@JimG

"Well, for the record, Cervus, I'm not in favor of that, and casually assuming that the large group of people supporting 35 mpg CAFE would like that is a ridiculous smear."

It is, but JC and Roger are both proposing some very radical solutions. And that's very off-putting.

"There is no reason in physics that a large, strongly built car cannot also be a lot lighter than is made now."

We've had some significant advances in materials lately, and while the physics may allow it, the real issues are engineering (manufacturing) and economic. You could make a car body out of carbon fiber panels, and it'd be very light, but how much would it cost?

Government control of media, if they don't toe the line. A rather authoritarian viewpoint, don't you think?

The airwaves are owned by the public, and corporations are state-certified entities. There's no such thing as an absolute right to do whatever one pleases with whatever property one pleases.

The irony, of course, is that Fox is pretty much the US version of old Soviet Pravda, and here you are worrying about "government control of the media." The former press secretary was a prominent TV figure from that company.

Perhaps you should choose a different example.

@Jack:

I'm talking what he said and extending it to every media outlet, no matter what Administration is in office, and no matter what its own political bent. From ABC News to the Washington Times.

Do you really want the Federal government to start shutting down news networks, newspapers, blogs, talk radio programs, etc., which do not agree with its politics? Are you really willing to cross that line?

It's one thing for the President to advocate efficiency as a matter of policy. It's quite another for that President to start shutting down news channels who criticize him/her.

@ Harvey D,

Carbon taxes which only remove money from both consumers and suppliers to give it to to undeserving non doers, is not a real solution. Your $100 per ton carbon tax is less than the annual fluctuation in gasoline prices in the USA, right now. Why would that be any more conducive to better vehicles when you have not provided the money to either the suppliers to be able to build more efficient vehicles; or more money to the consumers to purchase them?

You sound like the old physicians that just believed you could cure someone by "Bleeding them" a little, or a lot.

@Yakaburbahoe, Cervus and Joseph,

The number of would be central planners here, that would force, regulate and coerce the stupid proletariat masses into doing what the "enlightened ones" desire, is not surprising.

Totalitarians have always been with us; but usually they at least have some basis for attempting their seizure of power. A tiny non threatening increase in temperatures over a century that probably isn't even man made, and that is mostly beneficial, is not it. But then the Statist Socialists of the National variety thought Jewish and Gypsy pollution was an immanent threat were pretty stupid too. But no any more than then the Marxist-Leninist variety of Socialists though Kulaks were a threat that should be starved and exterminated.

The thing I find amazing is that these wunderkinden, haven't learned a damn thing. You would think after trying it in over 75 countries and 160 years, only to have it lead to utter failure everywhere and everytime, It only yields mostly misery every time would cause them to think they just might be on the wrong track. Psychotics and Socialists of whatever stripe, keep on trying the same thing expecting a different result.

"Alas, the capacity of human beings to swallow horsersh!t and regurgitate in murderous ways is truly appalling." R Heinlein

"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)

Cervus wrote: "You'll find that making peak oil or global warming the "equivalence of war" will be a very hard sell to the public. As pressing as these matters are, I don't think they merit a war footing, which itself implies a whole bevy of social controls, especially the rationing you mention."

I agree with your first sentence, Cervus.

Unfortunately, the "War" has already started, after 911, out of hate for America from American's inteference with the internal affairs of oil-producing countries to assure that the American Oil industry got in on the oil spigots.
Oh, no, the "war" really started out much earlier, when the US instigated a "coup" against the legally-elected democratic government of Iran who plan to nationalize their oil resources, hence cutting out Anglo-American companies, who put the Shah of Iran in power and ruled the country of Iran as a corrupt dictator. The Shah was later deposed by the holy clergy Ayatullah Khomeini, who kept American Ambassy personel hostages, forcing Jimmy Carter out of power, only to release the hostages to Reagan (who secretly negotiated the infamous "Iran-Contra affairs") after the election...Long story...fast fwding...Saddam then, was used as a counter balance to the anti-American Iranian...until Saddam developed a mind of his own and plan to nationalize the oil resources of his country... then, Saddam was no longer useful for the US/Anglo oil interests who have been in control the US government up to the present...First, Saddam planned to sell oil when there was an oil glut...the West said no-no, and came Operation Desert Storm designed to shut down oil flow from Iraq...except for the corrupt "oil-for-food program."...Then, when oil became scarce, guess what? We have got to go in after the "Weapon of Mass Destruction." Regime change...blah blah blah...So, Operation Iraqi Liberation (O.I.L) was planned...waiting for the right opportunity...then the FBI and CIA neglected the warnings from their field officers about an impending 911 plot...

