WomanOnWheels.ca

First Drive: SARIT

Could these little vehicles be the next big thing in mobility? The SARIT is an electric three-wheeler that's intended to go anywhere you can take a bike or e-bike. I took one for a spin; check out my story and video at Driving.ca.

Who will be left behind as automotive technology advances?

The auto industry seems to be moving at breakneck speed toward electric and autonomous cars, but not everyone will be able to come along for the ride. Who's going to be left behind? Read more in my opinion piece at AutoTRADER.ca.

Thinking about an electric vehicle? Here's what you need to consider...

Are you thinking about getting an electric vehicle? You need to consider all the factors that go into buying a conventional one -- features, comfort, etc. -- along with some EV-specific considerations as well. See what's involved in my story at AutoTRADER.ca.

In Review: 2020 Volvo XC90 T8 Plug-In Hybrid

Plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) may be the best choice for those who like electrics but need more range. A PHEV will run on its battery alone after you plug in it, but once that runs out, it'll keep going as long as it has fuel in its tank. Volvo has a few, including my tester, the XC90 T8. Find out more in my review at AutoTRADER.ca.

A first look at Ford's all-electric E-Transit

Ford's upcoming all-electric delivery van might just seem to be news for commercial customers, but I think it could also be the push needed for consumer EVs. Find out why in my story at the National Post (Driving.ca).

Busting some fuel economy myths

Should you buy your gas when it's cold? Drop your tailgate when driving your truck? Put "fuel-saving" additives in your tank? Find out in my myth-bustin' story over at AutoTrader.ca.

What electrified vehicle is best for you?

Hybrids, plug-in hybrids, battery vehicles -- what to choose? Find out how each electrified vehicle works, and if it'll work best for you, in my story at AutoTrader.ca.

The history of early electric cars

Automakers are offering several different all-electric models these days, but they're nothing new. In 1900, the best-selling car in the United States was powered by batteries. So what happened? It all traces back to a broken jaw...find out more in my story at AutoTrader.ca.

What's ethanol all about?

There's renewable fuel in your gasoline, which can be up to 10 or 15 per cent of it. Depending on where you are, the ethanol in gas can be made with corn or wheat, although it can even be made from paper pulp or sugar cane. What should you know about ethanol? Find out in my How It Works column at the National Post.

First Drive: 2019 Jaguar I-Pace

It was only for a quick spin, but I got behind the wheel of Jaguar's new I-Pace, its all-new, all-electric model (no, I have no idea why the E-Pace is gas and the I-Pace is electric). Find out more in my story over at AutoTRADER.

How far does that electric vehicle go?

The biggest question for anyone looking at an electric car is just how far it'll go after it's plugged in. While much depends on such factors as driving style and ambient temperature, each vehicle has a range under Natural Resources Canada's regulations, and I've collected 'em all. Find out more in my story at AutoTrader.

Seeing the future at Movin' On

Want to ride on an electric bus or electric boat, see a wind-powered car, or a tire that can be 3D printed? It's all part of Michelin Movin' On, a three-day summit on mobility that presents all kinds of concepts for getting around -- some of them way out there, and some of them ready to go. It always moved around between global cities, but now it seems to have found its home in Montreal. Find out more in my story at the National Post.

Auto recycling: Far more than just scrap

We usually say a car goes to the "scrapyard," but it's always been a valuable resource for recycling, and even more now as recyclers find new ways to separate the pricey bits and companies figure out how to use them again. Find out more in my "How It Works" column at the National Post.

Is your recycling going back into your car?

Recycling is a big business in the auto industry, and automakers are always looking at ways to turn waste materials into new ones. Plastic bottles turn into seat fabric, old tires become gaskets, and olive pits ... well, find out what they're turned into at my story over at AutoTRADER.ca.

What's in an electric vehicle battery?

Chemicals, minerals, and lots of other stuff that, depending on your viewpoint, might either solve many of our environmental issues, or hand us some new ones. Find out the differences between lead acid, NiMH, lithium-ion and other electric vehicle batteries in my "How It Works" column at the National Post.

Porsche is going all-electric

Will premium sports car buyers sidle up to a model that needs to be plugged in? Porsche thinks so, and next year will begin production on a sports sedan that's currently code-named the Mission E. It'll be followed by a sport-ute version, and from there, the sky might be the limit. Find out more in my story at the National Post.

