China’s ‘3D Fast Bus’ Straddles the Road

Now this stuff is pretty ingenious. A bus that straddles the road while cars are allowed to drive through to cut down on traffic.

Instead of building subways, the Chinese company Shenzhen Hashi Future Parking Equipment Co. designed a bus/train that straddles the roadway two lanes wide, with the passenger level on a second story level allowing vehicles to drive under it/through it.

This is the kind of innovation we need to help carry us into the future.

 

Go to the site to view the video.

Republicans Think Properly Inflated Tires Is A Joke

It has been proven countless times that if you keep your car’s tires properly inflated and keep your car properly tuned you will get increased gas mileage.

Senator Obama made this same statement and Republicans have turned it into a joke by making this one of their daily talking points; Rush Limbaugh is having a field day; and Republican National Convention is sending tire gauges labeled “Barack Obama’s Energy Plan” to Washington reporters.

This illustrates the ignorance that we need to overcome to get this country on the right path to energy efficiency. Efficiency experts say that keeping tires inflated can improve gas mileage 3%, and regular maintenance can add another 4%. If everyone followed this advice then this nation could reduce our demand on oil by several percentage points.

Also, if we cut down on idling, we can improve fuel economy another 5%, and cutting down on speeding and unnecessary acceleration, will increase mileage as much as 20%. It truly is in our own hands to cut back on our oil dependency. And this will help lower gas prices. We have already witnessed this in that the recent decline in the number of miles driven has lowered gas prices. We are not powerless and doomed to be forever dependent on big oil, as the Republicans would have us believe.

Why is it that the simplest, easiest and most cost effective solution is often seen as a waste of time and therefore not taken seriously? This is exactly the time to say “it is the little things that add up to make a big difference”.

Their mantra is to get as many people as possible involved, with their hands out, to make as much money as possible from some unnecessarily complicated plan in order to ‘fix’ what can so easily be taken care of yourself.

Now, republicans have made this a political joke which will only serve to make more people think it is a waste of time. And it backfires on them by showing us all how unconcerned they are with reducing our dependence on oil. Once again the republicans have screwed up our future because of their ignorance. Only people who are affiliated with the oil industry would think this is a useless and dumb idea.

The latest rally cry is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but we currently receive about 50% of crude oil and petroleum products from the Western Hemisphere (North, South, and Central America and the Caribbean including U.S. territories) during 2006. We imported only 16% of our crude oil and petroleum products from the Persian Gulf countries of Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates. During 2006, our five biggest suppliers of crude oil and petroleum products were:

# Canada (17.2%)
# Mexico (12.4%)
# Saudi Arabia (10.7%)
# Venezuela (10.4%)
# Nigeria (8.1%)

The republicans grand plan for reducing oil prices is to expand offshore drilling which even they admit will only meet about 1% of this nation’s demand by 2030. How is that going to reduce prices today? Expanding offshore oil drilling will only benefit big oil by expanding their profit.

Instead of wasting campaign dollars on ads to attack Obama for trying to do something positive, these juveniles that call themselves republicans need to research the much publicized effectiveness of car maintenance to get better gas mileage and therefore reduce our dependence on foreign oil and lower the price of gas by decreasing the demand on gasoline, which is exactly what the voters want.

Please do something really big for yourself, drive responsibly, keep your car tuned up, and keep your tires properly inflated. Simple actions on your part and, yes, it does make a difference.

Drive Faster or Save Nature?

Why destroy natural habitat and bleed our bank accounts just so we don’t have to change our ways?

According to the Alliance to Save Energy the best way to deal with rising gas prices is to:
- drive 5% less
- slow down
- inflate your tires

Sounds simple enough.

If everyone followed these simple steps U.S. oil consumption would decrease by 1.3 million barrels a day, immediately.

If we do this then we would not need to search for more oil. Oil companies could not say they have to rip out nature to feed our unquenchable thirst for more oil.