Now, we have an indefinitely-long "War on Terror" that Bush and Co. have been milking every drops of it ever since 9-11-01. The Gov. now has the right to read your email and listen-in to your phone conversation...Human rights is in suspension...War against Iran is in the planning phase?

Declaring the "War" on Global Warming mean puting the end on the most unholy "Oil War(s)" that have been brewing since the early of this century.

Increasing, with the on-going proliferation of nuclear weapons, which will, as a matter of time, get into the hand of the American-hating terrorists, continuing to playing with the dirty "Oil War" is like playing Russian Roulette! (I can see Putin nodding his head!)

"Alas, the capacity of human beings to swallow horsersh!t and regurgitate in murderous ways is truly appalling." R Heinlein

I agree, like believing that NO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Isn't the underlying point of this article that no auto maker has a silver bullet that allows its vehicles to have better gas mileage (and thus reduce greenhouse gases)? Honda and Toyota have better CAFE numbers because they produce and sell more light vehicles, their hybrids notwithstanding.

This emphasizes the importance of Socolow's wedge model. Reduction of greenhouse gases from transportation will require action on a number of fronts. Improvements to ICEs and reduction of vehicle weights could be two wedges that contribute to the reduction. These need to be accompanied by development of alternative fuels for ICEs, as well as alternative propulsion mechanisms like electric motors.

A carbon tax can also help reduce greenhouse gas production by providing a disincentive to generate it. The tax need not adversely affect the economy. One approach is to accompany the tax phase in with reductions of income taxes, including those on corporations. The incentives for corporations to avoid US income taxes through accounting or moving activities off shore are reduced, while incentives to employ technologies that produce less carbon are increased. Of course, these carbon-reduction technologies must themselves be researched, productionized and sold, economic activity that will create new businesses and jobs.

Finally, I agree with earlier comments that leadership on the GHG issue is lacking in the US. I am cynical as to whether that will change, at least within the circles of political power. Perhaps our system discourages individuals with leadership skills from running for high offices; maybe it even prevents them.

Given our consumer culture, perhaps we need a company with a talent for product design and marketing to make environmentalism sexy. Anyone for an iCar?

Did anyone read the Autoworld link to understand the reason cars are so heavy.
Point is, Activists that advocate mandates for safety, features etc are in no small part responsible for the excessive weight of vehicles today.

Even Honda and Toyota are complicit by responding to the market (convenience features and power) and the government regulation ie airbags, crash testing requirements that call a foot injury catastrophic etc…

Read how much heavier the Accord is 2008 vs 2007 [no more hybrid here]. Same for Toyota Highlander. All you central planners cannot beat the market. The market is moving rather quickly in engineering terms because of the high cost of fuel. This is a good thing. Central planning [also known as mandates] is a proven failure..

All you central planners cannot beat the market.

These kinds of comments on DARPAnet, I mean the Internet, always amuse me.

safety has a price in increased weight. increased weight means you have to have a bigger engine, bigger engine means less economy.

take a look at the honda cvcc from back in the day, that thing couldn't have weighed more than 1500lbs soaking wet and it all ran on a 1.2liter 75hp motor that was smaller than the engine in my RC car, it got roughly 40mpg.

todays cars, you're lucky if you can find one under 3000lbs. or less than 2.0 liters...

granted the cars back then were rolling tin cans and if you got hit you wouldn't have to worry about whether the insurance would total it, cause you'd be dead.

but now, thanks to all of these safety cells, blah blah blah, I can drive around with piece of mind that when I get smashed by someone not paying attention that I will survive to drive another day!

