(Source: Bloomberg)

The future of the U.S. “cash for clunkers” program depends on the Senate backing a $2 billion infusion this week, with at least one Republican saying he was going to try to block the effort.

“We’ve got to slow this thing down,” Senator Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican, said on “Fox News Sunday.”

The House voted 316-109 on July 31 for an emergency measure adding $2 billion to the program aimed at reviving U.S. auto sales, after a burst of demand exhausted most of the initial $1 billion in less than a week.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a C-SPAN interview Sunday he expects the current $1 billion in funding to be gone by the end of the weekend. The administration will continue the program until the Senate acts, and dealers will be reimbursed for deals in the pipeline, he said. The government will make a “good-faith effort” for transactions beginning tomorrow, he said.

DeMint said he opposes the program because “we’re helping auto dealers while there are thousands of other small businesses that aren’t getting help.”

Named the Car Allowance Rebate System, the program provides credits of as much as $4,500 for the purchase of a new car when turning in an older vehicle to be scrapped. Lawmakers had expected the first $1 billion to generate about 250,000 vehicle sales and last until about Nov. 1.

(Source: NY Times )

New York Times’ Sarah Lyall has penned a funny but interesting & intriguing profile of Mr. Michael O’Leary, chief executive of the European budget airline Ryanair.  A must read for those in low-cost commercial aviation business.  Here are some interesting excerpts from the article.

——————————————————————————————————————————

He once dressed as the pope to advertise Ryanair’s new route from Dublin to Rome. He has declared that fat people should pay more for their seats, but that it would take too long to weigh them at the airport. And, at a news conference to discuss the possibility of starting trans-Atlantic flights, he suggested — to the consternation of the young woman gamely translating his remarks into German — that business-class customers would receive oral sex.

At 48, the quick-talking, blue-jean-wearing Mr. Michael O’Leary, chief executive of the European budget airline Ryanair,is one of the most successful businessmen in Ireland, presiding over an airline that is, remarkably, flourishin g in a brutal climate for airlines (and most other businesses). He is known for thick-skinned aggression, outrageous public statements and an implacable belief that short-haul airline passengers will endure nearly every imaginable indignity, as long as the tickets are cheap and the planes are on time.

“Soon he’ll be charging us for oxygen and number of limbs,” The Sun groused in a columnin June, when he unveiled his latest proposal — getting people to carry their own bags to the plane.

Ryanair’s post-tax profit fell by 78 percent in the year that ended in March, but still amounted to $149 million. While most carriers are hemorrhaging passengers, Ryanair expects its passenger numbers to increase, to 68 million this year from 57 million in 2008.

The mystery is why so many people are willing to put up with an airline that, in the words of The Economist, “has become a byword for appalling customer service, misleading advertising claims and jeering rudeness towards anyone or anything that gets in its way.”

(Source: Times of India)

Taking a leaf out of employees’ labour union books, private airlines on Friday threatened to suspend domestic operations on August 18 if the government did not give in to their demand for a bailout package in the form of lower sales tax on fuel and airporttaxes. Never before has an entire industry threatened to pull out from the market to arm-twist the government into buying its line.

“The airline industry realizes its role in the life of the nation. But in view of the indifference shown by the government, it may not be able to continue its operations… and so we have decided not to operate nationwide services on August 18,” Anil Baijal, secretary general of the Federation of Indian Airlines, the lobby group of airlines in India, announced at the Jet Airways office in Mumbai. “The idea is to highlight the urgency for the government to intervene urgently. If, however, an adequate response is not received, member airlines will be compelled to suspend their services for an indefinite period.” Baijal did not spell out the nature of the response or the level of commitment the airlines are expecting from the government in the next 18 days.

