GM unveils their new electric car, the Chevy Volt

GM debuts the Chevy Volt

DETROIT (CNNMoney.com) -- General Motors unveiled the Chevrolet Volt electric vehicle on Tuesday, allowing outsiders their first full look at the car GM says will go on sale in 2010.

"The Volt symbolizes GM's commitment to the future," said Rick Wagoner, the company's chairman and CEO.

The Volt will be driven by electricity stored in a large T-shaped lithium-ion battery pack running the length of the car. After charging for several hours, the Volt will be able to run for up to about 40 miles without using gasoline.

GM did not announce pricing for the car, which will have the equivalent of about 150 horsepower and a top speed of 100 mph, the automaker said.

To charge the batteries, drivers will plug a cord into one of the ports just ahead of each of the side mirrors. The cord can then be attached to an ordinary home electrical outlet.

The car will cost "less than purchasing a cup of your favorite coffee" to recharge, and use less electricity annually than a refrigerator. The Volt should cost less than 2 cents per mile to drive on electricity, GM said, compared to 12 cents a mile on gasoline at a price of $3.60 a gallon. [...]

There is a small gas engine as well that kicks in if the batteries run down, but if I understand it correctly, the gas engine doesn't turn the wheels, it generates electricity, so it's a truly electric car, not a hybrid.

To me it looks beautiful, but some people have actually canceled their orders lost their enthusiasm for the car after seeing this, because they expected something more boxy and angular looking. That's kinda dumb, because this new design is meant to make it more aerodynamic, to help you get more distance out of the battery charge. Form AND function, what more do you want?

Read the whole thing for more details, I think it's an exciting new development.
     

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
     

What is a "Windfall" profit, and how big should it be? And who should it belong to?

And how do the profits of "greedy" Oil companies compare to the profits of other businesses? This piece from the Wall Street Journal looks at those very questions:

What Is a 'Windfall' Profit?

[...] Take Exxon Mobil, which on Thursday reported the highest quarterly profit ever and is the main target of any "windfall" tax surcharge. Yet if its profits are at record highs, its tax bills are already at record highs too. Between 2003 and 2007, Exxon paid $64.7 billion in U.S. taxes, exceeding its after-tax U.S. earnings by more than $19 billion. That sounds like a government windfall to us, but perhaps we're missing some Obama-Durbin business subtlety.

Maybe they have in mind profit margins as a percentage of sales. Yet by that standard Exxon's profits don't seem so large. Exxon's profit margin stood at 10% for 2007, which is hardly out of line with the oil and gas industry average of 8.3%, or the 8.9% for U.S. manufacturing (excluding the sputtering auto makers).

If that's what constitutes windfall profits, most of corporate America would qualify. Take aerospace or machinery -- both 8.2% in 2007. Chemicals had an average margin of 12.7%. Computers: 13.7%. Electronics and appliances: 14.5%. Pharmaceuticals (18.4%) and beverages and tobacco (19.1%) round out the Census Bureau's industry rankings. The latter two double the returns of Big Oil, though of course government has already became a tacit shareholder in Big Tobacco through the various legal settlements that guarantee a revenue stream for years to come.

In a tax bill on oil earlier this summer, no fewer than 51 Senators voted to impose a 25% windfall tax on a U.S.-based oil company whose profits grew by more than 10% in a single year and wasn't investing enough in "renewable" energy. This suggests that a windfall is defined by profits growing too fast. No one knows where that 10% came from, besides political convenience. But if 10% is the new standard, the tech industry is going to have to rethink its growth arc. So will LG, the electronics company, which saw its profits grow by 505% in 2007. Abbott Laboratories hit 110%.

If Senator Obama is as exercised about "outrageous" profits as he says he is, he might also have to turn on a few liberal darlings. [...]

It goes on to give some examples of institutions that are regarded highly by liberals, that have greater profit margins than big oil. Why not seize their profits?

Because this is about politics, not economics. What Obama and the Democrats are proposing is the Venezuela solution. We don't need that kind of thuggery in our government.

How about a bi-partisian American Solution instead?