And to make everything more complicated, it's being built in a factory that's being built in a factory. The new facility is an addition to the 911/Boxster/Cayman facility in Zuffenhausen, which is wedged between the town and the railway, and comes complete with a height limit and traffic issues. Find out how it's being done in my sidebar at the National Post.

Old-car owners: More ethanol may be coming

Canada currently allows a maximum of 10 per cent ethanol in fuel overall, but if a proposed amendment passes, it could go to 15 per cent. What does this mean for an older vehicle? Find out more in my story at the National Post.

Why BMW is going electric

At the recent Frankfurt Motor Show, the only noise from BMW's press conference was the music: everything the automaker brought out on stage was powered by electricity. I had an opportunity to interview the company's global CEO about it -- find out more in my story at the National Post.

How do electric vehicles work?

There's a battery and there's a motor, but how do they work together to get you where you're going? Find out more in my "How It Works" column over at the National Post.

How does a hydrogen-powered fuel cell car work?

It's actually an electric car that makes its own power while it's driving. Find out more in my "How It Works" column at the National Post.

What's the future of sustainable mobility?

No one knows for sure, of course, but there are a lot of people working on it, and I met many of them at the Michelin Challenge Bibendum in Chengdu, China recently.

It's a regular meeting-of-the-minds, held in cities around the world, where participants learn about new technologies, drive new advanced vehicles, and discuss the issues and how they might be solved. Find out more in my report over at the Toronto Star.

Fuel-efficient cars: Do you know all the terms?

Hybrids, extended-range, plug-ins, direct injection ... there are all sorts of new technologies to improve fuel efficiency, and there are so many that it can be confusing. Cut to the chase with my explanation over at the Toronto Star.

Headline of the day ...

I just received a press release from Environment Canada. The headline is in big, bold letters - Harper Government Improves Fuel Efficiency of Canadian Vehicles.

Wow.

I write a lot of technology columns, and that means I spend time talking to automakers about fuel efficiency. They dedicate a lot of money to this. I've been to R&D labs where people spend all their time working to shave half a kilogram off car parts to improve fuel mileage. I've talked to engineers who are up to their armpits in engines every day, figuring out how to coax a little more energy efficiency from them. Even companies that make tires and oil are working on their products so they'll help contribute to the improvement.

Why they bother I don't know, because Stephen Harper is taking care of the problem.

Now, if you read the fine print, what the government has actually done is proposed stricter regulations for fuel efficiency. By 2025, we're told, new cars will consume 50 per cent less fuel. It's all on the automakers, of course, because the government wouldn't dare suggest that consumers change their driving habits - which in many cases could pretty much achieve the same goal tomorrow, on the cars we're driving today.

Still, it's good to know that, judging by the headline, our men and women in Ottawa are making such a substantial improvement to our vehicles. And they didn't even have to put on a lab coat. Amazing!

E85 ethanol: Really, what's the point of reporting?

J.D. Power and Associates regularly sends out updates on how vehicle sales are doing in Canada. And like forecasting companies across Canada and the U.S., it reports on how many "flexible-fuel" vehicles - those that can use E85, a fuel that's primarily made up of plant-based ethanol - are sold.

Last year, for example, sales of flex-fuel vehicles increased almost twofold, to 13.2 percent of the market. And I say, so what?

The number of hybrids sold is an important indicator of how consumers are looking at alternative vehicles. (For the record, hybrid sales dropped, concurrent with stabilized gas prices - backing up what I've always said, that for most people it's about cash, not climate change.) The number of flex-fuel vehicles sold means nothing, and I hope that people aren't looking at those sales numbers and thinking that the tide is turning.

The fact is, any vehicle on the market that will run on E85 fuel will also run on gasoline; it just means that it has special seals and pumps that the ethanol can't corrode. That 13.2 percent didn't buy the car because it ran on E85, but because the car met their needs and it just happened to have the yellow fuel-filler cap. And almost every one of those vehicles will run exclusively on gasoline, because in most places in Canada, it's impossible to find a station that dispenses E85. I think there are a handful in all of Ontario. According to Petro-Canada's website, that gasoline giant doesn't even carry it.