We are still using plastic bags and plastic water containers by the billions. We are still driving like there is no shortage. I get passed by people on the freeway every day. Somebody out there is not slowing down. Somebody out there is still buying water in plastic bottles.

Figures claim that we are driving less, and mass transit ridership is up. Let’s don’t just rely on them to reduce our dependence on oil let’s all jump in and help.

We all complain about being forced to pay more for gasoline and instead of following these simple common sense steps that would save us money and cut down on the amount of oil we consume the U.S. wants to drill for more oil. When George W Bush wants to drill for more oil it should send up a red flag that we should not drill for more oil. He is only going to help his ‘big oil’ friends bottom line. Face it people we have reached maximum capacity without destroying more natural habitat. And we can do something about it.

Please, slow down, quit accelerating so hard, and maintain your vehicle. Think about what your personal habits are costing every one. If you don’t care about what it is costing everyone else then think about how much money you personally could save if you just followed these simple, very reasonable, steps.

Where are you going in such a hurry?

According to Julius Pretterebner, a vehicles and alternative-fuels expert at Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a consultancy that does a lot of work for the oil companies, how fast people drive and how quickly they accelerate is responsible for 10% to 30% of fuel consumption.

Are Americans so unyielding to reason that we refuse to follow simple, common sense steps that will save us money.

We can’t slow down those fools who think they have to pass everyone on the road but we certainly have the power not to be one of them.

Consumer goods transported underground

If goods could be transported underground, we eliminate tons of air pollution and save millions of dollars in fuel costs. Imagine a subterranean network of distribution tubes, driven by air, that could deliver goods right to your own basement saving you from having to drive to several different stores. Delivery time would be cut drastically as well.

Just such a system has been used under Paris and Berlin until the 20^th century. Lines were built in the U.S., the UK, Canada Russia, Japan and Germany.

Trying to solve the problems associated with pneumatic air systems may make this idea too expense but with the introduction of electromagnetic drive such as that used on Maglev rail systems around the world, this idea might be worth further study.

Source: Low-tech Magazine

EPA gets tough on smog

Everyone has noticed it, it is no secret how the very air we breathe has been slowly deteriorating to the point that many cities now regularly post air quality warnings on their television, radio and newspaper news broadcasts.

After failing to enforce air quality standards imposed by the EPA decades ago, they are going to try again. Obviously, if those standards had been enforced when first introduced we would not be in the mess we are in today.

So, what is the EPA going to do differently this time? To start, they are ordering a multibillion-dollar expansion of efforts to clean up smog in cities and towns nationwide. Sounds like a plan. Corporations will of course not be bothered by it because they will slow-dance around in the court system delaying the requirements crying that they are too cost-restrictive for them, just as they did before, and nothing will ever come of it.

The Environmental Protection Agency announced it was tightening the amount of ozone, commonly known as smog, that will be allowed in the air. But the lower standard still falls short of what most health experts say is needed to significantly reduce heart and asthma attacks from breathing smog-clogged air. Falling short. Sound familiar? It should. The recent attempt to get automobile manufacturers to improve their cars fuel mileage and lower emission levels fell short too.

This government is more about talking a good game than actually taking the steps to do anything about it. All the while insuring that their corporate buddies don’t suffer any loss to their bottom line.

Admittedly it is a very big problem and just writing some stricter standards is not going to change anything.

The ‘most stringent standards ever’ claims EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson. But they are only going to be enforced in 345 counties out of the more than 700 monitored. That means that 355 counties are still going to continue polluting at their current rate. Fifty percent seems to be on par with the output level of the EPA. This is what we commonly refer to half-assed.

This new ‘get tough’ policy comes from the same people that refused to allow California and a host of other states to get tough on automobile pollution within their own states.

This administrator is ignoring two of the EPA’s own science advisory panels on air quality and children’s health by lowering the ozone parts per billion from 80 to 75 when the panels have proof that it needs to be lowered to 60. In this move, Administrator Johnson is leaving the most vulnerable members of our society, children, the elderly and asthma suffers to fend for themselves. Then he has the nerve to make the statements that “…I adhered to the science” and the new standard will ”yield health benefits valued between $2 billion and $19 billion."

