[Sosfbay-discuss] auto industry--what about electric cars?

Tue Dec 26 10:54:59 PST 2006

I am constantly amazed at people who fail to understand that cars  
need not include fuels that have to be pumped at gas stations!

Take a look at the latest (carefully groomed and PR-pretty) entry to  
the electric car class: the Tesla Motors Roadster (http:// 
teslamotors.com/index).
All electric, sexy, high-speed (135 mpg equivalent), 0-60 in 4  
seconds, 1 cent per mile driving cost, 250± miles per electric charge  
with a very short charge time--while you sleep at home and not  
standing at a gas pump being poisoned by whatever fuel of your  
preference.  I for one do not want to remain tethered to Exxon's  
umbilical cord, however ultra-green they paint their new fuels.

Tesla Motors is planning a more affordable car for the rest of us  
which is predicted to start production in 2 years, after they make  
millions(?) off their $100,000 Roadster which has already sold out  
for 2007 and is already accumulating orders for 2008.

The electric car is not dead yet (whether Detroit likes it or not)  
and, indeed, is likely to be the big winner when more of us opt for  
PV panels on the roof so we can drive our e-cars for pennies and  
enjoy free electricity from PG&E (whether *they* like it or not).   
With the new batteries we will see even greater mileage per charge.

BTW, the Tesla website has a link to their newsletter list for a  
*very* savvy discussion of issues; check it out!
Andrea

On Dec 14, 2006, at 9:56 AM, JamBoi wrote:

> Our committee disconnection is all the more reason for us to do this.
> :-)  I'm happy to learn you're part of the Eco-Action Committee.
>
> On health care issues (which falls somewhat under Disability Caucus
> which I'm also a part of) I've always thought that our American system
> of connecting up health care with employer is extremely wrongheaded.
> Extremely!  Its just a way of putting a carrot out for workers to stay
> with an employer, no matter how oppressive the employer is.  So if  
> this
> bad idea goes away, I'm fine with that.  Single Payer is a far better
> idea IMO.  It could still include some kind of employer contribution
> towards the medical insurance, but it definitely should NOT be  
> directly
> tied to the employer.
>
> Pension could be handled in a similar manner.
>
> Both of my solutions to the above problems would involve the  
> government
> although the could be structured to be much less government  
> involvement
> if we wanted to.
>
> As for energy independence, I think that is a fantatastic idea that we
> Greens can really run with.
>
> And to reach energy independence, I don't see why the Eco-Action
> Committee couldn't come up with ideas on incentives and penalties to
> get the auto industry and the petroleum industry to embrace alt-fuels
> more rapidly.
>
> I do think Jesse Jackson could be a significant ally for us Greens if
> we played our cards right.
>
> Green solidarity!
>
> Drew
>
> --- Wes Rolley <wrolley at charter.net> wrote:
>
>> Drew,
>>
>> While the following might seem to be a good idea, the operation of
>> the
>> Eco-Action Committee (of which I am a member) and the Media Committee
>>
>> (of which you are a member) seems to be fairly disconnected.  The
>> Media
>> Committee has even put out a press release that has environmental
>> implications with no consultation with Eco-Action.
>>
>> To begin with,  most environmental questions require a  certain level
>>
>> of  knowledge before one can understand the ramifications of any
>> individual action.  When you have someone on the committee who has,
>> or
>> appears to have,  that knowledge (Mato Sko for water, Lorna Salzman
>> for
>> Global Warming) then you are really driven by their perceptions.  In
>> this case, it is Lorna who is pushing very hard for Carbon Taxes.
>> (More
>> on Carbon Taxes by David Weintraub -  Sacrament Bee Insider
>> <http://www.sacbee.com/insider/> yesterday)
>>
>> If you look at Jackson's questions, they even have very different
>> answers. Let me parse the list and intersperse comments. There are
>> two
>> completely different sets of questions here, mixed even in a single
>> sentence, and they must be taken independently.  To begin with,
>> Jackson
>> implies that the solution requires action by government.
>>
>>> Obviously, this crisis requires urgent, intense national action.
>> Are
>>> we prepared to let the auto industry die? If not: what steps can be
>>
>>> taken to relieve the burdens of their health care and pension
>> costs?
>>
>> When you look at the financial statement of operating expenses for
>> the
>> American automakers, the charges for health care and pensions are
>> significantly greater than for their Japanese and Korean
>> counterparts.
>> It has been suggested that the solution for this is government
>> financed
>> universal health care, relieving corporations of ALL medical costs.
>> We
>> are not even close to any national consensus on this, though CA may
>> be
>> leading the way with new proposals from Don Perata and from the CEO
>> of
>> Kaiser this week.   However, this is not an ecological issue, though
>> it
>> may be a Green Issue
>>
>>> What  should be expected from the automakers in return in terms of
>>> investment, jobs guarantees,
>>
>> Again, we have an economic issue, both for the corporation and its
>> shareholders (ROI) and the unions (job guarantees).  As a good
>> Democrat,
>> Jackson always keeps the unions in mind.
>>
>>>
>>>  fuel efficiency and alternative-fuel cars?
>>
>>  This is where Jackson mixes two issues in one sentence, though there
>> is
>> a connection.  The move to improved fuel efficiency and
>> alternative-fuel
>> cars would require ongoing investment.  However,  in comparison to
>> other  auto companies, Ford, GM and Chrysler are very heavy on
>> concept
>> and very slight in delivery.  Ford seems to get the issue when it
>> comes
>> to managing it's physical plant, building or retro-fitting some of
>> the
>> lowest emission plants that exist, but they don't get it in terms of
>> delivering the product, too much afraid that they will cut themselves
>>
>> off from the NASCAR loving, SUV driving, Global Warming denying,
>> perceived mainstream of American auto buyers.
>>
>>> What penalties or incentives should be provided to the oil industry
>> to
>>> force proliferation of alternative-fuel pumps in gas stations?
>>
>> This is an interesting question, but has little to do with the auto
>> industry, other than the fact that it eliminates one of the excuses
>> that
>> the auto industry gives for not doing what they don't want to do, the
>>
>> old blame shift game we all learn as kids.... :"my brother made me do
>> it."
>>
>>> How does all this fit into a concerted drive for energy
>> independence?0
>>
>> Again, this is mixing up the issues.  The goal of energy independence
>>
>> seems like a good one. That is the goal that the oil industry toadies
>>
>> (e.g. Sen. Imhofe (R-OK) always pull out to justify further
>> exploitation
>> of existing reserves.  The real task is to switch the perceptions so
>> that this is no longer a primary goal of anyone. If we keep the focus
>> on
>> global warming and it's requirement for CO2 reduction, energy
>> independence may just happen.
>>
>> Maybe what we need right now is a TV sitcom that does for the
>> environmental issues what "All in the Family" (Archie Bunker) did to
>> bigotry.
>>
>> Eco-Action would like to have the GP US come out with a release on
>> something related to Global Warming / Carbon taxation / Carbon
>> sequestring, etc.  It won't happen quickly because I don't think tha
>> there is consensus in the committee.  One member will push very hard
>> for
>> a Georgian Economics <http://www.geonomics.org/> based solution to
>> everything.   I also think that the National Steering Committee
>> hasn't
>> the requisite  high level of concern for ecological issues, at least
>> in
>> comparison with anti-war, social justice issues.  That seems to be
>> where
>> the most energy is being exerted.
>>
>> Finally, I really don't think that Jesse Jackson has much influence
>> in
>> this debate anyway.
>>
>>> Excellent questions Jim. And another place that the laisez faire
>> types
>>> just have no answer. But we Greens can certainly recommend answers.
>>> May I suggest that the GPUS Eco Action Committee would be a good
>> place
>>> to connect with to elicit a Green Party response? If the committee
>>> comes up with a press release we can put it out through the Media
>>> Committee (which I serve on).
>>>
>>> Here are the Eco Action Committee co-chairs:
>>>
>>> Mike Ewall
>>> catalyst at actionpa dot org
>>> 215-743-4884
>>> Kristen Olson
>>> kristenolson at mngreens dot org
>>>
>>> Secretary
>>> Deanna Taylor
>>> deesings at xmission dot com
>>>
>>> Green solidarity!
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Wes Rolley		
>> 17211 Quail Court	
>> Morgan Hill, CA 95037
>> (408)778-3024
>>
>> "Happiness is to be fully engaged in the activity that you believe in
>> and, if you are very good at it, well that's a bonus." -- Henry Moore
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ___________________
>
> JamBoi
> Jammy The Sacred Cow Slayer
>
> "Live humbly, laugh often and love unconditionally" (anon)
> http://dailyJam.blogspot.com
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________ 
> ______________
> Cheap talk?
> Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
> http://voice.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> sosfbay-discuss mailing list
> sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss
>