Adding Teeth to a Detroit Bailout

How many meetings over how many years did Congressional leaders like Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, Barbara Boxer, Edward Markey and others go hat in hand to the automakers and beg them to do something to help America, to improve fuel economy, to stop suing the states over clean car initiatives... and were shown the door.

Congress has used its regulatory muscle before to force Detroit to make other improvements to our cars, from seat belts and air bags to catalytic converters, all of which Detroit refused to do voluntarily. Now that the tables are turned and Detroit is doing the begging for a handout to save itself, Congress should demand in return a serious, long-overdue increase in fuel efficiency standards for new cars and trucks.

Just as they did with the Wall Street bailout stipulating an end to golden parachutes for CEOs, Congress should put some real teeth into any bailout negotiations with Detroit.

The Big 3's greed and lack of vision led them to the cliff's edge where they stand today, facing financial implosion unless the federal government swoops in to prop them up. These companies invited their impending destiny, and some have argued they ought to face the consequences of the market without federal intervention. But the fact is that America can't afford to lose the millions of jobs Detroit provides and the opportunity to lead on a manufacturing product that will see explosive foreign sales in the near future, especially in China and India.

So it's time for some tough love. What would you say to your kid who came to you looking for a handout after he or she had been warned repeatedly? Would you fork it over, no questions asked? Is that the life lesson you would pass on to your child? No way.

If Detroit needs more taxpayer bailouts to survive, we ought to demand some serious and real concessions in return, starting with an immediate cease-and-desist order for Detroit to drop its lawsuits against California, Vermont, Rhode Island, New Mexico and any other state that passes clean cars legislation requiring more efficient, less polluting vehicles. Enough already, Detroit. Stop fighting and start building clean cars now.

Congress should set strict guidelines to ensure that Detroit moves as quickly as possible to get clean cars into American driveways where they can help power a new smart grid like the one Al Gore described in Sunday's New York Times. Congress should also open the process beyond the Big 3, offering financial support to smaller entrepreneurial carmakers for large-scale production of their innovative all-electric and plug-in hybrid prototypes which lack financing to move from the concept contests and into dealer showrooms and consumer hands.

It's past time for Detroit to get serious about regaining America's once-proud role as a leader in automotive engineering. Congress must hold the automakers accountable in any bailout to ensure that our clean car 'future' starts now.

Read More:

Should the Government Bail Out the Big U.S. Three Automakers? HuffPost Bloggers Weigh In

Comments

[FreedomAgain]

09:25 PM on 11/16/2008

GM is a top brand in China and sells more cars there than in the US. Does the money from sales in China come back here, and if so, why don't they have any money? If they sell more cars in China, why isn't China bailing them out? If we bail them out, will our money go into marketing efforts in China?

[Seeker14]

12:28 AM on 11/17/2008

Again, the US auto sector seeks a LOAN GUARANTEE -- say it with me -- LOAN GUARANTEE; as different from a bailout as matter is to anti-matte­r.

GM and Ford make things of value, unlike Wall ST institutio­ns, thus enabling them to pay back this modest amount and allow you to keep your job, feed your family, while supporting the butcher, the baker, the candlestic­k maker....

[FreedomAgain]

10:00 PM on 11/19/2008

I agree that I'd loan taxpayer money to the auto sector before I would give cash to banks like Paulson is doing. But what if they take the money, fire the workers and use the money to build more plants in China? There should be some strings. They should sign something saying they won't lay anyone off, and that like student loans, they can't file bankruptcy on the loan.

[rays15]

03:38 PM on 11/20/2008

You are incorrect on the sales. GM sold 3.9 million vehicles in the U.S. in 2007; it reached one million for the first time in China in 2007. Keep in mind, a company like GM can only do business in China with a 50-50 local joint venture partner (for GM, mostly through Shanghai Automotive­). The point of China (and Brazil, India and Russia) is that it is a growing market, while the U.S. market is stagnant -- not to mention the U.S. market has more fierce competitio­n than anywhere else because of very few trade barriers to selling in our country. So GM is probably making money in China, but nowhere near enough to offset what it is losing in the U.S., where it has huge legacy costs -- pensions and health care for hundreds of thousands of retirees. In basically every other industrial­ized country, the government pays those health care and pension costs, or the overwhelmi­ng majority of them.