The no-fly decision was taken following an afternoon meeting attended by Jet Airways’ Naresh Goyal, Kingfisher Airlines’ Vijay Mallya and other members of FIA except those from Air India and Paramount Airways. Following the meeting, Baijal read out a statement to the media which began with the financial difficulties faced by the industry. The total losses incurred by the Indian airline industry in 2008-09 are estimated to be Rs 10,000 crore, he said, listing ATF sales tax, airport charges, depreciation in the value of India rupee, the economic meltdown and terrorists attacks as contributory factors.

Sudhakara Reddy, president, Air Passengers Association of India, a consumer rights organization, was scathing. “The losses are of their own making,” he said. “The two big airlines, Jet and Kingfisher, bought loss-making airlines like Air Deccan and Air Sahara. The government, on the other hand, gave airlines benefits like a credit period for payment to oil companies and airports. Then again, IndiGo and Spice Jet made a profit in the last quarter, which means there is a turnaround in the industry. When they make a profit, do they share it with the government or public?”

Although the relationship between governments and airline operators worldwide has never been an easy one, the threat by Indian private airlines is a first in the century-old history of the global airline industry. If it is indeed carried out, it will mean cancellation of about 12,000 domestic flights by airlines such as Kingfisher, Kingfisher Red, Jet Airways, Jetlite, IndiGo, Go Air and Spice Jet on August 18. The only option for the domestic air traveller will be the 300 scheduled flights operated by Air India and the additional ones it may mount to meet the demand.

Civil Aviation Minister Praful Patel on Sturday said that the government would not bailout private airlines. Patel advised the private carriers to withdraw their strike call on August 18. He stated, “Passengers interest would be safeguarded and DGCA would take action if needed.”

Air India will increase the number of flights to reduce inconvenience to passengers, Mr Patel said. It is not known if Paramount Airways will join its private sector peers in the strike.

The minister said that the ATF tax was an issue even before the private carriers started operations. Painting a desperate picture of their situation, industry lobby body Federation of Indian Airlines (FIA) said unless the government helps them by lowering taxes on jet fuel and bringing down airport charges, their survival is in doubt.

Click here to read the entire article.

TransportGooru Musings: I can understand the plight of the airline operators in India, a country where rulers take a serious view of situations only when such harsh measures are called for.  As a proud practitioner of Democracy, the country has developed a unique way of making its rulers listen – Indefinite Strike.  Though this method has often been abused by many labor unions, especially the ones associated with employees of public sector banks & railways, this is the first time an entire industry is threatening to go on strike.   During my recent trip to India, me and my family flew on some of the domestic carriers mentioned here.  Though the original price of the tickets were really enticing, the additional costs for a ticket incurred by a passenger were often sky high.

For example, the price for two tickets from Coimbatore to Chennai (two Southern Indian cities) was Rs.1598 (roughly $35).  But the invoice showed a shocking total of Rs.5638, with a line stating  “Other Charges” worth Rs.4,391.44 (~$80). I am assuming that this “Other Charges” line envelops all the above mentioned items that the airline operators are fighting to remove.  If the airlines managed to achieve this, the cost of flying should become really cheap and would fuel a boom in traffic.  These sky high tariffs did really make me re-examine whether it is worth flying and given that the next best alternative is the Indian Railways, which takes six times longer to get me to the same desitination, I went ahead and paid for the ticket inspite of the heart-ache.

Here I’dlike to share an interesting story. My family hired this young driver, Suresh, to drive me around during this recent trip.  I spent a considerable amount of time with him in the car as he drove me around for nearly 2000 kms in a period of 20 days.  Sitting in traffic and during long stretches of driving (while I am not on the phone or sleeping), we asked a lot of questions about how it is to be living in our respective worlds (America & India) and shared stories about driving and the multitude of transportation problems we faced in our daily lives.  He was so fascinated by the idea of flying between cities in such short times compared to the trains.  When I asked him if he had ever flown in an airplane before, he said in a longing voice that he has never been inside an airport all his life (24years of age) and has always wanted to fly but never could afford a ticket due to his financial siuation.  He added that he always wanted to save money to buy a ticket to the nearest destination possible but was not sure how expensive it could be to fly compared to the buses or trains . When he picked me up at the airport, he inquired about how much I paid for the trip and I promptly shared the information.  He was sorta disappointed and said may be he will never get to fly if the prices were to be so high.  He said that flying will never become a reality for many people like him.

