even bigger kick? Use the proceeds to invest on things that help reduce fuel usage, such as mass transit, expenditures on pedestrian and cycle travel (mo' better sidewalks, cycle trails, etc), and academic research.
It turns out that very few politicians have the cajones to raise the gas tax.
Posted by: stomv | Apr 18, 2007 1:49:25 PM
Raf,
A corvette/camaro/trans am engine (V8, 2 valves, OHV - cam in block) is fairly efficient even though it is "low tech" (of course the manufacturing and materials is not low tech). Lighter and smaller than the typical aluminum block & head SOHC V-6.
Posted by: Patrick | Apr 18, 2007 2:22:18 PM
$2.3 billion is better than a poke in the eye. Of course politicians can waste 2.2 billion of that, but it's still better than nothing. And I echo the hope at this money does not end up in the hands of USABC/USCAR which equals a rat hole. $2.3 billion is a new and refreshing record for battery research. It may be too little too late, but can't hurt the issue.
$2.3 billion is probably enough to run the Iraqi liberation (the mother of all rat holes) for a week or two. Imagine what $230 billion (a modest sum in the Iraqi liberation) would have or could have done toward the advancement of energy storage. Or don't.
Posted by: Lee | Apr 18, 2007 2:51:33 PM
Auto makers and big oil have invested billions to brainwash people all over the world that big, noisy fuel burners are best.
It won't be easy - maybe impossible - to bring about change.
Posted by: Lucas | Apr 18, 2007 2:54:03 PM
Let's go one better than the gas tax: let's ban ownership and usage of cars!
Posted by: Mark R. W. Jr. | Apr 18, 2007 3:33:43 PM
Lets talk about goals for a sec, we had a goal to end our dependence of foreign oil. Is that still our goal, or have we reached it? Yes it is still our goal, and rather than reach it, our dependence has grown. Now this 10 year goal to reduce gasoline usage by 20% is lame unless we have some bench mark goals at three years out and 7 years out. The mantra of the left, posted above, raise taxes and invest in mass transit and research has been our program . And what was accomplished? We are more dependent, our fuel use is increasing, and hybrid car battery production is based abroad. Talk about springs without water and wandering stars.
Posted by: Van | Apr 18, 2007 3:40:55 PM
Technology being introduced NOW to increase gas mileage 50% to 100%. Proven! It does it or your money back!
Posted by: Philip Richards | Apr 18, 2007 3:41:15 PM
Poven to increase gas mileage... that would be a small wooden block to stick under the gas pedal to keep people from stomping so far. I'll sell you one for $100.
Posted by: rhapsodyinglue | Apr 18, 2007 4:16:54 PM
peak oil is now, very soon the use of gas will fall, while the price goes up higher and higher
Posted by: anti gravity | Apr 18, 2007 5:04:40 PM
I'm always a little surprised by people who know a thing or two about peak oil stating that it is now. One of the features of peak is that you can't actually know it's arrived until you are a number of years past it. I will agree that it is most likely sooner (0-10 years) rather than later (10+ years), but there are too many variable for anyone to know for certain.
Posted by: Neil | Apr 18, 2007 5:23:35 PM
Well if we have not hit peak now where will extra oil production come from
saudi- who knows they dont say, I wonder why
Mexico- post peak
north sea- post peak
iraq - war/soon to break into 3 new countries
kuwait- post peak
Russia- peak soon
USA- post peak since 1970s
iran- peak soon
Venezuela- might be able to increase but Chavez needs and likes a high price
When was the last giant oil field found
Why do you think the US goverment created the SPR
So where will the oil come from and please dont say ethanol biodiesel or oil shale untill you do some reading about EROI
So please tell me where the extra oil is
I think we have hit the peak and are now in the plateau, how long the plateau is who knows
Posted by: anti gravity | Apr 18, 2007 6:22:24 PM
The solution may already exist. Current European cars use 50% less fuel than those in USA and Canada. At $6+ a gallon, gas and diesel fuel price may have something to do with it.
