IISD pushing for national pledges to phase-out fossil fuel subsidies
Researchers confirm existence of North Icelandic Jet current; implications for ocean response to climate change

VW up! minicar to launch in December with 3-cylinder gasoline engines; natural gas engine to follow

Up
The new Volkswagen up!. Click to enlarge.

Volkswagen will launch its new up! minicar in December, first in the European market, with 3 versions for different budgets and needs: take up! is the entry-level car; move up! the comfort-oriented one; and high up! the top version. Directly at the car’s market launch, there will also be 2 independent models based on the high up!: the up! black and the up! white.

The new up! initially will offer two variants of a new generation of 3-cylinder gasoline engine, with output of 44 kW / 60 PS (59 hp) and 55 kW / 75 PS (74 hp). Combined fuel consumption as a BlueMotion Technology version (including a Stop/Start system) is 4.2 l/100 km (56 mpg US) for the 60 PS model and 4.3 l/100 km (55 mpg US) for the 75 PS model. Both of these 1.0-liter engines emit less than 100 g/km CO2.

A natural gas engine with 50 kW / 68 PS (67 hp) with the same basic configuration will follow. Its combined fuel consumption of 3.2 kg/100 km (natural gas) is equivalent to a CO2 value of 86 g/km; as a BlueMotion Technology version the natural-gas powered up! attains a low CO2 value of 79 g/km. There are also definite plans for an up! with an electric drive for the year 2013.

A new safety technology system is the optional City Emergency Braking system. It is automatically active at speeds under 30 km/h (19 mph), and it uses a laser sensor to detect the risk of an imminent collision. Depending on the vehicle’s speed and the driving situation, City Emergency Braking can reduce accident severity by initiating automatic brake interventions, and possibly even avoid a crash, VW says. So far, the up! is the only vehicle in the segment to be offered with an emergency braking function for city driving.

With a 3.54 meter length and 1.64 meter width, the up! is one of the smallest four-seat cars. The Volkswagen is 1.48 meters tall. Its overall length consists of short body overhangs and a very long wheelbase (2.42 meters).

If the goal is to maximize space, the ideal form for a small car would be a rectangular box. In the up! we were able to sculpt such a box with a clean and powerful design that does not lose sight of space utilization.

—Klaus Bischoff, Head of Design for the Volkswagen Brand

Space utilization in the car is facilitated by the wheelbase, combined with an engine that is mounted well forward.

Comments

HarveyD

Applying high tariffs on imported goods and giving important subsidies (with borrowed $$$) to your manufacturing facilities is admitting that you can't compete and that the end is near, unless you can bring about major changes to increase productivity and lower cost. This could be done by convincing people with millions/billions to re-invest into local productivity improvements instead of moving to China.

This could start by giving all students, 3-years and above, a locally built folding 8-9 inch, 10-inch, or 12-inch rugged tablet with two-way Wi-Fi to receive guided higher quality educational data and measure how much they have learnt. No need to produce or import paper books, large plastic-leather bags, pencils, etc. Handicapped children could receive the same data and learn while at home. Producing the higher quality digital educational data would become a new industry. Teachers would become lower paid monitors. Of course, students (and parents) could download the educational data (free) for home studies.

This could be expanded to all 20,000,000 unemployed people to upgrade their knowledge and skill levels.

Roger Pham

@HarveyD,
There is no need for tariffs from goods made in the Free Trade Zone, made up of countries with similar environmental and worker protection standards. No gov. subsidies will be needed if private investors can be convinced that domestic manufacturers will be protected from unfair competition and from non-level playing field!

Students will not be motivated to study science and technology if most R&D facilities and factories are moved overseas! The gov. will only need to show their intention to protect domestic tech firms from unfair competition abroad, and private investments will come in, and more and more students will choose careers in science and technology. Adopt the German system of highschool apprentiship for blue collar workers to avoid unnecessary expense of college education. Not everyone need to go to college to do well in life and to contribute to society.

ToppaTom

I think I agree with most or much of what you say RP.

But what does “mobilize the mass[es] to get ready to reclaim our industrial base” mean? Like in Libya? Reclaim from whom?.

I do believe that, with the included [clarifications] much of what you say is true:
“if we have [public] investments to open factories and businesses and to build infrastructure and to clean up our environment [but only where it is fiscal sound to do so], we will create jobs and we will grow the economy and we will have [more] prosperity...very simple. We will no longer have to import [as much] energy [maybe] and instead use that money to infuse into our domestic economy...more jobs...All from Private,...not a dime from government money [i.e. not a dime that free enterprise does not think is fiscally sound].

“Can you think of a way to translate tax break saving into job creation other than Renewable Energy and Environmental conservation?”

Well, let me put it this way, “Can you think of a better way to create jobs than letting the people keep their money to spend on the best valued goods?”

Or “Can you think of a better way to illustrate the typical government bureaucrat’s stupidity and fiscal irresponsibility than pouring money into whichever Renewable Energy and Environmental conservation programs the public sector has judged to be NOT viable?”

As for: “appropriate tariffs . . . . so that our factories will have time to be built and ramp up production for domestic demands.”
I would agree, BUT, for reasons to varied and complex for me to grasp, this has virtually NEVER, EVER worked; for any nation.

