Jil McIntosh

Plant a tree: It's the new thing to do

Volkswagen has announced that it will build a new plant near Chattanooga, Tennessee, to produce a midsize sedan designed for the North American market.

From the press release: Environmental responsibility is a core value of the Volkswagen Group ... As an expression of this shared commitment, the state of Tennessee, Volkswagen and Chattanooga-area organizations are partnering to distribute two saplings for every tree displaced by the project. The new trees will be planted by local school children.

The cockles of my heart are warm enough to toast bread right now. Call me a cynic (go ahead, I'll wait), but we're building a manufacturing facility to produce 150,000 gasoline-burning vehicles each year, obviously knocking down some forests to do so, and schoolchildren putting in some saplings is going to make it all better? Frankly, I'm getting a little tired of carbon credits and tree plantings and all the other "feel-good" stuff that tries to make industry look much better than it is. As far as I'm concerned, "green" is the color of my living room walls, and "greening" is not a word. I think I'd have more respect for them if they just said look, it's business, it's going to affect the environment but it's the best we can do. Honesty is always the best policy.

Europe: Observations and comments

I've just returned from a "busman's holiday" in Munich, where I was supposed to be on vacation. But that never happens, of course, because there is always a story around the corner.

Unlike many of my journalist colleagues, I don't travel much outside of my own continent, and this was only my second trip to Europe, which is probably why I was so wide-eyed. It'll all make its way into a newspaper story soon enough, but here are some of my observations:

- Unlike here, diesel is still cheaper than gasoline in Europe, but that's all relative. Keep in mind that a Euro was about $1.50 Canadian at the time when you look at the prices in the photo. Even so, I saw more large cars than I expected in Munich, which is probably due to that city's relative wealth. But small vehicles still make up the majority, including delivery vehicles which are far more compact than the big trucks we use in the cities here. The Ford Transit Connect can't get here fast enough.

- Munich drivers drive. They don't talk on cell phones, drink coffee, eat hamburgers, put on makeup, read the newspaper or play with the stereo when they're piloting cars. In nine days, I saw two -- count 'em, two -- drivers talking into phones. Both of them were parking at the time, and both of them did a terrible job of it. I also didn't see any collisions, didn't see any gridlock-blocked intersections, didn't see anyone run a red light, and saw very few cars with any dents in them. Are European drivers perfect? Of course not. But from what I saw, they're sure a hell of a lot better than what we have over here.

- The cops drive BMWs and Mercedes. With stick shifts, if the model comes with one. As do the taxi drivers.

- Bicycles aren't children's toys or exercise machines, they are serious transportation. That picture at the top is of one of the myriad bicycle lanes in the city. Where the streets are large enough, there are three separate areas: cars on the asphalt, bicycles on a paved section of the sidewalk nearest to the road, and pedestrians on the inside of the sidewalk. (If you forget while walking and meander onto the bike lane, be prepared for the ringing bells; they don't stop for you or go around, because it's your responsibility to move.) On the largest streets, there's an electric tram right-of-way in the centre as well. No doubt because they're respected as road users, cyclists obey the rules: they stop for red lights, they stay off the pedestrian area, and they don't drive wherever it suits them -- from sidewalk to curb to turn lane to sidewalk -- as cyclists so often do here. Each bicycle has a light and a bell, and they use them.

- Germans may grumble about their public transit system, but by North American standards, it's incredible, with above-ground and underground city trains, electric trams, buses, and a train system that connects cities across the country. I got off the plane, got onto a train in the airport, and was in the city center thirty minutes later, at a cost of nine Euros. Try doing that from Pearson International to Union Station in Toronto, which is the equivalent; you're looking at two subway trains and a bus.

- Urban density also plays a part; I didn't see any single-family houses anywhere in the city center. Apartment buildings have stores and offices on their lower floors. People walk. Nowhere, even on the smallest side alleys, was I ever the only person on the street.

- And no wonder they walk. I ordered a salad in a restaurant; it turned out to be a dozen slices of sausage, topped with onions, dressing, and half a lettuce leaf, and it came with a giant pretzel. In for a penny, as they say, and of course I ordered a good German beer alongside. Hey, I wasn't driving.

Corporate-Speak Translation: Toyota

In the news: Toyota is going to build the Prius at a new plant in Mississippi (the first time it's been built in North America), the Highlander is moving to a facility in Indiana, and the Tundra pickup truck, currently built in two U.S. plants, will be moving into one. The company will also temporarily stop making both the Tundra and the Sequoia from August until November, in light of the fact that nobody wants them anymore.

A spokesman for the company said it was unfortunate that the trucks had to be temporarily discontinued, but the new production mix is proof of Toyota's commitment to North American production. And then he said, "By using this downturn as an opportunity to develop team members and improve our operations, we hope to emerge even stronger."