Sure its going to cost us more to clean up this mess, this is what happens when you allow polluters to not adhere to standards for so long. Since you did not enforce the previous standards what makes us believe you will enforce these?

The utility and oil companies of course opposed stricter standards, even at this very minute level, saying it will increase their costs and therefore ‘hurt the economy’. Give me a break. The oil company is especially being audacious when they claim to care about the economy in light of the fact they are instrumental in raising oil prices to record level.

George W. Bush, in his usual corporate-profit driven mindset, wants to over throw the 1970 federal Clean Air Act that says costs cannot be a factor when setting health standards.

Health experts and environmentalists view the setting of health standards without consideration of cost as essential for assuring public health. As well they should. This clearly shows Bush and Johnson as protecting corporate profit over protecting the public.

Corporations are complaining about the stricter standards now as a preliminary for lobbying for more protection from the government in the form of tax breaks and incentives, which they will most likely get. They care very little about the economy because the government will always bail them out.

The setting of this new standard is nothing more than setting up corporations for getting more money from our government. It has nothing to do with protecting us or our environment.

Once again we see more talk and a little less action.

How green do we really want to be with gasoline?

Do we really, truly care about conserving gasoline, water, electricity? How serious are we about recycling? Are we as green as we want to be? Are we as green as we think we are?

This is a continuing series into the exploration of just how concerned we are about caring for our environment when it comes to our personal comforts.

We toss a few items into the recycle bin, our conscience is tested at the grocery store when asked “paper or plastic?”, we trade our incandescent light bulbs for energy efficient compact fluorescent lightbulbs, yet we buy our water in non-degradable plastic bottles by the caseload. We fool ourselves into thinking we are environmentally friendly and that we take energy conservation seriously and then, daily, we participate in the most egregious, blatant, resource-wasting activity we know. We drive our cars and trucks in the same manner as we did before the words fuel and shortage were ever uttered in the same sentence.

This one area of our daily lives has the greatest potential for being a major turning point in the battle against global warming and yet we refuse to take that step.

Sure, automobile manufacturers and a handful of private citizens are devising ways to make cars more fuel efficient but that is only because the federal government and certain market conditions are forcing them to. We Americans, on the whole, are fighting it tooth and nail. We continue to purchase the latest ‘big and powerful’, whether it be a car or truck instead of going for small and fuel-efficient. We expect auto manufacturers to come up with ways to allow us to keep our ‘American Muscle’ so we can drive at top speed (and to get to top speed quicker than ever before) while simply giving the appearance of doing our part to help conserve our dwindling oil supply. And our federal government puts on a dog and pony show of pretending to be environmentally friendly, by passing legislation worded in such a way as to allow auto manufacturers to continue to produce the very same ‘big and powerful’ gas guzzling, heavy-weight vehicles they always have.

We hear a lot of talk about the rising cost of fuel and each time those prices increase we begin hearing speculation of how someday these higher fuel prices will affect our driving habits and force us to conserve. Well, from what I have witnessed so far on our nations roadways, very little has changed, with one exception, the oil companies are reaping record-breaking profits. I am not an economics major, but even I understand the law of supply and demand. Our demand is increasing, therefore, the prices increase. As though sheer numbers is not enough to increase demand, our selfish driving habits increase the demand.

The price of oil just recently broke the $100 a barrel barrier. Was that enough to change our driving habits? No. You may ask why does the price continue to go up? Is there a fuel shortage that forces these prices up? No. The oil companies see that we are not going to change our driving habits therefore nothing compels them to not raise prices. Truly everyone can understand that if we stopped driving altogether then the price of oil would take a drastic nosedive resulting in gasoline so cheap they couldn’t give it away. And yet we continue on our merry way speeding down the freeway, needlessly passing everything on the road, hurrying to where we are going, guzzling excessive amounts of fuel to have the latest biggest and most powerful vehicles, because it has become a habit.

