Americans sometimes joke that Canada is the fifty-first state. In some ways, it's true; our landscape is the northern part of the US blown up like Bullwinkle at Macy's parade. The journey from one end of Ontario to the other is roughly equivalent to crossing five US states. If Canadians followed the American rationale– drivers need wafting monster machines to keep their sanity on long treks– there'd be an Escalade in every driveway. Yet Canadian SUV and truck ownership ratios are miniscule compared to that of their southern neighbors. In the main, we opt for more frugal and environmentally-sound transportation. Hang on. There's a lesson in there somewhere…

Canadian car culture– or lack thereof– is one reason our nation doesn't favor inefficient and inappropriate vehicles. We love our cars, but we're not "in love." A Canadian would never write a song like "Route 66;' a paean to the Trans-Canada Highway during a January blizzard would only scare its listeners. Roadside diners are the dens of long-haul truckers, not shrines to the open road celebrated in movies like Thelma and Louise. Don't get me wrong: there are plenty of pistonistas north of the 49th parallel; custom Civics and classic Mustangs abound. But a healthy (if stubborn) kind of pragmatism dominates Canadian car buying. Even sports cars are bought with city potholes and snow in mind.

Canadians also don't accept the idea of car as automotive armor. We're a cold country, but there's no SUV Cold War, where vehicles get larger to protect against larger and larger vehicles. We're too mellow to engage in this automotive arms race. According to the US Department of Transportation, aggressive driving contributes to two-thirds of fatal crashes. Studies show that Americans are several times more likely than Canadians to die in a crash. Do the math. We've got time.

Perhaps most importantly, Canadian car owners have more consumer choice than their southern neighbors. If Canuck drivers want something more than a no-frills supermini, but smaller and more affordable than a boat, options abound. How about a Smart fortwo? Laugh all you like at its golf cart looks, but a Smart is a stylish, comfortable and well-equipped machine whose owner laughs last when his weekly fuel bill costs as much as a fast food combo meal. We had the Yaris long before you, and Toyota didn't have to call it a "liftback" to make it more palatable to smallcarophobics.

Canadians who crave a posh ride can buy a compact as comfortable as your Ford Explorer. Acura, for instance, sells an upscale version of the Honda Civic called the CSX. It's faster than a stock Civic, but the running costs won't make you weep like a fuel-hungry BMW. Mercedes also sells their B-class "sports tourer" (read: upscale hatchback) that delivers C-Class roominess in a smaller, more fuel-efficient package. In all these cases, you can get leather seats, premium audio and navigation without having to crush everyone in your path or sell your soul to the oil demons. In short, you don't have to buy a trendy hybrid to enjoy sensible, environmentally sensitive motoring.

It's true that most of these cars are also available in Europe. However, unlike Europeans, Canadians don't have to buy one because a larger car is scary on a narrow side street or they can't afford the tax-inflated fuel costs. Canadians buy these sensible machines because they do what they want them to do– including delivering enjoyable driving dynamics– without wasting petrochemical resources or space. Why shouldn't Americans be encouraged to think the same way?

Car manufacturers operating in the US claim that the market won't sustain stylish small cars. In truth, it's a classic chicken-and-egg argument. How are Americans supposed to get excited about small cars when their primary purpose is to help manufacturers meet their average fuel consumption targets? The Canadian market tells us that there's another way: give people small, stylish, fun-to-drive cars that they'll actually want to own, and own them they will. The MINI proved the point.

It's time that US consumers realized that having long highways doesn't mean you have to wax poetic about the journey or traverse them in barge-sized cruisers. You can switch to a smaller car without being smashed into a guide rail. You can be practical without losing creature comforts. We Canadians know these facts already. We reap the benefits every time our smaller cars avoid a crash or pamper us with luxury and lower fuel bills. If our friends to the south would only catch up, we'd soon see a more socially responsible mix of vehicles on both sides of the border.

What's worse than farce? Political correctness. When farce ends, people look around and say, "Wow! That was stupid." With political correctness, the stupidity never ends. It moves from stupid to bizarre to delusional to dangerous to destructive. Yesterday, the Attorneys General of California, New York, New Jersey, Maine, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont filed a joint suit against the federal government, trying to increase CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) light truck standards. By doing so, they placed the entire fuel economy debate on the far side of the PC arc. First the science…

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) sets, monitors and enforces CAFE legislation. The agency does NOT, however, calculate the fuel economy figures. That job falls to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA makes its determinations by measuring the amount of carbon dioxide coming out of a vehicle's tailpipe. (The higher a vehicle's fuel economy, the less CO2 it expels.) The federal government does not classify carbon dioxide a pollutant. Environmentalists do. They consider CO2 a planet-warming "greenhouse gas." Now, the politics…

The environmental lobby would like the federal government to raise CAFE standards as high as humanly possible (if not higher), forcing manufacturers to increase fuel efficiency. For practical and political reasons, that ain't gonna happen. To win the war without fighting a losing battle on Capitol Hill (again, still), the aforementioned "Greenhouse Gang" decided to attack the new CAFE standards on the basis of CO2 emissions, rather than the fuel economy numbers themselves. Yes it's a distinction without a difference, but hey, you gotta work with what you got.

Only the environmentalists ain't got nothing. CAFE regulations prohibit states from regulating fuel economy. Despite the fact that the California Air Resource Board (CARB) sets tailpipe pollution standards for California, and thus the entire country, the Greenhouse Gang seeks dominion over federal CAFE standards as well. The lawsuit alleges that NHTSA failed to "fully take into account the new standards' impact on the environment and fuel conservation, as required by federal law." In other words, forget the failed Kyoto accord (aimed at reducing CO2 emissions), let's duke it out here.

The rhetorical battle has been joined. Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal loosed the most succinct opening salvo. "These rules shamelessly seek to short-circuit regulations in Connecticut and other states to curb greenhouse gas pollution. In the face of increasingly incontrovertible evidence, the Bush administration is not only denying the reality of global warming, but also seeking to block the states from addressing this deadly problem." So the feds are trying to short circuit the states, not the other way 'round. That makes sense– in a diminishingly inconvertible sort of way.

The truth is raising CAFE standards by a few more mpg's won't make any appreciable dent in domestic oil consumption. As Mr. Elton has revealed here, many car companies simply eat the CAFE fines as the cost of doing business. The fact that a 2002 National Academy of Sciences' report concluded that CAFE-triggered downsizing caused an additional 2000 road deaths per year is, I suppose, beside the point. Anyway, what IS the point? Unless US energy consumption is drastically reduced across the board– heating, cooling, appliances, manufacturing, agriculture, etc.– our growing economy will obviate any theoretical "savings" made by more efficient automobiles.

As for the harmful effects of CO2 gasses on our environment, I'll leave that to more (less?) scientific minds. Suffice it to say that the amount of "real" pollution coming out your tailpipe has nothing to do with fuel efficiency, and while new technology might reconcile America's quest for energy independence with environmental concerns, then again, it might not. While we're waiting for THAT debate, I reckon we should file this whole CAFÉ mishegos under "Bad Landing, Wrong Airport."