Many will say that doubling gas price will not change our addiction to oil. We will just get use to $6+ a gallon and keep on driving our gas guzzlers.
Canada has just started to apply $4000 penalties on gas guzzlers (famous pick-ups excluded) purchase and up to $4000 credits on the purchase of high mpg hybrids and equivalent. Time will tell if this is enough to change our attitude. The penalty and credit may have to be raised to $6000+.
Posted by: Harvey D. | Apr 18, 2007 6:51:20 PM
Here is a good commentary on Detroit's true attitude to increasing fuel economy:
"... Likewise, people buy what they see... I work in an industry where I have to monitor how big the picture of an item is to balance its profitability in sales. The things with the biggest pictures outperform the ones with smaller pictures over 90% of the time. So, if an auto industry magnate really wanted to grab the bull by the horns, a hybrid/electric-type car could be very successful in the market place if advertised with the punch and quantity that the truck and SUV ads have. At least to a greater degree than they are selling now.
Merchants can create the market.
I just went to the GMC website to search for price comparisons. I clicked on "Shop by body type". The page that loads shows a 4 door "Yukon XL Denali" --
1) Yukon the sparsest and most rough terrain in north america,
2) XL "Extra Large",
3) Denali= the park/mountain range that is home to the Highest mountain in North America.
One name is not enough?
If I choose to shop by brand, the first picture I see is the new "Hummer H3" in front of both mail boxes, (signifying” home") and a mountainous landscape vista with rough shrubs and rocks (signifying the vast, untamed wilderness). Luckily the Hummer can tackle BOTH for the .5% of Americans who live in a remote enough area to need one.
Shop by Price? The Saturn Vue! The mini-SUV... same mountainous back drop, just this time with a lake in front of it. The Vue is for us "sporty" types who like to burn fuel!
Shop by model... the Pontiac Torrent, zooming around a bend on an on/off ramp. This is the city person's SUV, the speedy, zippy, yet tough and powerful looking SUV, perfect for cornering that rough and tumble City pavement!
Of the cars that get up to 33 MPG (highway), they range from $13,000-$25,000. The big Hummers? $53,000 to $58,000. Fuel Economy listed as "N/A". I guess they just haven't finished their studies yet.
Bottom line? GM and other car makers WANT to sell their SUVs and trucks because they cost more, and keep their oil partners in business. Besides, it's EASIER! We still have trillions of gallons of oil yet to waste, and a space station to go live on when the earth becomes uninhabitable, right? If they would band together to develop technology and products that are helpful to the economy, helpful to the environment, and helpful to consumers, they would still sell alot of product and everyone would be happy. ...."
Posted by: Warren Heath | Apr 18, 2007 7:30:53 PM
Bottom line? GM and other car makers WANT to sell their SUVs and trucks because they cost more, and keep their oil partners in business.
Have you looked at the profit margins on those expensive SUVs vs. the smaller cars? The SUVs cost more and they make far more profit. The legacy costs are a much smaller portion of the overall cost of a $60k SUV.
If their small cars were just as profitable, they'd be making a lot more of them. But they can't make much money, if any, on Cobalts and Ions. It has nothing to do with "keeping their oil partners in business". It's all about the effect of legacy costs on profit margins, which on a Cobalt amount to well over 10% of the cost of the vehicle.
I just read an article that Ford has basically mortgaged the entire company on restructuring and new product lines. Literally. Even their logo is collateral. Desperate times and desperate measures... If they make the wrong choices, say goodbye.