It has also become a habit to complain about the higher prices, yet we refuse to do our part to keep prices low. We have the power to dictate lower prices at the pump. Don’t believe me? Then read the following list of habits that will illustrate our wastefulness and help explain my logic.

Excessive idling
Millions of Americans, every cold wintry morning, start their cars and leave them to idle for 5, 10, 20, up to 30 minutes in their driveway while they stay inside in the warmth of the house because we all want to ride in a comfortably warm car. We allow our vehicles to idle in fast food drive-thru lanes. We allow our vehicles to idle at the curbside while we run into the store ‘just for a minute’. We adopt the mindset that, oh, it is only costing me a few pennies, if we bother to think about it at all. Yet not a single thought is given to how much fuel it is taking away from the rest of us. We are oblivious to how much extra pollution we are putting into the air by letting that car unnecessarily idle, and we are obviously more concerned with our personal comfort than we are in the price of gasoline.

Hard acceleration
After idling your car in the driveway for your personal comfort, you drive off to your destination. Do you slowly get up to speed or do you hard-accelerate to get up to and over the speed limit as quickly as you can? Do you follow this same pattern of hard-acceleration from every stop sign, from every red light, around every car that is moving slower than you want to drive? I see all of these things taking place every day. I see my neighbor pull out of her driveway and take off like she is trying to set some land speed record to get to the next stop sign. Everyday! Clearly, this is nothing more than a habit. Why does she drive like this? I see guys do this too, so don’t think I am being sexist by singling her out. Do you know how much gas could be saved by gently accelerating to and driving at the posted 25 mph speed limit on our residential street? Multiply that savings by driving more conservatively on every street. How many people do you know actually drive the posted speed limit? If you know of any, I’ll bet you could count them on one hand. I drive the speed limit and I am constantly harassed by impatient drivers who don’t like having to slow down to the speed limit. And these drivers represent every age group and both sexes.

Excessive speed
Once you get on the road to wherever you are going, do you move along with the traffic flow or do you feel this blind, impassioned need to pass everyone as if they and you are in a race to get to the finish line first? They are not going to the same place that you are, so why do you have to pass them? I see drivers who seemingly feel they cannot stand to be behind anyone. Do they think everyone will be impressed with how fast their car can go? Zoom, zoom, zoom! Speed limits are widely viewed as suggestions. In every community I have ever driven in, people drive over the posted speed limit. By simply modifying our behavior to drive the speed limit, to obey this law that we have already paid people to determine what the safest speed should be, could save millions of gallons of fuel per year which would result in lower gas prices due to lesser demand and save more gas for all of us in the long run.

I see a car in my rearview mirror speeding up to me and I think where does this guy have to get to in such a hurry. He passes me, zooms on ahead and a few seconds later we are both sitting at the same traffic light. What did he gain by getting to that traffic light first? How much more, in fuel and money, did it cost him to get to that traffic light than it cost me? That little extra amount of gas that he burned up in getting to that traffic light ahead of me, compounded by the millions of drivers who do this everyday amounts to a lot of wasted gasoline. Gasoline that could, if saved for future use, allow all of the rest of us to drive a little bit further if we could only have it available to us. But for his personal, foolish pleasure, the rest of us won’t be able to drive that little bit further. Driving more conservatively in this instance would decrease gasoline demand and therefore decrease gasoline prices.

Combine trips
Driving to the grocery store several times a week compared to just once a week wastes a lot of gasoline too. We have all heard the urging to consolidate our trips yet how many people actually put this into practice? How many times have you made a ‘quick’ run to store just pick up a few items? Make lists, make meal plans, plan your trips more wisely. These little things all add up.