Who is benefiting from Oil company profits? Neal Boortz spells it out:

OBAMA HEADING BLUE COLLAR THIS WEEK

[...] Just who owns the profits these oil companies have earned? That would be the stockholders. And just who might these stockholders be? Well, about 1.5 percent of them are oil company executives. The rest are the rank and file Americans who own mutual funds and workers who will rely on pension plans for their retirements. Pension plans and mutual funds, you may not know, are major investors in oil company stocks. This means that the retirement incomes of school teachers, firemen, police officers, municipal workers, flight attendants, warehousemen, truck drivers, hotel employees and other service sector workers and others may rely in part on the financial health of the oil companies in which their pension funds hold stock. Obama the Magnificent wants these pension funds to cough up some of their earnings so that he can hand out checks to voters. Too bad the government-educated masses can't see through this, and too bad the media won't point it out to them.

Bold emphasis mine. It's more Democrat wealth redistribution. Are you folks living on pensions ready to have YOUR money confiscated?
     

The Democrat CONTROL Agenda

Not Even At $10 A Gallon?

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell asks that the Senate consider a bill to allow offshore drilling, but Democrats, led by Sen. Ken Salazar (D-CO) object.

Sen. McConnell then asks if the bill could be triggered when gas reaches $4.50 per gallon, then $5 per gallon, then $7.50 per gallon, and finally $10 per gallon. All objected to.

So how high does the gas price have to be for Democrats to agree to more oil drilling?

Hat tip to TammyBruce.com for video. Her comments on it were right on the mark:

McConnell exposing the Dems as they object to drilling even if gas gets to $10 a gallon. You see, it's not that they have some bigger, better, superior idea about how the make the world better. They simply want and need Americans to be victims. That, in fact, is the only way the left gains power, is when a population is already suffering and feels vulnerable and hopeless. Keep that in mind as you watch this.

That is the very thing that has put me off the Democrat Party long ago. They derive their power from making people feel like victims, and treating their voters like victims. The dominant Left in the party have and investment in keeping the populace aggrieved, angry and unhappy; the Democrat Left never work to solve problems, and their proposed solutions often create more problems, which require even more Democrat government interference and control.

The Republicans have unfortunately mismanaged many things while they had a majority. People are rightly fed up. The Democrats have been able to capitalize on that dissatisfaction, but instead of using the opportunity to offer real solutions, they are using it to consolidate control over the American populace. Many of them have no problem with having us living with high gas prices, because the crisis gives them the means to implement more restrictions, to assume more power over US.

We need to vote for people who are actually interested in dealing with and solving problems, not creating them.

Rock the House: What should Republicans do now? It’s on…Culberson: Every day on the House floor this week
     

We're too close to a Democrat Majority

Much of the news focus is on who will win the White House. But the Congress and the Senate are also at risk of gaining larger Democrat majorities:

Presidential vote could help Dems get 'magic' Senate majority

[...] The battle for the Senate has been overshadowed by the presidential race, but just as important as who will reside in the White House is whether Democrats can get 60 seats in the Senate.

The "Magic 60" would give Democrats a filibuster-proof majority, and the keys to true power in the Senate. Assuming that their party leaders could keep Democratic senators in line, 60 votes would mean a fast track for their agenda, prevent Republicans from blocking it and a clear path for their nominations for the federal bench.

Not since the 95th Congress of 1977-79, when Democrats had 61 seats, has either party had a veto-proof majority.

Democrats now hold a 50-49 advantage in the Senate, and one seat is held by an independent.

The worst nightmare for Republicans on Election Day is the Democrats' best-case scenario: control of the White House, a nine-seat net gain in the Senate, and a healthy gain on their 36-seat majority in the House. In that case, Democrats could steamroll President Obama's agenda into law.

Even before Stevens' indictment, the landscape looked rough for Republicans.

Stu Rothenberg, a veteran election analyst and author of the Rothenberg Political Report, told CNN: "Two years ago was a horrible election for Republicans in a horrible environment. The environment is now worse for Republicans than it was two years ago, and that means the election results could be as bad, or even worse."

Indeed, all signs point to Democrats picking up seats. The question is: How many?

Of 35 Senate seats up for re-election this year, 23 are now held by Republicans. [...]

(Bold emphasis mine) The last time the Dems had such a large majority was during Jimmy Carter's term in office. Do we need a repeat of the Carter years? Read the whole thing for the details of what seats are vulnerable, and how it could all play out. If the Democrats reach their magic number, they will be able to proceed unopposed.

It's interesting to me that some people want to "punish" the Republicans by not voting for them. Years out of power seems to have done little to transform the Democrats. Their recent gains were thanks largely to the conservative Blue Dog Democrats, yet the party leadership and strategies have not changed at all, despite the Democrat controlled Congress having an historically low approval rating by the public. If the "punishment" didn't work to change Democrats, why would it work for Republicans? And unfortunately, if you punish Republicans by not voting for them, you are automatically rewarding Democrats.