America is a country rich in resources, both financial and natural. The Bureau of Land Management estimates that three trillion gallons of oil and 362 trillion feet of natural gas lie just offshore, maybe more. We also have enormous coal shale fields, and coal fields, and nuclear power plant technology, and endless alt energy ingenuity. While we should be launching a massive and comprehensive push for energy self-sufficiency, a bunch of point-scoring politicians are pandering to tree-huggers getting high on self-righteous Bush bashing down at the low-CARB CAFE.

Of course, extracting our oil, coal and gas, or building nuclear power plants, or erecting enormous wind farms, could damage the environment. And a Manhattan-style energy self-sufficiency project would require bi-partisan political support (God forbid). I guess it's better to pay money to countries fostering terrorism and/or put our military in harm's way in the Middle East. Oh wait, that's not it either. Right, the politically correct answer is… driving cars with better fuel economy. You see, if that was farce, it would be funny.

In the past weeks, crude oil prices have defied gravity, Venezuela has threatened to nationalize its oil industry and gas prices have vaulted over three bucks per gallon. Meanwhile, the outgoing chairman of ExxonMobil is reportedly ready to collect some $400 million in retirement benefits and the President of the United States is busy weighing military curtailment of Iran's nuclear aspirations vs. the threat of mines littering the oil-tanker conduit known as the Strait of Hormuz. How much more bad news will it take before we remove our heads from sphincter entrapment? U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman's recent comments at the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) World Congress in Detroit offer a clue.

"One of the reasons we have such high energy prices is there are no alternatives," Mr. Boardman pronounced. So America's Energy Czar has decreed that alternative energy is no longer the PC term for snatching government grant money. All those dismissive conclusions bedeviling solar, biofuel, hydro, and wind energy for the past thirty years or more—they're not "cost effective solutions"– are now moot at the highest levels. It's joyous news for long-time supporters of US energy independence, but how will this translate into government policy?

As Ted Kennedy's sabotage of Nantucket's Cape Wind project proves, it's still energy politics as usual down in Washington. And while "green" energy generation is all well and good, our immediate needs would be better served with another "alternative": more aggressive oil and natural gas extraction right here in the USA. And if nuclear power's good enough for Iran… Rightly or wrongly, environmentalism is not helping America's alleged quest for energy independence. Unless politicians jettison our country's "Not In My Backyard" mindset and throw some legislative weight behind any and all non-import energy sources, Bodman's words are nothing more than the same old lip service.

Secretary Bodman also likes ethanol, the grain-based fuel used to supplement oil-based petroleum spirits. Bodman described US-sourced, domestic ethanol E85 as "what I find exciting" and concluded that "we need to have more [E85 compatible] flex-fuel vehicles on the market of all types and classes." No surprise there. For a reported two or three hundred bucks per vehicle for flex fuel technology, Bodman's dream gets real. But as we've discussed here before, E85's corrosive nature make distribution a monumental challenge. While the government should increase its tax and regulatory assistance to the ethanol industry, there's only one way to make bio-fuels work on a sufficiently epic scale to affect the amount of oil imports: a brand new ethanol-friendly national pipeline network. Of this no mention was made.

Bodman is now into the new low-emission 50-state-legal diesels. Perhaps that will result in an influx of the highly praised Eurodiesels (some made over there by our "Big Three") to power a portion of our fleets. And yes, the Secretary of Energy is also hip to hybrids and plug-in hybrids. More specifically, Bodman announced that the Department of Energy's Advanced Energy Initiative is seeking $6.7m to aid in the further development of plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV's). Well, that's great, but that figure stands in pathetic contrast to the Exxon exec's retirement fund. Let's face it: the federal government loses more than $6.7m in spilled coffee every day. If America is going to end its so-called oil addiction, we're not going to do it by trying to pay for our rehab with pocket change.

Bodman concluded by stating that the DOE's ultimate goal is putting virtually emission-free, hydrogen fuel-cell powered vehicles on the road by 2020, with mass-market acceptance by 2040. That's great, but how are we going to get there? Is the government going to let hydrogen (i.e. petroleum) manufacturers 'sequester' carbon by-products underground? Are our elected officials moving to implement a nationwide initiative to create, license, regulate and prevent Kennedy-esque sabotage for hundreds of thousands of hydrogen micro-refineries using wind, thermal, tidal, biomass, coal and oil to power the conversion process?

Petroleum has been a great date as far as energy romances go. Bodman says it's over. Words are cheap. The US government needs to start making the bold, large and yes, expensive decisions that will draw a line under our oil infatuation. Or…we can all just wait until the inevitable interruption of our oil supply rips the status quo to bits. Meanwhile, for the last four days I have driven by my local Indiana Chevy dealer and seen GM's new Tahoe SUV's with large 'FLEX FUEL' banners on them. In light of the fact there is no available E85 in our area, the promotion seems like trying to sell amphibious vehicles in the desert. If you want a metaphor for the PC-driven impotence of America's current energy policy, well, there it is.

Anyone who's shopped for a Toyota Prius knows that the gas – electric sedan comes complete with a 'hybrid premium': a theoretical surcharge included in the manufacturer's suggested retail price. Although there's considerable debate on this point, it is possible for a mileage-conscious Prius driver to save enough money at the pumps to recover the extra cost of purchasing a hybrid– eventually. But no matter how the customer makes out, Toyota still comes out on top. This despite the fact that the cost of developing and manufacturing hybrid technology– batteries, drivetrain, controls, brakes, etc.– means that Toyota makes a loss on every single Prius sold. But by losing the battle, they win the war.

It's no secret that hybrids get a lot more media attention than actual sales. Gas may be cresting $3 a gallon, but Americans still love their big cars, pickup trucks and SUV's. And while manufacturers love the profits on these large vehicles, they've all got to meet federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. Otherwise, the automaker must pay large fines. [Since 1983, the EPA has collected $650,831,288.50 in CAFE fines from BMW, Jaguar, Mercedes, Porsche, VW and others.] The US Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 currently dictates that an automaker's US passenger cars must achieve a combined fuel economy average of 27.5 mpg. The combined average for their 'light trucks' (that's SUV's and pickups) must be 21.6 mpg.

So, Toyota can sell as many gas-guzzling Tacomas, Tundras and Sequoias as they like; they just have to sell enough fuel-sipping vehicles to maintain the required fleet average. In other words, Toyota and its compliancy-seeking competitors aren't trying to make big profits on little cars; they're trying to lose as little money as possible on small cars so they can make as much money as possible on big, profit-rich vehicles. To meet the CAFÉ regs., Toyota prices their smallest models at a loss– and then adds discounts, finance deals and incentives that cost even more. Prior to the Prius, Toyota's pushed the less-than-thrilling Echo with deep discounts and heavy incentives and attractive financing offers.

Seen in this light, the Toyota Prius was a stroke of genius: a vehicle that boosts the company's CAFÉ numbers to SUV-sustaining levels AND generates enormous positive PR for the brand. Somehow, no one other than a few tree-hugging environmentalists and Chevy's PR department seems to notice that Toyota's mileage on their other products lags behind the industry leaders. The social opprobrium attached to selling SUVs that are bigger and thirstier than a Chevy Tahoe (and probably more profitable) slides right off Toyota, because they're the leaders in hybrid technology. In one brilliant marketing move, Toyota has transformed their money-losing small car operation into a priceless marketing campaign.

