The Greenest—and Meanest—Car Companies

sir,

i have to make a car 3d desigine you are intersted see my car profile and parchase my car desine than i wll send you

dilip kumawat 12:36AM July 08, 2008

While mass transit may provide the solution to high fuel prices, the U.S. and/or State goverment officials should also use their common senses not just "let's make money sense". For example, U.S. has the technological advancement over on most countries, why can't the goverment support individuals or smaller researchers that readily have engines that runs on hydrogen or other form of energy other than fossil fuel? Things that comes into mind are bureaucracy, money, and selfishness. I remember 25yrs ago when vehicles were still running or carburators, there was a researcher that came out with a carb design that saves fuel on an average of 10mi/gal. What did the local and fed gov't do? Shut him up because the bureaucrats that support or have business in oil will loose profit. Look at where we are now - everyone's suffering instead of supporting the long term goal - Save fuel and everything else follows.

Another one - how about those cow, chicken, and pig farmers? Instead of the gov't telling them to just bury or treat the manure before disposing it why not collect it or encourage them to turn it into energy i.e methane to power their own tractors, heat up their homes and maybe some more, and for cooking.

Rain water - collect it on huge barrels, filter it, then use for washing dishes or clothes, watering plants, use for shower or flushing the toilet, etc. The gov't can infuse money and support this kind of common sense everyday living ideas rather than keeping their profits to themselves. It's ok to keep the profits but what is profit/money if you don't have nothing to drink because water is so polluted, and no food to eat?

Trucks that deliver our supplies - Requests them to do transport when traffic is light i.e. start delivery, etc at 0900-0300 then resume again at 0600-12midnight. This will at least contribute to lesser vehicle on the road and lesser traffic snarls during rush hours which in turn lesser fuel burned.

But then, these are just ideas and common senses that will generate greener environment other than money that feeds greedy folks.

GalantEagle of WA 12:55AM June 19, 2008

Gary knows just enough to be dangerous. The reality is that energy conservation initiatives go nowhere when fuel is affordable; there's low demand and therefore no political will. We went backwards in so many ways after the 70s - even though the eventual crunch was inevitable, most people simply didn't care. Our auto companies "couldn't" increase fuel efficiency while Japanese and European makers just did it. Tax incentives can only create value when the payback is better than continuing to use cheap oil; Americans have amply demonstrated their apathy, buying McMansions and SUVs 45 minutes from work. I know it's going to be painful for a lot of people, but ignorance and lack of planning often are. The good news is that we might change enough fast enough with high oil prices focusing peoples' attention than we ever could otherwise.

The next step in biodiesel is alternative feedstocks. Algae farms can produce as much oil in ten days as an equal field size of soybeans - and the algae can 'eat' carbon dioxide and some emissions. Other nonfood seed stocks can produce much more oil, as well, and do well where food crops might not.

As for fossil-fuel-generated electricity - at this moment, it's possible to buy or build a smaller house, insulate, update systems and install a $10-20K net-metered solar array with the savings, and drop your energy bills through the floor; the solar portion of your energy use will never go up. If you live in the city and most of your driving is short haul, you can power the car too. Energy efficient mortgages allow you to finance these improvements over their useful life - so that the cost is offset by fuel savings and you're not worried about cost increases.

The smart move for most people - especially suburbanites who commute to cities - is to move to one of America's undervalued cities NOW, while you can still afford it, buy an undervalued older home, and rehab it to be as energy-efficient as possible. Given the possibility of water shortages, you might want to look hard at the Great Lakes region; state governments there are turning off the tap to the rest of the country. Location-efficient mortgages offer special terms for moving closer to public transportation; take advantage of these now. If they're not available in your city, call the major mortgage-lending bank and tell them you want them.

It might get a little better, but in the long run, we really do have to change the way we do things. Make intelligent decisions so that the assets you leave your kids aren't dinosaurs guzzling dinosaurs.

Em of OH 10:22AM June 16, 2008

It will likely take $7,00 gas for environmentalist preferences to fall out of favor.

Until then, politicians will not risk their wrath to lose a single vote, but won't be long now. From there, we need to do what makes sense in a responsible manner and manage it. This isn't 30-40 years ago, and oil drilling is not grossly irresponsible. Just like cutting forests are managed well today, it can be done in the best way possible to manage our needs and the planet, but we must make choices soon.

We have 60 years of oil in the USA, in addition to the world's largest coal and shale reserves, so we should use them now to control cost and not increase profits. With tax incentives to use this money for developing alternatives, it could happen. Without, it will just be more oil made available at the world market price.

What do we think will be the source of electrical power to charge all of those 500,000-7000,000 car's? Mostly it's oil and gas! It's the same issue currently seen with ethanol, since the source is diverted from other products or food and drives those prices up. Unless renewable sources, redirecting energy just moves the jello arouund in the same bowl, changing the shape and that's about it. It may solve one problem, but it will create another.

It is our total energy related cost and cumulative effect on our overall consumption of consumer products and downstream items that will be our total price to pay if we don't do it. Example, cost of a paper bag is 7 times higher than a plastics bag, and we think we are somehow helping the envirnoment by killing new trees instead of using dead dinasours at a much lower coast. Yes, there are plastic disposal topics, but no need if recycled. We've been misled for a long time.

We DO need environmentalists to keep the capitalists in check, so don't take shortcuts for return to stockholders and themselves, However, environmentalists also must start to deal completely in facts. It is not respsponsibe of them to continue to use shock value to futher their agenda, which is to justify their own job positions and organizations. They are as bad as the govnerment and oil cos. Bottom-line, we need all three, but working together for the first time. We need a President with a vision to pull people to the table, hold them accountable and make tat happen, or report them to We The People to lose votes, business, etc.

I'm a Republican and a Texas, but neither will get this done, so "Yes, We Can!"

We will, and I beleive that America will get on-board and make it happen.

Gary Considine of TX 11:47PM June 15, 2008