Posted by: Cervus | Apr 18, 2007 9:18:25 PM
anti-grav: My point is that your statement "I think we have hit the peak" is more accurate than your original statement "peak is now". Your list takes the most pessimistic view of every region listed (you left out the Caspian region and Canada). Yes, I know what EROI is. The bottom line is: we know it's comming, we know that there are many factors at play (geological, economic and political) and lastly the only way to accurately identify peak is in hindsight. I may be splitting hairs but credibility is lost every time someone makes another hard prediction that gets proved incorrect (e.g. club of Rome)
Posted by: Neil | Apr 19, 2007 12:59:51 AM
Neil i know what you mean if someone says we have hti peak oil and it turns out to be false they look like the boy why cried wolf, and yes it is true we can only be 100% sure years after the event
However in 1956 M K Hubert predicted peak oil in the US by 1970, people said he was mad
the only way to know when the peak will hit is if we had free access to saudi data which they will not give us, i wonder why
Using the information we do have most people think the saudis have hit peak now or will very soon, If that is true then the peak is here
The caspian region was believed to have oil reserves as large as the middle east we now know this is not true
Canada i dont think so
Posted by: antigravity | Apr 19, 2007 2:42:45 AM
Title III provides billions of dollars to subsidize of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle markets.
Is this the optimal use of such funds relative to the ostensible goal of energy independence?
No.
Have all the alternatives been properly considered to see what the best shots are and the probabliities thereof?
No.
Why?
it would hinder politicians ability to wheel & deal and/or solicit campaign contributions.
Gas really isn't expensive at the pump in the US because it is subsidized elsewhere. Canada's gas guzzler tax is a good price signal. How does Canada divvy up the revenue?
Posted by: Mark | Apr 19, 2007 6:39:24 AM
Is our 'OIL ADDICTION' in reality just another induced 'BIG IS MORE BEAUTIFUL' addiction?
This may explain why we fancy and enjoy huge 4 x 4, huge pick-up trucks, huge SUVs, huge cars, huge BBQs, huge refrigerators, ALL you can eat restaurants, huge burgers, huge everything... even our 2M, 120+Kg progeniture.
Our energy and oil over consumption may be a secondary or side effect of another basic induced addiction. Wouldn't it be wiser and more beneficial to work on the source of the problem?
A similar example was trying to cure lung cancer instead of eliminating the real causes, i.e. smoking and polluted air. Tne many $$ billions spent to treat and trying to cure lung cancer (while the majority was smoking) was a waste of resourses.
Who convinced us we need a Hummer or a huge 3+ Tons 4 x 4 to drive to work or take the kids to school? That is one of the (false) conviction we have to change. Going from huge 2 - 3 tons vehicles to 1 - 2 ton units would reduce gas consumption by more than 50%. More efficient hybrids could do another 50%.
Posted by: Harvey D. | Apr 19, 2007 7:31:59 AM
The lessons of the past should show the way of the future. Raise the price of fuel and people will demand and buy more fuel efficent vehicles. The Japanese got their real foot hold in NA during the 70's fuel crunch because the offered fuel efficent vehicles and Detroit ended up scrambling to put out offerings of their own. Look at the dip in SUV sales after Katrina. Nuff said, tax the gas.
Posted by: Tim Russell | Apr 19, 2007 7:32:47 AM
Let me summarize. In America, bigger is better, more is better, even bigger and even more is even better. This logic also apparently applies to the size of our bellies. We have evolved to fit the size of our cars. Now it will be very difficult to evolve back to a size that would fit more appropriately scaled cars.
Is is just me, or do we all live in a time warp. Where I live, I see very little change, people are continuing to buy brand new monster trucks and monster SUVs. As if nothing has happened or will happen to change behavior. When TSHTF, we will hear pleas to make it easy on all those who are making their inappropriate consumer choices right now. We will be told to make special provisions for the poor who are making bad choices right now. We will be told about the legacy costs of all those ovesize vehicles on the road right now. But we are contributing to our future problems right now.
It is said that those who own Priuses may not emit a lot of pollution, but they emit what is coined as smug. I admit it. When the TSHTF, I will be unable to prohibit my smug emissions.
I am basically a liberal, but in this area I feel like a conservative. When the TSHTF, those who have made the wrong choices will be bailed out by the government. Essentially, we as a society have decided that no one has to suffer the consequences of their own bad choices. Ignorance of the law and ignorance of reality is, in fact, considered a reasonable excuse.
Posted by: tom | Apr 19, 2007 8:01:14 AM
tom,
You sound more like libertian than liberal or conservative.
Great post. I agree 100 percent. Let people lie in the beds the make.