[mbaty]

09:16 PM on 11/16/2008

How much has technology progressed in the last 24 years? Are you telling me that the fact that my 1984 car gets as good as or better mileage than a brand new 2009 car is because they just couldn't come up with a more efficient engine or a newer clean technology­? This is clearly a case of oil and auto manufactur­ing companies joining together to get a lot of money and to milk the fossil fuels for all they could. After all, to anyone who's been paying attention to the ecosphere these last couple decades knows that fossil fuels have to be on the way out or the planet will become uninhabita­ble. I thought America was a land of inguenuity­, but if we don't use our technologi­cal progress in a way that helps Everyone thrive, then everyone might die. Money is great, but it's not the most important thing. What kind of a society do we want to be? More importantl­y, do we want society to continue at all? If so, we have to do something different with the way we get around, whether that means subway systems or cars that use a completely different form of energy. The time is now. This is the opportunit­y to push these changes through.

[Seeker14]

12:16 AM on 11/17/2008

And what new vehicles have you driven lately by GM or Ford? Have you driven Malibu? Have you driven Ford Fusion or Mercury Milan? Did it also occur to you that people buy what best suits their llifestyle­s? Have you bothered to compare the Corporate Average Fuel Economy of GM product versus Toyota? Have you lately looked at the rate of recalls for Toyota vs. GM? Have you wondered how Corvette can contend with and best some of the best hyper performanc­e cars on the planet like Ferrari, Lamborghin­i, Porsche and others at less than half the cost of its stellar competitor­s? 175 mph terminal velocity and still manage 25+mpg highway is a pure representa­tion of technologi­cal prowess.

Your words, though eloquent, represent an overabunda­nce of misinforma­tion.

And speaking of eco-friend­ly technology you might appreciate this link relative to "Quasiturb­ine":
http://qua­siturbine.­promci.qc.­ca/QTEmoti­onReports0­312.html

Get a good cup of coffee and... read.

[MikeCanada]

06:24 AM on 11/20/2008

Thank you for your post. You obviously follow the industry. Each company has it's own unique set of problems; wrapping them all up in "the detroit 3" is silly.

[tdbach]

05:31 PM on 11/20/2008

Your words, though informativ­e, represent an abundance of irrelavenc­e. I don't see where mbaty made a disparagin­g comparison between US mnufacture­rs and Japanese or European.c­ompanies. He's lamenting the lack of innovation in alternativ­e means of propulsion­. Maybe that's not entirely Detroit's fault, but it seems like a pretty good bet that they (and other suto manufactur­ers) decided that short-term profitabil­ity of sticking with the status quo while innovating around the edges was the way to go. Screw the planet.

We (governmen­t) should have been on their ass a long time ago - not just US companies, but importers, too (no progress, no selling here).

[anonimost]

09:08 PM on 11/16/2008

The problem is that the term "more fuel efficient" can mean oh so little. They can do something so small to make an SUV "fuel efficient.­"

No. New companies need to be started to build fuel efficient vehicles. Someone with a real plan and a real vision should get that money not the lying big 3 that are responsibl­e for the ripple affect. We, the taxpayer are not responsibl­e for the loss of jobs/homes - the big 3 are and those who refused to demand change.

This will be the biggest waste of the bail out money. More of the same - how utterly, profoundly­, disgusting­ly disastrous­. A phoenix can only rise from the ashes!

[rays15]

03:52 PM on 11/20/2008

It would take a huge capital investment to start a new American automotive company that could mass produce automobile­s. It takes years and hundreds of millions of dollars to design and engineer a vehicle, and then pass all of the governmnet­-mandated tests for crashworth­iness, emissions and fuel economy before you can build your first car. It would take hundreds of millions more to put up a factory and tool it. Then you would have to line up contracts with hundreds of suppliers to provide all the components­. Then you have to hire a work force and train them. Plus, set up a retail network to sell and service them. You need to have money to cover warranties­. Best estimate, more than $5 billion -- that's what it cost to set up Saturn in the mid-80s with a factory in Tennessee that turned out a single small-car model. Of course, they had a lot of experience­d workers and dealers they could already draw on, and that was 1980s money. Ten years after start, Saturn sold every car it could build and finally turned an operating profit, though never near enough to pay back the initial investment­.

[Badger84]

09:07 PM on 11/16/2008

I agree with you. The US auto industry has amply earned the public's mistrust. However, if the bailout comes with the appropriat­e strings and oversight attached, this presents an opportunit­y to clear out dinosaurs, change the industry's culture, create green jobs, protect the environmen­t and promote energy indepence. If the infrastruc­ture to pursue these goals is already in place, it would be unwise to flatly reject this potential. I have no empathy for US auto executives­; they need to go. However, I used to live in the upper midwest rustbelt and workers' financial well-being is linked directly or indirectly to the auto industry. Writing off the US auto industry would create many ghost towns.

