This is exactly what our nation, our country, and our country's auto industry needs and it should be getting more attention by our leaders.  Most of the points in this article have been well known by experts for a long time now, but our leaders always seem reluctant to endorse anything that could lead toward unpopular higher gasoline and/or energy prices.

We need leadership willing to make these obviously necessary -- though unpopular -- decisions.

To continue with tax breaks and subsidies for oil businesses is endangering our future.

Are there any calculations for the return on investment to the US for promoting ev's and electric alternative infrastructure? Such as the savings from the horrendous costs of conflicts to secure oil resources?

If the oil industry's products can be scientifically proven to be detrimental to health (and national security to boot), like tobacco and boose, cannot the government also limit its advertising?
Posted by: Tom N

Altough it should be warnned that precausions should be taken as to the allocation of the tax and tariffs revenues, because governments made interested by giving them a large portion of the final retail price of gasoline tend to be poor green governments in other aspects. For instance, they don’t support transition to electricity since this is directly cutting into their revenues. They also are cold on biofuels for the same reason. As a anecdote, the small state of Luxemburg has been known as a strong opponent of biofuels, as it considers them a treat to their gasoline sales bonanza to passing motorists from the Nederland’s, Belgium, Germany and France. They, on purpose, put the gasoline taxes slightly lower then in those neighboring countries to attract the people and thereby paradoxically tremendously boost their gasoline tax revenues. Since biofuels like E85 are sold in Germany with very low or no tax, they can’t do the same trick with those kinds of fuels. As a consequence, they do whatever they can to harpoon the E85 and the biofuels in general at all levels including the EU and even at the royal families’ levels. The King of Luxemburg happens to be family of the King of Belgium and the Queen of Nederland. As a result of so-called “high level private discussions”, the Belgian nepotist minister Bruno Tobbak made a Royal decree that bluntly ban E85 sales to the public in Belgium. In the Nederland’s, the Queen Beatrix, the main Shell shareholder, authorized the sale of E85, but at more then13 $ per gallon. As you can imagine, today the Luxemburg gasoline business is still flourishing as ever.

In another register but for the same environmental purpose, I would also extend the carbon tax to an additional carbon tariff on fossil fuel made imported goods; either in the constituent materials or in the type of energy used to make them. In this way, a biopolyethylene Barbie processed with wind power electricity will be cheaper to import then a fossil polyethylene Barbie processed with coal made electricity.
Posted by: Patrick Leonard

For more than 20 years, I've thought that there should be a heavy tax on non-renuable energy and that the income tax should be reduced.  That way, the average tax payer would come out even, but there'd be a powerful incentive to conserve fuel.  Implementing the change could be politically difficult, but I think that people would accept it if they could see the benefits.

We also need better city planning to make public transportation more efficient.  In addition to reducing our dependence on oil, that would reduce our dependence on private automobiles.  Then, low income people wouldn't be forced to spend $$  on cars and could spend more on education and other things which would be of greater benefit to them.  Think also about people who, because of miscellaneous disabilities, cannot drive safely.  They are put at an extreme economic and social disadvantage because of the lack of convenient and efficient public transportation.  Many of us, as we age, will find ourselves in that situation.

Of course the emphasis of EV World is on electric vehicles, which is good.  In general, EV does a good job.   But, I'd like to see an ocassional article aimed at reducing our dependence on private automobiles.

I really like the idea of giving financial incentives to the new technologies. Why is it in California that cars are taxed on their value? Why should you buy a new car (more efficient) when your taxes on that purchase (not sales tax - road tax) are huge compared with running your old gas guzzling banger? Road taxes should be based on vehicle weight. This has a direct co-relation with mpg and road damage. This would promote the building of lighter cars leading to less energy used (gas or electric). Granted it takes innovative engineering to do this, but we are innovators are we not?

And, lastly, why is GM not looking at building transmissions for windturbines? They need them and GM has the factories to do it.
Posted by: Peter Fynn

1- Stop the subsidies to big oil. Congress tried to stop the 13.1 Billion, yes BILLION we give big oil every year bit it failed to pass. Read HR 6 Jan 2008 to see the numbers.

2- Like Germany add a tax to gas for the pollution, spills and CO2 levels.

3- Keep the gas guzzler tax on B I G Vehicles and charge it every year not just at the new sale. They guzzel for a long time and actually are worse so increase it as they age. 4- Charge higher fees for registering heavy vehicles (SUVs). They cause wear more on the road and bridges so make them pay more.

5- In accidents charge the heavier vehicle more since it is larger and causes more damage. They also cost more to repair and use more materials.

So we use common sense, change the past laws that are very poor and encourage safer , lighter vehicles that pollute less and use less energy. The vehicle makers follow the rules and wants of the majority. Give them poor laws and they build poor vehicles. Make smart laws and demand for better vehicles will come.
Posted by: jim stack

It also occurs to me that the last thing we want to do for oil-producing nations with an entrenched record of political hostility is reassure them of a guaranteed minimum petrodollar income.

And putting hard deadlines on requirements for fuel infrastructure is foolish if you aren't also regulating that infrastructure. What's the point of requiring flex-fuel capability in every vehicle made by 2012 if you know there isn't going to be enough E85 sold to justify every car having the option? Not to mention that requiring V2G capability by 2020, while admirable, presumes we can overhaul the entire North American grid itself in only 10 years to be ready for the flexibility and power loads needed. (I'm not saying the overall goal is impossible, merely that it requires a more detailed and more encompassing plan than simply slapping a few deadlines on the vehicle manufacturers.)

I'm all for the government doing what it can to encourage the market developing in the right direction, but there's a difference between pruning your hedges and strangling them. And the Law of Unintended Consequences should always be borne in mind.
Posted by: Stephen J.

In my opinion, the way we'll get EV's in our driveways from the manufacturers is simple, if somewhat drawn out. One or more of the battery makers (who produces something that would work well in an EV) is going to realize that the OEM's aren't going to be buying their products (or their company) are going to offer the product direct to the EV conversion companies and to enthusiasts directly. Conversion vehicle companies will become a big enough threat to the entrenched industry that they are forced to respond. They will be unable to pretend that there is a technology problem, since the vehicles will be somewhat common by then.
Posted by: Mark Chapmon

Tom N wrote:

"Are there any calculations for the return on investment to the US for promoting ev's and electric alternative infrastructure? Such as the savings from the horrendous costs of conflicts to secure oil resources?"

That's a good point.  Our dependence on imported oil is one of the drivers of our foreign policy and probably has a significant effect of how much we spend on our armed forces.  It's a cost that doesn't seem to be taken into consideration.

It may be that efforts to promote fuel efficiency and electric vehicles would be more successful if people were made aware of the effects of imported oil on our foreign policy and military costs.  Surely part of the money we spend on imported oil us used to support terrorists.

 In 1908 the GE electric was a useful and practical car for the times and here we are 100 years later and I can't beleive that we don't  have a useful and practical car of the times. Where are the thinkers and inventors. I personally know a man who built a electric , used it for over 20 years then gave it to his son in law. Somethings wrong with this picture.