Translation: Yes, we use the silly "team members" term too. And if you're not crazy about being laid off or switched between jobs or between plants, you're just not a team player.

Biofuel goes bankrupt: who knew?

In the news today: ethanol plants in the U.S. are going bankrupt.

According to a news report on Reuters, soaring feedstock prices, rising construction costs, tight credit markets, and ethanol prices that haven't kept up with the soaring cost of gasoline are to blame for about a dozen U.S. ethanol plants filing for bankruptcy protection.

It also seems that, while gasoline companies are required by law to mix renewable fuels into the fossil stuff, they don't want to pay very much for it, and so the ethanol producers aren't getting enough to cover their costs.

This would all be deliciously ironic if it weren't for the fact that corn is in just about every product we eat or even touch these days. I've read about downward spirals from the times before my time -- the Depression, the Dust Bowl. It sure feels weird to look around and realize I'm in the middle of one.

Gas taxes: who will pay to repair our roads?

  In a recent issue of AutoWeek magazine, Kevin A. Wilson -- possibly the most observant and common-sense auto writer on the continent -- brought up a point I'd not considered: as gasoline consumption drops, who's going to fund our roads?

Gas taxes don't just sit in the general coffers; they're used to build and maintain roads. If there's no money for maintenance, no one fixes the cracked pavement. Our roadbeds collapse and our bridges fall down, and eventually, the highway system deteriorates to the point that it starts destroying our cars.

As Wilson points out, cars that get better fuel economy use less gasoline, and electric cars don't use any liquid fuel at all. Less gas = less tax money = who's going to foot the bill for our roads? It's not justification for buying a gas guzzler by any means, but right now, while we're on the cusp of dramatically reducing our fuel consumption, we'd better spend just as much time figuring out how the infrastructure is going to be financed. A car that gets 60 mpg isn't much good if there's no place to drive it.

Another low-fat potato chip comes to showrooms

In the news: Chrysler has launched the Aspen Hemi Hybrid. The Dodge Durango version will be coming, too.

So this is what Chrysler has chosen for its first entry into the hybrid market. Not a juiced-up version of the Caliber, or an auto-stop Sebring, or even a big vehicle that would make sense, like a work truck, which companies and contractors are going to have to buy even if gas goes to four bucks a litre. No, this technology goes into a giant SUV that's already a low-volume model and undoubtedly will continue to be, even with the $1,000-per-year fuel savings that the company claims it will provide.

I really hate to rag on the domestic automakers, because I want to see North America with a solid manufacturing base -- it benefits all of us, no matter how far removed we are from the auto industry. But they just seem to miss the point so often. This hybrid is just one more low-fat potato chip: not as bad for you as a regular potato chip, but if you really want to lose weight, reach for an apple or figure out if you're actually hungry instead. We've got the technology. Let's use it for good, not stupid.

Everything is relative ...

Some rambling thoughts on cars and driving for a Tuesday morning. Not necessarily right, not necessarily wrong, just ... observations.

Everything is relative: My everyday driver is a V8-powered, full-size pickup truck. That's bad these days. A family up in town owns a Prius and a Yaris. That's good these days. They have three children (one still in disposable diapers), a house that's approximately 2,800 square feet, central air conditioning, and up until the pesticide ban took effect out here, a Weed-Man sign on the lawn warning that it had been sprayed with poison. I have no children, my house is 900 square feet, I don't have air conditioning, and my gardens have been completely organic for the last 15 years. Hmmm.

What you can and can't do for fun: Going out for a couple of hours "just for a drive" is now frowned upon, because it wastes fuel and contributes to global warming. The RV and boating associations run regular ads on television urging people to take up these activities because they're fun. Hmmm.

That was how much?: There was a letter in today's paper regarding the blockade the CAW set up at General Motors here in Oshawa over the truck plant closing; the writer said that the autoworkers must obviously be paid too much money if they could afford the gas to drive slowly up and down the street for a couple of hours. Perhaps. But I can drive some 50 km on what I'd pay for a burger, fries and soda at the local fast-food joint. You seldom hear anyone complain that an autoworker's making too much money because he can afford to buy lunch at McDonald's. Hmmm.

Remember, Evian is "naive" spelled backwards: The gas station up the road is currently charging $1.34 per litre for regular gasoline. Go into the store attached to it, and the cheapest bottle of water is $1.00 for half a litre. I remember when there used to be conspiracy theories about backyard mechanics who'd invented special carburetors that would allow cars to run on H2O, but the auto and oil companies got wind of it and had them destroyed and the inventors hushed up. We never realized at the time just how lucky we were that they did.