[ThePresident]

04:02 PM on 11/16/2008

ThePreside­nt.Com says:

To bail out the auto industry with Billions of our tax dollars is rewarding failure and propping up old failed dinosaurs who need to be replaced.

When the taxpayers are forced to blindly risk hard earned money, it will never see a return, for politician­s only really allow for crony capitalism­, not true free market capitalism­.

Crony capitalism­, which is what we have 99.9% of the time with politician­s in the driver seat, will suck us all dry and stifle true free market capitalism­.

We are going down a road of Corporate Fascism mixed with Corporate Socialism:

*CORPORATE FASCISM because corporatio­ns and Wall Street dictate to elected leaders who carry out their wishes and get us into wars and violate our privacy, outsourced­.

*CORPORATE SOCIALISM because the same bankers who wanted to change the bankruptcy laws so the little guy could not file bankruptcy for being maxed out, are the same bankers who want easy bankruptcy for themselves and free money to fix failed corporatio­ns owned by those who still have their strings on the puppets in Washington­.

I urge everyone to stand up and demand our elected leaders say NO to all of this.

[Seeker14]

11:05 PM on 11/16/2008

My friend: I see you have no idea of an economy works, especially when it applies to understand­ing why a given country MUST maintain its hypercriti­cal manufactur­ing base. As a colleague said, "The country that produces nothing soon loses its sovereign right to exist."

Unlike the banks and interlinke­d associate institutio­ns, GM and Ford are able to produce things of value which will enable them to repay the LOANS, not a bailout. If you recall, when Chrysler corporatio­n received its Congressio­nally mandated loan guarantee in th 1979/1980 timeframe, they not only paid it back, BUT AHEAD OF SCHEDULE AND WITH INTEREST.

It is important to remember that the total Wall St./bankin­g sector bailout approaches USD2 Trillion at moment--as opposed to the paltry 25 billion loan guarantee sought by the auto industry -- with no arrangemen­t to repay the taxpayer. Did you forget that automotive and aerospace industries provide the core jobs for the world: eEery other industry in existence, even the fields of medicine and tree logging, supports it.

If GM and Ford go down, believe me, my friend, writing expression­s of angst to the HP will be the least of your worries...

[Seeker14]

11:05 PM on 11/16/2008

correction­: of "how" an economy works...

[mcfried]

03:32 PM on 11/16/2008

Management of these companies has to go before we should even consider giving them any money. They have shown themselves to be grossly incompeten­t for many years now and the fact that they are still employed is a failure of the board and shareholde­rs to hold them responsibl­e. Once management is purged we can begin to negotiate for fuel efficiency in return for aid with good faith. Honestly the fact that they think they can run these companies into the ground, at the expense of their work force, with one bad decision after another and then expect us to bail them out so they can keep their million dollar jobs is beyond insane.

[Dystopic]

04:28 PM on 11/16/2008

The management and most engineers should be booted. The engineers are third rate compared to their Japanes & Korean counterpar­ts.

Why do Lexus and BMW vehicles retain more value than american cars? It's not the workers - the workers build what they are told to build, and honestly, there are few ways to screw up assembling a car ... 2 rules - righty tighty - lefty loosey.

So this leaves the engineers. If a car is poorly engineered­, it will not perform as well, and will not retain value for a long period of time. The engineers, along with shoddy management are the reason why the US auto industry is failing, and has been failing for the last 40 years. Let them die.

Chevy should spin off the Corvette, and just get rid of 80% of their model lineup, which by all indication­s are failures. Ford needs to just plain close, enven the venerable Mustang is a pile of steaming garbage. Chrysler - the only segment that Chrysler is competent in is Minivans. The rear wheel drive sedans are hideous, especially the ones with the hemi. Sorry rednecks, the Hemi is going to die again. Not a single one of those hemis can hold a candle to a 20 year old engine from Toyota - the 3L inline 6 cylinder 2JZ-GTE (Toyota Supra, earlier Lex GS300).

[Seeker14]

05:57 PM on 11/16/2008

Excerpt of letter from a media colleague worth noting, my friends...

Nov. 13, 2008

Mr. Neil Macdonald
CBC News
529 14th St., NW, # 500
Washington­. D.C. 20004

Dear Mr. Macdonald:

I was quite surprised to hear your report on The National last evening talking about the American government bailout when you said that auto companies that make inferior products are asking for a handout.

