I think ever since the auto makers got in a bind with the higher price for oil, they have been looking for a way to be less dependent on it. I remember hearing that Henry Ford wanted to run his cars on methanol (wood alcohol), but Standard Oil told him that they could provide gasoline cheaper and would build the gas stations, refineries and provide the transportation. The rest, as they say, is history...

I don't think that GM is responsible for the success of the SUV. People love them. So they sell them. It will be hard for GM to move away from them because ultimately they don't influence our decisions. They can only make a compelling product with good qualities (gas mileage included).

typical liberal bs, always blame corporate america first cause people are never the problem.
WRONG, if people didnt want SUV then GM wouldnt build them, period. People are always the problem.
If you dont like SUVs, then dont buy them and if enough people quit buying them then corporate america will respond.
I dont like and wont buy a SUV,however I like the fact that I can buy one if I want to, because thats what the US is about.

I will not argue the point, but research the facts. GM and Ford DID promote their SUVs for years before they became popular. You could say that this was just faith in their product or that they were high margin and profitable. Either way, they did promote them for years before sales and profits caught up.

2.3 billion tons of biomass/year required to offset US transportation oil usage (pretend diesels can burn it too) via this process.

I think we're still going to need more efficient vehicles. But at least this is a start. Economic to do anytime oil is over about $50/barrel, I'd guess.

GM and Ford did promote the SUV and pick up as passenge car before peoples want them, they took advantage of a loophole. Light Truck in the early 80s where considered as professional vehicle and where not required to meet CAFE standard, also there were protected by a 30% import tax, that's why amercan car manufacturer jumped into that opportunities to sell truck as passenger cars. And today they are doing the same with this flexfuel rip-off. They are selling million of flexfuel vehicle that will never burn any E85 because flexfuel cars are not supposed to meet CAFE standards.

Yes GM, Chrysler and FORD are responsible of american wasteful habits, yes they are responsible for american troop in iraq and war fo oil (under the cover of war for mass destruction weapons) , of course american customer are responsible too because they buy them but they didn't ask for them in the first place.

Sorry sir

It does matter if the big three are responsible, because they haven't changed contrary to what they claim, they are jumping on the loophole of the flexfuel and trying to oppose Californian efforts to slash green house gas emission ass well as fighting oil addiction, they are corrupting politician to avoid that anything could change.

Wow, this is fantastic! This may make it easier for us to derive fuel from algae. Perhaps if this project succeeds then we can produce ethanol from algae using strains that are the most hardy and reproductive and not have to worry about their oil concentration.

Shane

Don't get me wrong and read my first mail, I praised that they support an innovative action but that's not a reason to disregard their responsability in america oil addiction which is one of he most dangerous thing that threatenus given that it drives worlwide gepolitical turmoil and terrorism as well as exposing us to a violent shockwave as the peak oil is appraoching. Their responsability is not only thing of the past it is still today corruption and lobbying.

Mr Harvey D. says:

"You may be giving the USA public way too much credit. We have definately not reached that level of maturity. The majority buys and does what repeated ads are pushing. That's what it's all about. "

I find this a contemptuous and underhanded attack on the intelligence of Americans and the consumer. Who are you to decide on the "level of maturity of Americans"? Nobody asked you and it is not your friggin business. Go and opinionate such BS artistry elsewhere, dude.

Ultimately, we are the agents for ourselves, and we have to accept responsibility for ourselves. Nobody has given you the power to decide what I can do or not do.

If I buy an SUV against my own interests, it is not your friggin business, and I did not ask your opinion about such general and bland anthrophobic statements.

If I take a bad decision, and buy an SUV, then I will pay, and I will learn. It is worth the learning experience.

I don't need a friggin social boss to tell me how to shop or how to think or how to value autos or whether my intentions are true or manipulated. Take your mind control somewhere else, and build your own society and then tell them what to consume. We don't need you in a free and open society.

Treehugger, I am no fan of GM or large Yukon SUV's, but could you spell out what is "GM's responsibility in America's oil addiction"? Are American's paying through their nose for high gasoline prices or not? Are Americans so stupid and contemptous that they cannot discern that a smaller vehicle will consume less gas and cost less?

How about that in a decade, China will be consuming more oil than America. Is GM also responsible for the Chinese, Europeans, Arabs (the highest per capita consumption in the world today) and the Indians?

Or is it simply that you want to impose your half-ideas on the public, thinking you know so much more than the public as a whole?

This is a brilliant move on GM's part. They can:

1) Continue producing large engines for large vehicles - which they are very good at. Americans (including myself) generally want big vehicles with a lot of power. If fuel had a fairly fixed cost of $1.25 - $2 a gallon, I would go back to a big truck in a heartbeat.
No one has demonstrated yet the capability of building big, powerful trucks/SUV's with a cheap/clean/renewable fuel.

2) Look green(actually be green) and be national security minded.

3) Protect jobs - including union jobs. There are an incredible number of jobs (esp. union jobs) related to big car/truck/engine production at GM. This allows them to keep more of the jobs they have remaining vs. hemmorage more due to layoffs (ie. Michigan - in a one state recession/depression).

Think about it - a sustainable domestic fuel source not related to our food supply with a production cost of $1 a gallon or less? Happy days would be here again for the Big 3.

ejj: these are fairly short term liquid fuel solutions that will eventually be replaced by SCAP/BEVs. But it is certainly good to see that GM and other manufacturers are taking steps to assure there will be biofuel for their next gen cars.