Saving Gas: Common Sense

 In the news today: the European Commission has launched a campaign to promote more energy-efficient driving. Over 45,000 fuel stations in 29 countries will take part in the campaign, distributing leaflets that explain fuel efficiency and "responsible driving behavior" to motorists.

"To reach our ambitious targets of CO2 reduction and energy savings, we have to make a big effort in all sectors," said Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs. "In certain cases this will require high-tech solutions, but in others we just need to apply some common sense. This campaign provides a set of simple tips to reduce CO2 emissions and save money, simply by driving more intelligently. Learning a few tricks will help (European Union) citizens to keep more fuel in their tanks, more money in their pockets and more CO2 out of the atmosphere."

Common sense. That's a phrase I hear bandied about a lot in North America, but it's usually mated to "technologies" or "plans"; I very seldom hear it in the same breath as citizens.

Last weekend I participated in a fuel efficiency driving challenge, which had me driving 250 km or so in a four-cylinder Honda. I won the fuel contest, averaging 6.8 L/100 km against the vehicle's published rate of 8.3 L/100 km. I sweated over every light, every hill, every unnecessary rpm, but I saved the equivalent of $2.03 per 100 km by the day's gas prices -- which is quite a savings when you add it up over the 20,000 km or so that the average vehicle travels in a year. No special technology, no fancy propulsion system, just a light foot and some common-sense driving. (And the realization that I would have saved even more fuel by not making an unnecessary trip.)

This is the part of the equation that's so often left out, and I applaud the European Commission for having the guts to target it. It's partly the car you buy, but more importantly, it's the way you drive it. North America doesn't want to hear that; North America wants the easy solution. North America wants to eat low-fat potato chips when it should be reaching for apples, or even deciding if it's hungry. Common sense: possibly the most uncommon element on the planet these days.

A discussion with GM's Larry Burns

On Canadian Driver today, I have an interview with Larry Burns, vice-president of research and development at General Motors. A fascinating man, and with quite a bit to say on the future of transportation, including the work his company is doing in that direction.

While the issue of oil dependency and future technologies comes with as many opinions as there are molecules in hydrogen, he presented a number of issues I hadn't considered before. I don't know if I came away sold on all of them, but I'll say this -- I'm putting a lot more thought into the total effect that any form of transportation will have, even when it's one that I think is a solid one. I'm still a fan of diesels, for example, but Larry gave me a lot to think about when he told me that they may not be the way to go. There are a lot of people who'll tell you that "this" is the answer. I'm more interested in those who say this might be it.

The story's available here.

We're all in the same boat ...

I was watching television last night. I know it's spring because I caught the annual commercial for Discover Boating Canada. It's a cute one, really, with all manner of dogs enjoying boat rides.

Save for a couple of the sail variety, almost all of them are powerboats.

I expect that any day now, Go RVing will start its annual campaign as well, telling people to hit the open road in their motorized campers.

I have friends who own powerboats, and friends who own RVs, and while they thoroughly enjoy their time away with them, they also tell me how much money they spend in fuel to run them.

Now, to set the record straight: I'm not fond of boats or RVs, but that's not my point here. I understand that many people are, and more power to them.

On the other hand, if a car company sponsored a series of ads suggesting that the family should get into a car or SUV and hit the open road for the sole purpose of going for a drive because it's fun ... just what do you think the reaction from the green-thinking public would be?

How about giving us what we really want?

I noticed a press release from Chrysler yesterday. In the US, the company is launching a campaign with the tag line of If you can dream it, we can build it.

Let's see what the release says people are dreaming about:

As a chassis rolls out of the plant and down the road, all kinds of people in all kinds of places start adding what they want on a vehicle including MyGig™ with navigation, dual DVD system and Swivel ‘n Go™ seating system.

Now, maybe there are a few people who are dreaming about twin movie screens and minivan seats that face backwards. But I suspect that even more people want things that are even simpler. Things like better interiors, with more care spent on fit-and-finish, and less cheap-looking plastic. Better fuel economy, especially in excessively thirsty vehicles like the Dakota and Durango. Less-expensive versions of utility machines, such as pickup trucks. And possibly most important of all, a good-quality, inexpensive subcompact that can compete with vehicles like the Toyota Yaris and Chevrolet Aveo -- a segment Chrysler has promised us (with a Chinese-built car) but has yet to enter.

I want to see Chrysler do well, because a strong, mostly-domestic automaker is good for our economy. But strong companies start with strong foundations. It's fine to have the odd gimmick, but only when it's added on to a well-built, good-looking, fuel-efficient, realistically-priced vehicle with a reputation for bulletproof quality and reliability. That's my dream, Chrysler. Now build it.