That's the way it goes. The people who are actually running are the choices we have, not some imagined, unreal fantasy of a future candidate who's perfect.

It would be nice if our choices were better than just the lesser of two evils. Sometimes they are, but usually it's the former. Don't tell me "The lesser of two evils is still evil". What part of LESS don't you understand? Since when is MORE evil a BETTER thing? Duh.

Republicans had a solid majority, and they blew it. I don't think it's good for either party to have an absolute majority. They need active opposition to keep them on their toes. Absolute power seems to corrupt the status quo. We need to maintain some sort of balance in our government, which includes an effective opposition. I hope the American electorate keeps that in mind when they vote this November. We will need an effective opposition to prevent the current Democrat majority from squelching all debate about things that affect us all, such as drilling for domestic oil, and it's effects on gas prices:

House Dems turn out the lights but GOP keeps talking

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the Democrats adjourned the House, turned off the lights and killed the microphones, but Republicans are still on the floor talking gas prices.

Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and other GOP leaders opposed the motion to adjourn the House, arguing that Pelosi's refusal to schedule a vote allowing offshore drilling is hurting the American economy. They have refused to leave the floor after the adjournment motion passed at 11:23 a.m., and they are busy bashing Pelosi and her fellow Democrats for leaving town for the August recess.

At one point, the lights went off in the House and the microphones were turned off in the chamber, meaning Republicans were talking in the dark. But as Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz..) was speaking, the lights went back on and the microphones were turned on shortly afterward.

But C-SPAN, which has no control over the cameras in the chamber, has stopped broadcasting the House floor, meaning no one was witnessing this except the assembled Republicans, their aides, and one Democrat, Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio), who has now left.

Only about a half-dozen Republicans were on the floor when this began, but the crowd has grown to about 20, according to Patrick O'Connor.

"This is the people's House," said Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.). "This is not Pelosi's politiburo."

Democratic aides were furious at the GOP stunt, and reporters were kicked out of the Speaker's Lobby, the space next to the House floor where they normally interview lawmakers.

"You're not covering this, are you?" complained one senior Democratic aide. Another called the Republicans "morons" for staying on the floor. [...]

(Bold emphasis mine) If it's like this NOW, can you imagine what it will be like with a Democrat majority controlling the White House, Congress and the Senate? Should either side have that much power?
     

Ford Motor Company changes production plans

From CNNMoney.com:

UPDATE: Ford Unveils Details Of Overhaul Plan As Losses Grow

DETROIT -(Dow Jones)- Ford Motor Co. (F) on Thursday unveiled details of its plan to radically alter its North American product portfolio, as losses continue to mount and expectations for a U.S. auto market recovery are pushed back to 2010.

The second-largest U.S.-based auto maker plans to convert three North American truck and SUV plants to small-car production and introduce six of its European models in the U.S. The company is also accelerating the introduction of more fuel-efficient engines and plans to double production of gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles in 2009.

The moves represent a strategic shift for an auto maker that, like its Detroit rivals, has relied on sales of trucks and SUVs for the bulk of its North America revenue for more than a decade. Auto makers are scrambling to adjust to shifting consumer preferences as U.S. gasoline prices are above $4 a gallon and economic conditions remain weak.

[...]

Ford said it expects the U.S. economic recovery to begin by early 2010, with U.S. auto industry sales returning to trend levels as the economy returns to health. U.S. auto sales are currently at their lowest levels in about 15 years.

Ford Chief Financial Officer Don Leclair said Thursday that the performance of the U.S. auto industry in 2009 will likely "mirror" that of 2008.

He said the auto maker has enough cash to carry out its plans to convert the truck and SUV plants and wait out an upswing in the U.S. economy. He said Ford, which raised about $23 billion in late 2006 by offering up nearly all its assets as collateral, won't need to seek additional funding. [...]

For years Ford has been talking about making it's diesel version of the Ford Focus available here in the USA, but they have as yet to follow through on that. It was an appealing option to me... until recently, when I last looked, diesel prices here had gone higher than regular gas.

We will be looking at their hybrid options.
     

Saudi Financial Woes?

But aren't they greedy SOBs, who are just soaking us for all they can? That's what many people believe, but when you look at the details, it's not that simple. They may have cheap gas for themselves, but not much else:

Amid oil boom, inflation makes Saudis feel poorer

By DONNA ABU-NASR, Associated Press Writer Tue Jul 8, 2:25 PM ET

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - Sultan al-Mazeen recently stopped at a gas station to fill up his SUV, paying 45 cents a gallon — about one-tenth what Americans pay these days.