At least the ecoAuto program is over - the one that gave rebates to fuel-efficient vehicles, including flexible fuel models. You could get $1,000 back from the feds if you bought a vehicle that could run on E85, because you were saving the planet, at least in theory. I wonder if any car that qualified for the rebate has ever had a drop of E85 run through its guts.

Sure, it's chicken-and-egg - you don't get E85 without the cars, and you don't get the cars without E85. But don't tell me that sales of flex-fuel vehicles are rising, because it means squat. Tell me when there's a possibility I might be able to put some of this corn-based fluid into its tank. That is when the numbers will actually make a difference.

One million electric vehicles by 2015: Not as long as gas is cheap

The U.S. Department of Energy has released a new report, One Million Electric Vehicles by 2015, which backs up President Obama's stated goal of ... well, guess how many EVs will be on the road by what year. The report says that the goal is "ambitious" but "achievable." Of course, I wouldn't expect the report to conclude anything else, but I'm not buying it, not the way it's written. I'm certainly no expert, but I'm not seeing it.

First, there's the o'er-the-ramparts-we-watched aspect of it. "This is a race America can win," says DOE secretary David Sandalow, "if we answer the President's call to out-innovate, out-build, and out-compete the rest of the world."

Sure, you need the all-American aspect of it to lead the troops, and I'm the first to say that a country only becomes strong when it has a solid manufacturing base. America needs to build these vehicles at home. But as soon as you make it a race to beat everybody else, you've severed your ties with the people who can help you. The Japanese were building viable hybrids when American companies were still trying to figure out four-cylinder engines. Why start at the very beginning, when you can work in conjunction with people who know what they're doing? Contrary to popular redneck belief, Nissan won't be sending every penny it makes on the Leaf back to Japan. That cash will stay in Smyrna, Tennessee where the car will be built, going home with the workers, going into the local tax coffers, working its way into the community.

Getting plant capacity up to one million electric vehicles isn't a problem, the report says, and it's correct on that. We can probably pop out many more than that every year. What we can't do as easily is find people to buy them. So the government is offering a rebate of up to $7,500 on each one, and offering grants to communities that prioritize electric vehicle deployment.

The problem is that the government won't do the one thing that is needed to advance the deployment of electric vehicles - raise the price of gasoline. Because that will be political suicide, and everyone in Washington knows it.

Why do Europeans buy little cars with little engines? Because gasoline costs a fortune over there. As long as gasoline is cheap, people will buy the relatively inexpensive vehicles that use it, rather than the relatively expensive vehicles that don't. People do the math. If the premium on that electric or hybrid car is more than what it saves in fuel, most won't buy it. Despite the whole "green" movement, and sending children to school to learn about rain forests, and putting cans out to the curb for recycling, most people will put their coins ahead of their carbon footprint. If a car costs too much, it doesn't matter how little it spews out the exhaust pipe, if it has one at all.

I wonder what One Million Electric Vehicles by 2015 cost to produce. I could have saved them a bundle and written it up in the time it takes to say it: If you want people to buy alternative vehicles, raise the price of gas until it's worth their while. Sure, there will always be people who buy Volts or Leafs because they're cool and techy and neat. But as long as gas costs less than bottled water, it will be a long, long time, if ever, before you find a million of those folks willing to open their wallets.

Ethanol: We have to make it, but we can't take it

There's an interesting new study out of Purdue University in Indiana on ethanol use. The U.S. has mandated ethanol through its Renewable Fuel Standard, which required some 13 billion gallons of it in 2010, and will insist on 36 billion gallons per year by 2022.

The problem, according to the study, is that there's no way that much ethanol can get used up. There aren't enough vehicles that can accept E85 (which will chew up rubber seals in a vehicle that isn't specifically flexible-fuel capable) and there isn't enough infrastructure to get it to the pumps.

Wally Tyner, a professor of agriculture and one of the authors of the study, says that the amount made in 2010 is just about all that the country can consume. Only some 7.3 million of the 240 million vehicles currently on American roads can run on E85. As well, there are only about 2,000 E85 pumps in the U.S., and Tyner said it took 20 years to install them. To meet the 36 billion gallon mandate, he estimates that 2,000 pumps would have to be added per year -- and right now, only about 100 are being installed annually.