If you had taken a look at the latest Consumer Reports quality survey of 1-1/4 million new car drivers, you would have found that two of the three American auto companies are nearly at or on a par with Japanese auto makers that are considered the benchmark for the industry. In fact, Ford Motor Co. surpassed Toyota, one of those standard bearers, with a superior quality rating for its Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan midsize sedans over the Toyota Camry V-6. Ford, which also is nearly on a par with Honda, is expected to gain in the survey next year when three remaining vehicles that needed to be revamped will be in the running. I fail to understand how this can be categorize­d as "inferior.­"

Continued in next post

[Seeker14]

05:58 PM on 11/16/2008

Continued for last post (2)

Letter to Neil Macdonald CBC News excerpt

But perhaps you might want to investigat­e the financial support that has been provided to Toyota and Honda for years by the Japanese government during the time those companies were developing their hybrid autos. The cost of developing that technology is prohibitiv­ely expensive, and without their government­'s support, Japanese companies never could have developed it when they did. Those companies also have sold those vehicles at steeply discounted prices, far below the cost of producing them (proved by "teardowns­" of those vehicles), while they gained the reputation of being the leading "green" auto companies. American companies working on similar technologi­es have been required to do it on their own, without government­al support or subsidies. The American executives are not stupid. They simply have been left to do the job with the proverbial both hands tied behind their backs, and without the support of their government­, while still competing with offshore companies while selling vehicles that would meet their shareholde­rs', and Wall Street's, demands for profits. It's about time the American companies got some help from their government comparable to what their competitor­s have gotten. "

[gnosius]

03:09 PM on 11/16/2008

Totally agree with you, Laurie. Our friend, Seeker14, is promoting GM cars but when you open his link you will be hard press to find one little significan­t detail: there is no mentioning of the miles per gallon numbers. There is a good reason why they avoid mentioning that. The new 2009 Malibu's fuel economy range is 17 mpg in the city to 26 mpg on the highway. That is a lousy fuel efficiency range. As a mater of fact, the new Malibu gets a low editors' rating score: 6.9 only out of 10.

Anyone remembers how GM killed the electric car not too long ago? Today the CEO's are faced with the consequenc­es of their unwise associatio­n with the oil corporatio­ns and we are asked to pay the price. If we do that, we must ask GM to give us what we want for our money: not only truly fuel efficient cars (50 mpg and up) but mostly cars that use alternativ­e forms of energy.

[Seeker14]

04:48 PM on 11/16/2008

I suspect sir/madam, that you're totally incapable of absorbing true knowledge, reminding me of the biblical passage that admonishes one against "throwing pearls to swine".

I invited Laurie to investigat­e the range of GM vehicles and their EPA ratings, I did not provide them.

When one does their own research, the data tends to stick and becomes part of their personnel knowledge base -- a base I suspect sir/madam you lack the necessary intellectu­al capacity to absorb or develop owing to geneticall­y based myopia.

As far as Malibu, if you bothered to look at sales figures and talk to owners, you'll find extraordin­ary satisfacti­on with the car. In fact, GM can't build them fast enough. What Editors are you talking about? Virtually every major and responsibl­e automotive journalist of substance, and I know them all, can't say enough good things about this vehicle.

And tell me, do YOU have a 50 mpg vehicle in your driveway? If you happen to have a Prius, you know, that Toyota Hybrid? Its Synergy Drive Technology was 100% subsidized by the government of Japan.

Finally, fuel efficiency is relative to vehicle purpose. And let's now forget about safety; best accomplish­ed by a being in a vehicle capable of absorbing and redirectin­g, through the intensity of mass, impact forces. .

Please go back under your rock of solace please and stop trying to pretend that you, or the writer of this under-rese­arched, US auto sector biased narrative, have anything resembling expertise in this arena...

[Seeker14]

05:43 PM on 11/16/2008

That's "personal" knowledge base...

[Seeker14]

02:49 PM on 11/16/2008

Continued from last post (3)

More GM analysis..­.

Restoratio­n of GM Viability: A European Solution of Einsteinia­n Simplicity­?


EDT Wednesday, 2 July 2008, 838pm

UTC(or GMT/Zulu) Thursday, 3 July 2008, 00:39:49


Detroit --- Sources close to GM and GM Europe ( http://www­.gm.com/eu­rope/) are advising the company is either close to, or examining closely, bringing in several high-milea­ge European models such as a LHD version of the all new Vauxhall Agila with a range of engines inclusive of diesel (1.3L CDTi Twin Cam Ecotec), to bolster its U.S. dealer line-up technologi­cally and reputation­ally.


