On January 24, President Bush issued an executive order. All federal agencies with 20 or more vehicles in their fleet will now use plug-in hybrid vehicles– “when PIH vehicles are commercially available at a cost reasonably comparable, on the basis of life-cycle cost, to non-PIH vehicles."  Cool. So, ah, where are these government buggies and when will we see some sporting a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service crest on the doors? This, my friends, is what’s called a “faith based initiative.”

Nobody in America currently sells a plug-in hybrid. Some seriously brave hackers have converted a Toyota Prius or two. And that’s about it. General Motors wooed a covey of press at the Detroit auto show with the Volt, their collective dream of a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. The spinmeisters say it may be on the street in three years, if it’s able to fly General Lee style over a fat, flaming obstacle: batteries.

Lithium-ion batteries are currently our best electricity storage devices. They serve the lap-top and cell phone world nicely– at least for the moment. Compared to other batteries, they’re fairly light. On the downside, they catch fire if their insides are exposed to oxygen; not a great feature in a car. But it’s not an impossible situation. The all-electric Tesla Roadster uses an array of 6,831 lithium-ion cells, deploying a number a safety devices to keep it from becoming Tesla toaster.  

The other downside: weight. While the two-passenger ultra-light Tesla can get away with schlepping a bunch of batteries, a mid-size sedan, pick-up truck stuffed with a bed full of peat moss or an SUV full of Boy Scouts, sleeping bags, tents and scarves are going to struggle just to get rolling.

General Motors hopes new, lighter batteries will be developed before people start asking when they can pick up their Volts. Notice the qualifier. The General isn’t committing to a timeline for the Volt. What they and their Detroit brethren really, really want, what the battery world probably needs, is a Manhattan Project-style initiative to give the domestic battery community a… um… charge.

The League of Beleaguered Gentlemen may actually get their wish. In the President’s 2007 State of the Union address he said, “We need to press on with battery research for plug-in and hybrid vehicles…” Not exactly a promise of billions, brains or tax-breaks, but it’s nice to get a nod. China, Korea and Japan have national lithium ion battery development programs, putting them each a half a lap ahead. But, the US has lithium reserves in Nevada, so it’s not out of the race. And the lithium race is not the only game in town.

When it comes to who really killed the electric car, the culprits are cost, weight, safety and power limits. Scientists have been looking for a better battery since Edison. More than a few think they’re almost there.

Former Air Force major Ross Dueber used to design batteries for the Strategic Defense Initiative. After retiring from government service, he didn’t take any confidential tax payer research to start Zinc Matrix. Dueber’s dudes are developing energy storage systems based on zinc (duh) rather than lithium, mostly because of that annoying flame out problem. Cost and weight will have to wait. At the moment, zinc offers no advantages there.

Europositron of Finland is working on nano technology they hope will lead to the production of rechargeable aluminum batteries. The prototypes are safe, fully recyclable and boast 20 times more capacity than current batteries. To put that in perspective, a pre-crushed GM EV1 with Europositron tech would have extended its range from 80 miles between charges to almost 600. Aluminum batteries are still at least two years from market.

The vanadium redox flow battery is the brainchild of Professor Maria Skylass-Kazacos (and team) at the University of New South Wales, Australia. Cheap, environmentally tolerable, vrf’s can be refueled in minutes, mechanically. The vanadium redox battery stores energy in a liquid electrolyte solution. The batteries can be charged by pumping in new goo, just like gas at the old fillin’ station.

A UK company called RE-Fuel is working on vehicles using vanadium batteries. Their 50 mile range leaves the comnpany concentrating on urban delivery trucks, shuttle buses, airport tenders– the kind of worker-bees that don’t venture far from the hive.

In the end, it all comes down to physics. We use a lot of gasoline because it’s a damn fine way to store energy. The need for new batteries is clear, though. You can tell because a Presidential administration made of ex-oil men says it’s time to look for alternatives. This year’s class of batteries gets by with barely a passing grade and the under classes coming up don’t look much better. So, a little advice for the next generation: stay awake in Chemistry. 

Trivia buffs, scholars of ancient history and encyclopedia-reading geeks know the first month of the year is named for the Roman god Janus. Janus didn’t have any special powers. His entire claim to fame was based on having two faces, one on the front of his head and one on the back. Since Janus could keep an eye on what was coming as well as what was going, he was placed in charge of gates and doors, transitions, and beginnings and endings. Being two faced also meant he could talk out of two mouths at the same time. Kinda like Toyota.

Toyota spends millions of dollars touting themselves as the automotive equivalent of the Sierra Club. They’re out to save the planet with their Hybrid Synergy Drive and put OPEC sheiks on the public dole with their fuel sipping econoboxes. They’re so magnanimous they’re sharing their hybrid technology with Ford and Nissan (and anyone else willing to pay the price).

Toyota’s even bragging that their new manufacturing plants will produce no waste to clog the landfills. Yes, the birds are singing in the trees and daisies are blooming in the meadows thanks to Toyota. And then there’s the Tundra.

Toyota makes no bones about it: they want to be a major player in America’s lucrative full-size pickup market. After years of twiddling their toes in the water with a size 30-slim Tundra, they finally cowboyed-up and built them a gen-u-ine giant. The new Toyota Tundra is every bit as gi-normous and gluttonous as the Dodge Rams, Chevrolet Silverados and Ford F150's it faces. 

And they’re promoting it heavily. Over three-quarters of Toyota's NAIAS stand was dedicated to the Tundra. The display featured the he-man image the Japanese automaker wants to associate with their mega machine. And you can bet the Tundra’s advertising budget will be equal to or greater than that of their tree-hugger specials. Combined.

Meanwhile, Toyota’s playing footsie with federal regulations. Their Texas-built pickup hits dealer showrooms in February– at the same time other manufacturers are beginning to introduce some of their 2008 models. But Toyota is adamant the new Tundra is an ’07. That’s because the U.S. government is changing the way they calculate the fuel mileage ratings for ‘08 model year pickups. 

The new procedures will make the numbers on the window sticker more realistic (i.e. lower). ToMoCo can’t risk lower numbers against competition’s higher-rated ’07 models. They’ll get to display the higher numbers for a few months before the (unchanged) ’08 models go on sale this fall with ratings 8 to 12 percent lower than the ‘07s.

As you can imagine, Toyota’s heavy emphasis on their new gas-guzzling leviathan hasn’t gone unnoticed by auto-oriented environmentalists. In fact, environmental groups are finally facing reality: their automotive eco-darling is (gasp!) nothing more than a business. A business that conforms to all CAFE regulations, of course,  but will do whatever it takes to make a profit. 

Some environmentalists are none-too-pleased to discover Toyota’s enviro-friendly posture was based more on marketing and profits than saving the planet. The greenies are indignant, and they're striking back. 

Backed by groups like the Rainforest Action Network, The Freedom From Oil Campaign (FFOC) has put Toyota on notice: no more “free pass.” According to an FFOC statement, the group's launching a new campaign designed to ensure that “auto makers are taking the interim steps needed to show that they are truly committed to fuel economy and not just good PR.” 