And yet, as always, physics trumps bullshit– er, marketing savvy. Even with Toyota's hidden subsidy, the Prius is simply too heavy, complicated, expensive and yes inefficient to quickly and easily justify its premium price. Recent media focus on the discrepancy between hybrids' real world mileage and the official EPA numbers only reveals part of the truth. If consumers considered the fact that the Prius uses every non-hybrid trick in the book to raise its fuel efficiency (de-contenting, skinny tires, lightweight materials, etc.), if they compared like-for-like (the Prius vs. a similarly equipped, same-sized gas-powered car with equivalent horsepower), they'd see that the efficiency gap between competing propulsion technologies is narrower still.

The expansion of hybrid technology into large and heavy cars and trucks highlights this conflict between political/moral concerns and plain old physics. For example, EPA numbers suggest that the hybrid-powered Lexus RX400h 2WD SUV gets eight more combined mpg's than the gas-engined RX330 2WD. But if you "downsize" the vehicles' EPA numbers to real world experience– a process which doesn't lower the RX330's fuel economy as dramatically– the difference between the two Lexi is a lot less impressive. The truth is that short of cold fusion, there's no way a heavy hybrid will deliver mileage significantly better than a smaller and/or smaller-engined gas-powered vehicle. Of course it's also true that the new hybrid SUV's are a boon to their manufacturer.

The profits on Toyota's Lexus 400h hybrid-powered SUV takes their hybrid strategy to the next level. In the vehicle's rarified market demographic, the consumer pays the entire cost of the hybrid modifications. When that's the case, there's no way that the average owner will ever recover the extra cost of the hybrid. Given the likely cost of battery replacement and repairs in later life, there's little chance the original owner can recover any of the costs when selling or trading the car. But they can still feel virtuous and politically correct while driving a large luxury SUV. As Toyota's hybrid sales prove, sometimes perception is all.

E85 proponents tout "flex fuel" as a Bridge Over Troubled Waters. They believe that vehicles running on E85's mix of ethanol and gasoline will take us to America's "hydrogen future", where zero emission vehicles power up with super cooled fuel supplied by alt-powered micro-refineries. Meanwhile, less utopian thinkers see E85 as a hammer-simple solution to the fuel cell's (and hybrid's) Rube Goldbergian complexities. With a few minor changes to our modern gasoline engines– a corrosion-proof fuel system, new software and rejigged ignition– a nation of bio-powered vehicles could thumb its nose at OPEC crude dealers. If only.

Supporters point to Brazil. In less than two decades, the Brazilians have just about achieved energy independence. Now that they grow millions of acres of sugar cane for fuel production, and have converted the vast majority of their vehicles to ethanol-friendly propulsion, nothing can cut off Brazil's energy supply or screw up their economy– save a strike by the sugar cane farmers. Or a climactic catastrophe. Or a huge rise in labor costs. Or land values. Meanwhile, Brazilian retailers sell E85 for a buck-a-gallon less than gas. America seems ready, willing and able to follow suit: to make the jump from fossil to bio-fossil fuel. So what's the hold-up?

It's not the vehicles. Every day, tens of thousands of E85-compatible car, trucks, SUV's and minivans enter active service, from America's best-seller (Ford F150) to the Chrysler Sebring. Thanks to federal legislation, every Flex Fuel Vehicle (FFV) sold helps bump-up its manufacturer's CAFÉ numbers to SUV-protecting averages. No, the real problem is supply. In rough numbers, only 600 out of 200k US gas stations stock E85. A quick search on http://afdcmap.nrel.gov/locator/LocatePane.asp reveals that there isn't a single E85 pump within 50 miles of my Indiana-based computer. Even our local Farm Co-op– which happily sells bio-diesel– is an ethanol-free zone.

This despite the fact that there's an ethanol plant forty miles away. The plant's proximity is a critical and, alas, limiting factor. Ethanol's corrosive nature and purity requirements preclude it from being pumped through the nation's underground pipelines. Virtually all ethanol must be shipped by barge, train or tanker truck– adding considerable expense to the final price. It would take many years and billions of dollars to build an ethanol-tolerant US pipeline network; regional production is the only way around current distribution issues. Hence the fact that corn-growing Minnesota has the most E85 pumps: around 200. Which is still less than 5% of The Gopher State's gas stations.

Even if they can find a supply of E85, motorists have to think twice about filling-up their FFV with the bio-fuel blend. Although ethanol has higher octane than gasoline (about 105), burns more cleanly and combusts more smoothly (increasing engine life), it contains roughly 25% less energy density. A vehicle that gets 20mpg on gas will only achieve around 15mpg on ethanol. Assuming a twenty gallon tank, an E85 driver will run dry after 300 miles, instead of 400. Americans, who are not keen to sacrifice any aspect of their motoring pleasure for any reason, ever, will not be amused.

It's also important to note that we're dealing with a commodity priced to a TENTH of a cent. The average driver will soon learn to factor in the 25% loss of mileage to the price of a gallon of E85. In other words, economic viability demands that E85 cost at least 25% less than the price of an equivalent gallon of gas. Even with tax subsidies, E85 struggles to compete against the availability, efficiency and price of good old gas.

When it comes to making E85 from corn (America's donor crop of choice), the energy in – energy out equation for grain ethanol keeps the purchase price relatively high. Industry boosters say there is an answer: enzymatic cellulosic fermentation. They claim that applying this process to cornstalks, bean pods, switch grass and wood fiber will dramatically increase ethanol production efficiency. Perhaps. The Canadian company pioneering the new technology still refers to its efforts as "feasibility studies". Iogen's largest pilot plant is processing about 30 tons of biomass per day. The company estimates each plant would require up to 1500 tons of biomass per day to make 45 million gallons of ethanol per year. That's a lot of switch grass, hay, woodchips and old houses. To create enough gas to make a dent in America's foreign policy, the country would have to be riddled with new plants.

I want to drive E85. But America is not Brazil. We don't have the cheap land or labor we need to produce and distribute ethanol on the kind of scale that would significantly curtail our dependence on foreign-born gas. Given current E85 production efficiencies and transportation limitations, there's only way to clear these hurdles and put our "oil addiction" into rehab: technological innovation combined with legislative intervention. To do that, we need the most potent commodity of all: political will.

Fellow enthusiasts and SUV salesmen fear not: gasoline will be cheap again within a year or two. The price will return to the $1.00 – $1.50 range, just like it was back in December of ‘02. How could this be? Start with this: if high gas prices were solely and inexorably linked to the price of oil, why are there still enough cheap plastic toys to keep your local Dollar Store in business? Why have disposable diapers, polyester pillows, Tupperware, hula hoops, toy dump trucks and other petroleum-based products not jumped to three times the price, too? Because they’re not subject to the same political and economic pressures affecting gasoline.