It got me thinking.  How is that a driver in India cannot afford to fly while someone holding the same job can do so in a country like America?  Here we have people like Suresh who are ready to fly but can’t afford to do so. There is a huge market that remains untapped and the private airline operators are definitely ready and willing to feast on this bonanza.  If the economics are worked out properly, this could be a wonderful way to resuscitate the ailing aviation industry.  I am no economist but it is not hard to understand what we are dealing with.  It is as simple as this:  There is a Huge Market, there are a number of willing operators, and a thriving industry that is raring to do everything possible to remain profitable.  With growth in passenger traffic, the Government can compensate for the loss of revenue experienced by the reduction in tariffs.   Moderizing the airport infrastructure and streamlining the current services can also help India’s aviation industry to a large degree.

But the only stumbling block that remains is some of the regressive policies of the Government, which is holding back the dreams of soaring high for people like Suresh. As a Transportation industry practitioner, I’d love to see the Ministry of Aviation taking a hard look at this issue and bring down some of these ridiculous charges.  Failing to do that would pretty much doom the industry and would prohibit the development of the aviation infrastructure, which the country needs to develop so badly.  Mr. Praful Patel, are you listening?

With all that said, I totally agree with Sudhakara Reddy, president, Air Passengers Association of India. Airline operators have goofed up tremendously in the past with their bad business moves (some of the horrible mergers and acquisitions are top among them) and can’t go penalizing the passengers like this.  It violates the obligation they have for serving the general public who put their faith in these airlines when they made travel plans.  For the airlines, it is their right to go on strike but that can’t come at the expense of the passengers.  It is a huge discomfort for the very passengers who keep these airlines in business.  It is the worst form of customer service.  Hope the issue gets resolved amicably.

(Source: AP via Yahoo; Freep & Photo Courtesy: TOBY TALBOT/Associated Press via Free)

The Obama administration promised on Friday that the financially strapped “cash for clunkers” program will be good at least through the day.

Less than four days after launching a popular cash-for-clunkers program, the Obama administration warned Congress the plan already had burned through its $950-million budget, setting off a rush for more money while leaving thousands of dealers and consumers in the lurch.

A White House official told the Free Press late Thursday that all valid deals made under the program so far would be honored, saying it had not been suspended. But administration sources could not say what car buyers hoping to trade their clunker for a new vehicle should do today.

The House is set to adjourn today for a monthlong recess, but Michigan lawmakers and administration officials were pushing for an emergency infusion of cash today. A spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said any request would be “quickly reviewed.”

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said he got the word from Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood as members of the Ohio and Michigancongressional delegations huddled on Capitol Hill to discuss ways to keep the popular program going.

“Beyond Friday,” Levin said, “depends on whether the administration can find some money.”

One participant in the meeting said they were examining possible funding sources and whether there were any glitches in the computer system. The participant, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talk, said they were also studying how many dealers had enrolled in the system.

Through Wednesday afternoon, more than 23,000 dealer franchises were participating, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The administration dispatched Brian Deese, a top adviser to the Treasury’s auto task force, to the Hill meeting.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., said about 40,000 new vehicles had been purchased through the program but dealers estimate another 200,000 vehicles have been sold in transactions that have not yet been completed through the program.

Earl Stewart, who owns a Toyota dealership in North Palm Beach, Fla., said the changing messages on the program has created confusion among his customers and his staff. Stewart’s accounting department also could only enter about a dozen of the 47 sales he made into the government Web site set up to handle the transactions, leaving him wondering if he will get refunded for the remaining vouchers.

Click here to read the entire article.