While commending Toyota for its past record for fuel economy, they’ve added the transplant to their list of targets. It may not be long before the FFOC organizes pickets outside Toyota dealerships, as they’ve done at Ford dealerships. The Toyota Tundra could become the tree-hugger's next lightning rod, replacing the (so-ten-minutes-ago) Hummer H2.

You have to wonder why it took environmentalists this long to see the light (heavy?). Toyota’s trucks have never been what you’d call “parsimonious” with petrol. The automotive press has consistently panned their two hybrid SUVs for their disappointing real world fuel economy. Once the 2008 testing procedures are in place, it’ll be interesting to see where Toyota falls on the charts and how the more realistic numbers will affect opinions of their greenmobiles.

As a company that exploits its environmental responsibility, Toyota can't be pleased to find the eco-radicals on their case. The company will have to spin like a whirling dervish to handle the fallout. I’m confident, though, that they’ll pull out all the stops to protect their green rep. I can see it now: “Clean air for oxygen breathers courtesy of Toyota’s Hybrid Synergy Drive and carbon dioxide for plant life by the Toyota Tundra. We have the ecosystem covered!” Janus would be smiling– on both sides of his head.

There I was, flying down a German autobahn in a VW Phaeton, bumping up against the car’s electronic limiter. I glanced at the rear view mirror and moved over. A modified M5 streaked by at over 180mph. I say modified because BMW is part of a “gentleman’s agreement” hammered out in the 70’s, when Germany’s Green Party wanted to impose speed limits on de-restricted autobahns. Mercedes, BMW and Audi all agreed to limit their products’ top speed to 155mph. The idea that other countries could build automobiles capable of cresting 250kph somehow escaped everyone’s attention. As, eventually, did the entire speed limit issue.

At the time of the agreement, the majority of the automobiles plying Germany’s highways weren’t particularly clean or mind-numbingly fast. Some thirty years later, the tailpipe emissions produced by Germany’s increasingly modern automotive fleet are virtually sterile. And there’s hardly a new vehicle sold that can’t comfortably cruise well over 100mph— from diesel delivery vans to four-cylinder passenger cars. And so they do. At the same time, BMW, Mercedes and Audi all build mainstream models that could easily exceed their 155mph e-limit. And so they do, once a friendly tuner remaps their ECU. (FYI: Porsche never joined Club 155.) Clearly, German gentlemen kick ass.

Today’s German greens are also in butt kicking mode. Now that cars no longer belch significant amounts of harmful pollutants into the atmosphere, environmentalists are taking a new angle of attack: carbon dioxide. They claim that automotive CO2 emissions help reduce the Earth’s natural cooling, which causes global warming. This concern has resurrected the Green Party’s attack on automobiles in the same way that studies on the harmful effects of second hand smoke on non-smokers reignited the anti-smoking movement. Throughout the European Union (EU), member states are busy imposing legislative measures designed to restrict vehicular CO2.

The greens also have a new champion: Andreas Troge. The President of Germany’s Federal Environmental Agency (UBA) is a long time auto industry critic. For example, at a 2004 conference on environmental sustainability, Troge lambasted carmakers for using technological innovation to increase engine performance, rather than reduce fuel consumption. Last Thursday, Troge called for a 75mph speed limit on all German autobahns. He declared that the move would reduce Germany’s carbon dioxide emissions by 30 percent.   

The speed limit proposal is best seen within a much wider and more vigorous debate. The EU is currently trying to “convince” Germany to radically reduce its CO2 emissions. Specifically, the EU wants the German federal government to impose tougher CO2 restrictions on its power providers. Germany’s four largest utilities have rebelled, warning that any such concession will reduce energy supplies, eliminate jobs and increase prices– which are already the highest in Europe. Whether the autobahn speed limit will be a successful part of a growing environmental movement or nothing more than a doomed sideshow remains to be seen.

I’d bet on the sideshow. No less a personage than Germany Transport Minister immediately dismissed the 75mph speed limit [almost] out of hand. “I am committed to a reduction in emissions,” Wolfgang Tiefensee proclaimed. “But a general speed limit on open stretches of road does not make sense.” Tiefensee and his supporters assert that autobahns are environmentally irrelevant; they account for just two percent of German roadways. Defenders of the status quo also maintain that derestricted autobahns help the national automobile industry develop better and safer automobiles.

While the exact correlation between allowing 100mph+ driving on long straight roads and increased automotive safety may be a bit unclear, the underlying sentiment is not. Even without considering the merits of the safety argument, the fact that such a counter-intuitive justification can be mentioned in public without widespread condemnation highlights the enormous cultural importance of Germany’s derestricted autobahns. In other words, planet, schmanet. Don’t EU be messing with our autobahns.

Remember: Germans are a people who won’t jaywalk– even if there isn’t a car anywhere within sight. They can’t run their washing machines or wash their car on a Sunday– in case the noise disturbs their neighbors. In the main, they like rules. But they also like their autobahns. And that's because the roads liberate them from stifling peer pressure and governmental dictat, giving them a rare chance to explore and experience their individuality. Not to put too fine a point on it, German drivers revel in the sheer joy of accelerative release. The derestricted autobahn network is a precious bastion against soulless conformity.

That will one day fall victim to political conformity. While environmentalism is not likely to slow down German drivers, safety legislation will. The European Union is about to harmonize drivers’ license requirements across national boundaries. It’s only a matter of time before Brussels standardizes Union-wide road safety regulations. Reigning-in Germany’s derestricted autobahns may be the last step in this process, but it will also be one of the most significant. And regrettable.

I first noticed the trend in about eighth grade: Moms trading their lumbering station wagons for one of those newfangled minivans. It was a slight move upwards on the handling and visibility front and a huge step forward in the space-is-the- final-frontier front. Equally important, the minivan maintained the traditional segregation between Mom and Dad-mobiles. But Dad’s world was changing too, and not for the better.

Almost overnight, the car guy thing morphed from muscle car / urban sophisticate to Marlboro man. Broncos and Blazers and big ass Suburbans weren’t a new idea, of course. You could see vehicles sort of like them plying the grasslands of Africa every Sunday on Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom. But suddenly, every high-school badass in Michigan was giving up his Buick Regal for a GMC Jimmy, exchanging the lure of the open road for the equally fantastic lure of the off-road. 

At the time, I couldn’t fathom it. Looking back some 20-odd years later, I still don’t. Even the modest work-a-day pickup truck became a gotta-have for both blue-collar guys and white-collar weekend wannabes. It was… grotesque. But, hey, I’m all about freedom of choice. If you’re a pretentious poser who wants to clutter your driveway with an oversized 4X4 that’ll never see anything but asphalt, that’s your call. I won’t stand on the sidewalk and cheer as you drive by, but I won’t preach to you about rollover statistics and fuel-efficiency either. At least not much.

