The Ford 2009 Fiesta ECOnetic gets 65 mpg!

I want one! But you can't buy them in America, only in Europe:



The 65 mpg Ford the U.S. Can't Have

If ever there was a car made for the times, this would seem to be it: a sporty subcompact that seats five, offers a navigation system, and gets a whopping 65 miles to the gallon.

[...]

"We know it's an awesome vehicle," says Ford America President Mark Fields. "But there are business reasons why we can't sell it in the U.S." The main one: The Fiesta ECOnetic runs on diesel.

[...]

Diesel vehicles now hitting the market with pollution-fighting technology are as clean or cleaner than gasoline and at least 30% more fuel-efficient.

Yet while half of all cars sold in Europe last year ran on diesel, the U.S. market remains relatively unfriendly to the fuel. Taxes aimed at commercial trucks mean diesel costs anywhere from 40 cents to $1 more per gallon than gasoline. Add to this the success of the Toyota Prius, and you can see why only 3% of cars in the U.S. use diesel. "Americans see hybrids as the darling," says Global Insight auto analyst Philip Gott, "and diesel as old-tech."

[...]

The question, of course, is whether the U.S. ever will embrace diesel fuel and allow automakers to achieve sufficient scale to make money on such vehicles. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) When we lived in San Francisco, some neighbors on our street, a lesbian couple who were very Green, bought a diesel car. We were shocked; wasn't diesel a smelly, high pollution fuel? We were surprised when they told us "no". They explained that they had done a lot of research, and ultimately decided that a car running on "clean diesel" was the best way to be both Green and economical.

When we moved here to Oregon, we began thinking about getting a diesel car. But as gas prices rose, we were horrified to see the price of diesel go even higher still. That pretty much nixed the idea.

So I have to ask: Why are we adding extra taxes to a fuel that's more efficient than regular gas? Why are we turning corn into fuel, when we already have a more efficient fuel right under our noses? Why aren't we making clean diesel, something we already know how to do, instead of regular gasoline, and promoting it's use?

Read the whole article to see all the details of why we can't have this car here in the US. Ford can't afford to do it the way things are now. But if we stop adding extra taxes to clean diesel, and start promoting it (instead of the ethanol boondoggle, which is wasteful and inefficient) we can create friendlier conditions that make clean diesel viable and practical.

It's time we start doing things that make sense. 65 mpg! I really do want one. It's within our reach, if we promote clean diesel. What are we waiting for?


Related Links:

McCain, Corn and Ethanol Mandates

Ford Motor Company changes production plans

Ethanol and high food prices: the warnings were there years ago, but very few listened
     

The Truth isn't always nice to hear

I really hated the title of the following article, yet I find it hard to argue too much with the contents. Is it a case of "Sad, but true?" You decide:

Glenn Beck: U.S. is a suicidal superpower

[...] Food and gas prices have been all over the news lately, and even a big dumb rodeo clown like me can see that it's all connected. Our policies, which try to cater to everyone from oil company executives to environmentalists, end up benefiting no one -- and now we're all paying the price.

I know that real economists probably will say that the causes of these skyrocketing prices are extremely complicated to understand, but the truth is that it's actually pretty simple: We've done this to ourselves.

I don't know if it's because of our arrogance, our stupidity or maybe both, but I believe that history may one day judge America as the most suicidal superpower of all time. After all, what country that cares about its future would do what America has done to its supply of food and fuel, two of the most critical things that any civilization needs to survive?

For example, look at the way we treat our food supply. We've spent decades giving billions of dollars in government subsidies with incentives for the wrong things, we've mandated that huge areas of farmland stay open for "conservation" and we're using grains that could feed tens of millions of people to make a crappy biofuel that you can't even buy anywhere. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) Beck's got plenty more to say about it too. I don't like reading it, because it's harsh, yet it reminds me of the adage "the truth hurts".
We naturally hate pain, but the pain of hurt is always a warning, and one that you are meant to heed. Will we?

I've just found it incredible that our nation would be so careless with things as basic as Food and Fuel. Yet it's not as if nobody has tried to foresee and deal with some of this. If we had begun environmentally-conscious safe drilling in ANWAR 10 years ago, we would have more fuel now. It would not have solved all our fuel problems, but it would have helped considerably. If we had built more gas refineries it would have helped lower gas prices now. Nuclear power is more viable than ever, with 80% of nuclear waste being recyclable, and the potential to recycle or render safe the remaining 20% with future technology.