When voters elect the latest gladhander to their municipal and state governments, the chemical makeup of the gas down at their local pump is not usually high on their list of priorities. BUT if you’re an agricultural activist who wants to sell corn to the government to produce Ethanol, or an environmentalist who believes you possess the magic formula for reducing baby-killing smog in western cities, well, that’s a different story. These groups are extremely effective at lobbying government at the state and local level to create a "boutique" gasoline formula to further their cause. As a result, Missouri gas isn’t good enough to burn in California, whose gas cannot legally be sold in New York City or parts of Arizona.

According to Michael Ports of the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of Americas, "Twenty years ago, there were two blends of gasoline offered in three octane levels, and essentially one blend of diesel fuel. Today, there are more than 18 unique blends of gasoline mandated across the nation — again offered in three octane grades — and at least three different blends of diesel fuel." Okay, let’s do the math. I make it… 59 different blends of gasoline spread out over 50 states. Just to make things that much more complicated, no one refinery produces all 59 blends of gas; nor is any refinery typically dedicated to any one grade.

OK, let's say a particular blend of gas for the Atlanta area is made in, oh, Louisiana and Mississippi. And let’s further imagine that a Category 4ish storm named something like Katrina pounds through the area, heavily damaging the refineries, destroying their ability to blend Atlantagas. So, all Atlanta has to do is call up Florida and ask for some Orlandogas, right? Well, no. Turns out the closest supplier of that particular formula of gas might be somewhere like… Europe. Until some big boats brimming with Atlanta-friendly gas cross the pond, load up a few thousand tank trucks and deliver the requisite blend, the local population is forced by legislative fiat to ponder pump prices hovering around $5.57 a gallon.

What’s more, all three octane levels of Atlantagas are all likely to have unique chemical constituents that the other 56 official blends do not. Those ingredients must be transported to the refinery. Some of them, such as Ethanol, may have special production and handling requirements, which adds time, effort and, of course, money to the equation. By the time a new refinery is ready to make Atlantagas somewhere else in the country, the original refineries may start trickling back on-line. The producer must weigh the simple advantages of riding out the storm. If they’re really unlucky, another storm (call it Rita) could be heading towards the new refining location.

Speculation is another factor adding to the recent gas price fluctuations. Back when gas was $2.00 a gallon, industry experts speculated that speculation was adding five to seven cents to a gallon of gas. In the wake of hurricanes, the “investor effect” has been both more volatile and more pronounced. Basically, some heavily moneyed folks are betting against The Truth About Oil; they’re making a short-term gamble that the price of oil will keep going up. Because this strategy has been successful in recent years, more commodities investors are doing it, which inflates the demand (and price) of oil (and gas).

These factors blend together (so to speak) to create a sub-economy so complex it takes a Congressional inquiry or four to prove that "big oil" is not guilty of price gouging. Although scoring political points seems to be our elected officials’ official business, Congress would be better advised to simplify the regulatory chaos surrounding US gas production and distribution. I'm all for clean air, but there is no way that 59 different formulas of gas are necessary to accomplish this laudable goal. Picking a winning formula, even if it is more expensive to begin with, would help prevent supply and distribution problems. During times of crisis, the ability to borrow a cup of premium unleaded from your neighbor would be a strong force against severe price fluctuations, speculation and gouging.

Every time there is an oil crisis, four things happen. First, citizens are criticized for their wasteful ways. Second, they are exhorted to conserve our precious, finite resources. Third, alternative fuels take center stage and receive a major cash injection. And fourth, the oil industry finds new ways to find, pump, and refine the liquid gold. Crisis over, everyone goes back to business. Makes sense to me.

It never ceases to amaze me how little Americans learn from history–- or hysteria. History lessons do not draw an audience, though. No media outlet is going to predict life returning to normal when they can release The Day After Tomorrow. By the time the oil crisis is over, some new apocalypse will be taking shape; most people will not even recognize that they were duped into thinking the world is running out of oil.

According to Daniel Yergin, author of "The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power", society consistently underestimates the impact of technology during times of shortage: 'This is not the first time that the world has 'run out of oil.' It's more like the fifth.' When we started pumping oil out of pockets in the ground, we were only able to get a small percentage of what was there. Today, we recover about a third of the oil in any given find, which still leaves two-thirds in the ground.

At $66 per barrel, it makes a lot more sense to develop and deploy the technology needed to get oil from those hard to reach places. Yergin predicts a massive surge in the ability to produce oil between now and 2010: 'Many of the projects that embody this new capacity were approved in the 2001-03 period.'

History backs him up; over the last 100 years, after a period of oil shortage, market forces converge to create the exact opposite: a market awash in oil. If necessity is the mother of invention, the desire to cash in on $66 per barrel oil is a beloved aunt. New oil acquisition methods, like horizontal drilling and steam injection wells, will result in more oil produced from the same places.

According MIT's Morris Adelman, 'the amount of oil available to the market over the next 25 to 50 years is for all intents and purposes infinite.' Adelman agrees that spiking oil prices stimulate new ways to extract the black stuff. We haven't even begun to exhaust these alternative possibilities. The truth is we still may not do so, for quite some time. Why? Higher prices draw out additional supplies of 'easy oil'. Eventually, supply exceeds the demand, the price goes back down, and alternative extraction technologies cease to be ecomically viable. The fortunes of the shale oil industry illustrate this point perfectly.

A barrel of shale oil costs roughly $40 per barrel to produce. With oil trading at $66 a barrel, the trillion barrels of shale oil in Colorado have, again, become economically attractive. This was also true in the 80's– and then the price of oil from relatively simple well heads sank below the cost of squeezing oil out of rocks. The shale business crashed. This time, hopes run high that new technology will reduce shale oil's production costs. If those costs fall below $30 a barrel, Colorado shale could be a sustainable source of oil for generations.

Okay, the tree-huggers are not completely wrong. Conservation also has advantages. For one thing, it keeps money away from people who do not genuinely care about us (Hugo Chavez, Russia, Wahhabists). Unfortunately, today's eco-friendly cars are hardly worth the effort. Using easy math, at $5.00 a gallon, you have to drive 120,000 miles to make up the difference between the Ford Escape ($20,000, 20mpg) and the Ford Escape Hybrid ($30,000, 30mpg). Today's fad of vegetable-oil engines is likely to go the way of the '80's notions of solar powered cars and parachute pants, but the simple fact that you can buy a mass-produced, environmentally friendlier car at all shows how much progress we have made in the last few decades.

According to Adel al-Jubeir, a Saudi foreign policy advisor, "The world is more likely to run out of uses for oil than Saudi Arabia is going to run out of oil.' I believe him. Of course, a world market brimming with fresh oil may be the Earth Liberation Front's worst nightmare, but it certainly keeps the engine of progress turning. With China and India waking up to the economic possibilities that oil creates, there will be even more incentive to get black stuff into a pipeline than there has been since the Underground Railroad. Where there's a will, there's a well.