Lately, however, I’ve noticed a welcome trend. As little as three years ago, I’d have trouble finding a parking space at work. I simply couldn’t see past the rows of trucks and SUV’s to find an open spot. And when I did find one, the bloated haunches of some Durango or Yukon XL spilled over the lines of adjacent spaces, rendering the spot unusable. Likewise, I had trouble enjoying what little scenery accompanied my daily commute. My view was blocked by the aggressive, trail-rated grocery mules clogging up the traffic lanes and monopolizing my rear-view mirror.

The vehicles they are a changing. As I peer out my office window today, the automotive population below is strikingly different. There are still a couple Trailblazers, a Durango, an F-150 and a Buick Rendezvous. But the majority of spaces are occupied by real cars: coupes and sedans and pony cars. Impalas, 300’s, Passats and Mustangs. Practically overnight, we have gone from a society that ‘needed’ the hulking, overwrought, extra-capacity vehicles that matched our hulking, overwrought, capacity-hogging lifestyles, to a society that seems to get along fine with average-size cars. 

Anyone who looked at the situation objectively could have seen it coming (though they might not have wanted to admit it). I mean, it’s nice to have a big vehicle with the power to pull a boat, the space for a few sheets of ply-wood or a third row for that fourth kid. But I’d been paying attention all those years, and I saw what most of these SUV/truck/van people were hauling each day: nothing. I would walk through parking lots and see endless rows of pick-ups with nothing in the bed but sandbags for added traction in the winter. What a waste.

At some point, thankfully, the 20-year SUV trend literally ran out of gas. Obviously, money had a lot to do with it. The post-Katrina gas price spike impaled itself in the heart of Middle America, causing a vicious vehicular circle of desperation and depreciation. The implicit freedom of owning an SUV quickly became the explicit slavery of not being able to sell it, and the financial tyranny of feeding its tank. No money down doesn’t look as good when you become a de facto mortgagee to Exxon.

I like to think that the SUV’s declining popularity is more than that. I like to think the craze was a temporary aberration, a collective failure of common sense and personal responsibility. In that sense, I also want to believe that Americans saw the war in Iraq and felt the need to make some kind of sacrifice on the home front. But I suspect there are other, less moral forces at play.

Clearly, bling killed the SUV on the cultural level. When playas re-equipped their behemoths for “stunting and flossing,” they revealed the Emperor’s new clothes. What’s a Navigator with 22” wheels and low profile tires have to do with the romantic allure of fording streams and climbing hills? The same thing as a Navigator with 18” wheels and all-season tires. Nothing. Once you see the absurdity, there’s no going back.

Whatever the cause, I’m delighted to see cars replace SUV’s. I like living in a world where I’m not swimming in a sea of wretched excess. From those of us who never got caught up in SUV craze, welcome back.

Americans never demanded whale blubber. They simply wanted to light their homes. When a better means to the same end came along– a cheaper, safer and more effective energy delivery system (that didn’t require long, dangerous voyages and a Hellish rendering process)- they said ‘pardon me, be right back,’ and never returned. By the same token, Americans don’t demand imported oil or inefficient cars. They want a certain standard of performance. The two concepts just happened to be joined at the hip– at the moment. But that needn’t be so.

Many critics of America’s vehicular efficiency call for a gas tax to “force” the free market to create more efficient cars and trucks. The truth is a hefty gas tax will never pass. Besides, our federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards are a perfectly adequate instrument to stimulate a relatively painless increase in our automotive efficiency. If this system was properly implemented, every car, van and truck in America would get better gas mileage. We know this because we can already see its effects: hybrids, eight speed transmissions, composite materials, Canada goose-like drag coefficients. This process could easily be accelerated simply by raising the CAFE standards. 

Could automotive engineers meet the challenge of more demanding regulations? Consider Formula One. Year after year, the sport’s regulating body attempts to slow things down using restrictive legislation. Year after year, F1 teams create cars that perform at the brink of human endurance. To say ingenuity can’t lead to more fuel-efficient cars, trucks, vans and sports cars is to say science is played out and we know all there is to know. The principle that CAFE necessity is the mother of invention remains fundamentally sound. Ah, but there is a caveat; raising CAFE standards is not enough. The rules are fundamentally flawed. 

First, the legislation should be amended to stop assigning higher fuel economy ratings to flexible-fuel vehicles. For example, CAFE regs rate an E85-compatible 5.3-liter V8 Chevy Tahoe at 33mpg. The vehicle’s “gas only” EPA rating is 15/19mpg. The SUV struggles to achieve 10mpg on E85– which is more or less completely unavailable to 90% of the US population. Oh, and that’s one of the reasons why GM can advertise the fact that so many of their vehicles get “over 30mpg.” The CAFE regulation’s E85 calculations are ridiculous on so many levels it hurts.

Second, the EPA mpg figures should reflect actual real world driving. A Toyota Prius does not get 60mpg in city driving or 51mpg on the highway, and should not receive CAFE credits for doing so in the theoretical realm. While new EPA regulations will supposedly lower mileage estimates on hybrids by roughly 30%, and reduce a lot of other overly-optimistic estimates, it’s been clear for quite some time that the EPA should be using real world data. What’s more, the agency should create one simple statistical average for both city and highway driving.

Third, the loophole whereby passenger vehicles get called trucks or light trucks– removing some of the worst CAFE offenders from manufacturers’ car fleets and subjecting them to lower truck-related mpg standards– must be cinched. Classifying the PT Cruiser as a truck because it has a removable rear seat is just wrong. Classifying a crossover a truck because it has greater cargo-carrying capacity than passenger-carrying volume is also unacceptable. Common sense– rather than weights and measures– should be applied. If we’re really serious about improving overall fuel efficiency, it’s time for pickup trucks to be classified as passenger vehicles, regardless of their weight or commercial use. 

Fourthly, the whole system of CAFE “credits” should be eliminated. Specifically, when a manufacturers’ car or light truck fleet’s average fuel economy exceeds the required standard, they earn credits that can be applied to any three consecutive model years prior to (“carry back”) or subsequent to (“carry forward”) the model year in which the credits are earned. Why do we need to dangle a carrot in front of automobile manufacturers?  On the stick side, the penalties for non-compliance must be raised to the point where companies like BMW can’t simply shrug them off as a cost of doing business.

Lastly, again, CAFE standards should be raised. A manufacturer’s passenger car fleet is currently required to average 27.5mpg; light trucks must average 21.6 (rising to 22.2 mpg for 2007). I suggest a relatively modest increase of 2% a year for the next ten years.

Repealing the laws of supply and demand is challenging.  If cars use less gas, supply rises, prices drop and the airline and trucking industries gobble up what good CAFE achieved. Everyone needs to be in the same boat, because consumption is – forgive me – a whale of a problem.  Transportation is responsible for nearly 70% of the world’s oil use.  The captains of that industry should be charged with changing course.

Here’s a surprise: Chinese law requires greater automotive fuel efficiency than American regulations. Although we’re not comparing Granny Smiths to Mandarin oranges– China uses a weight ratio, the US uses categories– it’s roughly 36 to 24mpg in favor of the Chinese. You’d expect this sort of disparity from Europe, Australia, Japan and Canada. But China? How can that be? In automotive terms, China’s just waking up. Or is it that the US is still asleep?