The solution is announced. BYD (China) will mass produce low cost PHEVs and BEVs with much lower cost iron based batteries (rechargeable in 10 minutes) by mi-2008.

Put your orders in.

How much of the weight due to safety concerns is caused by the presence of over sized vehicles on the roads? If you didn't have to worry about some bozo speeding in an Escalade hitting you or flipping over onto you, would we really need such extensive safety systems. Its similar to how much protection you would wear in the rain if it were a drizzle verses a heavy downpour.

Western Europe's high fuel taxes makes fuel efficiency a priority for its vehicle owners. As a result, its combined average fuel economy is nearly twice as high as America's. The bigger vehicles in America, however, have not given us greater safety than Europe, where the vehicle death rate per mile is 1/3 lower than America's.

The original Austin Mini was 10 feet long and could seat 5 adults (the modern Mini is longer but can't). My 1993 Dodge minivan is shorter than a newer Honda Civic. The Dodge Caliber, which replaced the Neon, weighs as much as my minivan, but has much less space and utility. My plain-jane 1998 Neon with 5-speed averages 38 mpg. in mixed driving and gets 44 on the highway. The Caliber, with its more efficient engine won't come close to that. My wife and I use our Neon for 80% of our driving.

Americans primarily use their vehicles as personal transportation pods. Most of the time we drive alone. Our gross inefficiency has been possible because of cheap, readily available fuel. Those days are rapidly ending. We can choose a soft landing or a hard landing, but land we will. It's not if, but when.

Visualizing the primary purpose of a non-commercial vehicle as a "pod" instead of a multi-use, swiss-army knife "transporter" allows us to achieve significant efficiency improvements with existing technology and materials.

I'm arguing for a taxonomy that breaks down vehicles into two classes: "minimalist pods" which are used for 80% of total miles, and "generalist transporters" to haul large numbers of people and goods for the remaining 20% of miles.

For example, the Smart car is a minimalist pod, designed specifically for Europe's narrow city streets and lack of parking space. Three Smart cars can nose into one American parallel parking slot. The minivan, on the other hand, is Detroit's greatest innovation, the best generalist transporter yet designed.

You should own the vehicle that best fills your need 80% of the time. Lease the vehicle that fills occasional needs. The market is flooded with vehicles that are generalists, but most of the time all we need are pods, and those vehicles are not available.

I'm arguing for a change in user behavior and vehicle morphology. It can be accomplished through a stiff carbon tax. It can also be accomplished through societal collapse.

I grew up in a refugee camp after WWII. We had nothing and we got by. We walked a lot. A bicycle was worth its weight in gold. I knew of only one person, a doctor, who owned a car. Before I came to the U.S., I only had had one ride, and that was in a truck.

Great points, Fred.

Those with only occasional needs of large personal hauler should be able to quickly rent those at the supermarket or local gas station by the hours or by the days, while daily commute can be done using much more fuel-efficient cars.

Joint or group or shared ownership of these personal large haulers or specialty vehicles is another possibility. Each of these ownership club will have hundreds of joint owners and a number of different vehicles ranging from sport cars, minivans, larger vans, trucks, etc...depending on your purpose at the time, whether to impress your new date with a red Corvette, or take your whole in-law family to a retreat with a 9-seat GM Suburban, or to go to a ghetto slump in a beat-up 1978 smoky clunker, or to go to collect debts in a...? black MB S600 with totally darken windows...etc.

Jadk,

I try to be charitable to your jibes at everyone you don't agree with, including me. You have revealed yourself to be an anti-American fabulist ever eager to beleive whatever conspiracy thoery has been cooked up and agrees with your prejudices. But once agains i ask you to please desist wiuth the ad hominems.