As well, ethanol has another problem: it doesn't get the mileage that gasoline does. Tyner estimates that if gasoline sells for $3.00 per gallon, E85 has to be priced at $2.34 for a driver to break even on the mileage.

And if the government does go through on a decision to raise the minimum level of ethanol in gasoline from 10 to 15 percent, Tyner said that we'd hit the same wall in about four years. He believes the only way the industry can meet the mandate is through thermo-chemical biofuels, which use heat to chemically alter biomass and produce a fuel that's similar enough to gasoline that it can be blended for use in all vehicles and all gasoline pumps.

Don't you love it when a plan doesn't come together?

Small car sales: it ain't the car, it's the fuel

After fears that it might follow companies like Hudson and Studebaker into that good night, General Motors has reported a profit of $1.33 billion. In fact, all of the Big Three seem to be turning around; in Canada in July, sales of domestic nameplates were up 18%, while import nameplates as a whole dropped by 3%.

In the U.S., according to Edmunds.com, it's big trucks that are leading the resurgence -- the vehicles the Big Three do better than anybody else.

It's an inescapable fact: the vehicles people are buying are the vehicles that the letter-writers and the government don't want those companies to make. You can cite gas prices, you can cite greenhouse gas emissions, you can point a finger out to BP's mess in the Gulf, but the fact remains: given a choice, consumers buy big vehicles. And those big vehicles drive the automotive industry's wheel.

The size of vehicles moving off dealer lots is in direct proportion to what's on the gas station sign across the street. Prices go up, little cars go up. Prices go down, little cars go down. And whenever gas prices hike up, the letter-writers bemoan the fact that car companies aren't making enough little cars. I suspect these people have no clue how the auto industry actually works, because I think they seriously believe that auto companies work like the local bakery: white flour's expensive today, we'll make brown bread, and see what's costly tomorrow.

Most of the letter-writers have it backwards. Don't tie the auto industry to the price of gas; tie the price of gas to the auto industry. Why does Europe buy small cars? Because gas is four times what it costs here. If the government were really serious about fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions, it wouldn't even be talking to the automakers about what they're going to build. It would be talking to the gasoline companies about what they're going to charge.

Electric vehicles: Get to know your local dealer

There's an interesting item out on the news wire today from research firm Frost & Sullivan about hybrids and electric vehicles. In the chicken-and-egg situation that greets almost all new technology, it seems that OE dealers may be keeping their hands on these cars long after the warranty's up.

More than 40% of independent garages surveyed said they aren't equipped to service hybrids, while almost 60% can't fix or maintain electric vehicles (and those numbers are low enough that I'm suspicious about the ones who said they can). And since hybrids make up less than 3% of market share each year, no one's really running out and spending the time and money to learn all about them. Very importantly, the aftermarket parts companies - the ones that make the less-expensive components that most of us buy when the dealer wants three times their price for OEM - aren't tooling up to make hybrid- and EV-specific parts.

When the Prius was young, my friend and colleague Brian Early took a test-car version to a Toyota shop and had to show the guys there how to start it. All new ideas have to start somewhere and build gradually, but I think the early adopters may well be in for a somewhat bumpy ride. 

CAA and Tim Hortons: Heart's in the right place, brain is out to lunch

In the news: CAA and Tim Hortons are teaming up, "protecting the planet one kilometre at a time," according to the press release. Eco-driving tips will start showing up on tray liners and television screens inside Tim Hortons coffee shops.

The tips include keeping the tires properly inflated, removing excess weight, reducing highway speeds, avoiding hard braking and jackrabbit stops, and combining trips.

See anything missing?

C'mon, think hard.

Okay, here it is, CAA and Tim Hortons. Want to save gasoline, reduce emissions, and maybe help make our roads safer to boot? Ban the bloody goddamn drive-through windows.

CAA and Tim Hortons: joining together to help save the planet, but still missing the big picture by a country mile.

Chevy Volt and fuel cells: Electric power to the people!

I had quite the glimpse into the automotive future yesterday: I had the opportunity to drive both the Chevrolet Volt and Equinox Fuel Cell Vehicle in Vancouver.

I'll be officially reporting on the Volt in print shortly, but in the meantime, suffice to say that even for a short spin around Stanley Park, it was exciting to be at the wheel, just to get a look at what's coming. It's fun to read about technology, but it's even better to get a hands-on chance to experience it. 