In 1975, in response to the 1973-74 Arab oil embargo, Congress enacted America’s federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations. The new rules dictated the average fuel economy (in miles per gallon) of a manufacturer’s fleet for any given model year. The plan was simple: reduce US domestic oil consumption by increasing vehicular efficiency. The formula was complex: non-commercial vehicles were excluded under rules designed for commercial vehicles, manufacturers were allowed to pay fines for non-compliance (e.g. BMW), and now, vehicles that will never see a drop of E85 fuel are tallied as if they were running on corn juice 24/7.

The impact of the legislation on oil consumption has been less than impressive. According to The US Department of Energy, from 1985 to 2005, America’s net oil imports grew from 4.3 mmbd (million barrels per day) to 12.6 mmbd. Transportation currently accounts for 69% of that total. Obviously, there are more cars on the road, and you could argue that the figure would have been much higher without CAFE breathing down the automakers’ collective necks. But even if you believe that the CAFE standards are working, clearly they’re not doing a very good job of achieving their original intent. 

Meanwhile, the rest of the world has proven itself far more determined to achieve greater fuel efficiency for their privately owned vehicles. Their industry regulations and auto-related taxes are tougher on automakers and end users alike, using whatever legal strictures they can muster to discourage low-mileage, high pollution vehicles. In England, for example, company cars are taxed on the amount of CO2 they emit, which forces corporations to run smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles. While there’s a patchwork of national laws and taxes in this regard, it’s clear that the rest of the world is moving towards a common standard for automotive efficiency, and it's a lot higher than ours. 

Generally speaking, that’s a good thing. The adoption of common worldwide standards is one of the main reasons the internet wrapped around the world so quickly. Thanks to definitive, compelling and effective worldwide technical coordination, the internet is one of the great industrial success stories in human history. Surely, worldwide standards for fuel efficiency would also have an enormous effect, reducing the cost of the technological and manufacturing development needed to reduce vehicular consumption.

Again, fuel economy standards around the globe can’t yet lay claim to any of the above adjectives. Every country’s regulations are different, both in terms of methods and goals. They change periodically. And yet, like other industrial standards, fuel efficiency regulations are starting to coalesce all on their own, stealthily. The movement towards a de facto standard is partially the result of consolidation within the global automotive industry. It also reflects a commonality of economic pressures against high mileage vehicles across the planet; including governmental edict, oil producing nations’ commercial manipulation and the “needs” of the free market.

All the major automakers selling vehicles in the United States are multinational players. They comply with fuel economy standards in every market in which they compete. For example, Shanghai General Motors Co. Ltd. is China’s number one automobile producer. Last year, this joint venture built 325,429 cars, meeting Beijing’s version of CAFE. Ford of Europe actual turns a profit, so it appears they know the lay of the land of 40 mpg. And so on, from BMW to Volkswagen. All the major players have proven themselves equal to the task of building the fuel efficient vehicles each market requires.

All this experience building fuel efficient vehicles for more demanding foreign markets renders automakers’ claims of technological impotence in the face of potentially more stringent American regulations, well, impotent. It makes their exploitation of legal loopholes– or willingness to simply pay the fines and be done with it– a morally questionable enterprise. It also raises a crucial public policy question: why can’t America be more like everyone else?

Is it because our high mileage carrots aren’t tasty enough, or our gas-guzzler sticks are sharp enough, or both? Where is the political will we need to tweak the regulatory and taxation system to achieve the goal we set for our country some 31 years ago? Even with US safety, pollution and CAFÉ regulations, the US domestic car market is more “free” than any other. The question is, can we afford it?

It’s been many years since the media entertained spurious claims about the toxicity of automotive plastics. Guess what? They’re at it again; ready to alert the world to the “dangers” of the plasticizers that make dashboards supple and vinyl pliable. Both ABC’s The View and National Geographic Magazine (October 2006) took major shots at these chemicals, known collectively as phthalate esters. Without these plastics, every car interior would have all the allure and comfort of an up-armored military spec Humvee.

Even before David Ewan Duncan’s “The Pollution Within” gets into high gear, the National Geographic’s subhead links automotive plastics and toxicity: “Thanks to modern chemistry… SUVs hit 60 in six seconds. But such convenience has a price: Chemicals that suffuse modern life– from well known toxins to newer compounds with unknown effects– are building up in our bodies and sometimes staying there for years.” In the main piece, Duncan carefully avoids calling phthalates toxins. They’re “chemicals of concern.” But the implication is clear: phthalates are poisonous.

Phthalates are found in a wide range of everyday products: shampoo bottles, medical equipment, toys, food wrap, cosmetics, water bottles and [woo hoo!] sex toys. When plastics get hot, the phthalates leech out. The haze that films the inside of our windshields consists of phthalates that have “evaporated” out of interior plastics and collected on the glass. Long-term phthalate loss accounts for dashboards becoming increasingly brittle and splitting. Phthalates also account for new car smell as well as the funny taste of water from plastic bottles left in the sun.

The human body absorbs phthalates through the skin, orally or through the lungs. The chemicals don't stay inside us for long; our bodies break them down and pass them out within a few hours or a couple of days. Nor do the chemicals build up in our body tissues. Long term exposure is considered safe; the plastics industry has used them since the ‘20’s without any indication (i.e. lawsuit) that they cause acute or chronic illness.

In the late ‘90’s, these plasticizers came under fire for a myriad of alleged health concerns. Phthalates were accused of being estrogenic and suspected of causing cancer. The European Union reacted to the anti-phthalate hysteria by banning some phthalate-infused plastics from children’s toys. Once again, the chemicals are under the preventative health industry’s microscope.

Meanwhile, allegations that phthalates mimic estrogen, the female hormone, offer some curious possibilities. Do cars with more plastics yield more sensitive drivers? Indeed, if phthalate-laden interiors were used more, would there be less road rage? Would women of child bearing age become more fertile? Would menopausal women riding in cars experience less severe hot flashes? And, if the use of phthalates were banned for use in autos, would the highway safety devolve under an assault of testosterone-crazed drivers?

I jest. In fact, the research conclusions prompting the estrogen claim are deeply flawed. Absurdly large doses of phthalates were administered through the skin to rats, resulting in some birth defects (e.g. male offspring with more than two nipples.) While this result has been duplicated in other rodent studies, it’s never been replicated in animals that more closely resemble humans. (Human skin is known to be more resistant to chemical absorption than rats’.) Furthermore, humans are exposed to much higher levels of estrogen-mimicking chemicals from other sources, including wheat, soybeans, potatoes, carrots, apples and coffee. Obviously, no one is proposing banning any of these foodstuffs.