Your wise ass comments about a typographical error, N2O versus NO2 when we both knew that I was discussing and meant nitrous oxide is absurd.

Unless you really do not think that nitrous oxide is a GHG. In such a case, I recall you asked for references. Try reading something of substance for a change, than your left wing Marxist drivel.

Try the IPCC AR4 Section 2 pages 34-43 which certainly reveals nitrous oside to be a GHG of substantial strength. Unless you think the IPCC Interim Report IV is is a hotbed of anthropogenic anti-global warming hysteria.

Remember...

Jerk also rhymes with Jack.

Jadk,

I try to be charitable to your jibes at everyone you don't agree with, including me. You have revealed yourself to be an anti-American fabulist ever eager to beleive whatever conspiracy thoery has been cooked up and agrees with your prejudices. But once again I ask you to please desist wiuth the ad hominems.

Your wise ass comments about a typographical error, N2O versus NO2 when we both knew that I was discussing and meant nitrous oxide is absurd.

Unless you really do not think that nitrous oxide is a GHG. In such a case, I recall you asked for references. Try reading something of substance for a change, than your left wing Marxist drivel.

Try the IPCC AR4 Section 2 pages 34-43 which certainly reveals nitrous oside to be a GHG of substantial strength. Unless you think the IPCC Interim Report IV is is a hotbed of anthropogenic anti-global warming hysteria.

Remember...

Jerk also rhymes with Jack.

a typographical error

LOL!!!!!!!!

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

You just happened to make this "typographical error" repeatedly and insulted me repeatedly about it. Be a man for once and admit you have no idea what you're talking about.

Unless you really do not think that nitrous oxide is a GHG.

Unlike you, Stanley, I'm well acquainted with the literature. But that's probably because I spend my time reading and understanding instead of spending inordinate amounts of time trying to think of clever ways to brag about myself and demean most of the human race with pure gibberish.

Jerk also rhymes with Jack.

LOL!! It does?

You're a friggin loon, Stan. You should be locked up.

Oh, Stanley, here's that thread:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/08/vienna-talks-re.html

"NO2 levels in the atmosphere are stabilized, and not rising." - Stan Peterson
"Who knew that nitrogen dioxide was a (major) greenhouse gas?" - Jack

[note how I specifically called NO2 its correct name - now watch Stanley's reply]

"The IPCC knows that NO2 is a GHG. They discuss is at length in all their interim IPCC Reports. Try reading the TAR III or the current AR4. But then you wouldn't know that. The Elmer Gantry flunkout, showed you a movie and you converted." - Stan Peterson

That's quite a "typographical error" there, Stanley. You said NO2, I laughed at the fact that you said nitrogen dioxide is a GHG, then you doubled down and said that the UN knows that NO2 is a GHG and babbled on with a half dozen more acronyms and your standard pablum about Elmer Gantry.

Now in this thread you act like you were talking about nitrous oxide, even though you said NO2 twice and didn't flinch when I spelled it out as nitrogen dioxide.

Face it, Stanley - you're full of crap and everyone here knows it. Please stop making a fool of yourself by posting here. It's downright sad.

"You have revealed yourself to be an anti-American fabulist ever eager to beleive whatever conspiracy thoery has been cooked up and agrees with your prejudices. But once agains i ask you to please desist wiuth the ad hominems."

So Stanley, after you lay into me with an extended ad hominem (a logical fallacy you employ in every single comment you make), you ask someone to desist with ad hominems?

YOU FIRST, LOONIE. LEAD BY EXAMPLE.

We could make cars lighter without exotic technologies. It is just easier and more profitable to make them the way that they always have made them. Engineers can design a light safe car that would sell at a good price. It is my belief that the decision makers want the same thing that has made them money all along.

BOTTOM LINE: GM makes the best over-weight gas guzzlers you can buy.

I think the engineers can design a light weight cars to a good price by keeping the fuel economy in mind.It can be achieve.