In print today ...

I took a rant on hybrid vehicles and sustainable transportation that I originally wrote on these pages, and turned it into a piece for The Toronto Star. You can read it here.

I also have a review of the 2008 Ford Taurus in The Star, and you can find it by clicking here.

Small is beautiful!

No, it's not a Smart. This is a Mitsubishi i Car, and -- keep your fingers crossed -- it just might be coming to North America.

It's been on sale in Japan since 2006, and last summer, Mitsubishi brought one over to Canada and let me drive it for a few days. I took it to a cruise night where, as you can see, it proved immensely popular with the spectators. (I also had great fun with its right-hand-drive configuration in a left-hand-drive world.)

The company has announced that it will bring three i Cars to the New York International Auto Show, which starts up in a few days, including this gasoline-powered version, and an electric one that can recharge overnight on a regular household outlet or power up with a quick-charge when necessary.

Either way, it'll be great if we can get more mini-cars into the transportation mix, especially in urban environments. Unlike the Smart, the i Car holds four people (surprisingly well, given its tiny footprint), which will make it accessible to those who need more than a two-seater. This is how sustainable transportation works: not just with giant leaps, but with little steps that bring us closer to fitting each driver with the car to suit his or her needs.

Sustainable transportation: Lots of little steps

I picked up a copy of The Oprah Magazine the other day in a waiting room. A number of celebrities had been asked what would make the planet a better place. Along with world peace and happiness, one woman said, "A Prius in every driveway."

I almost threw the magazine across the room.

Few things anger me more than the simplistic answer, endlessly parroted. It's not just hybrids, although they have a cheering section all their own. Depending on who you ask, the solution to our transportation woes is ethanol, or hydrogen, or plug-in electrics, or bicycles, or the bus.

I used to believe that, one day, there would be a single perfect solution that would replace petroleum overnight. Now I realize it's going to be a combination of solutions, each with pros and cons carefully weighed -- and not all of them are necessarily going to have four wheels.

We need to look at plug-in hybrids for those who commute shorter distances, and flexible gasoline-electric architecture (such as that used in the Chevrolet Volt) for those who can't easily get to an electrical outlet. We need to realize that some people can fit their family into a Smart, and some need a minivan.

We also need everyone to get on board. A politician can talk sustainable transportation all he likes, but as long as he allows developers to build houses on cul-de-sac mazes and put big-box stores in the middle of parking lots, he's an ass. City planners need to add bicycle lanes and give public transit a higher profile. And parents need to stop bemoaning the quality of the air while they're queuing up to drive Junior five blocks from school to home.

The solution isn't going to be a Prius in every driveway. It's going to be a Prius in this driveway, a diesel-powered sedan in that one, a bicycle in that one, and the last house on the block won't even have a driveway because the homeowner can walk to work. As long as we think there's only one piece to the puzzle, we haven't a hope in hell of solving it.

Well, that was quick ...

The federal government has decided to get rid of the ecoAUTO rebate program, only a year after it put the scheme in place. Hang on, let me open my wallet a bit wider. It cost money going in, and it'll undoubtedly cost money going out.

I'd like to say it was a good idea in theory, but it never really was. The plan was that the government kicked back rebates, ranging from $1,000 to $2,000, to people who bought brand-new vehicles that met specific fuel economy standards.

There were the usual problems that spring up when ideas are conceived in haste and implemented at leisure. Apparently, it took more than six months from the time the program got underway until the application forms were ready, and even when buyers could finally apply, there were long waits. According to an article by Carol Goar of the Toronto Star, only 30,000 of the 50,000 people who sent in their applications had received their money as of mid-February.

Much of my objection to the program was in the discrepancies. The Dodge Caliber, for example, doesn't meet the fuel economy requirements for passenger cars, and so there's no refund. But the similarly-sized Jeep Compass, which is mechanically identical and gets the same fuel mileage, is classified as an SUV, and so you get $1,000 back.

And there's a rebate for some flexible-fuel vehicles, which can run on E85, a fuel made of 85% grain-based ethanol and 15% petroleum gasoline. Sounds good, except that at last count, two gas stations in Ottawa appear to be the only ones from St. John's to Victoria that sell it. So you get $1,000 back because your vehicle could potentially save the planet, if you could only fill it with the right juice.

In her article, Goar also notes that while the government will no longer be handing you money back for buying a fuel sipper, it will still be collecting the "green levy" on gas guzzlers, which Goar says generates some $110 million per year. Hey, maybe the feds will spend that cash on improved public transit, bicycle lanes, incentives for car companies to build more fuel-efficient vehicles, and better urban planning to eliminate housing developments that make car ownership necessary in the first place. Yes, I think that's exactly what they'll do.