Cars are sexy, techy and cool. These simple facts tend to obscure any objective analysis of their utility. Like the Space Shuttle or my imaginary clerical staff, if it’s sexy, people find a way to justify their love. So it's no wonder that T-TAC's resident pistonhead Robert Farago creased the outside of the envelope when he claimed that cars are the green choice, and labeled public transportation a disgusting aberration fueled by cancer juice and liberal lies.

Not so. Farago's rant relied heavily on a study by Roger Kemp of Lancaster University (UK). Mr. Farago claimed that the study proves that cars are more fuel efficient than trains. Unfortunately, a closer read of Mr. Kemp's study finds that BOTH the train AND the car cited in the study were diesels. The automobile used for comparative purposes was a 1.9L Teutonic miser of a VW, with four passengers on board.

Mr. Kemp's argument on passenger-miles-per-gallon falls further into disrepute when applied to the United States. As opposed to the 55 mpg four-up VW, the average US car carries a gruesome 1.61 passengers at 18 mpg. That's nearly ten times worse than the VW studied– even discounting aerodynamic drag from activist bumper stickers.

Farago’s rhetorical reliance on the ultra-cleanliness of new cars is also interesting, but irrelevant. The average US car is more than nine years old. As for his off-hand analysis of bus loading, it’s impossible to rebut where there are no facts. At the same time, it's important to note that US trains and buses are far cleaner and more efficient than those in the UK. For a quick comparison of respective air quality standards, visit London, walk around for two hours, and pick your nose.

Of course, that's an entirely subjective measure. Perhaps it's best to leave the air quality debate for others and return to Mr. Kemp’s own words about efficiency: "These findings only apply to long-distance journeys, and then only under an unrealistic assumption of uncongested conditions…. the vast majority of journeys… will remain much less environmentally damaging if we take the bus or train– and use our cars only where no alternative exists."

Does this mean cars an unforgivable indulgence of a declining civilization, blindly crouched at the vomitorium while locusts mass on the horizon? No. Sometimes, especially in rural or suburban areas, they’re the best-– or only-– option. And like Mr. Farago, I love them. But there's no denying that much of what we do with them is stupid.

As a car enthusiast, it breaks heart my heart to see a WRX STi idling next to me for an hour on the Beltway, like a leopard chained to a cement floor, or, worse, abandoned for 20 hours out of the day. Commuting trips-– and they’re most of the trips we make-– are the wrong place for cars. Hell, I'd ship myself to work if I could. Since FedEx has proven to me they can’t be relied on in this capacity, I use the next best thing: the DC Metro. And I’ll try to make you, too.

Farago claims that environmentalists want to use a “political, moral or financial sledgehammer” to “bludgeon” you out of your cars. I don’t. But I am sick of paying for them.

My taxes bought the road you’re idling on and the troopers and snow plows and medevac flights that come with it; as sure as they bought the El train blowing past you on the left. More than $40 billion per year in the next highway bill, not including state taxes. I also work on a volunteer rescue squad, cutting you out of, and where possible, patching you up after innumerable wrecks, gratis. (Admittedly, sometimes a non-metaphorical sledgehammer is required.)

Overall, that’s fine. The government pays for train tracks and air traffic control, too. A free, modern nation has to allow free movement throughout the country, and this can only be privatized so far. The costs associated are immense; we have to spend public money to get people places. My problem comes when we do it stupidly.

We do a lot of bad mass transit; Amtrak is an inexplicable zombie corporation hideously mutated by pork-barrel politics. In a giant country, long-distance rail travel really can’t be more than a curiosity. But done right-– regional rail lines, commuter trains, car sharing services, intelligently-scheduled buses, carpooling facilities and HOV– public transit makes things cheaper and cleaner for everyone. Leave your cars for the places they make sense and produce fun.

Bottom line: I’m keeping my car, and you can have yours. But I’m not voting for $600 million for an eighth commuter lane for us all to drive to, park on, and swear at each other. I’d rather drop my “financial sledgehammer” on a fast intercity train, where I can have a quiet coffee and read through some studies-– before I post them on the net.

You ever get the feeling that you should be riding on public transportation? Me neither. The only time I'm tempted is when I need to travel long distances– oh wait, airlines still count as private transportation don't they? Right. Let's try that again. The only time I'm tempted is when I need to travel from one city to another city that's more than 300 miles away, but less than 500 miles away. And now that Amtrak has pulled the entire Acela Express fleet offline to repair cracked brakes, well, it's no sale.

Of course, I certainly understand people who use public transportation for commuting. Well, maybe not understand, but at least sympathize. Even in America, Land of the Free, Home of No-Money-Down, not everyone can afford a car. The hassle and expense of parking is also a fearsome disincentive for auto ownership. But what I can't understand, at all, on any level, is why people give credence to the factually flawed logic used by environmentalists to promote public transport.

These days, air pollution provides the greens with all the justification they need to sanctify public transport and crucify cars. Now that global warming has been accepted as fact and attributed to automobiles– in much the same way that creationists concluded that the Great Flood is responsible for the layered deposit of dinosaur bones– public transportation has become the only politically-acceptable way to reconcile mobility with ecological responsibility. Anything else is not just bad; it's morally reprehensible.

Well that's just plain wrong. First of all, let's take a closer look at buses. Nice idea, buses: lots of people, one engine. Divide the amount of pollution by the number of people inside. If the resulting airborne badness is less than that of a private passenger car's pppm (pollutants per passenger mile), the greens have an entirely rational platform from which they can vilify the car (not THEIR car, THE car).

Oh wait. Buses aren't always full. In places where car travel isn't penalized by taxes, parking or congestion, they're hardly ever full. Come to think of it, city buses only achieve maximum capacity during peak operating hours. So do we make our calculations based on average occupancy for an average bus? Or do we stack the deck in the tree-huggers' favor and analyze a bus stuffed to the gunnels with disgruntled commuters? What about fuel quality and maintenance issues? What about getting on with it…

Can't. Here in the US, it's diesel [bus] vs. gasoline [car]– which is like comparing apples sprayed with 8-phenyl-mercurioxyquinoline with organic oranges. As Mr. Elton has pointed out, diesel is one dirty bastard of a fuel. Your average US diesel engine spews more cancer-causing particulate matter into the air than a dozen chain smokers, or a hundred Ford Explorers for that matter. By contrast, today's gas-powered cars are so clean-running you can no longer start the car, close the garage door and kill yourself. When it comes to airborne pollution, cars rule, buses fool (almost all the people all the time).

What about trains? Forget about trains. They may fit a huge number of [theoretical] passengers but they're usually propelled by The Mother of All Diesel Engines.

OK, let's pretend carcinogenic particulates aren't important and consider fuel efficiency instead. Professor Roger Kemp of Lancaster University [UK] compared British commuter trains' energy efficiency with cars' and discovered that trains are far more fuelish than our four-wheeled friends. It was such a wash that the Editor of Modern Railways magazine felt compelled to write: 'I know this will generate howls of protest, but at present a family of four going by car is about as environmentally friendly as you can get'.

The result jibes with a study performed by Automotive Advisers and Associates of Hilden, Germany. The group discovered that trains consume 60% more energy per person transported than cars, and take up 200% more public space per person transported.