Dr. Scott D. Phillips of the University of Colorado’s Division of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology wrote in the Journal of the American Medical Association, “This mischaracterization of the scientific evidence [regarding phthalate exposure] reflects a lack of understanding of basic toxicological principles… We put chemical substances into our bodies daily that can cause harmful effects in animals. It is the dose that differentiates medicines from poisons.” Aspirin in low doses is a miracle drug – a near-panacea. Yet, many a desperate person has ended their own life by ingesting sufficient quantities aspirin. A British study of infants exposed to phthalates through milk fed through plastic containers found no risk, even when applying the European Union’s 100-fold safety margin.

The belief that phthalates cause cancer is wrong.  The suspect phthalate, known as DEHP, has been cleared by scores of peer-reviews and research studies. The study used as the basis for this claim is now viewed as “junk science” and the use of these plastics in toys, medical equipment or cars is deemed to pose no human health risk.

While there are many chemicals, natural and synthetic, that merit careful concern, forty years of extensive research indicates that phthalates are not among them. Nonetheless, a lie repeated often enough takes on the ring of truth. And public policy based on such distortions could profoundly affect our cars’ comfort.  So enjoy sitting in your car. Breathe deeply. Caress the soft plastics. And put your mind at ease.

I remember reading about an environmental group that argued for zero population. Not zero population growth, zero people. They figured there was only one way to return nature to its, um, natural state: take humans out of the equation. I don’t recall their plan to achieve this goal, but I don’t think it involved automobiles. After all: no people, no cars, no pollution. Done. California’s tree huggers may not adhere to the same logical extreme, but c’mon, can someone please knock some sense into the state’s eco-warriors before they do something really stupid?

Yesterday, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed a lawsuit against Toyota, General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Honda and Nissan. The suit alleges that these companies’ vehicles damaged the ozone layer hovering over California. The People seek unspecified financial damages for the diminution of the state’s snow packs, beaches, ozone layer and endangered animals. Clearly, The Golden State has kicked their anti-car agenda back into high gear.

Now we could ignore the political grandstanding that triggered this eminently dismissible lawsuit (they followed all your environmental regulations and you’re suing them?) and get into a debate about whether or not carbon dioxide is an environmental hazard. But let’s just assume it is. Is treating law-abiding automakers like criminals really the best way to sort out their products’ environmental impact? It’s like a bunch of social workers suing the Attorney General’s office for not forcing the legislature to pass more stringent laws against pedophiles, so they could enforce them. 

Of course, there are plenty of people who assume that automobile manufacturers are criminals. The movie “Who Killed the Electric Car” reflects the generally held belief that automakers are deeply, fundamentally corrupt organizations who will gladly sacrifice “the public good” for their shareholder’s gain. They’ll rip up mass transit lines, pretend they can’t build cars that get 100 miles to a gallon, subvert safety and environmental regulations, send jobs abroad, lie, cheat and steal— anything to avoid doing the “right thing.” The logical corollary: the carmakers’ [alleged] foot-dragging must be stopped at any and all costs.

Never mind that these same critics drive cars. Never mind that the society in which they live depends on the automobile for its social, economic and genetic well-being. Never mind that automakers have eliminated virtually all of their products’ harmful pollutants AND increased their fuel efficiency AND increased passenger safety AND maintained the finished products’ affordability AND generated billions in annual tax revenue AND created tens of thousands of skilled and unskilled jobs. Automakers– and automobiles– are the enemy within.

If you want to know where this is heading, look at England. In the name of public health, London hits-up motorists entering the city center with a “congestion charge." In the name of public health, large public areas have been pedestrianized and the number of public parking spaces reduced. In the name of public health, the government levies astronomical taxes on petrol, cars and car licenses. In the name of public health, the government dictates the number of houses that can be built, the number of parking spaces those houses can provide and the location of those houses (to minimize car use and maximize the use of public transportation).

Maybe you’re OK with all that. But the results aren’t exactly as intended. Car use (i.e. “pollution”) has continued to increase. Meanwhile, the country’s public transportation system has become extremely over-crowded (in addition to dirty, unreliable and expensive). Urban congestion (and jobs) has been exported to outlying areas. Decent, affordable housing for middle class buyers is practically non-existent. And speaking of class, motoring’s prohibitive expense puts automotive ownership completely out of reach for lower income workers and lowers the standard of living for the middle class. This situation does nothing to alleviate class resentment, and much to increase it.

And that’s the single biggest issue facing those who would seek to limit America’s automotive “addiction”— whether they know it or not. The automobile is, literally, social mobility. Cars are the platelets in the body politic. By keeping cars and car ownership relatively cheap, our populace can feed outlying areas with employment and business, spreading economic well-being both socially and geographically. Of course, detractors would argue that our cars are also spreading pollution and environmental destruction further and faster, but they’re missing the point.

Politics is supposed to be the art of compromise. If you view the car as a planet-killing demon and move to restrict its use, or try to tax it to death, or regulate it into a corner, success will evoke the law of unintended consequences. Greenhouse gasses may be a threat to our children’s future, but there are other threats we should also consider before we take drastic steps to “solve” the problem. Perhaps California should work with automakers, rather than against them.   

When the Toyota Prius first came out, I drove one around West Virginia.  When I pulled into a gas station, the owner sauntered out, all curious-like.  “What’s that?” he demanded.  “I never seen one of them before.”  It’s a hybrid, I explained.  You can run it on either the electric motor or the gas engine, or both of them together.  “They ought to have a switch,” he said. “So you can run it only on electricity.”  So much for my Harvard degree.  The guy was way ahead of me.

Toyota should be all over the plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) concept like stink on bumwad.  Perhaps their unintentionally non-commercial experience with the all-electric RAV4 EV put them off the concept.  They probably figured that a mainstream motor requiring nightly recharging would be as popular as a compact Cadillac diesel with 8-4-0 cylinder deactivation.  Still, Toyota’s beginning to get with the program— as are Ford, DaimlerChrysler, George Bush and every green-leaning op-ed columnist.  Appropriately enough, the change of heart’s down to a small group of Californians long derided as rich hippies with too much time on their hands. 

These much-maligned Left Coasters are engineers and entrepreneurs rallying around an e-banner called CalCars.org .  They’ve been known to spend an extra $10k to $12k per car to add plug-in capability to their hybrid transportation.  They plug in their Prius at night, charge a special set of drive batteries, roll out of bed and commute and/or run errands entirely on amps.  Their modified Prius won’t fire up its internal combustion (IC) engine until they’re doing 35, provided they stay light on the throttle. 

Obviously, a PHEV isn’t going to help drivers with an 80-mile, 80-mph commute.  But it works for me.  Once every weekday, I loop around the local post office, gym, hardware store, Radio Shack, dentist or whatever.  Give me a range of 35 in-town electric miles and I’m there.  If I deplete my plug-in hybrid’s batteries, I’ll simply go to gas and carry on.

The PHEV eliminates the fatal flaw of electric cars: limited range.  If your commute is reasonably short, plug the puppy in at work and motor back home with a full tank of volts.  You probably won’t need to fire up the IC engine until the weekend trip to Vegas. Based on the American driver’s typical daily runs (they average seven miles each), a PHEV could deliver 100 mpg or more.  People who ride Vespas do half as well.