Why are the oil companies so quiet?

What do plug-in hybrids, fuel cell vehicles, battery electric vehicles and extended-range vehicles all have in common? They use little or no gasoline.

What do Exxon, Shell, Husky, Irving, BP et al have in common? They all make their money selling gasoline.

So why are they so quiet?

I remember a few decades back when conspiracy theorists were determined that someone had invented a car that would get 100 miles to the gallon, but the oil companies had squashed it. It was out there, all right, but the oil barons would never let it get to market, and so they spent enough money and threw around enough weight to ensure that the only person who could sit in one was Jimmy Hoffa.

Now, instead of just a whisper of a high-mileage car, we've seen them, and some people are actually out there driving them.

It's not a rhetorical question. I'm actually befuddled -- why is this happening so smoothly? Or do the oil companies really know that, deep down, that it's all window dressing, and the few thousand alternative fuel vehicles that will actually be sold aren't going to make any kind of a dent?

Why all the CAFE in the world won't make a difference ...

 My local landscape is changing again. A farm here has moved out all of its horses, the survey stakes are in the ground, and the "presentation center" is being erected to sell the cookie-cutter houses that will go up on the land. This is now a regular occurrence in the rural area where I live.

If it's like every other subdivision around here, it will consist of hundreds of single-family houses (and will be named for the farm/creek/forest/orchard it destroyed). Any non-house land use will be restricted to schools, parks, and perhaps a church. There will be no stores or businesses within the maze of cul-de-sacs. Public transit may run up and down the main street outside, but not within the development itself. If you want a quart of milk, you'll need to get into your car and drive to get it.

My area isn't unique. This is happening in areas all over North America, and it's why fuel economy standards and hybrid cars and electric vehicles are never going to be enough. For some reason, we only look at the puzzle pieces, and we never try to put them all together.

We complain about pouring tax dollars into truly improving public transit. We let various municipalities work against each other, rather than harmonizing their systems, effectively preventing the seamless bus and train service that we need to get from one end of a huge metropolitan area to the other. We've gutted our railways, making highways the only options between towns. We refuse to give up portions of our roads to bicycle lanes, making it dangerous and inconvenient to use them as serious transportation.

Our municipal governments bend over backwards to (or more likely in front of) developers, giving them access to huge tracts of unserviced rural land, while city lots surrounded by infrastructure stay vacant because it's not as easy to build on them. Adding insult to injury is zoning that prevents people from being able to work or shop within walking distance of their houses. If you want to live in a subdivision, you have to own a car.

And yet, the only ones held accountable in all of this are the automakers, who are under ever-increasing government pressure to squeeze out another quarter-mile per gallon, and keep in another gram of CO2.

We've put a Band-Aid on the bruised finger. The problem is, we then just keep hitting it with the hammer.

CARS is over: back to big-car reality

Well, the honeymoon's over. According to a new report by J.D. Power and Associates, the end of the U.S. Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS) -- the "Cash for Clunkers" program -- has resulted in a return to the status quo.

Specifically, compact cars held 28% of the market in August, when consumers could receive substantial rebates for buying fuel-efficient vehicles. In September, with the program no longer in effect, compacts now hold only 19% of the market. Premium vehicles and large pickups have returned to the levels they held prior to the rebates.

Which goes to show you a number of things. People say the environment is important, but only to the point that it doesn't personally affect them. Gas is expensive, but it obviously isn't expensive enough to make people change their minds. And most importantly, the rush by the Detroit Three to put as many tiny cars onto their dealer lots as possible -- whether to satisfy the letter writers or the government, or both -- could turn out to be the most expensive error they've made in a long time.

How do you destroy an engine? The government knows!

How do you destroy an engine? Well, if you're the U.S. government, you use sodium silicate.

As you're no doubt aware, the U.S. has passed a "cash for clunkers" law that will give rebates to people who trade in old, thirsty vehicles and buy new, fuel-efficient ones. Since the whole idea is to get these old cars out of circulation, the program includes recycling them. But if someone takes that old engine out of the car and continues to use it, the whole point of the program is lost.