Mass transit and carpooling
Car pool lanes and mass transit were sold to us as means of easing traffic jams and saving fuel. Yet how many people actually use these properly? Very few. My community shares a commuter bus line with other neighboring communities to get residents from outlying areas to the main bus and train lines. At the end of this month that service is being cancelled due to lack of ridership. After more than one year of operation, each of the previous seven months has shown a total daily ridership of three. Does this show that mass transit is working? Certainly not in this city. This story is repeated across this country. People just do not want to give up their personal vehicles. They do not want to have to walk even two blocks to get to and from their place of employment or shopping. On the flip side, mass transit does not get most people close enough to their places of employment to make it a useable solution. Around the world, mass transit systems are in decline while operating costs continue to increase. Our tax dollars continue to be thrown at a broken system that not enough people want to use. Mass transits answer: ‘more modern, attractive public transit systems’. It’s good business for bus and train manufacturers, it keeps some people employed, but it does nothing to serve its original purpose.

Carpool lanes are abused as means of passing slower traffic. Additional revenue is raised by municipalities through charging for HOV passes that allow single occupant vehicles to drive in these lanes, because the original concept, of forcing people to ride-share to decrease the number of vehicles on the road, has not been realized. Again, because we don’t want to leave our personal vehicles sitting at home and because we don’t want to walk a few extra blocks. We shun public transportation because our own personal comfort outweighs the good it would do for our environment.

Tire pressure and routine maintenance
Other gas saving strategies that are overlooked is tire pressure and routine maintenance. How many people actually check their car’s tire pressure? Keeping all four tires properly pressurized can mean pennies in savings but they add up. Keeping your vehicle properly tuned and oil changed regularly really do add up to savings.

Driving the speed limit can mean pennies in savings. Gradually accelerating to the speed limit can save pennies. Consolidating trips can save pennies. All of these pennies can collectively add up to an unbelievable savings in the fuel supply and in the amount of money we pay at the gas pump. Have you ever tossed your loose change in a drawer or jar every time you come in the house and one day count it only to be surprised at how much you have collected? Think of changing your driving habits, saving pennies here and there, as a savings account. Only this savings affects everyone else on the road too.

It just seems to me that most people are mindlessly driving everywhere they go, which, basically, defines a habit. We need to be more conscious of how every aspect of our driving affects the amount of gas we use to get from point A to point B. Do we really have to beat everyone to the next traffic light? Do we really have to be out in front of everyone on the freeway? Do we really have to take our personal vehicle with us everywhere we go?

There is a whole field of psychology behind why people drive the way they do, and why they cherish their personal vehicles so much over the environment, and these issues are beyond the scope of the post, but come on people, what is the rush? Do we really have the right to complain of high gas prices while at the same time sustaining those high gas prices?

The bottom line is that extreme driving habits is taking fuel away from the rest of us. And it is keeping fuel prices up, for all of us!

So, are we really trying to be environmentally friendly and are we taking energy conservation seriously or are we too stubborn to give up old habits?

It seems personal comfort trumps the environment.

This is part of a continuing series that explores just how dedicated we are to saving our planet and ourselves from our polluting and energy-wasting ways.

Come back for the next installment when I explore the sham of recycling.

And, as always, please feel free to leave comments.

Resources:
Edmunds.com performed these tests and published their results here.

Daily Fuel Economy Tips
……

California responds to the EPA

(Follow-up to posting Dec 20, 2007 entitled “Come back Mr. Johnson”.)

On December 19, 2007 the EPA told California, and twelve other states, they could not enact their own legislation to combat greenhouse gas limits on cars, trucks and SUVs. The EPA said in doing so, that states have no business setting emission standards.

California has always had stricter standards for automobile emissions and the EPA has not limited their ability to enforce these laws until now.

Since that decision, four other states have decided to join California in its effort to take a lead role in cleaning up the air in their states.

EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson is apparently acting alone in this matter and does not have any legal footing to back his decision. But illegality has never slowed down George W Bush and his cronies.

"There's absolutely no justification for the administrator's action," Attorney General Jerry Brown said Wednesday. "It's illegal. It's unconscionable and a gross dereliction of duty."

The federal government is moving forward with a national solution and dismissed California's arguments that it faced unique threats from climate change. I cannot agree that California faces ‘unique’ threats from climate change because this climate threat is affecting the entire world.