Toyota’s standard it-won’t-work whine: the Prius’ nickel-metal hydride (NiMH) battery puts out lots of power for a short time.  It wouldn’t survive daily deep discharge/recharge cycles.  In fact, Japanese and Euro-spec Prii have an electric-only switch, so owners can move their hybrid to the other side of the street [in accordance with local parking laws] without having to start them up, apparently.  That said, a Prius won’t even travel a mile on its standard internal battery.  Bottom line: a useful plug-in hybrid requires a lead acid “energy battery,” which are notoriously heavy and short-lived. 

At first, CalCars’ hackers circumvented this limitation by installing a secondary set of lightweight lead-acid batteries, originally intended for electrical bicycles.  They’ve since moved on to lighter, longer lasting (and more expensive) lithium-ion batteries.  The secondary batteries don’t put out a whole lot of power, but it’s enough to chug a light car along for an hour or two.  Of course, you need controllers and wiring to make it all work.  But as they say, if it was easy, everybody would be doing it.

Spare batteries in the trunk, homemade wiring, thousands of dollars per car for electronics, a week’s DIY work… of course the PHEV makes no sense.  But I suspect Toyota, Mercedes or even GM could make it a lot more sensible.  Hey, don’t tell me a society that can develop the Ionic Breeze air purifier and sell expensive pills to reduce stress-induced belly fat can’t invent better batteries…

Yes, I know: electricity comes from “somewhere" and arrives complete with its own environmental costs.  But one huge factor in electricity’s favor— and why it will supplant both gasoline and hydrogen as the power source for future cars— is that amps and volts already have a perfectly good transportation and supply infrastructure: power lines, household wiring and extension cords.  No other source of alternative energy starts with such an obvious advantage.

Best of all, electricity comes from a wide variety of existing, plentiful, independent, domestic sources: coal, nuclear, natural gas, hydro, garbage, even solar and wind power.  Worse comes to worst, I could even recharge my plug-in hybrid vehicle’s batteries by hooking it to my Exercycle, since it’s actually an alternator that provides variable resistance when I pedal.  Try that with diesel, fuel cells, hydrogen, fusion or Kryptonite.  Clearly, the PHEV is a shockingly good idea.

Should America be fuelling its vehicles with corn-based E85?  Now there’s a question worthy of public debate.  Meanwhile, the question’s been settled.  E85 is coming to a pump near you, whether you like it— or use it— or not.  The political momentum behind the fuel is enormous, including huge CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) credits for manufacturers that build vehicles that will never see a drop of corn juice.  In fact, the production and distribution of E85 involves a strange mix of politics and economics which could well lead to a dead end.  Following the money may make your head spin, but it's high time to separate E85 facts from the politically correct fug of obfuscation. 

First of all, corn farmers aren’t getting rich off of E85.  America produces 11 billion bushels of the yellow foodstuff every year.  More than half of the US corn crop goes to feed animals, mostly cattle and pigs.  Much of the rest is used for corn syrup, oil, plastics and even heat.  What’s left gets exported.  The US ethanol industry’s growing appetite for corn has reduced our exports somewhat, but there’s still plenty left over after we’ve exhausted every possible domestic use.  So corn prices remain low.

Or high.  Despite the over-abundance of American corn, the US federal government subsidizes the price— paying farmers the difference between the crop’s fair market value and $2.50 a bushel.  This price support ensures that corn farming remains profitable, so the US doesn’t have to buy corn on the global market.  You might think the federal subsidy would assure profits for farmers and low input costs for ethanol producers, but you’d be wrong.  Enter the middleman… 

Unlike sugar cane (the source for Brazil’s ethanol), corn is a seasonal crop.  Corn is also expensive to transport, making it difficult for farmers to sell directly to distant buyers.  At the same time, most corn farmers lack the storage capacity needed to stockpile their Biblically bounteous harvest.  No surprise then, that there’s an entire industry devoted to buying grain from farmers, storing it and shipping it to other buyers. 

Obviously, there’s a nice little price bump involved.  Grain middlemen seldom pay more than about $2 per bushel to buy corn; they can then get $2.50 to $3 for that same bushel on a futures contract.  Ethanol plants are even willing to pay a little more, since they know they’ll sell every drop of fuel they produce.  The upshot of all this agricultural to-ing and fro-ing: ethanol producers are stuck with a raw material cost that rarely drops below $2.50 a bushel, no matter how much corn is grown, stored or shipped.

Thus, a gallon of ethanol requires roughly $.75 of corn.  That may seem like a compelling cost structure for an alternative fuel– especially when compared to this week’s crude oil price of $1.40 per gallon.  But E85’s ancillary costs are far higher.  First, ethanol is more expensive to produce than gasoline (i.e. it takes more energy to make fuel from corn than oil, and energy ain’t cheap).  Second, thanks to the phaseout of octane-enhancing MBTE gasoline additive, demand for ethanol far exceeds supply.  Third, ethanol’s transportation costs are astronomical. 

Unlike petroleum-based gasoline, ethanol is too corrosive for existing pipelines.  That means E85 has to be transported by truck or train.  Unfortunately, America’s trains are busy hauling billions of tons of coal from mines to power plants.  The railroads are adding locomotives as fast as manufacturers can build them (bet GM’s sorry they sold their locomotive business), but they’re all dedicated to moving a material that provides a larger, steadier business that's less hazards than schlepping ethanol.  So, for now, E85 distribution is pretty much restricted to trucks.

The bottom line is clear: E85 production is dependent on a crop whose costs are more or less fixed at a permanently high level.  E85 may be eco-sexy and an all-American source of fuel (provided you discount the petrochemical products used to fertilize and insect-proof the corn crop and power the vehicles that harvest, process and haul the corn around), but its current production costs make it an economically dubious alternative to “cheap” gas.  And that’s without considering the fact that E85 yields about 20% less “bang for the buck” than gas.  Unless the price of gas soars another dollar or so, or increased supply drops the price of ethanol by a like amount, E85 will struggle to provide a cost-effective alternative to its imported competition. 

The fundamental economics of the E85 business ensure that the fuel is– and will remain– a product whose future depends more on politics than the “free market.”  Of course, there’s nothing inherently wrong with that.  If we’re serious about energy independence, the US government could intervene to make E85 more viable. Uncle Sam could build a national network of E85-compatible pipelines, or remove taxes from E85, or add taxes to gas, or end corn subsidies, or, well, lots of things.  Meanwhile, the people who’ll benefit most from E85 are the people who move the raw materials to the ethanol plants and the finished product to the consumer.   

With only 750 American gas stations providing the corn juice for flex-fuel vehicles, there's more E85 hype than E85.  Which is the point collegiate road tripper Mark Pike and his cohorts over at kicktheoilhabit.org decided to make by attempting an E85-only trek across the North American landmass in flex-fuel Crown Vic supplied by the bad mo fo's at FoMoCo.  In the PR sense, the trip's a hit.  Pike's Vic has garnered a bushel of free publicity for the supporters of fuel coming from Billy Ford's "heartland."  Of course, the socio-polticial issues surrounding E85 production, transportation and provision are only slightly less complex than the home assembly instructions for a Bowflex Versatrainer. [Read Mark Hasty's post on E85 economics on tomorrow's TTAC.]  A quick call to Mr. Pike revealed that the flex-fuel campaigner is a bit of a piker in terms of the fine print, but props are due.  The most socially responsible thing I ever did during my college vacation was making sure that my empties were placed in a proper trash receptacle. 

