In The Washington Post, the dean of DC car hacks reports of his meeting with GM engineers to discuss gas – electric hybrids. The boffins convinced Warren Brown they're a duff deal. "In terms of what engineers call 'well-to-wheel energy costs,' gas-electrics actually are more energy consumptive and environmentally stressful than the traditional gasoline-powered cars and trucks they are supposed to replace. It takes lots of energy to design, develop, manufacture, transport and install nickel-metal hydride and lithium ion batteries. And, again, once their energy is used, once those batteries have become entropic, something has to be done with them." Full marks for recycling an old argument. But it's more than that; it's Warren's Road to Damascus. "It was in that context, over a luncheon of killed and cooked fish [dig the symbolism] we were eating to fuel our bodies, that we ventured into a conversation about Christian religious beliefs… Energy conservation is nothing more than an attempt to delay and manage the inevitable. It requires intelligence. It demands compromise. You can even argue that… it requires a certain amount of love. Essentially, it is an act of faith in something better." Amen.

USA Today automotive columnist Jame Healey sees dead people. "If the switch to smaller, lighter vehicles continues to grow, the result could be anywhere from dozens to thousands of traffic deaths that would have been avoided in bigger vehicles, according to fatality records and safety forecasters." It's an old argument (which doesn't necessarily make it a bad one), for which Healey trots out some old stats: a 2002 National Academy of Sciences' report that concludes "Small vehicles have higher fatality rates than larger ones." It's just the first salvo in a sustained stat campaign that, strangely, fights both sides of the argument at once. Or, if you prefer, takes a fair and balanced view. In the middle of the piece, a University of Michigan physics professor nails it. There are "lots of answers" to the question of small-car safety, Marc Ross opines. “There just aren't any simple ones." Perhaps that explains the discrepancy between Healey's sensationalistic opening and yet another wishy-washy USA Today headline: "People buy small cars even though they can be deadly."

When Frank Williams and I launched TTAC’s news blog, we envisioned an editorial gestalt somewhere between Autoblog (dull but worthy) and Jalopnik (wild but wacky). I reckon we nailed it. We’re cranking-out far more (and timelier) hard news than Neff’s product-crazed army, and creating more pithy posts than Spinelli’s electric cool aid acid test troops. In another sense, thanks to our excellent commentators and snarky bloggers, we’ve established our own unique mindspace. Unfortunately, the feature's done sweet FA for our site stats.

Today's the day. From Friday until Tuesday, the Chinese government has implemented a license plate-based ban on a third of Beijing's 3m drivers. Officials hope to remove over a million vehicles from the city as part of an "experiment" to see if they can clear Beijing's fetid air ahead of the '08 Olympics (without causing public unrest). As you might imagine, carbon negative governments around the world are monitoring the situation carefully, looking for justification for similar restrictions in their own backyards. Without casting aspersions of Iran's press freedoms, it's interesting that Press TV is so keen on the China's anti-car syndrome that they're not waiting to see if reality matches their expectations. "Beijing is noticeably less congested following the four-day scheme that yanked 1.3 million private cars off the streets on Friday." If you thought that was a particularly non-scientific (if perhaps prescient) summation, how about this? "City residents, who are being forced to take public transport during the test period, generally appeared to support the project." Support for government policy is generally good within dictatorships, but then Press TV probably already knows that.

A new study that concludes that rainforests absorb more CO2 than can be saved by clearing the land for biofuel crops. Razing rainforests for bio-fuels? Surely not! Uh-huh. U.S. and European government legislation mandating huge increases in ethanol consumption is already amping-up ethanol production in developing countries. Wired Science reports "In Indonesia, for example, environmentalists estimate that foreign biofuel demand will drive energy companies to clear the country's remaining peat rainforests, a valuable CO2 sink. The resulting slash-and-burn could release 50 billion tons of CO2 — nearly a decade's worth of US greenhouse emissions — into the atmosphere." Renton Rightelato, co-author of the aforementioned study, said the West's focus on biofuels distracts its citizenry from the real problem. "People feel they're saving the planet [by encouraging bio-fuels]. They're not. Biofuels are essentially being used as a way of avoiding the real problem: reducing the use of fossil fuels." Doh!