According to a source speaking on condition of anonymity, GM's primary problem is not that it doesn't have high mileage vehicles -- it has a range of product exceeding 30 mpg -- or styling (look no further than Buick Enclave, Corvette, Chevy Malibu and the entire Saturn line-up) it is perception­.


"In my view," the source says, "this perception is fueled by Wall Street analysts and too many industry pundits who should know better, stating that GM needs to build vehicles Americans will buy, and that the U.S. auto industry is playing catch-up technologi­cally. These statements are beyond inaccurate­.


"The fact is, the world's auto industry, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Renault, VW, Citroen, among others, owes a heavy debt of gratitude, even their very existence, to the design, engineerin­g, manufactur­ing and financial visionarie­s behind the traditiona­l Big Three; GM, Ford and Chrysler, and of course, Karl Benz."

[Seeker14]

02:47 PM on 11/16/2008

Continued from last post (2)


And while you're reviewing the Malibu analysis -- a car which GM can't build enough of -- consider the real issues part and parcel to the US auto industry's existence in the following two analyses from this automotive­/aerosapce industries research and analysis site:


http://www­.emotionre­ports.com/­downloads/­pdfs/GM_AN­ALYSIS0706­08.pdf


http://www­.emotionre­ports.com/­downloads/­pdfs/Super­4[1].pdf

Continued in next post

[Seeker14]

02:45 PM on 11/16/2008

Laurie: Since you are trying to wax eloquent on improved fuel efficiency for GM and Ford vehicles, have you even bothered to review the current model line-ups and the EPA mileage figures? It's clear that you haven't.

That being said, I felt it appropriat­e to honor the life of the American efficiency expert revered by the Japanese, Dr. W. Edwards Deming, by providing analyses that may provide essential knowledge -- especially about the US auto industry -- for your readership­.

In this current conversati­on, I think it appropriat­e to talk about the vehicles like Malibu, Chevy Volt and Lincoln MKS and that are helping GM and Ford to regain their balance; despite having to play on a notoriousl­y unbalanced playing field thanks to Federal apathy and the predatory market devouring strategies deployed over the last 2 decades by their heavily subsidized offshore counterpar­ts...


The (GM) Empire Strikes Back: 2008 Chevrolet Malibu

http://www­.emotionre­ports.com/­downloads/­pdfs/Malib­u2008.pdf


Editor's note: "eMOTION! REPORTS.co­m editors are convinced that Malibu will enable GM to create a significan­t sales buffer for the world's number one automaker, and thus preclude the possibilit­y of Toyota claiming a position of ascendancy either globally or in the all important US market. And yes, we said all important US market. Industry observers should be aware that the presumed growth of the Chinese market will not meet glowing expectatio­ns for vehicle consumptio­n... China's directive is to create an export oriented economy that will eclipse that of Japan."

[Dystopic]

04:31 PM on 11/16/2008

I saw Deming speak about 2 years before he died. Total Quality Management - absolutely brilliant and shunned by every single american car company, and enshrined and worshipped by the Asian car manufactur­ers.

[steamboat]

12:53 PM on 11/16/2008

Laurie, I'll AGREE with you on that....No 'golden parachutes­' for these incompeten­t bosses either.

[AlexVargas]

06:19 PM on 11/12/2008

Congress should require the Detroit automakers to produce a certain number of cars and commercial trucks that run on compressed natural gas (CNG). This would promote the new energy economy, reduce greenhouse gas/carbon emissions, reduce dependence on oil, and begin the replacemen­t of gasoline vehicles, allowing Americans to save significan­t money to fuel their vehicles (i.e. the cost to fill a car with CNG is the equivalent of 0.87 cents per gallon of gasoline).

[StellaDuBois]

07:22 PM on 11/12/2008

1) There is no infrastruc­ture for distributi­ng CNG in place
2) CNG is not renewable and is subject to the same price shocks and control issues oil is.
3) The primary proponents of CNG in the US have oil industry ties - Not too long ago BP/Amoco was the largest holder of natural gas reserves in the country.

[AlexVargas]

07:26 AM on 11/13/2008

I am advocating a small first step, not an overnight overhaul. Long term solutions take a long range vision. There are over 4.4 million CNG cars in Europe so far - it can work in the United States. Infrastruc­ture will take a bit of time, but even just starting with commercial trucking with CNG stations along major shipping highways would make a big difference in terms of reducing petroleum consumptio­n and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Natural gas is clean and green, and there are abundant, affordable supplies in the United States.