According to the website Cash For Clunkers, car dealers taking in these old vehicles will have to give each car a "lethal injection" in order to render it permanently inoperable. It seems that NHTSA wrestled with several options -- after a bit of whining in its final ruling that Congress never gave a definition of an "engine block" (follow that link to page 38) -- including parting out the engine components, destroying the oil filter threads, drilling a hole in the block, and running the engine without oil.

Finally, it determined that car dealers must do the equivalent of an oil change, but after draining the block, they add two quarts of sodium silicate, at a cost of about $7.00, and run the engine until the stuff dries up inside.

The stuff you learn on the Internet. Perhaps, as the website suggests, we should be buying shares in sodium silicate companies: it sounds like it's about to take off.

Now it's special glass for California ...

I never thought I'd say this, but from an environmental standpoint, I feel a bit sorry for the automakers.

The state of California has become the environmental hotbed, setting mandates that have required companies to produce vehicles that meet specifications unique to the state. I'm sure every car company breathed a long sigh of relief when the U.S. federal government finally agreed that California's fuel and emissions standards would apply everywhere. As one automaker told me, "We'll meet whatever you want -- just give us one number for everybody."

And just when the playing field was equal again, California looked at glass. So starting in 2012, all new vehicles sold in the state must have window glass that reflects at least 45% of the sun's energy. And by 2016, the glass must reflect 60% of heat-producing rays. The theory is that cars will be cooler, air conditioning won't have to work as hard, and fuel use and emissions will benefit.

Which means that, once again, automakers will have to outfit vehicles specifically for California. And the state estimates that the cost for the windows will average $70 for the 2012 standard, and $250 for the 2016 standard. It's expected that the annual gasoline savings will be $16 and $20 a year respectively.

That's a lot of money to add to the price of a car, and I wonder where it's all going to stop. In the U.S., cars will now have to have airbags, vehicle stability control, anti-lock brakes and tire pressure monitoring systems by law. And yet, buyers still flock to vehicles that start around $10,000, because that's all they have to spend.

It's not going to be California's mandates that help clean the air; it's going to be the fact that no one will be able to afford to drive. And in a state that was developed primarily around single-occupancy vehicles, how will the less-well-off ever get around?

What's missing from a "complete community"

On my way home today from an event, I passed the site of an upcoming subdivision. The cornfield and its topsoil have been scraped away, and the maze of cul-de-sac roads is starting to go in.

There were three huge signs around the property, announcing that it will be a "Complete Community!" They were "Complete Community - Schools," "Complete Community - Nature," and "Complete Community - Parks."

That ain't complete, says I.

A complete community enables people to do more -- to shop and, if at all possible, to work. On one hand, we bemoan the fact that our roads are stuffed to capacity, our air is filled with vehicle exhaust, and people spend hours of each day commuting. And on the other hand, we create these sprawling "horizontal apartments," where a car isn't a luxury but an absolute necessity. On this side, we're telling the auto companies to make tiny cars to help save the environment. And on that other side, we do absolutely nothing about improving the environment, every time we scrape another farmer's field down to the raw clay, and put up a self-contained ghetto in its place.

The Volt: Look what it started

  Just a couple of weeks ago, General Motors unveiled the production model of the Chevrolet Volt, and now the floodgates have opened.

One of the three electric prototype models that Chrysler unveiled recently is an extended-range, meaning that, like the Volt, it runs on plug-in battery power and when that runs out, it goes to a gasoline engine that makes more electricity, rather than running the wheels itself. And at the Paris Motor Show today, Volvo announced that it will also have a similar vehicle, scheduled for production after 2012, which will run on battery power and then on gasoline to generate electricity.

So I wonder: did everyone have the same idea at the same time, or did automakers see the Volt concept unveiled in 2007, run to the drawing board, and then wait for the production model to be presented before making their own announcements? It sure seems odd that others are coming out with similar cars so quickly -- and very heartening, too.

Idle thoughts ...

Last week's surreal moment: sitting at a Ford press event, listening to a presentation on the company's upcoming EcoBoost engines, hybrids, small-car offerings and other important technologies that will reduce the company's overall fuel economy rating and improve its vehicles' emissions ... while the four diesel buses that brought all of the journalists to the event sat outside for three hours, idling, with the air conditioning on.

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.

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.

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.

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.