Ask The Green Miles: Are Smart Cars the Greenest Choice?

The quintessential auto show picture

When folks ask me for advice on car-buying, they almost always bring up Smart Cars. They're so small, they must be the most fuel efficient, right?

But smallest size doesn't necessarily mean the best fuel efficiency. Sure, the Smart ForTwo gives you a really good 36 miles per gallon combined city/highway at a very low base price. But a nice gas-sipping subcompact - say, a Ford Focus or a Toyota Yaris - will give you very similar fuel efficiency (low 30s) with TWICE the passenger volume for only a couple of thousand more.

If you're a short-to-medium distance commuter, all-electrics like the Ford Focus Electric or Nissan Leaf will deliver absolutely amazing savings on fuel cost and pollution. And for folks who regularly make longer drives and need a hybrid, the Toyota Prius is still king.

The Environmental Protection Agency's FuelEconomy.gov gives a great rundown of the most fuel-efficient cars, along with the most and least fuel-efficient SUVs and trucks.

That brings me to a related pet-peeve: When people think I'm reflexively anti-SUV. Yes, if you're a single person driving a Chevy Suburban because you might go skiing once next year, you're wasting money and polluting our air for absolutely no reason. But if you need some room for your family, get a Toyota Highlander Hybrid and you'll be getting only somewhat worse mileage (28 mpg combined) than those Smart Car drivers.

Balconies & SUVs: People Love Things They Never Use

My last two apartments have been in buildings in which every unit a balcony or patio. I can see about 60 balconies from my current parking lot, and if I look up on three different nice summer evenings, I might see one balcony in use one time. I've always been amazed at how all these people paid whatever little bit extra to move into a building with a balcony, almost always populating it with some sort of outdoor furniture, then absolutely never use it.

A friend mentioned this weekend she'd soon be in the market for a new car and asked if I had any recommendations. (Everyone always assumes I'll say a Toyota Prius. Does this happen to Emeril? If people ask what they should make for dinner, do they assume he'll say andouille sausage?)

I asked what she expected to use the car for. She said she mostly makes a very short drive to work here in the DC area, short trips around town, and that she needed something to get to the mountains for snowboarding.

I said, "How many times a year do you drive to the mountains to snowboard?"

"Once. Maybe," she replied.

"Well, maybe rather than paying twice as much up-front and twice as much in gas for an SUV, you could get something more affordable, more fun to drive, and easier to park," I said. "Then when you DO go to the mountains, you can take a tiny fraction of the thousands you'll be saving and rent the biggest, baddest, most tricked out SUV you can find."

I suggested checking out the Ford Focus (including the hybrid), Volkswagen's diesel models (great mileage but not necessarily better emissions), and yes, the Prius, still a great car at a low price compared to other hybrids.

(Unclear on the) Concept Cars

The Green Miles got invited to check out the Washington Auto Show’s media day this week. Just off the main corridor at the Washington Convention Center was the Auto Show’s “green room.” It held dozens of cars ranging from concept solar cars to plug-in electrics.

The “green room” stood out, but not in the way they wanted. It was incredibly boring – while the main showrooms had colorful carpets, bright lights, and huge flat-screen TVs, the green room had beige walls, dull green carpet, and cardboard signs. Snark aside, it was good to see the auto industry rolling out new hybrids and electric cars – and even better that so many hybrids share space on the main floor with regular models.

But as I walked past the biodiesel SUVs, the propane-powered cars and the funky-looking solar racers, I wondered if the industry realized we don’t need futuristic new breakthroughs. We have the technology right now to cut our bills at the gas pump, slash America’s dependence on foreign oil, and reduce our greenhouse gas and air pollution. The question is, are we willing to pay a little more for cars now so we’re not vulnerable to price shocks every time a hurricane comes through the Gulf of Mexico?

We have the technology to build millions of plug-in electric hybrids that would need very little gas. We just need our elected officials to let consumers and automakers know we’re serious about demanding a sea change in the way we make vehicles. Instead of hybrids being the exception, they need to be the rule – starting now.