“The major USA problem may be in the Congress with over 86% not trusting what those politicians have been doing in the last 10 years.” TRUE; I think the root cause is that ANY give away program that gives money to any significant number of people is very, very difficult to terminate - and is becoming impossible.

For instance; Who would support a union that can strike against the STATE (an evil employer?) for more wages. Those who benefit by being in this union, and support this, are morally bankrupt. Those not in the union, who support this, are morons.

“Paying them [politicians] much more, up to $1M/year each and making it a major crime to accept any favors while in office.”
Why would you think either of these would be effective, HD?

ToppaTom


" . . and that the end is near, unless you can bring about major changes to increase productivity and lower cost. This could be done by convincing people with millions/billions to re-invest into local productivity improvements instead of moving to China."

No.

Local productvity is HIGH.
Based on value produced/hour.

But this metric is flawed:
1) Productivity is based on sales price and US goods are over priced because of #2.
2) Our wages are high. Not "unfairly" high (well maybe in forced union shops), just high because our "standard of living". Thats why TVs, computers, toys, etc. etc. are long gone overseas.

It is not because we had inefficient factories.
Manufacturing went where they use manual labor (at $5/day) in place of machines.

You say they are mechanizing NOW.
Fine, so what? Jobs WENT, years ago.

Roger Pham

Thank you, ToppaTom, for seeing my points.

Sorry, my rhetorics were at times, too harsh. I did not mean to incite economic warfare, just to alert that having sufficient manufacturing base is vital to a country's economic independence. By gradually imposing tariffs on goods from countries with lower environmental and worker protection standards, we are actually helping them as well as helping ourselves. We will further convince all countries with the same standards as ourselves to impose the same tariffs, thus forcing adequate environmental standards and worker protection standards on developing countries. We will thus preserve the air and water for the entire Earth and improving human dignity and quality of life everywhere. This will reduce outsourcing of jobs to developing countries because the final products will be imposed tariffs when imported back.

If, however, we lower our standards to compete with them, then we all will lose when the Earth will be more and more polluted, and workers everywhere will be very overworked and underpaid and can't buy much, and have no time to spend money, and the entire global economy will suffer...

Why did I emphasize Green Technology vs. others, say, cosmetic, biotech, nanotech, etc ? This is because we are highly dependent on oil importation to function. Coal energy has been highly polluting. This is also because the trend in economic growth will be more and more pollution with increasing consumption of material goods. With cheap foreign imports, our houses now are ladden with clothing, plastic products, electronics that require the release of toxic chemicals during their manufacturing and will pollute the environment when they will be thrown away. With higher and higher worker productivity, we will need to consume more and more to provide jobs, since one worker can produce more than several workers in the past. Only with Green jobs, like in recycling, can we create jobs and economic growth without more pollution, actually, reduce pollution and be sustainable.

For those who believe in AGW and dire consequences of AGW, then the Green Tech movement will be obvious and requires no further justification.

ToppaTom

By gradually imposing tariffs on goods from countries with lower environmental and worker protection standards, we are actually helping them become the leading economic powerhouses as we wither in the byways. Their culture with its lack of respect for the worker and environment will predominate.

I agree; for those who believe in AGW and dire consequences of AGW, the Green Tech movement requires no justification.

Roger Pham

@TT,
What I share with the Tea Party is the belief in minimum taxation and minimum regulation and no governmental subsidy nor handout, no corporate welfare, and reduced welfare and entitlements to bare minimum , to just below the riot threshold!

What has messed up the world economy is various subsidies from governments in respective countries, which, in turn, messed up free trade. Governmental subsidies creates corruption and cronyism and distrust by the people and by other countries.

Instead, the most important role of government should be as a referee only, to lead in the right direction and to provide rules and enforcement for fair competition.

Government should not subsidize illegitimacy, as Rush Limbaugh once observed, nor subsidizing mediocrity, by giving out welfare money for babies after babies without restriction, nor large bail-outs to big and corrupted financial institution with borrowed money, which in turn, bankrupting the country, nor doling out free health care even when we clearly cannot afford it!

I sincerely hope that a Green Tea Party, with a balanced view of economics, environment, humanity and sociology, can and will do much good to reform the current ills of most governments of the world today!

ToppaTom

Very well said Roger.

Regardless of the other principles the Tea Party adopts (and I hope they are few or none), their main platform includes a balanced budget, no earmarks and no lobbies.

This alone puts them far, far above the two “main” parties.

And to condemn them for frustrating the two established parties and the administration is simply mind boggling and ominous.

kelly

Per gas guzzlers, the US sends occupiers to Arab lands at $2800/day/soldier to guard oil, rebuild our own war damage, kill Arabs, and medic the survivors.

Meanwhile, we can't defend our own Southern boarders or citizen's health.

US defense and health, medical and financial, must begin at home.

Herm

High tariffs and gov work programs sounds suspiciously like 1930's America.. we all know how that ended up. What we need is a competitive business environment in the US, less barriers to manufacturing and business. Good luck with that when most people make their living from the Government.

"Government should not subsidize illegitimacy, as Rush Limbaugh once observed, nor subsidizing mediocrity, by giving out welfare money for babies after babies without restriction, nor large bail-outs to big and corrupted financial institution with borrowed money, which in turn, bankrupting the country, nor doling out free health care even when we clearly cannot afford it! "

Well said!

The comments to this entry are closed.