But the Saudi technician says Americans shouldn't be jealous. Inflation that has hit 30-year highs on everything else in the kingdom is making Saudis feel poorer despite the flush of oil money.

"I tell the Americans, don't feel envious because gas is cheaper here," said al-Mazeen, 36. "We're worse off than before."

While Saudis don't feel the pain at the pump, they feel it everywhere else, paying more at grocery stores and restaurants and for rent and construction material. While the country is getting richer selling oil at prices that climbed to a record $145 per barrel last week, inflation has reached almost 11 percent, breaking double-digits for the first time since the late 1970s.

[...]

Moreover, Saudis are grappling with unemployment — estimated at 30 percent among young people aged 16 to 26 — and a stock market that is down 10 percent since the beginning of the year.

Many Saudis are realizing that this oil boom will not have the same impact as the one in the 1970s, which raised Saudis from rags to riches. This time, the wealth isn't trickling down as fast or in the same quantities.

One reason is the kingdom's growing population, says John Sfakianakis, chief economist at the Saudi British Bank. In the 1970s, the population of Saudi Arabia was 9.5 million. Today, it's 27.6 million, including 22 million Saudi citizens. [...]

There's more. Read the whole thing for the many details. Food prices are rising world-wide, and it's affecting everyone, and the cost of everything.

As we debate the state of the US economy in this election year, with both the Republicans and the Democrats blaming each other for rising prices, we need to remember that what is happening isn't unique to OUR economy; there are global economic realities that affect us as well. We need to understand and be mindful of them, if we are to act wisely.
     

Drilling in ANWR... some important details

Here is an email I got recently:

FIRST. do you know what ANWR is?

ANWR = Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

..

Now. A comparison



And some perspective.



NOTE WHERE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA IS.
(it's in the "ANWR Coastal Plain")



THIS IS WHAT THE DEMOCRATS, LIBERALS AND "GREENS" SHOW YOU WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT ANWR and they are right. these ARE photographs of ANWR







ISN'T ANWR BEAUTIFUL? WHY SHOULD WE DRILL HERE (AND DESTROY) THIS BEAUTIFUL PLACE?
.
.

WELL. THAT'S NOT EXACTLY THE TRUTH


Do you remember the map?

The map showed that the proposed drilling area is in the ANWR Coastal Plain

Do those photographs look like a coastal plain to you?


WHAT'S GOING ON HERE?
.
..
...
...
...
...
...
..
.


THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE.

THAT IS NOT WHERE THEY ARE WANTING TO DRILL!

THIS IS WHAT THE PROPOSED EXPLORATION AREA ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE IN THE WINTER



AND THIS IS WHAT IT ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE IN THE SUMMER







HERE ARE A COUPLE SCREEN SHOTS FROM GOOGLE EARTH





AS YOU CAN SEE, THE AREA WHERE THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT DRILLING IS A BARREN WASTELAND.

OH. AND THEY SAY THAT THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE EFFECT ON THE LOCAL WILDLIFE.

HERE IS A PHOTO (SHOT DURING THE SUMMER) OF THE "DEPLETED WILDLIFE" SITUATION CREATED BY DRILLING AROUND PRUDHOE BAY*.

DON'T YOU THINK THAT THE CARIBOU REALLY HATE THAT DRILLING?



HERE'S THAT SAME SPOT DURING THE WINTER.



HEY, THIS BEAR SEEMS TO REALLY HATE THE PIPELINE NEAR PRUDHOE BAY*.


*The Prudhoe bay area accounts for 17% of U.S. domestic oil production


NOW, WHY DO YOU THINK THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE LYING ABOUT ANWR?

REMEMBER WHEN AL GORE SAID THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD WORK TO ARTIFICIALLY RAISE GAS PRICES TO $5.00 A GALLON?

WELL.
AL GORE AND HIS FELLOW DEMOCRATS HAVE ALMOST REACHED THEIR GOAL!


NOW THAT YOU KNOW THAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN LYING,
WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?


YOU CAN START BY FORWARDING THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW.
SO THAT THEY WILL KNOW THE TRUTH.

[END]

Is it true? There is a page about it at Snopes.com: The Truth About ANWR, but at this time, they list the status of the accuracy of the email as being "undetermined". Presumably they are researching it.