Big Three to DC: Save Us From Our Mistakes

When Congress was looking to tighten fuel economy standards last fall, the Big Three automakers launched a massive push to fight the effort. We don't need more big government regulation! Let the free market decide!

But as Steven Pearlstein writes in the Washington Post, it's a different story when they need a bailout. The Big Three automakers aren't simply asking for government help -- they think they're entitled to it:

Even before top industry executives arrive in Washington later this month to lobby for their program, General Motors' vice chairman, Robert Lutz, who never misses an opportunity to put his foot in his mouth, was telling reporters in Chicago last week that the industry "deserves" government loans because of all the challenges that have been inflicted upon it. In fact, it's hard to imagine an industry less deserving of government help.

Here are three companies that for decades failed to produce cars that were well designed, well produced and exciting to look at, that fought tooth and nail against efforts to require greater fuel efficiency and, until recently, did too little to bring wages, benefits and retiree costs in line with competitive realities. And while they whined for years that it was unfair trade that put them at a disadvantage, Toyota, Honda, BMW and other foreign transplants came along to prove that it is possible to produce quality cars at affordable prices in U.S. factories while offering decent wages and benefits.

Pearlstein goes on to say that even though the Big Three couldn't be less deserving of help, they should get it anyway because the jobs and pensions of hundreds of thousands of Americans are at stake.

I agree with Pearlstein that we need to do what we can to make sure workers and retirees aren't punished for the mistakes of auto industry executives. But the utter incompetence of those executives is just breathtaking, isn't it? They staked the industry's entire future on never-ending cheap gas. Did any reasonable person ever think $2 a gallon gas was a permanent fixture?

Expensive petroleum is here to stay. The only way alternative is to use less petroleum with more fuel efficient cars, plug-in hybrids, and eventually fully electric cars. Cheaper driving, cleaner air, less global warming pollution, and secure American jobs.

So what's taking us so long to get there?

Car Talk Guys to GM: "Why Do You Make Such Shit?"

I was catching up on old podcasts of NPR's Car Talk and heard the Magliozzi brothers mention a recent appearance on PBS. The program NOVA sent Click and Clack in search of the Car of the Future. The whole show is worth checking out, especially if you're new to phenomenal concepts like plug-in hybrids and questionable concepts like biofuels and hydrogen cars.

But this exchange in segment 6 really sums up the program. A GM rep is walking the guys through a car show, trying to show off the Chevy Volt:

RAY MAGLIOZZI: It's right next to the Ford Mustang with 550 horsepower.

BETH LOWERY: Yes. And the Camaro convertible. Isn't that great?

RAY MAGLIOZZI: Yeah.

BETH LOWERY: America is all about choice. If you want a Camaro, buy a Camaro.

RAY MAGLIOZZI: But if we're about hugging trees ...

TOM MAGLIOZZI: With 500 horsepower? Who the hell needs 500 horsepower?

BETH LOWERY: Obviously not you.

TOM MAGLIOZZI: Why do you make such shit? I mean it's ridiculous!

BETH LOWERY: You mean these popular vehicles that are on the floor?

TOM MAGLIOZZI: Yeah, these popular vehicles. Five hundred horsepower ... jeez!

BETH LOWERY: It creates a little excitement, doesn't it?

RAY MAGLIOZZI: You're good, Beth.

TOM MAGLIOZZI: Thanks a million.

RAY MAGLIOZZI: Thanks for your time.

BETH LOWERY: Thanks.

RAY MAGLIOZZI: Sorry for giving you a hard time.

BETH LOWERY: That's okay. I'm used to it.

Despite all their commercials with green trees and blue skies and cheery kids, GM makes clear that all that good corporate citizenship stuff is just greenwashing. They have only one goal -- making as much money as possible.