I'm sure that there are entire universities of well-educated greens out there ready to shoot holes in the above. Their first line of attack will be that the analysts are guilty of bias (which could NEVER be said about environmental campaigners). After that, they will claim that the US situation is not comparable to Europe (which is true: we're less densely populated). Finally, they'll gloss over the reality of the situation and say that public transport offers the POSSIBILITY of greener travel. You know, hybrid engines, hydrogen fuel cells, that sort of thing.

But here's the deal guys: you lose. Not only is private transportation cleaner and more fuel efficient than its public equivalent, people prefer it by a huge margin. So any attempt to use a political, moral or financial sledgehammer to bludgeon people out of their cars and into trains and buses is ultimately doomed to failure. If you really believe cars are planet killers, either continue to clean up their tailpipe emissions or… walk. But you walk alone.

Raging against SUV's is still all the rage. Despite the vehicles' continued popularity, the auto industry has heard the drum beat. And so they're developing and marketing eco-friendly alternatives to America's super sized SUV's. While none of these new vehicles will liberate the US from its dependency on foreign oil or scrub our skies clean, you gotta give Detroit credit for boldly going where they really don't want to go. And the results are not as dynamically dull as you'd imagine….

"Sports wagons" are an excellent example. The acceleration, braking, and handling of today's station wagons make SUV's look like yesterday's station wagons. Extreme machines like Audi's blistering S4 Avant, Mercedes E55 AMG estate and Dodge's Magnum SRT-8 will not only embarrass every SUV on the road, but many thoroughbred sports cars as well. Granted: the sports wagons' cornering abilities are limited by their extended wheelbase and gross curb weight. But none of them sports the SUV's 'tipping over truck' icon on the driver's visor. Nuff said?

Sports wagons also provide more 'utility' than all but an epic few SUV's. Compare the racy new Mazda6 Sport Wagon with the Mazda Tribute SUV. With the rear seats folded down, the Mazda6 sports wagon's carrying capacity is within 10% of the Tribute SUV's cargo room. With the seats up, the Mazda6 wagon actually has MORE schlepping space than its SUV cousin. And the 6's lower lift-over height makes it easier to load. As the average family's toting needs involve 2.5 children, groceries and alcohol– rather than soccer teams, Harley's and armoires– the sports wagon is almost always as practical as a mid-sized SUV.

So, sport wagons are an ideal SUV extraction device for drivers with stuff to carry who like to drive. Only one problem: the vast majority of US automotive consumers couldn't care less about driving pleasure. They view corners and curves as obstacles to the next piece of dead straight interstate or pancake flat parking lot. American SUV drivers want lots of room, a cushy ride, (perceived) safety and a high vantage point. Sport wagons fail on all but one of those criteria.

To appease the increasingly rabid anti-SUV lobby, automakers went back to the drawing board to create a whole new and exciting acronym: the "XUV" or "cross-over vehicle". The bastard child of the station wagon and SUV, the XUV is typically based on a car platform. Compared to an SUV, it's more reasonably sized, fuel efficient and stable in emergency maneuvers. And, if it all goes horribly wrong, the XUV's lower bumpers and lighter weight means there is less chance of turning the other car into a crushed soda can. The XUV is safer for you, safer for me, more eco-friendly and fits into a parking space smaller than Africa.

And… no sale. Jeep's by-the-numbers Grand Cherokee SUV currently outsells the Chrysler Pacifica XUV by more than two-to-one. Ford's Freestyle is still new to the market, but the safe money is that Ford's X-formula– a tall, bland-looking wagon with lots of room, a cushy ride and a high vantage point– ain't exactly setting the forecourts on fire. Mercedes' upcoming R Class XUV and BMW's much-anticipated "we-swear-it's not-a-minivan" minivan hopes to provide the missing ingredient: status. But it's far from a done deal.

While XUV's can do everything most people demand of an SUV, they lack one important attribute: the image of power. Remember Marge Simpson cruising behind the wheel of her "squirrel-crushing, deer-smacking Canyonero"? Bingo. That's what the SUV craze is REALLY about. A decade or so ago, when soccer moms started moving into rough-riding SUV's, they already had vehicles with lots of room, cushy rides and a high vantage point. They left their minivans because they weren't macho enough.

The truth is clear. American drivers will not abandon their SUV's to appease their (or someone else's) sense of environmental responsibility, even if presented with a perfectly reasonable alternative. The only way to stimulate a mass SUV migration is to charge a stiff federal tax on all new vehicle purchases proportional to the chosen vehicle's tailpipe emissions (already done overseas). Or Uncle Sam could add an annual environmental restitution fee to gas-guzzlers' price tags.

Of course, the chances that a federal government Hell bent on across-the-board tax cuts will penalize SUV drivers are the same as the odds of a Grand Cherokee beating an Audi TT around a race track. Instead of weaning Americans off of SUV's, Uncle Sam has elected to wean SUV's off of fossil fuel. By the 2007 model year, the minimum Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) for light trucks/SUV's will be raised (drum roll please)… 1.5 MPG. Sure, it's a start. But so is that hole in the ozone.

That clatter you hear is the sound of new diesel engines for passenger cars, promising greater efficiency and better mileage. The smell accompanying that clatter represents a major step away from the clean air standards that contributed to the major reduction in air pollution in the US.

Diesels, even the newest and cleanest, are inherently dirty engines. Particulates and NOx compounds are the worst offenders, but diesel exhaust is laced with other carcinogens like benzene, ring compounds and aromatics. The distinctive smell of diesel exhaust is largely a function of aldehydes, another family of unpleasantly harmful compounds.

While the new diesels meet the minimum emission standards, they fall far short of both the higher standards met by many cars and trucks, and even farther short of the new tougher standards required for 2007. While emission standards are a dense thicket of confusing rules, it is safe to say that current diesels meet only the lowest, dirtiest standards. Many manufacturers voluntarily certify that their gasoline engines meet much stricter standards, such as LEV (Low Emission Vehicle), ULEV (Ultra Low Emission Vehicle), or PZEV (Practically Zero Emission Vehicle). If today's diesels were held to these stricter standards, there would be no diesel cars in the US.

With the advent of stricter minimum standards in 2007, passenger car diesels will have to have an exemption in order to be legal. The complex emission control systems, such as particulate traps and urea injection, are still untested in the market, and their costs make passenger car diesels cost-prohibitive.

Low sulfur diesel fuel is a key element in the attempt to make diesel engines acceptably clean. All of the new 'clean diesel' engines are relying on fuel that contains much less sulfur than fuel currently supplied in the US. Low sulfur diesel is bound to cost more since more complex refinery procedures are required. Ironically, the increased demand for low sulfur fuel will also increase our demand for imported fuel. In 2003, the US used about 1000 million barrels of diesel fuel, of which 49 million barrels were imported. At least in the short run, a jump in the demand for low sulfur fuel will require the importation of more diesel fuel from European refineries.

