U.S. automakers must go green

As we are possibly on the brink of an auto industry bailout, I think we should put major conditions upon it.

First, they must immediately go super green. Why finance the inefficient cars they now sell that no one wants to buy?

Next, why not start selling in America the natural gas vehicles they already sell all around the world? Natural gas is absolutely cheaper and cleaner, and there is enough in the U.S. right now to radically drop use of foreign oil. Do this in conjunction with moving to electric cars and natural gas hybrids.

Thirdly, the automakers must chop high executive pay and golden parachutes. If the executives do this, then union will be far more willing also.

On a related issue, we must have a plan to change the fuel systems for all the cars on the road, which can most quickly be changed to run on natural gas. There is no reason that U.S. auto makers can’t recover quality and pride.

Raymond O’Brien
Weatherby Lake

Comments

[Midwest Lady]

Demand for gas was decreased? I'm not sure by how much. Nobody up at my office did anything different to save on gas. We all used the same amount as always. That's over 50 people!

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

Sure, electric cars with a range of 40 miles before it has to recharge. What about those of us that require extensive travel in our profession? You do realize the taxing this will incur on our grids nationwide? Oh we can go green but are the greenies willing to pay the market price of "green" and are they willing to conserve?
NG is a viable source, just like coal. We have plenty of it but guess who won't let our industry capture OUR resources?
Would the auto manufacturers be protected from liability if one explodes or someone gets sick from a leak in the vehcile? How much will a cubic foot of gas cost at the "pump"? Will Obama again target the NG industry when they make a 14% profit?

[homer glasgow]

so you really believe that it's a coincidence that the price of oil is dropping as a democrat not directly linked to big oil is taking office? wake up people. why is it that not one journalist seems to be interested in the minutes of the secret meeting with the energy corporations and the bush administration? these are not rhetorical questions, the fourth estate has been asleep at the wheel...

[stone]

go to the saudis.. ....... while still paying the same income tax level?

Personally, I would rather get 10% of my paycheck back and pay $4 a gallon gas than not get 10% of my paycheck back and still be paying $4 per gallon

[stone]

no Star, you missed my point. My analogy was right on track. I didn't mention anything about increasing supply. My point was entirely about reducing demand. We have seen first hand how $4/gallon gasoline decreased demand to a point, where, combined with a slightly stronger dollar, the price of oil is almost 1/3 of what it was before.

If we start to tax oil more, then that will cause a decrease in demand, and the speculation on oil futures will cause the price of oil to drop accordingly.

Drilling for oil now is not necessary. Decreasing demand and prolonging the lifespan of available oil is necessary, especially because we don't know how long it will take for alternative fuel sources to become economically viable. Using all of our resources at once is just stupid.

In 30 years, when the world has less oil left (surely you cannot debate that there WILL BE less oil available, and I leave that comment rather vague for a reason), the oil we have in this country will be far more valuable to the world than it is today. So, for now, the best, and safest course of action is to reduce the demand for oil domestically while starting a shift towards alternative fuels. Drain the Saudi's of their oil, slowly. But with a weaker demand, it will last longer, but the price per barrel will be lower, except extra $$ goes to the gov't to
1) pay off debt or
2) give a income tax rebate to ALL, even the wealthy (as this essentially becomes a consumption tax)
3) provide tax incentives to private sector businesses to develop alternative energy fuel sources that the country can produce and export to other countries which will help reduce the trade deficit and national debt

$4/gallon gas happened once already. It is definitely possible to happen again. Should it happen, would you rather that an extra $1.50 out of the $4 (assuming a price of 1.50/gallon right now) a gallon go to our gov't along with something like 10% income tax reduction or that all of the 2.50 difference per gallon go to the saudis.

[kcstar_is_one_sided]

stone -

You analogy does nothing to increase the supply. You entirely miss the point. My assertion is that by saying we are going to be self sufficient and then backing it up by drilling for more oil, and we have quite a few years left of it, we drive down the cost of the oil.

A more apt analogy would be a farmer who decides to buy his food instead of growing his own. The local storeowner who knows that the farmer is not going to plant crops this year and still needs to eat could therefore charge that farmer whatever he liked. If the farmer decided to grow food again, the storeowner would have to drop his prices. Granted this would only work for a small town with several farmers, but it is analogous to the US and OPEC.

Sorry, Pub, no tip for you. You can control supply and demand, and we should do both. At some point, your whole argument falls apart because all OPEC has to do is turn the valve off and prices will skyrocket again. When people have a monopoly they can do what they want. The idea is to not let them become a monopoly.

Also, did you have a professional give you that these or did you come up with it yourself?

[Pub 17]

And we decreased demand. This pinko rag really needs to raid the coffee fund for editable blogware.

[Pub 17]

"drive in their driveways"? OK, and park in their parkways.

[Pub 17]

kcstar, you chubby-cheeked little rascal, who never lies, except when he does: you're almost right, which means you're wrong. The futures market is driven by perception, but changes are discounted immediately throughout the system. Expressing a willingness to drill today, which might result in a drop in price via a drop in futures markets, doesn't mean that five years from now, when we're still five years away from economic production, that that information is going to be anything more than a vague memory. Moreover, as Mr. Nice Guy loves to remind us, transportation doesn't consume more than half our oil use. Wouldn't it be nice to save our domestic oil stocks for those uses that we CAN'T substitute for?