JD Powers' mob have released yet another study detailing the personal predilections of American automotive consumers. Although this reveal has a headline to warm the hearts of the BOSE Mountain Boyz– "Branding Substantially Increases the Prices Consumers Are Will to to Pay for Automotive Premium Surround Sound Audio Systems"– the survey examines the full range of "emerging technologies." JD's researchers called 17k American consumers [at dinner time] and asked them which automotive gee-whizzery floats their e-boat, both before and after price considerations. If you suck money out of the equation, U.S. car buyers are up for run-flat tires (77 percent of those polled), two-stage smart airbags (75 percent), navigation systems (70 percent) and premium surround sound (67 percent). At the bottom of the list: rear seat entertainment (49 percent), lane departure warning systems (42 percent) and in-vehicle Internet (41 percent). Put financial considerations back on the table and all the stats drop by over a half, leaving sat nav the price-conscious feature seeker's friend A 28 percent approval rating may not seem like much, but it beats the Hell out of Congress' popularity. 

According to Erica Barnett over at WorldChanging.com, the recent lane closures on Seattle's I-5 failed to create a highly anticipated traffic snarl. In fact, half of the usual 120k per day traffic simply "disappeared." This led Ms. Barnett to the only possible conclusion: eliminating roadways is an excellent way to reduce traffic! How's that again? "Drivers are adaptable. When faced with the prospect of gridlock—and given ample warning and time to prepare—people found alternate routes, rode transit, worked from home, and avoided unnecessary trips." That doesn't sound too bad at all! In fact, it sounds great! To be fair, Barnett is not entirely insensitive to the Pollyanna factor. "For congestion-as-incentive to work in the long term, it has to be paired with alternatives that are viable in the long term–flexible work schedules that allow workers to stay home a few days a week, mass transit that is affordable, frequent, and convenient, and an infrastructure that supports bike and pedestrian commuting, among other things." Yes, well, meanwhile, she says if King County Metro had provided more buses during the lane closures, they could have rendered the lanes unnecessary. Huh.

By their own admission, General Motors' North American operations are currently doing business with negative working capital (NWC). At About.com, an unnamed investment adviser has some advice on that subject. "Negative working capital is a sign of managerial efficiency in a business with low inventory and accounts receivable. In any other situation, it is a sign a company may be facing bankruptcy or serious financial trouble." Any guess which one of those descriptions applies to GM?

CNN Money reports that side impact tests performed by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) rate the 2008 BMW 5-Series as "marginal." The result placed the Bimmer at the bottom of a six-member "luxury sedan" pack (providing you accept the Amanti as a member of that group). The IIHS test shows that you're be better off sitting in a Kia if your whip gets T-boned by an SUV at 31 mph. ["Good:" Kia Amanti, Acura RL, Volvo S80; "acceptable;" Cadillac STS, Mercedes E-Class; "marginal:" BMW 5-Series.] The test is not without controversy; to mimic a truck, the IIHS' side impact sled plows into the target vehicle ABOVE the car's side impact beam. In that case, side impact airbags are your best friend. In the 5-Series' case, air bags coddled the dummy's head, but chest and abdomen airbags "performed poorly." BMW's spokesman says the IIHS dummy was injured by the arm rest. "The issue is that depending on the location of seat, the location of dummy, the location of the sled, the results could change," Thomas Plucinsky told The Detroit News. "This was one test on one day on one car." And a bad day it was too. 

In an uncharacteristic gesture of solidarity with beleaguered UK motorists, the British government is drawing up rules that would stop city councils using parking tickets to raise revenue and ease off their clamping campaigns, mate. Christian Today reports that the UK Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly wants city councils abandon revenue targets for meter maids. What's more, these oft-reviled civil servants should only summon the dreaded clamper (how Dickensian is that?) as a last resort for motorists who "persistently break the rules" or fail to pay parking fines. Unfortunately, the proscriptions would only apply to council employees, not the legions of "cowboy clampers" roaming urban areas in the name of the rule-of-law CO2 reduction congestion prevention profit. Edmund King of the RAC motorists' group will be glad to see the back of aggressive city clampers, comparing the practice to a legendary English highwayman. "Clamping is a crude activity which should have been outlawed at the time of Dick Turpin."