President Bush has pushed for these and other solutions, but has been blocked at every turn by radical environmentalists, who instead have pushed for inefficient disasters like turning our food into fuel. The Republicans will take a beating for going along with this Al-Gore Democrat lunacy, and so they should. Yet the blame should be spread around; there are representatives on both sides of the aisle that have gotten too far out of touch with reality, that they could participate in helping this to happen. They all need a wake up call.

Not all of Beck's article is doom and gloom, there are some bright spots:

[...] Fortunately, there is some good news in all of this: Oil prices this high mean that a lot of formerly dismissed alternatives will finally make good economic sense.

For example, back in 1980, Congress passed the Energy Security Act, which led to the creation of something called the Synthetic Fuels Corp. (SFC). Lawmakers provided SFC with up to $88 billion in loans and incentives to get started (the equivalent of about $230 billion in today's dollars) with the goal of creating two million barrels a day of synthetic oil within seven years.

So why aren't you putting SFC oil into your SUV right now? Well, it turns out that members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries didn't appreciate the competition so they started bringing down the price of oil. From 1980, when SFC launched, to 1986, when it was shut down, oil went from more than $39 a barrel to less than $8 a barrel. Suddenly, synthetic oil didn't seem so important anymore.

In announcing the SFC's closure, then-Energy Secretary John Herrington said that oil prices had simply dropped too low to make it a viable business.

But the good news is that those economics don't work anymore. The state of Montana, which is leading the synthetic fuel charge, says we can now make it for somewhere around $55 a barrel. That's more than a 50 percent discount from what it costs to buy the real stuff.

It's the opportunity of a lifetime, a chance to use OPEC's price gouging and monopoly against it. [...]

It's time to abandon the policies of political correctness and emotional hysteria. We need to start actually supporting policies that are going to work, and insisting that our politicians support an implement them, and stop playing politically-correct games with the basics of our survival.
     

McCain, Corn and Ethanol Mandates

McCain urges Bush to waive ethanol rules

John McCain has joined 23 fellow Republicans in urging the Bush administration to waive requirements for high ethanol production, blaming the alternative fuel for driving up US food prices.

McCain has long opposed government subsidies for ethanol, but the presidential hopeful tempered his criticism in advance of this winter's caucus in corn-growing Iowa. Despite praising ethanol as "a good alternative" to gas, McCain lost Iowa by a large margin.

The Republican's latest denunciation of ethanol came in a letter to Stephen Johnson, head of the US environmental protection agency. Two dozen senators, including McCain, asked Johnson to waive an ethanol mandate that many in their party backed a half year ago.

"It isn't a surprise that food prices are rising when more than 25% of the corn grown today is taken out of the food supply and instead used for subsidised ethanol production," McCain said in a statement.

"We need to put an end to flawed government policies that distort the markets, raise food prices artificially, and pit producers against consumers."

[...]

Barack Obama, who represents the mid-western state of Illinois, has defended ethanol amid controversy over corn's role in driving up the price of fuel and food. McCain's criticism of ethanol mandates may bolster his reputation for forthrightness, but it also could bolster Obama's claim to contest right-leaning Iowa in the November general election. [...]

Obama and the Democrats want to continue supporting corn-ethanol because it's politically correct on the left, and because rising food prices may help them win the White House in November, even though it's a problem created primarily by Democrats (Al Gore's deciding vote in 1994 pushed the legislation through). So ironically, the Democrats will be offering themselves as a solution to a problem THEY created!

The article also mentions restrictive tariffs against importing cheap sugar-based ethanol from Brazil. If ethanol production is supposed to be about solving our energy needs, then why are we blocking importation of cheap sources? McCain is also risking loosing support from Republican politicians from corn growing states by opposing the ethanol mandate. It seems that American ethanol production may be more about politics of government hand-outs than problem solving. Read the whole thing for more details about the politics of corn and government subsidies.


Related Link:

YOU CANT EAT ETHANOL ... FOOD VS. FUEL
     

Ethanol and high food prices: the warnings were there years ago, but very few listened

Global warming hysteria lead politicians to "do something", regardless of the facts and warnings about what ethanol production would do to food prices. From Neal Boortz at Nealz Nuze:

CONCEDING THE BIOFUEL ARGUMENT ... NOT ME, THE POLITICIANS

But not now ... then.