Breaking News Update:

The Detroit Free Press reports that the U.S. House will vote on $2 billion in additional funding for the cash-for-clunkers program this afternoon.

Michigan lawmakers huddled in the Capitol this morning with a White House official discussing ways to get the cash-for-clunkers program under control. The program is still under way, they said.

While the Obama administration said the plan was not suspended, it doesn’t know how many deals have been made under the program and whether the $950 million available to the plan is enough to cover the deals already made.

The administration may consider whether money from the economic stimulus plan can be diverted to the program.

Click here to read the  update.

(Source: Washington Post & AASHTO)

Supporters garnered the necessary two-thirds support to push through the stop-gap measure intended to keep the Highway Trust Fund solvent through September 30, the end of the fiscal year. The vote was 363 to 68.

The government estimates the account could run dry within several weeks without an emergency infusion of cash. The fund provides states with about $40 billion per year in transportation construction funding.

Trust fund disbursements are separate from the billions in economic stimulus money dedicated to states for transportation projects.

The Senate is expected to act on the temporary trust fund measure before the end of next week, and lawmakers plan to address a longer-term remedy after their August recess.

During the 40 minutes of House floor debate this afternoon, supporters argued the Highway Trust Fund needs additional funding immediately to prevent the payment slowdown to states, which could cause states to then curtail their road construction activity. Opponents contended the transfer is not paid for by any new revenue source and that Congress needs to stop bailing out the Highway Trust Fund. Congress sent the fund an additional $8 billion last September when a similar funding crisis developed due to lower revenue in the trust fund than had been projected as a result of Americans driving less during the economic recession and thus paying less in gasoline and diesel taxes as well as in heavy-truck taxes.

The House bill approved today contains no extension of authority for federal surface transportation programs, which is scheduled to lapse Sept. 30 at the end of this fiscal year. While House leaders have been pushing a full six-year authorization measure, the Obama administration and the Senate have favored a temporary extension of current authority for 18 months. Today’s House vote means Congress will have to face the authorization question in September after returning from the summer recess.

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar, D-MN, said during today’s floor debate that he regrets Congress must take action to shore up the Highway Trust Fund. But the drop in vehicle miles traveled experienced over the past year and a half has left the trust fund short of its revenue projections, necessitating an infusion, he said. Oberstar’s six-year, $500 billion authorization measure has been approved by subcommittee but not been brought up before the full T&I Committee yet because there is no agreement with the House Ways and Means Committee on how to raise the extra revenue needed to pay for it.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: USAToday & The Hindu)

The much-awaited Nano hit the roads on Friday with Mumbai resident Ashok Raghunath Vichare becoming the first owner of the world’s cheapest car from the stable of the Tatas.

“I hope that the Tata Nano will bring motoring pleasure to those who will be buying their first car as also those who currently own a car but want a modern, contemporary and emission-friendly city car,” Tata Motors Chairman Ratan Tata said after handing over the key of the first Nano to Mr. Vichare here. Tata, a Cornell University-trained architect, decided to develop Nano when he saw an entire Indian family riding on a scooter. Bloomberg says almost seven motorcycles are sold for every car in India, a nation of 1.1 billion people. Car sales in India may triple to 3 million units annually by 2015, according to a government forecast.

Mr. Vichare has bought a Tata Nano LX (lunar silver), the top-end model.

With Tata handing over the top-end model to Mr. Vichare, the delivery process of the first one lakh cars have started, which would be completed by March next year.

Vichare went for the more upscale LX version. It is his first car.The cheapest Nano retails for 123,360 rupees — or $2,531. Splurgers can spend up to $3,536 to pack the car with such luxury as cupholders and air conditioning, Bloomberg News reports.