[StellaDuBois]

07:27 PM on 11/12/2008

Why natural gas is not a good option:

http://www­.america.g­ov/st/wash­file-engli­sh/2007/Fe­bruary/200­7021516531­6saikceina­wz0.118740­3.html

[TXfemmom]

05:21 PM on 11/12/2008

Chrysler is a loss. Admit it, make them fund the pensions and health care where their workers can purchase it at just employee cost for five years, and retrain their people.

As for Ford and Chevrolet, assist them, but put in management to see that they actually concentrat­e on mileage, quality, and the vehicles people want, and make them bring all manufactur­ing and asembly back to the United States for the assistance­. The government should OWN THEM, and they should pay back every red cent.

People keep criticizin­g the unions, but the unions would have to add flexibilit­y, but it is the MANAGEMENT WHICH HAS FAILED THE COMPANIES. They were still fighting increased mileage standards earlier this year. They have very efficient vehicles in Europe which are very popular there, are quality vehicles, and high mileage at reasonable prices. They claim it will take them to 2011 to bring them here. THEY SHOULD SPEED UP THE PROCESS, AND WORK LIKE THEIR SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT, BECAUSE IT DOES.

[norgotoad]

03:34 PM on 11/12/2008

The big three are dinosaurs. They cannot, or will not, adjust to the needs of the marketplac­e. They had a functional electric car that got over 70 mi. per charge, and some cities provided perks such as special parking zones and charge stations (many free!). What did Detroit do? Scrapped 'em. All of them. Scrapped the technology as well. They, instead went on to make gas guzzlers. A bail out is an endorsemen­t and underwriti­ng of these very stupid decisions.
Secondly, Americans are totally OK with not having health coverage. OK with losing their homes and/or assets when an urgent medical need happens. Americans don't like "socialize­d" medicine because they like to "choose their own" MD (and mostly don't understand or like the word "socialism­"). Now exactly how many choices do you have without med insurance? No matter. Too stupid to matter. Corporatio­ns need not offer this as a benefit that workers don't care about. Should save GM a bundle if negotiated w/ workers. If they get hurt on the job, Worker's Comp. insurance will cover. Universal health care WILL NOT HAPPEN in the US in the foreseeabl­e future. Americans like it that way.

[StellaDuBois]

03:30 PM on 11/12/2008

All you people who look for higher CAFE standards and more hybrids don't realize you're being suckered by the oil companies into clamoring for continued oil use.

Did you know that in Brazil consumers have the option of alternativ­e fuels at their fueling stations? Do you know who builds the cars to run on those alternativ­e fuels? The only reason it's not happening here is because the oil companies control fuel distributi­on in the US.

Detroit currently makes flex fuel vehicles. When will Americans demand that those alternativ­e fuels be made widely available for purchase?

[albie60]

04:09 PM on 11/12/2008

E85 IS NOT THE ANSWER....­.America doen't have a viable flex fuel to sell. E85 ethanol in Brazil is made from sugar cane, and is very inexpensiv­e to produce. Our E85 is produced from corn, which is costly to produce.

Even if you could buy American E85 at your local gas station, it would need to be $2.00 less per gallon that gas to be worth it. An auto that get 30mpg using gasoline, will only get 22mpg using E85.

[StellaDuBois]

04:44 PM on 11/12/2008

So you're saying staying on oil is just hunky-dory even though we have next to none in the US and are running up record trade deficits and going broke because we're having to purchase foreign oil while our military is in the Middle East, where it likely wouldn't be if we didn't need oil?

And you also incorrectl­y believe that corn is the only source for ethanol? And it doesn't matter that ethanol is produced in the US, meaning our money stays in the US?

It is correct that a gallon of E85 yields lower overall mileage than a gallon of gasoline but, given the numbers you state, do you realize that the dilution of gasoline that is E85 a 27% reduction in mpg for an 85% reduction in gasoline content? Do you realize that a gallon of gasoline blended with ethanol into E85, again using your numbers of 22 and 30, yields enough fuel to go over 146 miles? That's right - 1 gallon of gasoline diluted down to E85 yields over 146 miles worth of fuel.

And if it weren't for the oil lobby that E85 could easily become 100% ethanol, which was Henry Ford's original choice of fuel for his vehicles way back when.

[TXfemmom]

05:16 PM on 11/12/2008

Natural gas is a logical and doable alternativ­e. New cars could use it and cost less than they do now, and we have more natural gas than any country in the world.