Finally, somebody in DC is addressing the fact that ethanol production may have something to do with the increase in world food prices. Gee, ya think? I wonder what their first clue was.

Just yesterday Condi Rice said, "There has been apparently some effect, unintended consequence from the alternative fuels effort." Unintended consequences? Food costs rising 8% since 2005 ... People, even members of Congress, have been warned for years about the consequences of mandated ethanol production. Then there's this article from CNN Money dated back to 2006, or this one from almost one year ago warning us about ethanol's affect on food costs. Still not convinced? Go back to the 2004 election where ethanol was a really nice talking point for politicians. The New York Times even pointed out the problem of rising food prices due to mandatory ethanol production in January of 2006.

To give you one more piece of information, take a look at this article printed in the Science Daily back in Aug. 8, 2001. Here is what scientists have known since years:

The approximately $1 billion a year in current federal and state subsidies (mainly to large corporations) for ethanol production are not the only costs to consumers, the Cornell scientist observes. Subsidized corn results in higher prices for meat, milk and eggs because about 70 percent of corn grain is fed to livestock and poultry in the United States Increasing ethanol production would further inflate corn prices, Pimentel says, noting: "In addition to paying tax dollars for ethanol subsidies, consumers would be paying significantly higher food prices in the marketplace."

Back in 1994 when Al Gore cast the tie breaking vote in the Senate that led to a methanol mandate from the EPA we were told that "the price of corn flakes isn't going to go up by one penny." Hind sight truly is 20-20.

This is what happens when politicians decide to value hysteria, emotional thinking and feel-goodism over science, reason and basic math.

It was the Democrats who lead this irrational charge into nonsense that is now raising food prices world wide. Yes, they had bi-partisan support from many Republicans who they suckered into the Ethanol boondoggle. But it was none other than enviro-wacko Al Gore who cast the tie breaking vote that pushed through the ethanol program. There's an Inconvenient Truth.

Now that we have rising food prices, will Gore take the credit? I doubt it. Because the price rises are occurring during a Republican administration, I bet he and the Democrats will try to put the blame on the Republicans. This is what the Republicans get for supporting pie-in-the-sky legislation from Democrats.

John McCain had spoken out against Ethanol production for many years, but more recently he also caved into the pressure to support it. He shouldn't have, because he was right all along.

The question now is, who's going to fix this government-created mess? Will anyone have the nerve to say we should scrap the Ethanol subsidies?


Related Links:

Undoing America's Ethanol Mistake

Mark Steyn: Feed your Prius, starve a peasant

Rising food costs are due to Ethanol Boondoggle
     

Food Prices & Climate Change Hysteria

What Happens When You Put Food Into Cars

Rising food costs due to Ethanol Boondoggle

When Ronald Reagan said "The government isn't the solution, it's the problem", he wasn't kidding. Ethanol is a prime example.

The Democrats are especially good at creating "solutions" that create even more problems, that in turn, require even more government. But this ethanol scam went through with the help of Republicans, who "felt" the need to "do something" in response to the global warming hysteria, instead of sticking with good science, reason and the known facts. This foolishness is the result of responding to hysterical hype.

Now the Democrats will use rising food prices as yet another reason to turn Republicans out of office, when in reality it was the Democrats who pushed hardest for the ethanol program. Yet it will be the Republicans that the MSM will blame.

The best thing the Republicans could do now is reverse this bad decision, but will any of them have the guts to do it, lest they offend the adherents of the Global Warming Religion?

UPDATE 04-09-08. This link from the "Government Is Not Your Daddy" blog:

Alternative Energy and the Law of Unintended Consequences

[...] Our national “investment” in subsidizing bio-fuel production has been so overwhelmingly successful that it’s had the effect of repurposing the majority of our corn crops to ethanol production. It has also motivated farmers to divert production from other crops to crops that can be used for biofuels.

Unfortunately, the unintended consequences of this noble effort have been to raise food prices, not only here in the U.S., but around the world. Rising food prices hit the poor the hardest, and accelerate the spread of poverty. In an article in Foreign Affairs, titled How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor, authors Runge and Senauer said ”Filling the 25-gallon tank of an SUV with pure ethanol requires more than 450 pounds of corn - which contains enough calories to feed one person for a year.” Even as food shortages increase in countries where people are already starving, the U.S. is being forced to reduce its international food aid due to rising food costs at home, largely due to the diversion of crops to biofuel production.