So the Tappett Brothers come to the conclusion that if we want to cut our gas bills, increase our energy security, and curb the worst effects of global warming, we need government incentives. All the futuristic cars in the world won't matter unless we have the right carrots and sticks to prompt the car industry to make them and consumers to buy them.

Renting a Car: The Battle of Green Brain vs. Man Brain

Whenever I rent a car, I inevitably end up caught in the middle of a debate between two conflicting sides of my brain:

Green Brain: Most of the time when I travel, I'm only driving short distances with myself and a couple of bags. I only need an economy-sized car. Even if they were comparably priced, why would I want a bigger car that would end up costing me more in gas? And more gas means more carbon emissions.

Man Brain: Allow me to spell it out for you: Bigger is better. Everyone knows that. It's the American way. Extra value meals. McMansions. SUVs. Are you anti-American? And why rent an economy car when you could get a midsize car for just $5 more? That's a much better value. Who cares if you actually need a bigger car or not? You buy laundry detergent when it's two-for-one at the grocery store even though it takes you 6 months to use a box of detergent. So why would you suddenly pass on a bargain here? You can't. You won't!

On a trip to Massachusetts earlier this summer, they offered me a free upgrade to an SUV at the rental counter. Man Brain said, "You never get to drive an SUV! It'll be fun! Plus, you'll have plenty of room to tote around various relatives on trips to the beach and such." Before Green Brain could get a word in edgewise, I'd taken the SUV. Soon enough, I regretted it, having to spent something like $50 to gas it up in less than a week of driving.

So on a trip to New Hampshire this week, I stuck with the economy car. It only had to get me from Manchester to Concord and back, so why did I need anything bigger? When I filled up the tank before returning it, I only had to put in 1.8 gallons of gas.

For those of you traveling out west, check out EV Rental, which offers hybrid rentals at several airports in California and Arizona. A few traditional rental companies like Avis are also slowly starting to add hybrids to their fleet.

The best way to drive change (no pun intended) in this case is with your wallet. If you're renting a car, ask for a hybrid. If they don't offer hybrids, ask why not. Hybrids cut down on the use of foreign oil, promoting America's energy independence. Isn't THAT more American than a gas-guzzling SUV?

Genuine or Greenwashing: GM's Chevy Volt

General Motors has been relentlessly flogging its Chevrolet Volt "concept car," recently hosting a lavish event at DC's ritzy Georgetown waterfront to promote it.

There's only one problem. The Volt isn't much of a step forward from the EV1 of Who Killed the Electric Car? fame.

And GM's own research and development chief admitted as much, while simultaneously making a vague Giambi-esque admission that GM was, in fact, responsible for the EV1's murder:

According to the March 13, 2007 issue of Newsweek, "GM R&D chief Larry Burns ... now wishes GM hadn't killed the plug-in hybrid EV1 prototype his engineers had on the road a decade ago: 'If we could turn back the hands of time,' says Burns, 'we could have had the Chevy Volt 10 years earlier.

So why resurrect it now? From last week's Detroit News:

Plug-in hybrids will be on center stage in Washington today as the Chevy Volt makes an appearance on Capitol Hill as part of General Motors Corp.'s effort to convince Congress to pass a more palatable fuel efficiency increase.

GM's No. 3 official, Troy Clarke -- head of North American operations -- is returning to the Hill today to meet with a about a dozen mostly undecided lawmakers. He also will show off a GM concept car, the Chevy Volt, in trying to explain why the company believes the long-term answer to energy independence is through biofuels and the electrification of the automobile, rather than spending tens of billions of dollars to meet 4 percent annual corporate average fuel efficiency. (emphasis added)

And there you have it.

A Democratic Congress is rapidly accelerating towards tightening fuel economy standards for the first time in 17 years, and this is GM's way of trying to divert attention. We know we've ignored fuel economy for 17 years, giving you SUVs, ever-larger pickups, and the Hummer along the way. But we don't need regulation! See this Volt? It's proof we've learned the error of our ways!

