Recently in Auto Industry Category

Another reason why auto industry restructuring could be good for the environment:

On another front, in 2002 the EPA cited General Motors as one of the top 100 corporate air polluters. Again in March of 2006 the Political Economy Research Institute rated General Motors as the 20th worst polluter. GM's legacy is more than just the jobs and incomes it provided. It has become painfully clear that where Americans live and work, they have experienced the inexcusable consequences of toxic chemicals being quietly dumped into the earth, water and air by irresponsible corporations including GM.

A bankruptcy court filing lists eleven GM sites that are contaminated or have environmental compliance obligations. It has been estimated that GM’s environmental liabilities surpass $525 million. Some of this real estate is identified on the New York state’s registry of hazardous waste sites and on the superfund list of most contaminated sites. Who will Washington choose to pick up the financial tab for cleaning up GM’s toxic mess? Will it be the taxpayers?

Ya think?

BUMPED: Autoblog:

According to reports, when GM exited bankruptcy, its polluted factory and land sites were consumed by the Motor Liquidation, allowing the automaker to avoid the responsibility of cleaning up its mess, and state leaders fear there won't be any money to clean the locations. [snip] The affected areas are afraid they will have to pay for the clean ups or simply let the land go unused. The problem with that: those local governments don't have the money. And they can't expect a developer to spend millions to clean up an old mess. If not Motors Liquidation or GM, civic representatives want the government to foot the bill since the current administration orchestrated the deal.

"...the government" footing the bill is most likely you and me. Not a done deal though. Scanning documents related to the Chapter 11 hearing it looks like the judge wasn't willing to absolve GM from its responsibilities under CERCLA.

Edmunds.com:

The current system of measuring a vehicle's efficiency by mpg creates an inaccurate perception about fuel consumption. Because as the mpg rating of a vehicle rises, it appears that it does so proportionately. What this means is if you were to trade in a car getting 12.5 mpg for one getting 25 mpg, it would obviously deliver fuel economy that was twice as good. But if you later traded that car getting 25 mpg for one getting 50 mpg, that exchange would not save you twice as much.

Here's why: Imagine three cars lined up side by side. They all drive 100 miles. Since each car has a different fuel economy rating, they each burn different amounts of gas to travel that same distance.

12.5 mpg = 8 gallons per 100 miles
25 mpg = 4 gallons per 100 miles
50 mpg = 2 gallons per 100 miles

Now look at how much gas is saved in each case. Over a 100-mile drive, the 25-mpg car saves 4 gallons over the 12.5-mpg car. But over the same distance, the 50-mpg car saves only 2 gallons over the 25-mpg car. Taken to the extreme, if there was such a thing as a commercially available 100-mpg car, it would only save 1 gallon of gas over the 50-mpg car.

What Does This Mean to You?
Once you understand the concept, it reveals two key points:

• Trading in a gas guzzler for a midsize sedan provides substantial savings.
• Trading in a midsize sedan for a high-mileage hybrid would hardly be worth the expense in fuel (especially when the taxes and related fees are considered).

The new system also reveals three related concepts that are largely unrecognized:

• Fuel-economy improvements from 12-20 mpg are significant.
• Once vehicles get over 25 mpg, the gains are much less dramatic.
• While extremely high-mileage hybrids provide eco bragging rights, they don't save much more gas than midsize sedans.

Here's a calculator if you're interested.

UPDATE: Honda trades mileage for "utility, affordability" and "fun" in the new Insight. Well sure. My '06 CIVIC still gets almost 38 on the highway and low 30's in town. Got it for about seven thousand less than a hybrid version, and it's a blast to drive. Environmentally-unfriendly batteries aren't required. Low emissions too.

Of course, if you really want to get a lot of mileage out of your Honda...

UPDATE: Cash for Clunkers could turn out to be one of the Obama Admin's most efficient ways to cut CO2 emissions and reduce fuel use if the goal is to get folks from the 12.5mpg to the 25mpg range. Hopefully they won't mess with that...

UPDATE/Bumped: "Hopefully they won't..." Dang. Spoke too soon.

UPDATE: Interesting backstory on the down side of destroying tens of thousands of perfectly reliable $4,500 cars. More here.

Excerpts from "New Obama rules will transform US auto fleet" :

Carpenters will still haul materials around in pickup trucks, but they will cost more.

So business' will get hit with higher costs. Especially small business'. Can our bankrupt car companies afford to sell less of trucks - a best seller?

That means cars and trucks on American roads will have to become smaller, lighter and more efficient.

"Smaller, lighter" to me means "less safe." I don't care if a Prius meets government standards, you can't change physics. More steel, more weight, more protection.

Already on Tuesday, some drivers were skeptical. Dixie Bishop, who runs a plumbing business in San Antonio that uses vans, worries the new requirements will drive up her costs at a time when customers are cutting back on repairs.

"Are they going to take my horsepower down?" she asked. "I have to be able to carry old water heaters and toilets. It's not beneficial for me to haul one water heater at a time. We need the power to pull these heavy items."

The government doesn't care about you Dixie. They think they can run your business better than you. And they believe in the Global Warming Hoax, and believe you should believe in it too.

Of course, developing the technology will cost money — billions of dollars — and automakers will pass that on to their customers.

No kidding.

The Obama administration says the changes mean the average vehicle would cost about $1,300 more, although some private analysts say the increase will be much heftier. The administration says gas savings will make up the difference in about three years.

Not when gas keeps rising. Who can wait three years?

Automakers have said they need stable, relatively high gasoline prices to create a market for electric vehicles. General Motors fears rolling out its rechargeable Chevrolet Volt next year with gas at $2 per gallon.

So it's in the government's best interest to not attempt to lower gas prices .

But the Volt is expected to sell for $35,000 to $40,000, and buyers may be unwilling to pay that much for a sedan, even if tax credits help ease the burden, unless gas prices soar.

Who want's to pay luxury prices for a car that - compared to the luxury cars - is a soda pop can?

Is anyone yet regretting electing these people who are intent on ruining your life? Yes, let's improve how we drive, but let's not drive off a cliff in the process. -D

PJM's Jazz Shaw survives another green auto show:

One GM presenter said a woman told her the company was responsible for the death of American soldiers in Iraq. The logic went like this: if G.M. made more fuel-efficient cars, the country would not need so much oil, and if the country did not need oil, United States troops would never have invaded.

And this was classic: "One of the really unfortunate parts of this story is that most of the beautiful young ladies demonstrating the cars are not exactly involved in the management decisions of GM or Chrysler." Heh.

Over at the Wall Street Journal Kim Strassel dices and slices the politics of alternative fuels: "Energy powers the economy. Mess with energy markets, and mess with everything else. When will Washington learn?"