The high demand for biofuels is also having an unintended impact on some of the environmentalists’ own pet causes. [...]

This article also goes into detail about the harmful effects of diluting gasoline with 10% ethanol, and the many other unintended harmful side effects of the Ethanol Boondoggle. Read the whole thing... and weep! Then demand that our politicians not only stop this nonsense, but reverse course before the damage spreads further.
     

Rising food costs due to Ethanol Boondoggle

I warned about this in a previous post in May of last year. Now it's happening, and it's not only a waste of taxpayer's money, it's damaging our economy and causing food prices to rise world-wide. Walter Williams at Townhall.com gives us the details:

Big Corn and Ethanol Hoax

[...] Ethanol is 20 to 30 percent less efficient than gasoline, making it more expensive per highway mile. It takes 450 pounds of corn to produce the ethanol to fill one SUV tank. That's enough corn to feed one person for a year. Plus, it takes more than one gallon of fossil fuel -- oil and natural gas -- to produce one gallon of ethanol. After all, corn must be grown, fertilized, harvested and trucked to ethanol producers -- all of which are fuel-using activities.

[...]

Ethanol is so costly that it wouldn't make it in a free market. That's why Congress has enacted major ethanol subsidies, about $1.05 to $1.38 a gallon, which is no less than a tax on consumers. In fact, there's a double tax -- one in the form of ethanol subsidies and another in the form of handouts to corn farmers to the tune of $9.5 billion in 2005 alone.

[...]

Ethanol production has driven up the prices of corn-fed livestock, such as beef, chicken and dairy products, and products made from corn, such as cereals. As a result of higher demand for corn, other grain prices, such as soybean and wheat, have risen dramatically. The fact that the U.S. is the world's largest grain producer and exporter means that the ethanol-induced higher grain prices will have a worldwide impact on food prices.

It's easy to understand how the public, looking for cheaper gasoline, can be taken in by the call for increased ethanol usage. But politicians, corn farmers and ethanol producers know they are running a cruel hoax on the American consumer. They are in it for the money.

[...]

The ethanol hoax is a good example of a problem economists refer to as narrow, well-defined benefits versus widely dispersed costs. It pays the ethanol lobby to organize and collect money to grease the palms of politicians willing to do their bidding because there's a large benefit for them -- higher wages and profits. The millions of gasoline consumers, who fund the benefits through higher fuel and food prices, as well as taxes, are relatively uninformed and have little clout. [...]

I've only excerpted a few things wrong with ethanol from the article, there's more. Read the whole thing. I can't believe our government, both parties, is actually doing this to us. We can thank the global warming hoax and it's attendant hysteria too, for helping it along.




Related Link:

Bakers lobby govt to help ease wheat crunch

     

Ethanol Nonsense is wasting taxpayers money

I can't believe we are going forward with subsidizing Ethanol. The evidence against this as a practical solution is overwhelming. From John Stossel:

The Many Myths of Ethanol

[...] If ethanol's so good, why does it need government subsidies? Shouldn't producers be eager to make it, knowing that thrilled consumers will reward them with profits?

But consumers won't reward them, because without subsidies, ethanol would cost much more than gasoline.

The claim that using ethanol will save energy is another myth. Studies show that the amount of energy ethanol produces and the amount needed to make it are roughly the same. "It takes a lot of fossil fuels to make the fertilizer, to run the tractor, to build the silo, to get that corn to a processing plant, to run the processing plant," Taylor says.

And because ethanol degrades, it can't be moved in pipelines the way that gasoline is. So many more big, polluting trucks will be needed to haul it.

More bad news: The increased push for ethanol has already led to a sharp increase in corn growing -- which means much more land must be plowed. That means much more fertilizer, more water used on farms and more pesticides.

This makes ethanol the "solution"?

But won't it at least get us unhooked from Middle East oil? Wouldn't that be worth the other costs? Another myth. [...]

Read the whole article for the rest of the myths, and for a possible reason why Ethanol is being pushed anyway. Hint: it has to do with Iowa and elections.



Once again, government is doing something just for the sake of making it look like they are doing something to solve a problem, even though it really isn't. Isn't it time to put an end to this useless and wasteful posturing?