It would be nice to have the maps and the photos verified. But I don't doubt the basic premise, because I've heard this before from other sources. The area they want to drill in is the size of a football field. It's a frozen plain in the winter, and a muddy mosquito mess in the summer.

I'm tired of hearing that "we can't drill our way out of this". The only thing stopping us from drilling is the Democrats, who have many reasons for wanting gas prices to rise.

It's true that starting drilling now won't have an immediate effect on the availability of oil; but that's all the more reason to start NOW. Doing so may also end some of the market speculation that some claim is driving prices up. Drilling isn't a short term answer, or a long term answer, but it is a medium term answer. We are going to need more oil, until we can develop alternatives. Right now we are too dependent on foreign sources, and we have the means to do something about it.

Drilling alone won't solve our energy problems, but drilling plus nuclear and other alternative energy sources, seriously applied, along with building more refineries and energy conservation too, will make an enormous difference in moving us to energy independence and ultimately away from oil. When are we going to get serious about it, and stop shooting ourselves in the foot?

     

Two excellent videos by Newt Gingrich

While I'm not a big fan of his, he is occasionally right on the mark with some of his observations. And that is the case with these two videos.


Newt Gingrich: 3 Ways to Lower Gas Prices



This video is 3 minutes and 41 seconds. He makes it clear that the problem we are facing does have viable, workable solutions. The real problem is the people who are blocking us from proceeding with the solutions that are in our control to implement.


Newt Gingrich on the War on Terror



This video is 5 minutes and 24 seconds. He's very blunt about spelling out the reality we are facing. Is he right about what it's going to take for us to wake up to what we are dealing with, and act accordingly? I'm afraid if it is, that by the time we are ready to face reality, it will be too late to act. 9-11 wasn't enough. What's it gonna take?

Democrats, Republicans, and Gas Prices

Which party has better for bringing down gas prices? From the Powerline blog:

Doing Something Constructive About Oil Prices

Republican whip Roy Blunt put together this chart showing the practical effects of Democratic vs. Republican policies on the price of gasoline at the pump; click to enlarge:

Follow the link to the Powerline blog for more details.
     

Gasoline prices and "emotional satisfaction"

The Emotional Obfuscation of Gas Prices. That was going to be my title for this post, because the truth of the situation is actually very simple. However, the truth isn't always "emotionally satisfying", which is why it's not being addressed honestly. Economist Thomas Sowell explains:

Too "Complex"?

[...] Is there anything complex about the fact that with two countries-- India and China-- having rapid economic growth, and with combined populations 8 times that of the United States, they are creating an increased demand for the world's oil supply?

The problem is not that supply and demand is such a complex explanation. The problem is that supply and demand is not an emotionally satisfying explanation. For that, you need melodrama, heroes and villains.

[...]

If corporate "greed" is the explanation for high gasoline prices, why are the government's taxes not an even bigger sign of "greed" on the part of politicians-- since taxes add more to the price of gasoline than oil company profits do?

Whatever the merits or demerits of Senator John McCain's proposal to temporarily suspend the federal taxes on gasoline, it would certainly lower the price more than confiscating all the oil companies' profits.

But it would not be as emotionally satisfying.

Senator Barack Obama clearly understands people's emotional needs and how to meet them. He wants to raise taxes on oil companies.

How that will get us more oil or lower the price of gasoline is a problem that can be left for economists to puzzle over. A politician's problem is how to get more votes-- and one of the most effective ways of doing that is to be a hero who will save us from the villains. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) I'm not against emotions, but they need to be held in check with reasoning and facts. We have both a reasoning nature and an emotional nature for a reason. Balance. Politicians who rely on emotion as their primary appeal would sabotage debate in favor of feelings.

Feelings that are not based on facts can lead to highly destructive consequences. In addressing our energy needs realistically, we need more than emotional manipulation. We need to open our eyes and have a reality check. It would benefit us to do so not just regarding gas prices, but for the whole of the presidential debate. Less emotions, more facts. Reality, please. Too much is at stake.
     

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.
     

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.
     

The Smart Fortwo: a viable 2nd car?

In and earlier post I looked at the tiny Smart Fortwo car. I said it reminded me of a glorified golf cart. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say glorified lawn mower, without the blades. It takes 20 seconds to go from 0 to 60 mph. It only has 40 horse power. Not exactly my first choice for driving on the freeway. Yet for driving around town, it might be fine. It gets 60 mpg!