USA Today is running a story headlined "Cities get at illegal immigrants through cars." The article begins with a bold proclamation: "Local officials getting tough on illegal immigrants have a new target: their cars." Only "getting tough" has nothing to do with immigration or deportation. "Communities in Alabama, California, Illinois and elsewhere are using laws that punish drivers without licenses. Cities often tow cars immediately." So drivers without a license get big fines, a tow job and that's it. But wait! Even this approach is under attack. "'There's been a long history of ordinances that don't say anything about immigrants and nothing about national origin, but clearly are aimed at particular groups,' says John Trasviña, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. 'They have uniformly been struck down.'" For example, they're challenging a law in Waukegan, Illinois that fines a driver without a license or insurance $500 and impounds their car (more fees). "Ramon Becerra, regional head of the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, says it [the city ordinance] promotes racial profiling. Most drivers whose cars are towed are Hispanic, he says." Am I the only one that wonders why this article never questions the fact that police don't/can't check these dangerous drivers' citizenship and pass their cases to immigration authorities where appropriate? 

What was that about no good deed going unpunished? As TTAC has opined previously, the current vogue for bio-fuels is set to ratify the Law of Unintended Consequences. Reporting from the World Water Week conference Sweden, researchers from the Stockholm International Water Institute forecast that biofuel production will double current agricultural demand for water. Cuba's Granma News Agency quotes Spokesman David Trouba’s warning that the shift will take its toll on indigenous people. "Where will the water to grow the food needed to feed a growing population come from if more and more water is diverted to crops for bio-fuels production?" The problem of water for ethanol production is hardly confined to the third world; an average American plant uses about 2m gallons of water per day. The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (amongst others) is studying the issue.

The New York Sun reports that Queens City Council member and the head of their environmental protection committee (who knew?) is about to introduce legislation to ban smoking in cars carrying minors. If James "James" Genaro gets his way, Queen's finest will soon be fining child-schlepping smokestacks between $200 to $400 for their first such offense, $500 to $1k for the second violation and between $1k and $2k for a third violation (provided all tickets are issued within a year of each other, and I have no idea why there's a range of fines). The move comes on the heels of a citywide ban on smoking in restaurants and clubs and similar vehicular anti-puffing legislation enacted in Rockland County. As for the right to privacy objection, Genaro was taciturn: "You can't subject kids to 43 carcinogens and 250 poisonous chemicals and claim privacy. Get over it. Their right to privacy doesn't extend so far as to poisoning kids."

This website has been skeptical of Tesla Motors’ claims for their lithium-ion-powered Roadster since day one. While some readers think we’ve “had it in” for the California-based car company, rest assured TTAC is an equal opportunity muckraker. Anyway, yesterday, when Martin Eberhard revealed that he’d relinquished Tesla's top job, we held fire to avoid accusations of smug satisfaction. But Eberhard’s email to Tesla customers piqued our interest. As Tesla has yet to deliver a single customer car, by thy words thy shall be known.

Well, it starts off predictably enough. The Scotsman links really expensive, really fast exotic cars and the death and destruction they wreak when it all goes "pear-shaped." We get the big numbers (a crash involving an £830k Bugatti Veyron), a celebrity connection (former world boxing champion Naseem Hamed's head-on collision in his paltry £320k McLaren Mercedes), a call from a responsible organization for graduated licenses for supercar operation (The IAM Motoring Trust) and then… ""These are ridiculous cars for wannabe jet pilots rather than people who need to get safely from A to B," declares Jenny Jones, The Mayor of London's road safety ambassador. "Some who buy these vehicles are clearly in need of either an advanced driving course or therapy." Either or? Anyway, call us irredeemable exotic car junkies, but that doesn't sound particularly ambassadorial to us.