There is no plausible reason why any state cannot enact its own standards separate and distinct from what the federal government wants unless the automobile industry is pressuring the federal government to halt it. A secondary layer of legislation against air pollution only ensures we clean up our air in a more timely fashion then waiting for the federal government.

The half-assed, ineffective energy legislation signed by President Bush last month will raise fuel economy standards nationwide to an average of 35 mpg by 2020. This is playing too closely to automobile manufacturer and oil industry desires to be of any use toward cleaning up our air. Also it allows foreign automakers to increase their far more fuel efficient cars to be sold here. On the plus side, this poor attempt at emissions control will help generate more interest in solar and hydrogen powered vehicles.

Instead of fighting the states, the federal EPA should work with them to see if the states’ plans are better for the nation than what the EPA can come up with.

Mr. Johnson is turning this into a power play and trying to place himself as the top dog. This kind of childish behavior is unwarranted given the fact that at least 20 states have come forward demanding strict controls on our automobile emissions levels.

The 2004 California law is tougher than the new national standard. It requires the auto industry to cut emissions by one-third in new vehicles by 2016 or reach an average of 36.8 mpg. Which, in my opinion, is still not enough.

The twelve other states that have adopted the California emissions standards are — Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

The governors of Arizona, Colorado, Florida and Utah have said they plan to adopt them and Iowa is considering adoption.

Mr. Johnson, I think the states have spoken loudly and in a clear enough manner that leaves no room for misinterpretation that demands you step up and make these standards tougher.

California’s Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said in a statement, "(EPA officials) are ignoring the will of millions of people who want their government to take action in the fight against global warming, that's why, at the very first legal opportunity, we're suing to reverse the U.S. EPA's wrong decision."

"Today, there is simply no environmental issue more compelling, or extraordinary, than the increasing threat of climate change," New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said in a statement. "Greenhouse gas emission standards for cars are a logical and necessary step to effectively combat global warming."

Automakers argue that they would have to be forced to reduce their selection of vehicles and raise prices in the states that adopted California's standards. Does anyone really need the so called selection of vehicles that comes out of Detroit? These cars all pretty much look alike and they are all built on the same basic frame anyway so what would we be giving up? As far as higher prices go, this argument simply does not stand up. Prices will already go higher to meet the federal governments lame standards so to say they will go higher because of California’s standards is simply wrong. It has already been shown that consumers are willing to pay higher prices for better mileage and lower emissions. Therefore the automakers arguments are flawed and manufactured to make themselves appear to be victims. Grow up Detroit and get with the program.

The EPA is attempting to kill a legal, viable policy tailored to help California deal with projected consequences of global climate change. Rising seas could erode our nation’s coastline and top its levees, while warming temperatures are expected to reduce mountain snowpacks, leading to a potential water crisis. But Detroit places its profit margin worries above the collective nation’s need to combat the more important, very real threat created by the products it markets to us. Forgive me, but it is very hard to find any sympathy for U.S. automakers. They have had many years and many missed opportunities to be more competitive with foreign automakers to keep our loyalty. Now they are crying when it comes time to face the music.

Car of the Future

Aptera, of Carlsbad, California, north of San Diego, has developed a car that promises up to 300 miles per gallon. As you can see the car has that Jetsons-style that those who grew up in the sixties was promised as the car of the future.


Pictured here is the prototype Typ-1 e. The vehicle, which seats two comfortably, is all-electric, has a 120-mile-range on a single charge and can reach speeds up to 90 mile per hour.

Charging the vehicle takes up to two hours on standard house current.

The engine is a hybrid diesel/electric.

It uses a hydraulic system to collect energy from the braking system to be reused for acceleration. This is a ‘must-have’ technology for any future car to compete on the open market.

It is built of a strong yet lightweight composite shell on an advanced suspension and drive train components.

It is designed to be stable enough for daily driving with plenty of cargo space behind the seats for groceries.

The sleek, lightweight body makes it aerodynamically feasible to pull off its claims of high mileage.