I recently visited Stanley Sheinbaum. Back in the day, "Citizen Stan" was a Vietnam protester, a member of Daniel “Pentagon Papers” Ellsberg’s defense team, a US contact for PLO leader Yasir Arafat and the head of the police commission that forced Chief Darrel Gates to resign in the wake of the L.A. Riots.  In other words, his liberal credentials are flawless. "You write about cars?" Stanley demanded.  "Have you seen 'Who Killed the Electric Car?" Stanley's in his 80's, but he still has a team of Prius-driving people working for him.  Obviously, Stan and his friends have their hearts in the right place vis-à-vis hybrids and saving the environment and all that, but where are their  heads?  Is there really a Detroit/Big Oil conspiracy working against high mileage passenger cars?  Or are the electric/hydrogen/hybrid car supporters so enamored with their own politics they can’t hug the forest from the trees?  Don't they understand that the power has to come from somewhere?  Your thoughts?

It wasn't that long ago that Audi was known for creating cars that ran over their owners.  After the “sudden unintended acceleration" debacle, the company went on to establish a rep for building high tech cars of dubious mechanical quality.  Although Audi’s position at the bottom of JD Power’s 2005 Vehicle Dependability survey doesn’t indicate much movement on this residual critical reliability front, the company claims to be addressing the issue.  Meanwhile, Audi’s got a secret weapon in the battle to carve out a bigger chunk of the US car market: diesel. 

With little fanfare, Audi recently announced that they’ll offer their latest generation TT roadster with a diesel engine option.  It’s a startling announcement.  A diesel sports car?  The concept is enough to make both the traditional US diesel demographic (truck buyers) and the hard core sports car fraternity (V8 and V6’ers all) snort derisively.  Or not.  A diesel TT could be the missing link that unites American pistonheads in a fraternity of torque and high mileage, paving the way for a wider acceptance of diesel powered passenger cars.  And if anyone can do it, it’s Audi.   

Earlier this year, Audi entered their diesel-engined R10 TDI into the 24 Heures de Le Mans endurance race.  The R10 scored a number of firsts: the first diesel powered car to have the fastest qualifying time and the first diesel car to win Le Mans.  The R10’s performance at Le Mans was so convincing that race organizers are now deciding how to level the field, so that gasoline powered cars can compete.  Although these accomplishments went largely unnoticed by most Americans (if it's ain’t NASCAR, it ain’t racin’), the implications for a diesel TT are clear.  A baby R10 would be a genuine coup for Ingolstadt’s US campaigners.

But first, Audi has to persuade the press and the public that the new TT is more than another pretty face.  Although Audi’s Bauhaus-inspired two-door is an undisputable fashion icon, the TT never proved itself on the field of battle.  High-speed stability issues plagued the car from day one.  Front wheel drive questions dogged it from day two.  Horsepower questions arrived on day three.  By the time all that was sorted, the TT had disappeared from enthusiasts’ radar.  From initial press reports, Audi might have succeeded this time.  It’s a make or break proposition for the diesel version.  If Audi drops an oil burner into a wannabe sports car, it’ll simply be perceived as a quirky option version for a silly car. 

If, however, the TT is a “real sports car,” the diesel could elevate the car to an entirely different level: a hero/halo car.  If a diesel TT delivers massive acceleration, Bimmer-baiting handling and a Porsche-beating DSG transmission, the engine’s impact will be enormous.  Pistonheads and diesels lovers alike will stand up and take notice.  Given this scenario, it’s hardly surprising that the company announced that the TT will receive an all-new engine.  No details were provided, but we can safely assume that the new mill will be smaller than Audi’s 2.7 or 3.0-liter diesels, and more powerful than Volkswagen’s 140hp 2.0-liter four-cylinder common rail diesel.  

If Audi succeeds with a diesel TT, the company will reap tremendous rewards.  The Audi name plate will be associated with high performance, high mileage products– distinguishing the company’s diesels from the other foreign car marques, which use diesels for down-market thrift (Volkswagen) or up-market waft (Mercedes).  As gas prices rise and clean diesel come on-stream, Audi will have the answer American consumers want: traditional V8 performance with Euro-friendly gas mileage.  With every up tick in gas prices, the message will become more compelling.     

Press coverage for a new vehicle is always greatest at the time of introduction; the diesel option to follow has the potential to go largely unnoticed.  Audi is already working to prevent diesel distraction by shipping the R10 to the States for the American Le Mans series.  We can also expect the vehicle to engage in more publicity stunts like the recent race in the UK between the R10 and a Harrier fighter jet (The R10 just barely lost). 

While Audi plans to “sex-up” its diesels, Detroit is nowhere to be seen (Jeep brand excepted).  It’s ironic.  Truth be told, Americans really don’t want small cars; they want big cars with gas tanks they can afford to fill.  Diesel technology, which has been around a long time (unlike hybrids or fuel cells), would improve the gas mileage of Detroit’s monster SUVs and extend their popularity into an age of rising gas prices.  Detroit should have recognized diesel’s potential and been the first at this party, not arriving late as usual.  In any case, at least one aspiring auto manufacturer understands the restorative powers of offering the right product at the right time.

I’ve seen the car of the future.  It's not a diesel.  It’s not a hybrid.  It doesn’t run on electricity or natural gas or elastometric energy storage units recharged by rodents operating exercise wheels, supervised by domesticated felines. The future is sitting in a corner of your local Ford dealer's showroom gathering dust: a Ford Focus with the optional 2.0 E engine. This little runner is what’s called a PZEV (Practically Zero Emissions Vehicle).  That's a cut better than a ULEV (Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle) but not quite as good as a ZEV (Zero Emissions Vehicle).  Ah, but the Focus E is still the best a tree hugger can get.

If you think about it (a rare activity for people who focus more on politics than scientific facts), a Focus PZEV has less environmental impact than an electric-powered ZEV.  The ZEV rating measures only tailpipe emissions– not a vehicle’s the total impact on the environment.  Consider the infrastructure that supplies the energy for the electric car. Plug in an EV-1 every night, and someone throws on more coal at the powerplant.  In many cities, a PZEV car like the Focus E emits exhaust that is cleaner than the air it consumes.  In fact, creating instruments to measure the miniscule amounts of pollution from a PZEV car is a growth industry, and a real technological challenge.

Ford's joined in this technological accomplishment by BMW (325ci), Honda (Civic GX), Hyundai (Elantra), KIA (Spectra), Mazda (Mazda3 2.0), Mercedes (E350), Mitsubishi (Galant), Nissan (Sentra), Subaru (Legacy 2.5), Toyota (Camry), Volkswagen (Golf) and Volvo (V70); to name but a few makes and models. 