Nano is expected to come to the U.S. in a couple years, owner Tata Motors has indicated. Don’t expect to see one on the freeway: at 624 cubic centimeters, the engine is smaller than those found on many motorcycles. Safety in crash? Not as bad as you’d expect, if early crash test results in Europe hold up. Tata already has a huge backlog of orders for Nano:

Tata, which owns Jaguar and Land Rover after buying them from Ford, has 206,703 orders. That’s more than double its initial sales plan. The company chose the first 100,000 customers through a lottery. It will take a year of production to catch up to the backlog.

Nano was commercially launched on March 23 this year. It has received 2.06 lakh bookings. Tata Motors has already selected over 1.55 lakh customers for delivering the car, of which the first one lakh cars are price-protected.

The company would roll out the Nanos from its Pantnagar facility, which has an annual capacity of 50,000 units. The car would also be produced from the company’s Sanand unit in Gujarat once its goes on stream.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: Wired)

Image via Apture

The electrification of the automobile has been called the auto industry’s “moon shot,” an analogy that works because of both the technology involved and the cost to develop it. Automakers are pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the effort with no promise that it will lead to affordable battery-powered vehicles anytime soon — or any guarantee people will buy them once they’re available.

All of the major automakers are racing to put EVs in showrooms as early as next year, and they’re spending money like sailors on shore leave to do it. General Motors has spent about $1 billion developing the Chevrolet Volt. Chrysler wants to invest $448 million in its electric vehicle program to build cars like the Circuit, pictured above at the Los Angeles Auto Show. Elon Musk’s personal investment in Tesla Motors tops $75 million.

The Apollo program cost more than $100 billion in today’s dollars, and as Ron Cogan, founder and editor of Green Car Journal and greencar.com notes, there was no imperative to produce a reasonably priced consumer product. Not so with electric vehicles – the whole point is to sell cars. The Obama Administration is betting heavily on the technology, having recently approved almost $8 billion to help automakers retoolfactories to produce EVs and other fuel-efficient vehicles. Another $16 billion will be doled out next year.

“What people overlook is that accomplishing ‘big picture’ programs like Apollo require accepting the concept of unlimited spending to achieve the mission,” Cogan says. “Current levels of unprecedented federal spending notwithstanding, electric cars are not an exclusive answer to future transportation challenges and consumers will not be willing to buy them at all costs.”

Early adopters and hardcore EV advocates will gladly pay that much, but will the rest of us pay $15,000 to $25,000 more for a car that runs on electricity? Cogan doesn’t think so and says EVs should be considered mid- to long-term solutions until automakers — and the battery makers they rely upon — can bring costs down to a level competitive with vehicles propelled by internal combustion.

Until then, he says, more efficient gasoline cars, clean diesel vehicles and hybrids will comprise the majority of cars sold even as EVs become an increasingly common sight in showrooms.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: Tree Hugger)

Trivia: New York’s is also the only subway in the world to run 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

Image courtesy: TreeHugger

Our friends at Treehugger have put together a great, easy to understand compilation of subway/metro train fares for a handful of major cities around the world, with a promise to update the list in the near future.  The article takes a stab at comparing the New York Subway system fares against the rest and goes on to analyze What Makes a Subway Fare Fair? and Why is New York City Raising the Subway Fare? Makes for quite an interesting read.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: Examiner & Autobloggreen)

In the name of “clean energy,” Washington is subsidizing a switch from gasoline-powered cars to cars powered mostly by coal. In pursuit of “energy independence,” the feds may foster addiction to a fuel concentrated in a socialist-run South American country.

Image Courtesy: Apture - Hybrid electric vehicles at Argonne

Lobbying by automakers, chemical companies and coal-dependent power producers has yielded a slew of subsidies and mandates for electric cars. However promising a gasoline-free automobile may sound, anyone who followed the government’s mad rush to ethanol fuel in recent years has to worry about the clean promise of the electric car yielding dirty results.

Ethanol — an alcohol fuel made from corn or other plants — has been pushed relentlessly on the American people by a Congress under the influence of a powerful ethanol lobby. Touted as a clean fuel, the government-created ethanol boom has contributed to water pollution, soil erosion, deforestation and even air pollution.