Clearly it would not be an ideal car for everyone... but what about two-car families? Would this car be a good second car? You could have a regular sized car for family outings, large shopping trips, etc. Then you could have this car, which might be fine for one person commuting to work, or for a quick trip to the store for a gallon of milk, or a visit to the Dentist, etc.

A lot of people have concerns about safety with this car because it's so small. Here is a crash test video, where the car hits a concrete wall at 70 mph:



The manufacturer claims that the frame of the car that protects the passenger area is like the hard shell of a nut; difficult to crack.

It's a terrible crash in the video, with massive damage, yet the passenger area was very protected. No human would be likely to survive a 70 mph crash into solid concrete in any vehicle, but the test is an impressive demonstration of the strength of the Smart Car frame. See the video for more details of the Smart car's safety design features. The video play time is 5 minutes and 39 seconds.

So, will this be YOUR second car? ;-)


UPDATE 06-26-07:

Here's a link to a blog devoted the introduction of the American Smart Fortwo:

smart fortwo blog

Check it out for more info and links. It has a forum, too.
     

Would you drive a Smart Fortwo?

This tiny car is currently available in Canada, and will be here in 2008.



Maynard at the Tammy Bruce blog says in his post,
Greens vs. Conservatives vs. Maynard:

[...] Mock me if you will, but I think this is neat! It's small, but it actually has plenty of headroom and foot room. And you can park it anywhere. If people started driving these things, our freeways could hold twice as many cars. I'll have to take a close look when they show up.

These little cars get 60 miles per gallon! They also have all kinds of safety features, but still... the video asks a lot of the awkward questions, so it's worth watching, it's about 5 minutes long. Also visit Maynard's post for more details and related links.

Is it really just a glorified golf-cart? I used to think about the Ford Fiesta that way, but it looks huge in comparison to this. Do you think there is going to be a significant market for this mini-car in the US? I really couldn't say, it will be interesting to see.
     

Are Americans too stupid to understand basic economics?

There seems to be a lot of evidence that the answer could be yes. And there seems to be no end to the politicians who would pander to that ignorance.

From Jeff at Jeff's Garage and Alehouse blog:

How About a Windfall Ignorance Tax?

[...] # As we continually remind people here at JG&AH, the oil companies profits average about 10 cents on the dollar. Other such industries average much more than that. When I worked in Automotive retail, a manager that I came up under would always say to me "Jeff, we need to make 20% profit on everything, just to turn the lights on." Profit is the necessity and motif of EVERYONE who is in business. As the above links demonstrate FTC investigation has already demonstrated that there is no corporate price gouging. The Gouging is from the government tax at all levels - more than twice the Big Oil Profit. Where's the outrage over that?

How many people have money in mutual funds or their 401Ks tied up in Oil Company Stock? Further, how many do and don't even realize it while they gripe about oil profits? Sad fact of the matter is, a windfall profits tax that the Populists and their leaching power whore buddies in office seem to threaten will do nothing but further hamper supply and damage many average citizen's investment portfolios. Way to stick it to yourself. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) Too many people don't understand the difference between "profit" and "profit margin". The profit is how much money you take in. The profit margin is how much money you have left to keep as income, AFTER you have paid all your related business expenses to keep the business running.

Time and time again it has been proven that the oil companies are not price gouging. But that doesn't sit well with people too ignorant to understand what a profit margin is, or to understand basic economics like supply and demand. What ARE they teaching in government schools these days? Nothing practical, apparently.

Pat at Born Again Redneck Yogi has more, with some great excerpts from Jon Markman:

What a gas!

[...] Higher prices at the pump today are a matter of simple economics. U.S. refiners have the ability to churn out 17 million barrels of gasoline per day. Demand is around 22 million barrels per day. To make up the difference, we bring in gasoline from foreign refiners, which means that, at the margins, pump prices are set by import prices.

Total U.S. demand for oil products is up 2.7% year to date, boosted in part by the surge in cold weather in February. But since we are far from the only country importing gasoline and other key refined products, we don't have a lot of say in what those prices are.

Gasoline, like crude oil, is auctioned worldwide to the highest bidder, and with the dollar weak and overseas economic growth strong because of our fantastic appetite for iPods made in China and T-shirts made in Costa Rica, we have to pay up to keep our supply coming in. And that's all there is to it. [...]

It's not hard to understand. Too many people are not paying attention, and are thus becoming part of the problem instead of the solution, which requires understanding what's actually happening. The links I've provided here discuss the realities involved, and what we realistically can do about it. Knowlege is Power.