Entire Antarctic Shelf splitting away from Continent.

[gatorback]

Doc_K, " No one wanted it" is not true.  GM leased every one of the EV1s and the the majority of the people hated returning the car when the lease was up.  They actually wanted to buy them at the end of the lease  but GM wouldn't let them. 

Read all you want...

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9873&page=60

What's truly sad is that what wasn't achievable for the Big 3 in Detroit, was achievable by Toyota.  Toyota, Honda and Nissan spent their own money (Clinton gave the big 3 a billion dollars for the project in addition to not working on legislation raising corp. fleet avg.) and now have a 10 year advantage in fuel economy technology.

So, don't tell me Clinton did nothing.  That's just a flat out lie.  GM is not committed to reducing emissions.

[gatorback]

Oh wait a minute.  I'm not giving GM it's fare share.  GM did build the EV-1.  And where are the EV-1's now?



They're crushed.  When Cali went back on it's zero emission regulation GM abandonded the project. Did they really need to crush them?  I heard the few lucky enough to lease one loved them.  I guess those drivers are all driving Toyotas now.

So, let's tally.  Detroit was given Billions years ago to develop the next great american car.  They worked on concept cars and failed to launch them.  Then started producing Hummers and Goats.  GM got an all electric  car on the market but crushed them all.  Now they just got 15 more Billion from the Government to start all over. WOW.

[BridgeTroll]

But............. the Clinton administration did not ratify Kyoto either.

[gatorback]

Point is Clinton did do something...Bush did nothing.  Zip. Goose eggs. Nada. Zilch. Well, except to fight with the EPA to force Cali to take the EPA emissions regulation (what Detroit wanted )even though Cali wanted better. 

The next great american car was suppose to produce little to no green house gases.  This is what Clinton wanted.

[tufsu1]

Your first statement is liberal propaganda ad nauseum; another tactic by the environmentalists. There are many scientists who are NOT paid by those industries who are anti-AGW. They live in little apartments, are economically strained, and gain NOTHING by opposing the hysteria.

you're the one who brought up that some scientists are paid to represent certain liberal views....I just turned it back on you....I personally believe that the majority of scientistsuse professionally accepted methods to reach their conclusions....regardless of who is funding their reserach!

[gatorback]

This is crazy...

http://www.evnut.com/ev1_crushed.htm

[BridgeTroll]

Au contraire... He kept us out of a silly treaty... one Clinton did not ratify either.  Detroit is free to build any car they choose.  They did not build the car you are talking about because it was a failure... no one wanted to by the crappy little zero greenhouse gas car.  Most still do not... to this day.  Who will be mandating greenhouse gas emissions to India and China which now outpace america?

[BridgeTroll]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1

The Wall Street Journal has stated "The EV1 was a failure, as were other electric vehicles launched in the 1990s to placate California clean-air regulators." [20] GM believes that the electric car venture was not a failure, and that the EV1 was doomed when the expected breakthrough in battery technology did not take place within the anticipated timeline[21] In fact, the NiMH battery packs (or Ovonic Battery) that were expected to dramatically improve range came with their own set of problems; GM had to use a less-efficient charging algorithm (lengthening charge times) and waste power on air conditioning to prevent the battery packs from overheating.[22] In addition, the elimination of the CARB environmental mandate that led to the car's creation was, as previously mentioned, a potential factor in the program's cancellation.

The view of the EV1 as failure is a controversial one in itself. When viewed as an attempt to produce a viable EV product, it was a success, while certainly from GM's perspective not a commercial success. If one considers the vehicle as a technological showpieceâ€"a production electric car that actually could replace a gasoline powered vehicleâ€"the program's outcome is less clear.

[gatorback]

Sorry Bridge.  You are wrong.  Hey, if you were right, then nobody would have bought the prius either.  And GM wouldn't be building the Volt now if there was no demand.

[BridgeTroll]

Im not wrong... You must put things in proper historical context.  EV1 was essentially a prototype... a commercially failed prototype.  A predecessor for the Volt... here is more...

In late 2003, GM officially canceled the EV1 program.[15][16] GM stated that it could not sell enough of the cars to make the EV1 profitable. This, combined with the fact that their parts and service infrastructure costs required to maintain the existing EV1's for the state legislated minimum of 15 years, would mean the existing leases would not be renewed and all of the cars would all have to be returned to GM's possession.
According to GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner, his worst decision of his tenure at GM was "axing the EV1 electric-car program and not putting the right resources into hybrids. It didn’t affect profitability, but it did affect image."[17] CEO Wagoner repeated this assertion during an NPR interview with Michelle Norris after the December 2008 Senate hearings on the US Auto Industry bailout request. [18]

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.'"[19]

[gatorback]

OK.  Remember, Clinton bargained that.  Bush did what?  Well, let's see.  Oh, he gave fuel efficiency credits for each E85 car sold by Detroit.  Here's the problem with that.  Those cars are not using E85.  Only 1600 gas stations out of like 120,000 have E85.  This effectively lowers the CO2 emissions.  I stand corrected.  Bush did something. (Wow, that came out of my mouth! A kudos to Bush. HA)

[BridgeTroll]

I have NO idea what you are talking about...

OK.  Remember, Clinton bargained that.  Bush did what?  Well, let's see.  Oh, he gave fuel efficiency credits for each E85 car sold by Detroit.  Here's the problem with that.  Those cars are not using E85.  Only 1600 gas stations out of like 200,000 have E85.  This effectively lower the required fleet average.  (Wow, that came out of my mouth! A kudos to Bush. HA)

[gatorback]

Sorry,  I got a head of myself there.  What I'm saying is the use of FlexFuel cars to curb CO2 emissions is a farce.  Detroit gets fuel millage credits for selling those cars even though very few drivers have access to those filling stations.  Bush's Ethanol policy is the biggest folly in an energy policy anywhere in the world for curbing CO2 emissions.

[Doctor_K]

And the spike in corn prices, thanks to an artificial demand created by the introductionof E85 cars, didn't help either.  Horrible idea.  grow more corn not to feed the hungry people of the world, but to fuel our interim-next-generation cars.  Whee.

Not to mention there's less energy potential in biofuel, thus a lower MPG rating on E85 than on gasoline.  Still a horrible idea.

Who will be mandating greenhouse gas emissions to India and China which now outpace america?

Nobody, of course.  The US will still be the largest net energy importer and thus the most reviled, evil, and hated entity on the planet.  India and China will get a pass, as they did in the original Kyoto.

[gatorback]

I think the $7B USD a year going to corn producers could be better spent elsewhere. And Bush wanted a 7 fold increase in production by 2017.  I wonder why?  You'd think he's on the side of big corn.