Lithium could be the new ethanol, thanks to the government push for electric cars. Lithium is an element found in nature, and lithium-ion batteries are at the heart of the next generation of electric cars. Compared with lead acid (the standard car battery) and nickel metal hydride (the batteries in today’s hybrids), lithium-ion batteries are less toxic, more powerful and longer lasting.

But what would happen if electric cars and these batteries gain wide use?

Before we even get to the batteries, recall that although all-electric, plug-in cars emit nothing, somebody needs to burn something for the car to move. Here, the burning happens at the power plant instead of under your hood.

The Department Energy estimates that coal provides half our electricity. A recent Government Accountability Office study reported that a plug-in compact car, if it is recharged at an outlet drawing its juice from coal, provides a carbon dioxide savings of only 4 to 5 percent. A plug-in sport utility vehicle provides a CO2 savings of 19 to 23 percent.

The Department Energy estimates that coal provides half our electricity. A recent Government Accountability Office study reported that a plug-in compact car, if it is recharged at an outlet drawing its juice from coal, provides a carbon dioxide savings of only 4 to 5 percent. A plug-in sport utility vehicle provides a CO2 savings of 19 to 23 percent.

If the cleaner and cheaper fuel of a plug-in causes someone to drive even a bit more, it’s a break-even on CO2. GAO co-author Mark Gaffigan raised the question to CNSNews.com; “If you are using coal-fired power plants and half the country’s electricity comes from coal-powered plants, are you just trading one greenhouse gas emitter for another?”

And of course, there’s the lithium lobby. FMC Corp. is the largest lithium producer in the United States. The company employs a dozen lobbying firms and operates its own political action committee. FMC has leaned on Congress and the Energy Department for electric car subsidies.

If the electric car lobby succeeds, brace for another harsh lesson in unintended consequences.

Click here to read the entire Examiner article. Our friends at Autobloggreen were kind enough to point Tim Carney, the author of this Examiner article, the following: While Carney is right that the GAO did warn against all of the coal that could be used to power the EVs of the future, he forgot to mention the GAO’s finding that “Research we reviewed indicated that plug-ins could shift air pollutant emissions away from population centers even if there was no change in the fuel used to generate electricity.”

TransportGooru Musings: Though I agree with some aspects of the author’s argument, I disagree with the notion that  Electric Vehicle investment boom is akin to that of the Ethanol-boom of the years past.   There are many differences between what’s happening now and what happened in the past.  Apart from ridiculing the Government’s strategy, the author, Tim Carney, is not offering any credible solutions and simply terrorizes the readers with an insane argument — Your tax dollars are getting wasted and the lithium lobbies are winning.

Let us see, Mr. Carney! We have two clear choices  — either we continue to tread the same path, guzzling billions of gallons of oil a day (and polluting the environment with gay abandon), all the while facilitating the transfer of your dollars to some petro-dictatorship in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia) or South America (Venezuela).  Or try and invest in something like Electric Vehicles which can help us and our children breathe easy in the years to come.   The latter option may not be very appealing to many folks like you who are grounded in a myopic view of the world.

Though majority of the electric power produced in the US comes from coal,  we can to a large degree control the emissions from these coal plants with current technology.  It may require some more arm twisting on the Government’s part to make these coal-fired electric plants to adhere to the stringent emissions standards but this is a lot more easy to manage.  Also, with more government investment in other forms of generating electricity and a great deal of consumer interest in purchasing clear power, we have  golden an opportunity for investing in other forms of electricity production (Nuclear,  Wind, solar. etc – FYI, Government data indicate there have been 17 licence applications to build 26 new nuclear reactors since mid 2007, following several regulatory initiatives preparing the way for new orders and the Government envisions producing significant share of the power from Nuclear by 2020).