European countries have embraced the diesel automobile in great numbers. European countries are willing to accept the additional air pollution caused by the diesel engine. The trend in European environmental policy has to been to focus on carbon dioxide, which is relatively harmless to people but may cause global warning. Diesels, because they run with an excess of oxygen, produce very little carbon dioxide, and almost no carbon monoxide. American policy has focussed on pollutants that cause real harm to people, such as the particulates emitted by diesel engines. It is a very different approach to basic public health policy issues.

While diesel engines have a higher thermal efficiency, and diesel fuel has slightly higher energy density, the real-world economy improvements will rarely, if ever, recover the additional initial costs and increased maintenance costs.

The newest diesel in the US is the Jeep Liberty, carrying a 4-cylinder turbocharged diesel. The city/hwy EPA numbers for the gasoline-engine version of the Liberty are 17/21, while the same numbers for the diesel are 22/27. That's about a 29% improvement in mileage, an impressive number. But it comes at a cost; DaimlerChrysler wants about $1200 more for the diesel. While that's a chunk of change, it still doesn't represent DaimlerChrysler's total cost of equipping the car with a diesel.

If the diesel Jeep owner drives 20,000 miles a year, half city and half highway, he'll spend about $1632 for fuel. By comparison, the gasoline-engined Jeep owner will spend about $1895. The diesel owner will save about $263 each year, recovering the initial premium in about 4 ½ years, or about 90,000 miles. That assumes, of course, that there is no interest cost to the additional premium, and it assumes that the price of diesel and 87 octane remain only 20 cents apart.

It also ignores the cost penalties of increased maintenance of the diesel, added headaches of water in the diesel fuel, cold start problems, and, of course, the general unsavory nature of the diesel engine itself. Diesel fuel isn't called an aromatic for nothing.

In Europe, the financial drawbacks to diesel cars are overcome by extreme taxation on gasoline, up to $3 per gallon in some countries. Extra taxes on the purchase and licensing of gasoline cars have effectively, mandated diesels by making the alternatives wildly expensive.

It is hard to imagine that diesel cars will make a comeback in the US, other than as niche vehicles. There are still mileage improvements available to gasoline cars that can improve efficiency without abandoning our commitment to clean air.

The Toyota Prius, Honda Accord hybrid and Ford Escape hybrid are a major hit. The buff books rave about them, the Greens bless them and retail customers can't get enough (literally). While the mileage, environmental and PC advantages of vehicles powered by a gas – electric powerplant seems obvious, how much of this hybrid mania is hype?

Buyers pay a large premium for a hybrid Escape or a Prius, presuming that the increased fuel mileage makes them a better environmental citizen. While there's no question that the Toyota, Honda and Ford hybrids are more fuel efficient than their conventionally powered equivalents, the difference is nowhere near as great as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) numbers suggest.

Because of the low speeds involved, the city portion of the EPA's test is accomplished in battery-only mode. As the gasoline engine is off-line for a significant part of the test, the eventual mileage figure is grossly inflated. The test fails to consider the fuel needed to recharge the batteries later on. What's more, all energy-draining, electrically-powered accessories (including AC) are switched off during both the urban and highway tests. These variables contribute to the huge discrepancy between the EPA's official numbers and hybrid owners' real world experience.

Few people realize that a hybrid's power train adds roughly 10% to the weight of a car. Even fewer realize that manufacturers try to offset the weight penalty– and add to the hybrid's headline-grabbing mileage figures– by the extensive use of non-hybrid gas-saving technology. Engine shut-off at idle, electric power steering, harder and reduced rolling resistance tires (at the expense of comfort and traction), reduced option content, reduced engine performance, and, in the case of the Ford, a continuously variable transmission (CVT) all help raise the cars' overall efficiency.

Of course, if gas mileage is the ultimate goal, all of these strategies could be applied to a "standard" car. A non-hybrid model with the equivalent modifications would significantly narrow the mileage gap with its hybrid sibling. In fact, in normal use, the margin between truly comparable hybrid and non-hybrid cars could be less than 10%– hardly enough to justify the extra purchase price. And, lest we forget, the hybrid's gas-saving advantage is not without its own particular environmental costs…

Gas – electric hybrid engines use several large batteries. Creating these power cells requires a couple of hundred pounds of heavy metals– not to mention the copper used in the large electric drive motors and the heavy wires they require. Mining and smelting lead, copper and other heavy metals is an energy intensive process that generates both air pollution and deforestation. Disposing of the batteries when they outlive their usefulness also raises environmental challenges.

And then there are the safety problems related to the gas – electric hybrid engine's high voltages and amperages. While Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) regulate a passenger vehicle's basic crash protection, there are no federally mandated procedures remain for the protection of rescue workers at the site of an accident involving a hybrid-powered vehicle. Service technicians and do-it-yourself owners also lack the guidelines, education and training necessary to safely repair hybrid engines.

So, if the hybrid's mileage advantage is minimal, and the technology has its own set of negative environmental side effects, why is hybrid technology so popular, both in the marketplace and in the glossy pages of the car mags?

Americans are fond of turning to simple silver bullets to solve complicated problems. The hybrid solution seems ideal. Want to be environmentally responsible? Buy a hybrid. A hybrid car offers instant gratification, PC-style. It relieves consumers of both guilt and personal responsibility for the broader impact of their daily energy consumption habits. Heaven forbid that a hybrid owner should switch off their central air, or buy less disposable products, or use their car less, to help protect the environment.

Hybrid technology embodies America's 'solution of the day' syndrome. A quarter of a century ago, the diesel-powered car was going to free us from dependence on imported oil. A while later, the turbocharger was set to improve the efficiency of the internal combustion engine and liberate us from foreign oil addiction. About a decade ago, the California Air Resources Board thought that battery-powered electric cars were the answer, cleaning the air as they saved the world's petrochemical resources.

The problem with the 'solution of the day' is that few of these "easy" solutions actually work. Automotive history is littered with failed miracles, from the kerosene-driven Stanley Steamer to the rotary-powered Skycar. Time has proven that the only innovations that persevere in the marketplace are the ones that deliver real benefits. No amount of hype can obscure, for long, the lack of results. When boosters call hybrid technology an "interim" solution to our energy needs, they're more right than they even know.

When BMW unveiled its 750hL earlier this year, the media response was muted. This despite the fact that the 750hL is the world's first production-ready hydrogen powered passenger car. Well, hydrogen and petrol, and, um, it's actually super-cooled hydrogen, but hey, we are talking about a luxury car that can steam from zero to sixty in 9.6 seconds and drive 300 kilometres between fill-ups, without a single harmful emission.

Sure, a few "challenges" remain before the 750hL will replace the semi-electric Toyota Prius as the tree hugger's favourite. At the moment, only two specialist filling stations offer super-cooled hydrogen (LA and Munich). There are "safety issues" surrounding the use of a fuel that can freeze your fingers right off. Even so, BMW's self-confessed "transitional vehicle" marks the global automotive industry's path towards a hydrogen-powered future.

GM, Ford, Daimler-Chrysler Volkswagen, Nissan and Toyota are all committed to selling zero emissions, hydrogen-powered cars by 2010. Which raises an interesting question. Why? Considering the gigantic cost and Herculean hassle of creating an entirely new means of propulsion, you'd think car manufacturers would prefer to clean up the existing petrol engine and call it good. And so they would. If they could. But they can't. Blame– or thank– California.