The lack of side view mirrors (the ability to see behind you is made possible by the use of rear-view cameras) cuts down on drag.

A couple points came up while researching this project car: one, are the drive train components reliable and are they going to be easily replaceable. It would be nice if our car of the future would be easy for any backyard mechanic to work on much as cars of yesteryear were.

Two, it could become an all-wheel drive vehicle for driving in snow. Sure it will require a little more power which would cut down on its range, but with solar panels to keep the batteries charged and the progress being made on developing sturdier better quality batteries this would not be much of a problem.

Tires need to be run-flat types due to lack of spare tire.

As a three-wheeler, a motorcycle. It is not designed to be the primary vehicle for any given family. It can be used as a second vehicle or daily commuter much as a motorcycle. It is a major improvement over crash survivability compared to a motorcycle.

Given Americans preference to ride only one person per vehicle and given the fact that carpool lanes are basically useless because of it, this vehicle makes a lot of sense. Look at the number of motorcycles on the road. They are viable because they are fuel efficient and they cost less than cars.

The more SUV’s we can get off of the road and replaced with vehicles like this the better off we will all be. The sooner we get away from the big three automakers the better off we will all be.

Aptera has two innovative models that are almost production-ready at $30,000 and below: for next year, the all-electric, 120-mile-range Typ-1 e, and, by 2009, the range-extended series gasoline Typ-1 h, which Aptera says will hit 300 mpg. A more conventional third model, called “Project X” or perhaps Typ-2, is now in the design phase, with plans for a four-wheeled chassis and seating up for to five passengers.

This vehicle represents another great example of American ingenuity and willingness to break away from the typical auto manufacturers offerings. As a prototype this vehicle is on the right track by using some ideas that will most likely be standard equipment on future vehicles.

My one greatest fear is that this company would be bought out, by one or all three big-three automakers working collectively, and the project would be shelved.

Still waiting for fuel efficient cars

When President Bush signed the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007, which will require automakers to make enormous changes in the way they make cars, he also signaled that car buyers will pay up to 15% more for new cars, according to industry analysts.

This should come as no surprise to anyone. We have been paying steadily more for new cars every year anyway. If we can get vehicles that will get better mileage without polluting our air, where’s the problem? It is a plus for the climate and therefore for us.

The automobile industry will have to embrace new technologies and invest billions in new manufacturing, but this is what we have been asking for. Pressure from the influx of foreign made vehicles and the tide of the American public buying those cars instead of American made ones should have forced them to do this years ago.

"It's a huge investment, absolutely," said Michael Stanton, president and CEO of the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers. "The automakers are going to pay for it, but they're going to have to pass some of that cost along to consumers." Again, when have they ever not passed the cost off onto car buyers.

Automakers have fought off efforts to increase the fuel efficiency standard for more than 20 years now, and its about time they face some real facts. Mounting concerns over global warming, rising fuel prices and oil dependence has finally forced them to make some changes. So the industry joined environmentalists and lawmakers to broker a compromise.

When safety devices were forced onto the auto industry they balked at that too. The addition of air bags, traction control and anti-lock brakes forced a change in automobile design and the cost was passed onto the car buying public. We got over it and now wouldn’t buy a car without these features. We’ll get over the inclusion of direct injection, hybrids and turbo diesels too.

The big three automakers, General Motors, Chrysler Group and Ford, said they would meet the standards, what choice do they have?

The industry will go through a major change in engine technology to meet the new standards. Two-thirds of the U.S. fleet will have to change to direct injection. One-third of the total market will be diesel, and half of those will be diesel-electric hybrids. Everyone is pursuing a strategy of smaller engines with direct injection and turbochargers.

They are going to have to start working on these changes right away to make the deadline and the buying public is still waiting.

EU forces emissions cap on airlines

EU ministers have agreed to impose carbon emissions quotas on airlines in an attempt to fight climate change.

The Environment Commissioner, Stavros Dimas, said a strong signal had to be sent but the United States opposes the idea and has threatened legal action.