[GM is notably absent from the list of automakers building PZEV vehicles.  For 20 years, GM offered the most fuel-efficient cars in America. Starting with the Vega through to the three cylinder GEOs of the ‘80’s and ‘90’s and the EV-1 electric car, GM spent a great deal of money to top the EPA's mileage list.  All these cars had one thing in common: no one bought them.  Eventually GM gave up this unprofitable pursuit.  While GM cars usually have the highest mileage in their respective categories, The General only makes a token effort (e.g. the Saturn VUE hybrid) to compete with high-mileage “loss leaders” like the Civic or Prius.] 

Of course, the gasoline-powered, internal combustion engine hasn’t finished cleaning up its act.  Every year, the old dear gets a little better.  Evolving technology– direct injection, semi-stratified charge combustion, higher operating temperatures, more reductions in internal friction, etc. — promises even cleaner and more fuel efficient cars in the future.  None of this is "news" in the media's view.  A cumulative 2% improvement in efficiency year on year doesn't make nearly as good a story as fuel cells, hybrids or diesels.  But spread this incremental improvement over 20 years and tens of millions of vehicle and the cumulative effect– in terms of the engines' overall environmental impact– is astounding.

There is a single but significant fly in the near-organic ointment: Americans don't buy fuel-efficient cars.  No matter how much the general public complains about the price of gas or the planet’s ascending temperature, the cleanest and most fuel efficient cars are often the most unloved.  The media never misses an opportunity to chronicle the "skyrocketing" sales of hybrids, but fails to point out that they're a relatively obscure breed.  Last year, total hybrid sales captured around 3% of the new car market.  Toyota sells more SUVs than that.  Since Toyota and others lose anywhere from $2k to $4k per car on their low-end hybrids, there is little incentive to drastically increase production and sales.  No wonder Bill Ford has pulled back from his public commitment to produce 250k hybrid-powered vehicles by the end of [this] decade.

So why do carmakers offer money-losing high mileage cars?  They have no choice.  As we’ve discussed here before, every car manufacturer has to meet a CAFÉ (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) number.  If Ford wants to sell Lincoln Navigators at a $10,000 markup without incurring a substantial EPA fine and/or negative PR fallout, they need a produce a passel of PZEV Foci to boost their fleet average– whether they sell or not.  Every carmaker suffers this problem.  Toyota chooses to lose their money on hybrids, and reap some positive PR. BMW pays the fines.  Ford, GM, Chrysler and others suffer in silence.

Few things are certain. But the most likely scenario for the car of the future is that it will be a lot like today's Ford Focus (minus the strange taillights, we hope).  It’ll be relatively small and simple, with an extremely sophisticated internal combustion engine. And, no doubt, gathering dust in the corner of the showroom, while buyers flock to the latest gas-guzzler, and pundits bemoan the state of the nation's oil consumption.

The United States has pledged to kick the oil habit before. But this time we mean it. Better yet, we have a solution that doesn’t require any of that furrin’ hybrid and diesel technology: E85. Produced from corn and other products grown in good old American soil, this 85 percent ethanol blend enables American-as-apple-pie small block V8s to burn less gasoline than a Prius. If every car, truck, and SUV were E85 now, why we could tell the Arabs to shove it! So all good Americans should buy an E85-capable full-sized SUV TODAY! Actually, on second thought, maybe we shouldn’t be so quick to “go yellow.” 

Brazil, poster child of the E85 movement, has farmed its way to energy independence. But the same solution won’t work so easily for the US. For one thing, Brazil produces ethanol from sugar cane, a much cheaper foodstuff than corn or anything else we can grow in the decidedly non-tropical Midwest.  Perhaps global warming will lend a hand?  In the meantime, every ethanol booster not wedded to corn interests cannot stop talking about switchgrass.  Research indicates that an acre of panicum virgatum might yield three times as much ethanol as an acre of zea mays.  But even if switchgrass proves a fruitful source of ethanol, its potential impact on US energy policy is minimal. 

Americans are gas hogs. While 186 million Brazilians burn the equivalent of about 10 billion gallons of gasoline each year (40 percent of it ethanol), 296 million Americans burn 150 billion gallons of gasoline each year (3 percent of it ethanol). In other words, if America really wants to be like Brazil, we should cut gas consumption use by 90 percent.  (Hint: not many Brazilians drive full-size SUVs.)  Otherwise, we’ll need ten times as much ethanol as Brazil to match the Brazilian fuel mix.  

Converting the entire U.S. vehicle fleet to E85 would require about twenty times as much ethanol as Brazil currently produces for domestic consumption. Guess what?  America is already producing as much ethanol as Brazil, and will soon pass them to become the world’s largest ethanol producer.  

To achieve full gasoline self-sufficiency, we could convert 140 million acres of farmland to switchgrass. That’s about twice the acreage currently devoted to corn and a landmass nearly the size of Texas.  Once we use American coal to produce the electricity needed to convert the result to ethanol, we’re there!  Or not.  Devoting so much American soil to ethanol would send farmland and food prices soaring. This will make American farmers very happy, and anyone who has to buy food unhappy.  We might have to starve millions to do it, but we’ll be able to feed our SUVs without foreign oil! 

Alternatively, we could import ethanol. If Corn Belt congressmen would agree to cut the protective tariff, Brazil would gladly increase sugarcane production to help meet our needs. Brazil has plenty of space for more cane fields. What good does so much rain forest do anyone, anyway?  No matter which route is chosen, this huge ethanol production expansion won’t– can’t– happen overnight.  As part of his energy less dependence policy, President Bush has decreed that American ethanol production must double by 2012.  If US gasoline consumption stops growing, by that date all US gas could contain five percent ethanol. Maintain this torrid growth rate, and by 2018, all American gas could contain ten percent ethanol. 

Guess what? Virtually all vehicles on the road today can already burn ten percent ethanol, commonly known as “gasohol.” In other words, existing cars can probably use all of the ethanol we can produce through at least 2018. So why do we need new, E85-capable vehicles and new E85 pipelines and pumps in 2006? Well, they do seem to make Corn Belt congressmen and their constituents happy. They help GM deflect criticism. And, perhaps best of all, an E85 Tahoe gets a CAFE rating of 33.3 miles per gallon. You see, this rating is calculated based on the very shaky assumption that E85 (only 15 percent of which is gasoline) will be used half the time. As a result, GM can sell more V8-powered vehicles without incurring fines. Without this loophole, it would have to actually sell more fuel efficient vehicles if it didn’t want to pay up.  

Of course, GM didn’t create this incentive. It’s just intelligently reacting to it. Congress, pressured by Corn Belt people and industries, created the incentive. But why does E85 make the Corn Belt so happy? Why not simply mandate more gasohol, which can be sold everywhere and used by everyone today? I have no idea. For some reason, no one seems to be talking about this possibility. Clearly, we should.

Michael Karesh operates www.truedelta.com, a vehicle reliability and price comparison website.