Saving Michigan’s Economy

M. Merkau

(Class Project for ISP 4760: Senior Seminar, Moti Nissani, Class Instructor)

 

          It is time to take Michigan off life support and move into the recovery room.  We currently remain much too dependent on the same technologies that we relied on 100 years ago.  New technologies which would have made it possible for us to sustain our economy by eliminating and preventing "greenhouse gases" and cutting transportation costs dramatically have been available for decades, yet our leaders are still dragging their feet.  It is time to break the ties that bind us to politicians whose priorities continue to fulfill their own personal agendas!  We must make our voices heard and tell them what we want, what we need, and how to go about getting it, before it is too late!

          Since Western society seems to be spiraling toward self-destruction, we need advocates who not only speak their mind openly, but who welcome the opportunity to be both seen and heard by our politicians.  A long time advocate of saving our planet is Dr. Scott Long, an economist who has written several eye-opening essays in hopes that society takes note and takes the steps necessary to save our planet.  Maybe if more activists like Dr. Long would stand up to our politicians, the U.S. wouldn’t be lagging so far behind in the automotive technology that is available to us today.

          The good news is that Michigan has the opportunity to move forward toward a brighter future – we have the resources and the technology to develop a more renewable energy fuel and affordable energy-efficient vehicles.  Pursuing this "New Future" would free Michigan from its dependence on fossil fuels, create jobs, and allow Michigan to do its part to reduce global warming, environmental problems, and severe health impacts.  This paper touches on the relevant issues which have stymied our growth in the automotive world, and provides ideas and inspirations which could not only save Michigan, but help save our planet as well.

Is An “Eco” Car Possible?

          Our journey toward sustainability should begin by looking back to the future and one "eco" car – a vehicle which actually made an appearance in the automotive world over 20 years ago!  The Volvo LCP (Light Component Project) 2000 of 1983 got some mid '80s press, but was forgotten as soon as oil prices fell, following the energy crisis years.  The LCP 2000 is the epitome of what we could be driving today if Volvo and their competitors had foreseen that the need and the demand would someday, indeed exist.

          Vehicle mechanics of the LCP 2000 included a cylinder direct injected turbo-diesel with 52 bhp (i.e. brake horsepower; in this case power equal to the work or power of 52 horses), a three cylinder direct injected turbo-diesel with 88 bhp, or a 1.4 liter engine designed for using different fuels, including rapeseed oil.  Gas mileage also proved astounding, claiming 56 miles per gallon city, 81 mpg highway, with an average of 65 mpg, or 100 mpg if driven at an average of 40 mph.

          The vehicle itself was comprised of aluminum, magnesium and plastics, making it lighter than a VW bug and engineered to resist deterioration by corrosion, thus eliminating the need for spray paint.  The car featured enhanced European suspension, steering, and braking, and was the same size as a small hatchback with a folding back seat in the rear.  The hollow bulkhead from the rear folding seats protected the fuel tank and provided great side impact collision-resistance.  The materials and components of the LCP 2000 were also recyclable upon wearing out, or in case the car happened to meet a less gentle end.

          Volvo designers were also privy to the fact that the average customer would not accept anything less than a refined vehicle boasting an acceleration of 0-to-60 mph in 11 seconds, with a top speed of about 110 mph.  And the fact that it sported an efficient CVT-type automatic transmission made it even more appealing.  Although I was unable to obtain video or film featuring the LCP 2000, statistics, reports, and the pictures below should prove to even the biggest skeptic, that the car did indeed exist!

The LCP 2000 (Front View)

 

The LCP 2000 (Rear View)

 

The LCP 2000 (Interior View)

 

          The LCP 2000 was light-years ahead of its time and if we knew then what we know now, we should have seen its grand entrance long ago.  Volvo still insists today that the LCP 2000 was built for research purposes only and that it was used to test materials, designs, manufacturing techniques and public reaction.  Although Volvo may not have had the guts to move forward with this innovation back in 1983, they paved the way for other automakers and “green” organizations and should be applauded for developing such a revolutionary car (Baldwin, J.  Whole Earth Review.  1990).

Abundance by Design with Amory Lovins

          One such “green” organization is The Hypercar Center at the Rocky Mountain Institute.  They have moved forward toward echo-friendly vehicles, despite the passive direction taken by most U.S. automakers.  The center is led by Cofounder, Chairman, Chief Scientist Amory Lovins.  Lovins, also an author, was ranked by Car magazine as the twenty second most powerful person in the global automotive industry, so it is fitting that he and his staff have made great strides in vehicle efficiency.

          Together, Lovins and his staff discovered that the standard vehicle of today wastes between 80 and 85 percent of the energy it generates because of its weight and inefficient engine.  For every five to seven gallons of fuel, only one gallon's worth of propulsion energy gets to the wheels of a car; the 15 to 20 percent of fuel energy that reaches the wheels is used up in accelerating and braking during city driving, air friction, and in heating the road and the tires.  In laymen’s terms, of the energy that is delivered to the wheels, 95 percent moves the car and only the remaining 5 percent moves the driver; thus only 1 percent of the gasoline moves you to your destination.

          Their research enabled them to create a hybrid electric "hypercar," which is currently in various stages of development by several companies around the world.  The hypercar is composed mostly of a super light carbon-fiber body (safer than steel because it absorbs crash energy better), a scooter-sized engine, a gas turbine or fuel cell providing a constant source of electricity, and variable-speed reversible electric motors that can recapture braking energy for reuse after temporarily being stored in a battery or super flywheel.  Quiet, safe, and nearly 95 percent less polluting than a conventional car (engines running at a constant speed reduce emissions by 90 percent and such a light, low-drag car needs roughly one-tenth as large an engine as a regular car), the hypercar gets between 100 and 200 miles per gallon.