In the 1970's, California forced car manufacturers to lower emissions. Regulators established a precedent (foreshadowed by Ralph Nader): politics dictating automotive development. In other words, the free market was cut out of the action. Now that the world has decided that Global Warming exists and SOMETHING MUST BE DONE, something will.

Hydrogen is the left leaning environmentalist's fuel of choice. The power to convert water into hydrogen and oxygen gas can come from anywhere: solar, wind, thermal, tidal, nuclear, even rotting garbage. Replacing the western world's 100 million plus petrol-driven cars with hydrogen-powered vehicles could trigger the long-awaited, politically correct development of renewable energy sources.

More important to those on the other side of the political spectrum, such a diverse hydrogen infrastructure would free the western world from the financial, military and political cost of drilling, refining and distributing Middle Eastern petrochemicals.

September 11th gave both sides in the pro-hydrogen camp new impetus. America and its allies finally woke up to the possibility– the necessity– of reducing its dependence on foreign oil. Hydrogen power suddenly became a national priority.

If only. While recent events have liberated new funds for hydrogen research, war is still the more practical option. Manufacturers have several hurdles before they can even think about filling the new world's hydrogen order. First, they need to perfect the hydrogen fuel cell.

Size matters. The most efficient fuel cells are two to three times larger than a conventional petrol engine. That's fine for a bus, but not a car. Case in point: Ford's Focus FCV (Fuel Cell Vehicle). Engineers had to raise the floor and eliminate the boot to fit a 22-gallon hydrogen tank. The resulting FCV weighs 1200lbs. more than it gasoline-powered equivalent, travels just 100 miles between fill-ups, and it's not even on the same performance planet as the Focus RS.

Car manufacturers and lawmakers alike are throwing billions of pounds at universities and R&D departments in the search for a smaller, more powerful hydrogen fuel cell. So far, so bad.

Meanwhile, GM estimates that a suitable fuel cell would be two to three times as expensive as a gasoline engine. Industry cheerleaders claim that costs will decrease as the market expands, like they did for mobile phones and PC's. Manufacturing techniques would have to evolve quickly, and the Marketing Men would have to convince millions of people their hydrogen car will not Hindenburg.

There's only one way to accelerate the process: raise the price of gasoline to levels that would give "Red" Ken Livingstone wet dreams. Political suicide. Anyway, even if a practical, cost-effective hydrogen technology existed, who's going to pay for all those new filling stations?

The smart money is on the oil companies. BP, Shell, Texaco and Exxon. All the big oil companies are looking to build hydrogen production plants next to their oil refineries. The power to transform water into hydrogen gas would come from… oil. To remove pollution from the process, carbon wastes would be removed at the well or refinery, and then buried underground. While Greenpeace and chums aren't buying "carbon sequestration", it's not a debate destined to mobilise the masses.

The idea of using Middle Eastern oil to make hydrogen to fuel zero emissions passenger cars is bizarre, to say the least. But like the BMW 750hL itself, it's the unavoidable short-term bridge between the current set-up, and the one to come. Given the political climate, resistance to the concept is unlikely. In fact, providing BMW removes the iDrive and brings down the zero to sixty times, even petrolheads may be ready to face a hydrogen-powered future.

Here's a message for Great Britain's new Transport Minister: the car has won. Deal with it.

For decades, the UK government and "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition" have accepted, promoted and adhered to the view that cars create unacceptable levels of pollution. Cars are, therefore, a bad thing. Driving should be actively discouraged like, say, child molesting. The vast majority of the electorate demonstrate their unequivocal disagreement by, wait for it, buying a car.

This decision creates and supports one of the largest and most important sectors of the economy. In fact, the nation's economic welfare depends on the car's ability to move labour to where it's needed, and consumers to goods and services. Remember the petrol strike? Politicians don't. Even speeding down the bus lane of the M4 in the back of a comfy limo, they cling to the belief that cars are fundamentally, inherently bad.

All forms of public transport, are good. They don't pollute the environment! Well, not as much as a car. Well, a lot of cars. You know, when averaged out per head of transported human. Allegedly. Anyway, you don't want your children's lungs packing up from car emissions just so you can get where you want to go when you want to get there, do you? So do the right thing and get on a train! Politicians don't, but that's beside the point. Trains and buses are good for you.

Not convinced? OK, how about a little "negative incentive"? VAT on your car purchase, VAT on your service bills, road tax, petrol tax, MOT, congestion charges, tolls, insurance, VAT on your insurance, corporate tax on the insurance companies' profits, parking charges and speeding fines. British motorists are being constantly and severely penalised for doing something in their own self-interest, and the health of the national economy: driving a car.

It's time for the pain to stop. Like I said, we've won. Don't bother with the debate. Trying to have a sensible scientific debate with a politician or a tree hugger is like trying to convince a Jesus freak that a cannibal has an equal shot at getting into Heaven. Did you know that 80% of UK buses emit more toxins than 187 modern cars? Today's cars are so clean-running it would take you eighteen hours to die if you shut yourself in a hermitically-sealed garage with the engine running. We'd save 52 days of fuel per year if everyone inflated their tyres properly.

Really? Who cares? Hello? We've won. We don't need to prove anything. Do I have to justify my decision to watch TV (also taxed)? Don't forget that it's our money funding their dodgy environmental research. It's our money paying for their trips to Bali to discuss the unscientific conclusions and unworkable recommendations (ignoring beaches, golf courses, diving sites and representatives of the local sex industry). Anyway, we know they're hypocrites. I reckon even the most die-hard anti-car fascist secretly covets a Boxster S or Mercedes S-Class. Cars rule, tree huggers drool.

So, what needs doing? Roads! Lots and lots of new roads! Motorways, extensions, bypasses, ring roads, A-roads, B-roads— we want to see roads! If anyone complains, remind them that they are subjects of the Queen, without a constitution to stand on. Then buy 'em a new house and a new car and bulldoze right on through.

What else? Repairs! If German roads can be billiard-table smooth, why can't ours? If our guys can't do it, hire theirs. And… car parks! Lots and lots of car parks, smack dab in city centres. Make them safe, secure and sensibly priced, with wide bays and none of those fender benders masquerading as support columns.

While we're at, the only congestion charging we'll accept is VAT on Vicks VapoRub. Drop congestion charging and we'll let you keep all the money you're currently raking in— on one condition. All money collected from motorists gets ploughed straight back into road-related expenditure. If the government ends up with a surplus, drop the tax on fuel to balance the books. Oh OK, if you really want that train thing, go on, take some cash for that. Not too much. Think of it as a hobby rather than a mandate. If you really want to help the poor get around, rebate the VAT on their new car, throw in free road tax and call it good.

And that's it. It's not too much too ask, considering we've already won. How should we fight the battle? We could all drive into London at the same time. Wait! We already do that. How about putting our road tax into an escrow account until the government announces a road-building programme? I don't know. I'm just a motoring hack. But I do I know this: we have the power. All we have to do is use it.