Don't buy it. The argument, not the car. (You can't buy the car -- it's just a concept that won't be on the market until at least 2010).) GM foolishly passed on the chance to be a pioneer in the electric car sector, with the explicit endorsement of President Bush:

"As soon as George Bush got elected, the U.S. car companies walked away from the partnership and didn't continue developing hybrids," [Clinton administration Energy Dept. official Joseph] Romm said. "And the Japanese did. As a result, they ended up the leaders."

Now they're trying to suppress tough fuel economy standards by greenwashing themselves with the Volt. But what happens if a Republican president is elected in '08 and the Senate swings a vote or two back to the GOP column?

Who's to say GM wouldn't kill yet another electric car?

(cross-posted from RaisingKaine.com)

Take Action to Support a National Renewable Energy Standard

The Union of Concerned Scientists has put out an action alert on a remarkable new bill introduced by Rep. Tom Udall (D-NM). It would establish a national renewable portfolio standard (RPS) of 20%, meaning one-fifth of our electricity would have to come from solar, wind, geothermal, and biofuels.

Right now, our RPS system is a patchwork of state initiatives.

Take action now to urge your representative to support this legislation!

Fellow ACE board member Lisa pointed me to an article on the Investor Network on Climate Risk's list of the 10 companies not doing enough to stop climate change. Guess who's on the list?

Dominion Resources
The coalition says the Richmond, Va.-based provider of electricity and natural gas hasn't disclosed the effects any future climate change regulation would have on its bottom line, despite requests from the Investor Network.

A Dominion spokesman declined comment.

As hybrid vehicles become more common, Gristmill points out a bizarre but growing problem ... they're too quiet.

And in Florida, "A well-intentioned attempt in 1972 to create what was touted as the world's largest artificial reef made of tires has become an ecological disaster." Read more.

State of the Union: Watching the World Pass Us By On Climate Change

Just as President Bush is preparing to deliver his State of the Union address, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is delivering a devastating report, what one top climate scientist calls "the smoking gun" of the human causes of global warming.

Bush and Vice President Cheney declared their stance on environmental issues in their very first year in the White House, when Cheney dismissed conservation as nothing more than "a personal virtue." Since then, Bush has repeatedly downplayed global warming as a "theory," even hosting a secret meeting with one of climate change's leading deniers.

The Bush administration's lack of leadership has been crippling to America's competitiveness on everything from carbon trading to alternative fuels. As the Washington Post details today, American automakers are now playing catch-up with the rest of the world on hybrids and other energy-saving cars:

"As soon as George Bush got elected, the U.S. car companies walked away from the partnership and didn't continue developing hybrids," [Clinton administration Energy Dept. official Joseph] Romm said. "And the Japanese did. As a result, they ended up the leaders."

Sebastian Mallaby had a great column yesterday detailing how far behind Bush is in the debate and how much things have changed in just the last year:

Eight months ago, when Gore's climate documentary was released, this state of affairs was inconceivable. Not only was Bush still a player, the case for climate change was widely doubted. Chortling climate-deniers, expecting an easy propaganda victory over the man whose energy-tax proposal they killed in 1993, greeted Gore's movie with glee. A group called the Competitive Enterprise Institute put out two TV commercials asserting that climate science is inconclusive. A House Republican hearing ridiculed a graph that features prominently in Gore's movie showing the world's temperature puttering along in a steady state before shooting upward like the handle of a hockey stick.

But this time around, Gore has proved a tougher adversary. His movie has grossed an astonishing $24 million, not counting foreign sales; the accompanying book has spent 29 weeks on the New York Times bestseller list. His Republican opponents have lost control of Congress. And the Competitive Enterprise Institute has lost the patronage of Exxon Mobil, which decided to stop financing climate lies and start discussing carbon regulation.

Today's Post article on the corporate environmental initiative Mallaby mentions in his column here, more details at Raising Kaine, and my review of an Inconvenient Truth is here.