Scott
Posted by: Scott K. | Apr 19, 2007 9:55:56 AM
A wood block to improve gas mileage is a good point. What we have between the ears is most often hard to change. Our government is specifically aware of the technoloies I mentioned available now to improve mileage by 50% to 100%. Future technology we have, and the govt is aware of, has in testing done even better. Waiting 20 or 30 years to achieve something we have now definately smacks of suppression. you will soon hear about it. Keep your ears and brain open.
Posted by: Philip Richards | Apr 19, 2007 10:17:40 AM
Ford has mortgaged their future. With new products like the Flex (Fairlane) large crossover SUV being shown, they are not indicating that they get it at all! This seems to be in the same catagory as the Chrysler Pacifica which may be discontinued soon. Ford can not afford to try to hit moving targets and keep missing by such a wide margin. When it is down to the wire, every move you make and every dollar you spend better be right on target, or get ready to go out of business.
Posted by: SJC | Apr 19, 2007 10:47:21 AM
When energy prices began to climb in 2001, Ari Fleischer, then the White House press secretary, was asked whether the president was considering a campaign to urge Americans to conserve energy."That's a big no," Fleischer said. "The president believes that it's an American way of life, and that it should be the goal of policy makers to protect the American way of life. The American way of life is a blessed one. And we have a bounty of resources in this country."
LINK
Posted by: DS | Apr 19, 2007 1:56:49 PM
Ari Fleischer was apparently not aware of the fact that oil production in the U.S. peaked in the 1970s. Was his boss, an oil man, aware of that? What Ari Fleisher meant to say was that we have an abundance of resources in places like Iraq, which we are invading to ensure that those resources are available for our nonnegotiable way of life.
Our attitude that the American way of life trumps all other considerations is one of the primary reasons we are hated so intensely throughout the world.
Posted by: tom | Apr 19, 2007 4:06:46 PM
I once heard a quote that went something like "Big powers don't have freinds, they have interests" People in Canada are very much aware of that truth. Softwood lumber comes to mind.
Posted by: Neil | Apr 19, 2007 5:47:28 PM
Cervus, you are quite right, Automakers like to push the big, brute vehicles because they cost the most and give the highest profit. This is a serious problem, if we want to improve fuel economy. My suggestion, have a sliding scale fuel guzzler/economizer tax/credit that consumer vehicles that use more than average energy (CO2?) per mile, pay a tax that is returned equally as a credit to vehicles that use less than average energy per mile. This would offset the incentive of automakers to sell their Hummers.
Make no mistake though, there is more going on here than meets the eye. The fact is GM had the Volt concept fully developed 9 years ago and suspiciously buried it. Another way to make a high profit margin is to produce a unique niche market vehicle, as the Tesla is. The simple fact is GM could easily made a series hybrid EV, that blows away the competition in fuel efficiency, silent operation, all wheel drive, zero turning radius, reliability, acceleration and emissions. It would be expensive but that is how you start selling new technology, to the richies who have money to burn, and want something different. Instead the NiMH batteries that would have enabled this GM transformation were secretly buried, sold to Chevron, and GM joined Big Oil in the Hydrogen Fuel Cell pretend vehicle scam.
Posted by: Warren Heath | Apr 19, 2007 6:27:11 PM
How about telling people if you really dislike the Muslim world, and think them our enemies - do not buy big cars and trucks that finance them.
Posted by: fidget | Apr 20, 2007 5:49:28 PM
If any of you conspiracy buffs think that GM or any maker wouldn't love to have a 200 MPG car that they could sell, You are absolutely insane.
GM could charge big bucks and make tremendous profits if they or anyone else knew how to do this.
Go on, keep talking to yourselves about conspiracies and suppressed 100MPG carburetors, and all the other "urban myth" nonsense that you want.
The world will pass you by and convert to electric ground transport without any of your help. On second thought, if you believe any of their nonsense you couldn't/wouldn't contribute anything worth wile anyways,except get in the way or vote for dunderhead ed politicians that get in the way.
Posted by: Stan Peterson | Apr 22, 2007 4:19:39 PM