In this option, the Fed & State Governments can regulate and control these domestic sources of power generation and to a large degree keep the investments within the American borders.  If you are advocating to continue the same path as we have done in the past decades, Petro-dictators on the other parts of the globe  (Saudi, Venezuela, Russia, etc) are going to grow richer and they do not listen to what you or your government wants.  They do what they want and run a cartel (OPEC) that is very unrestrained and at times acts like a bunch of thugs.  In this option, your price at the pump is not dictated by your Government but some hukka-smoking, arms-dealing perto-aggresor, who is trying to make the best of the situation and extract as much as he can from your wallet.

The Ethanol buzz dissipated quickly because the Detroit lobby was too damn powerful and them automakers were not listening well to what the customers wanted.   When the economy tanked (and the markets wreacked havock on their stock values) and the customers started showing love for foreign manufactured cars like Prius & Insight,  Detroit had a sudden realization that they need to change their strategy and started moving away from making those huge SUVs and Trucks. Now they are talking about newer cars that are small, functional, economic and environmentally viable products.

It is hard to disagree that there was a flood of investment in the Ethanol technology, but the underlying concept remained the same (burning fuel using the conventional combustion engine) and there was nothing ground-shaking about the way it was promoted.  It is just that we were simply trying to change the amount of emissions coming out of our tailpipes.  But now with Electric-vehicles, we are changing the game completely.

Though it may take a few more years to develop the “Perfect” technology, full electrification of vehicles will eliminate the very concept of a tailpipe in a vehicle.  Tesla and numerous other manufacturers are trying to do this and I consider this to be a step in the right direction.  One thing we have to bear in mind is that during the Ethanol era, the U.S. was the major proponent (because we have way to much areable land and corn growing farmers around) and the rest of the world was just playing along with mild interest because of various reason.  But this time around the  scenario looks very different.  Worldwide there is a coordinated push for heavy investments in alternative energy technologies, and almost every industrialized nation jumped into this EV bandwagon pushing research funds towards development of green cars when the oil prices sky rocketed.  No one is interested in paying $140+ dollars/barrel for oil.

Above all, we are at a time when the Government needs to invest its tax-payer dollars back in the communities in a fruitful way. The addiction to oil has gotten way bad and the sky-high oil prices of 2008 were a good indicator that we can’t afford to continue treading in the same path as we did in the decade past. If the Government has to hold back from investing in clean energy technologies, it might invest in other areas that may look very appealing in the short run but potentially leaving a huge developmental hole in the transportation sector.  This is the RIGHT TIME for investing in Electric Vehicles.  Now the Government has a stake in two of the three Detroit Automakers, which offers the flexibility to steer the development of new technologies and  newer vehicle platforms running on clean fuels such as electric and hydrogen power.

Going by your argument that by switching enmass to Electric-vehicles, we are going to create a demand for Lithium, simply shifting our oil dependence to socialist-Bolivia’s Lithium reserves, so be it.  You want to know why? Any day, I’ll take the Democratically-elected Bolivian Government (headed by a Evo Morales)  over the petro-crazy OPEC members.  If it helps resuscitate a nation that is living in depths of poverty, why not do that.  We in the Western world helped the Saudi’s & other mid-east monarchs become rich and modern from their goat-sheperding Bedouin past with the invention of modern Automobiles.  If we can do the same to Bolivia with the introduction of a new technology (Lithium-ion batteries for running cars), why do you get so jittery about that.

The growing threat of environmental degradation and the fallout from the rising green house gas emissions fore-casted by our eminent scientists are too damn threatening to our world and hard to ignore. Be happy thinking that your Government is doing something to improve the status-quo (which is guzzling billions of gallons of oil) instead of  sitting around waiting for a miracle.   For all that matters Electric Vehicles may be just an evolution in the quest for a better form of transportation.  Who knows!  But by investing in these technologies, we may at least have a chance to live a better life in the future. If our Government is not doing any of the above, we may never have a future after all.  So, let’s stop being an obstacle along the way for everything the Government does just because it is run by people who have a diabolically different views and principles.