In any case, you got yer demand, you got yer supply. "Perceptions" that we're going to drill, baby, drill aren't going much deeper than the piddling amount relative to world supply that we could possibly produce. That's managing supply. Managing DEMAND-whoa, whole different story. World prices were high as it was because the perception (correct) was that the U.S. was going to be continue to gobble oil like it was caramel corn forever, because U.S. consumers are big babies who can't control their urges to drive 7,000 pound dinosaurs in their driveways.

Change THAT perception, that of predicted demand, and the whole world changes. Oh, crap, Americans CAN control their urges. And that's what's happened as we speak--we didn't increase supply, we increased demand, and gas is back to a buck fifty a gallon.

Leave a tip in the jar as you leave.

[stone]

"Pub - What you fail to address is the market is driven by perception, and a push by the US to handle more of their own oil needs will drive down the price of oil."

well, with this perception logic, if the US gov't decided to input a $1.50 per gallon gas tax while prices are still low, then the perception will be that we will be consuming less as a nation due to the higher price (while the extra $$ from the tax stays here instead of going overseas), and since we will be consuming less, the price of oil will drop along side this.

I would also propose lowering federal income tax to offset the gas tax increase, so essentially, people still have the same amount of money in the end, but the extra profits stay in the USA rather than go to the Saudi Royal families

[kcstar_is_one_sided]

Pub - What you fail to address is the market is driven by perception, and a push by the US to handle more of their own oil needs will drive down the price of oil.

Kee - Yes, Pub must insult everyone about everything. He claims everyone else is closed minded but proves his own lack of substantive arguments by ad hominem attacks.

Also, he is a liar.

[Pub 17]

I'm not being insulting, I'm being absolutely straightforward. You need better filters on your input processor:

The two biggest drillers could OF COURSE start producing within six months. And we could OF COURSE grow bananas on the moon. You can have anything you want IF YOU'RE WILLING TO PAY FOR IT.

The question is when will production begin that is economically sound--i.e., that costs less than $150 a barrel OOPS $100 a barrel OOOPS $50 a barrel to produce? If you do your research on Google rather than on the websites of right-wing commentators, you'll find that economic production from wells begun now will start somewhere past the year 2015.

Kee, if you find someone who says they can bring oil on line in two years, starting from now, you are free as an American citizen to put your life savings into that enterprise. I would hope you'd be more prudent than that.

[Kee]

Why must you start every post with an insult, is it just your nature?

The two Senior Drillers in the Gulf have stated that supplies of new oil could be on line within 6 months to two years, not the tne used by the "antis".

Drilling is hardly giving away our heritage it is preserving it by providing a growing economy the energy it needs.

[Pub 17]

Kee, you really need to educate yourself before posting here. You seem to want to communicate, rather than rant; it would be helpful if you at least acknowledge the fact that any drilling commenced now won't come on line for a decade or more, so that by the time we get the payback for selling our heritage, we should already be heavily shifted towards those alternative fuels.

[Kee]

One can only hope the bans stay lifted for drilling off shore and in the Artic. Increasing our supply of the most efficient fuel available, oil(next to nuclear), until alternative source are viable is just common sense.

"Immdediately going super green" is not feasible, it has to be accomplished in sync with other efforts.

[Pub 17]

T Hanson
People actually (and unknowingly) have pretty sophisticated choice models running in their heads. What's changed isn't the mean, it's the variance. Two years ago, a potential Hummer buyer hadn't internalized the information that gas COULD go to $4+ per gallon. Now he/she has. It's like dating someone who you're getting serious over, because they're so pleasant and even-tempered. But one day, on the street, they go off on somebody who bumps into them, complete red-faced rage. Then they return to normal.

Oooops. Can you imagine NOT incorporating that into your choice matrix? You only need to put $100 into your gas tank once or twice to get the message, yeah, it CAN happen.

[JayhawkinMO]

I thought it sadly ironic that a few days after the Detroit CEOs showed up in Wash DC (in their corp jets) to plead for loans, the Star's car critic reviewed the newly released Hummer pickup truck in Saturday's paper. MPG: 13 city, 16 hwy...maybe. I am sure our habits are probably changing with unleaded regular going for less than $1.40 a gallon. We will probably prove again how foolish we are... until we're slapped in the face when Somali pirates blow up a couple of tankers in the Arabian Sea.

[T. Hanson]

"First, they must immediately go super green. Why finance the inefficient cars they now sell that no one wants to buy? "

This is the one reason why I believe that car companies need to stay away from the government. No one can decide what is better for a company to sell other than the owners. So leave it up to them.

Also since gas has gone down I have seen quite a bit more Civics, Focus' and other small cars back on the lots again. And I have a feeling after our first major snow storm and ice storm all those "green" cars will show back up at the used car lot while the big evil 4x4's will start to disappear.

If America is known for anything is the lost of long term memory.

[Marctnts]

The two biggest issues I've heard connected with natural gas are:

1. The infrastructure that would be required should a majority of vehicles run on natural gas simply doesn't exist at this time, and probably won't for the conceivable future.

2. The danger of compressed natural gas, in an extremely litigious society with extremely stringent vehicle safety requirements. Many municipalities that switched to CNG vehicles have been forced to switch back because of the extreme insurance requirements.

[Dewey]

When Boone Pickens testified before Congress some months ago, he said GM made 19 types of vehicles that use natural gas for fuel, but none were available here.

Why?