Of course they do, the current administration will place business interests above people’s health every time.

The airline industry fears the cost of the carbon trading scheme could force some carriers out of business.

Mr. Dimas, said aviation is responsible for 3% of carbon emissions. Now they need to work on other emitters too.

He said aviation emissions had doubled since 1990 and were predicted to double again by 2020.

The airlines would have to meet their quotas, either by cutting their emissions or by buying energy credits from other industries.

Environment ministers meeting in Brussels agreed that airlines would have to buy 10% of permits upfront at auction in 2012, substantially lower than the proportion suggested by the European Parliament.

They also set the cap on emissions at the average level from 2004-2006.

Fuel economy vs. Ego and the American Politician

U.S. Auto manufactures, and the oil industry, get another break while the American consumer continues to be given the brainless choice between lower mile per gallon American made cars or higher mile per gallon foreign made cars.

Democratic leaders have deemed it prudent to not force American auto makers to give us vehicles that can actually compete in the world market for better fuel economy. Rep. John Dingell, D-Michigan, is being pressured by American auto manufacturers in his home state to minimize the impact of an energy bill likely to be sent before President Bush before Christmas. The new legislation lets the auto manufacturers off the hook to produce what Americans really need. Fuel efficient vehicles. Dingell (in his selfish bid to keep himself in office through that uniquely, and unbalanced, American institution called lobbying) has once again softened the impact of the legislation on auto manufacturers, and bowed down to their wishes leaving Americans with no option but to send our hard earned dollars into the bank accounts of foreign interests because foreign made cars outshine Americas products.

American built new cars are averaging 27.4 mpg in the city and 33.2 mpg on the highway, while Japanese new cars average 46.2 mpg in the city and 49 mpg on the highway. This equates to 68% better gas mileage in the city and 48% better gas mileage on the highway for Japanese cars. Where is the incentive for Americans to buy American made cars?

The best that our elected officials could come up with is that U.S. automakers would be required to meet an industry wide average of 35 miles per gallon for cars and light trucks, including SUVs, by 2020. This is the first increase by Congress in car fuel efficiency in 32 years, and it is lacking in any serious answer to our nations fuel economy. They are being given 13 years to build a vehicle that will still use more fuel than foreign cars are right now.

This is very indicative of where our politicians true allegiance lies. Not in giving Americans a better product to help slow down one of the causes of global warming, not in giving us products that would help ease the strain on our nations fuel supply, but to keep oil company and auto manufacturer lobbyists in their pockets so they can stay in office.

Politicians have been convinced that putting pressure on American auto manufacturers to redesign their product to meet foreign standards will force an economic hardship on them. To my way of thinking, if we could compete with foreign interests on a more level playing field we would keep more money here in the U.S. and create more jobs from the increased production. I’m sure there are many reticent Americans buying foreign cars who would really rather buy American. But, as in all things, money talks louder than loyalty. As far as the oil industry goes, they have had a far better ride from profits of oil sales than they deserve for far too long now.

America needs to get serious about hybrids and fuel economy and clean air and alternative energy. The only way this change of thinking is going to come about is if the federal government takes the initiative, because consumers only seem to care about feeding their ego by driving a bigger monster-sized truck or a more cavernous SUV than the next guy.

It is simple math. The numbers don’t lie, people. We cannot collectively afford to feed these super-sized vehicles. The owners of these gas slurping automobiles are guilty of sucking down more than their fair share of fuel. The argument goes that they get better gas mileage than they used to, which is true, but, they don’t get good enough mileage.

Sucking up copious amounts of fuel for the right to drive an oversized truck that is never used for what it is built for is patently ridiculous and is stealing fuel from those of us who are trying to conserve. Trust me when I say that your ego is not more important than keeping gas prices down and fuel supply levels up.

Simple logical dictates that if you keep up the demand for fuel then the oil companies will keep fuel prices up. If you suck the wells dry then we will be riding bicycles and walking. This would at least address the problem of obesity in Americans.