          And, because the hypercar is essentially made up of modular plug-in components, the engine can be replaced by a mechanic in 10 minutes.  The hypercar has one-tenth as many moving parts and up to 10 times the fuel economy as a standard car, and its low cost also makes it affordable.  These wonder cars should begin rolling out of the factories by the end of the decade and promise to prove as significant to the automobile industry as the introduction of desktop computers was to the typewriter industry (Hawkin, Paul.  Hypercar.  APRIL, 1997).

Green At Last

          For decades developing nations aspired to the automobile-driven economies of the Western world, but have realized that they must overcome the localized problems of air pollution and the global threat of climate change.  Proactive actions by these nations have already made it possible to incorporate "eco" cars into their vehicle markets in order to prevent future damage to their environment.

          One such company is Ford Europe.  Like many foreign competitors, they have begun pushing flex-fuel capability by using E85 ethanol blends in conventional spark-ignition engines.  These fuel blends produce very low carbon-dioxide emissions averaging 115 g/km (185 g/mile) and are much gentler on the environment than those blends presently used.  Ford Europe’s C-Max will go on sale in early 2008 and the company plans to expand its range of flex-fuel models to include the Galaxy, the Mondeo and the S-Max in late 2008.

          Other automakers that have jump started their "eco" market, include Honda and Toyota.  Toyota is currently developing a four passenger “Loremo LS” which is expected to get over 150 mpg.  Although the vehicle is two feet shorter and one foot narrower and lower than their current “Prius”, many will take delight in this sleek little design.  Their first eco car, the “Prius” currently accommodates five passengers comfortably, but still burns too much of the wrong kind of fuel and emits too much CO2 to be called a sustainable vehicle.

          Honda has also set its sights on building a hybrid vehicle that gets 65 miles per gallon.  This vehicle gets 30% better gas mileage than their latest Civic hybrid, and houses a high-tech compression-ignition gasoline engine.  And like other original equipment manufacturers (OEM’s), Honda is also working on a so-called homogeneous-charge compression-ignition, or HCCI engine which ignites its air-gasoline mixture by compressing it the same way a diesel does, rather than using a spark plug, but at lower temperatures.  HCCI also promises to boost the fuel efficiency of a gasoline engine by 20% (Bradsher, Keith.  The New York Times.  January 5, 1998).

          Even Thailand is getting into the game and plans to promote their "eco" car by offering incentives for investing automobile firms, such as reducing the excise tax on the sale of such vehicles from a current 30% - 50% to a more modest 17%.  In return, investors would agree to sell at least 100,000 units annually, invest at least $150 million and comply with various requirements such as manufacturing a vehicle that consumes less that 5 liters of petrol per 100 kilometers, and comply with the Euro 4 standards of carbon emissions of less than 120 grams per kilometer.  Thailand will also enjoy special tax privileges that will allow them to offer the vehicle at a competitive price which is definitely a win-win situation (Economist Intelligence Unit Viewswire.  <http://www.economist.com.  June 21, 2007).

          In the beginning, these automakers may struggle with U.S. "eco" car sales, but should break even in a couple of years by leveraging development costs and selling at a $3,000 premium to gas-only models.  Give them time and the payoff will be well worth the wait.  The current car-efficiency revolution faces many challenges, and until the "eco" car is given a fair chance, the cost of exporting and importing for both U.S. and foreign automakers proves too hot to handle in our current economy.  The good news is that as time goes on, the need for these vehicles will become greater and more economically viable.  This new market is essential and if U.S. automakers want to catch up with their competitors, they will either have to change the managers' minds, or the managers.  Either way it will be nothing less than an uphill battle.

          On the other hand, consumers overseas are leading their American counterparts when it comes to spurring automakers to greater environmental consciousness.  So why don't these overseas companies move their production to North America and produce these vehicles locally so that they are more affordable to U.S. customers?  Unfortunately, the path to reap the profits of building great vehicles cheaply is not an easy one, especially when the expertise, the suppliers, the infrastructure, the materials, personnel, etc. are not something that you can Fed-Ex across the Atlantic.  Pulling this off would take millions or a miracle – neither of which any of these companies can afford.

          Whatever the case, there is no excuse for an "eco" car to be missing in an American car lineup, especially with today’s competitive global economy.  Foreign automakers have beaten the U.S. to the punch and if they continue to produce and perfect the "eco" car, we will lose the battle to save ourselves.  However, fault cannot be found with the automakers alone – the government has to initiate the laws and policies necessary for the automakers to take action and build the cars, and Americans have to kick the habit of their love for burly trucks, mega-horsepower, and luxury, and buy the cars.  This is a tough habit to break since "eco" cars are just not attractive to U.S. customers, especially when delivering the performance they crave comes at such a huge expense.

Fuel Efficient Influences

          If all else fails, maybe we should put our money on the likes of Johnathan Goodwin of Wichita, Kansas.  His latest project involves a 5,000 pound Hummer 3 and when finished, the H3 will get 60 miles to the gallon and go from 0-60 in five seconds!  This is the sort of work that is making Goodwin famous in the world of underground car modders.  He is a virtuoso of fuel economy and is known to take on the biggest and baddest American cars on the road.  Results prove miraculous as he often quadruples their normal mileage and burns low emission renewable fuels grown on U.S. soil, all while doubling their horsepower!

          Goodwin's experiments point to a radically cleaner and cheaper future for the American car.  With a $5,000 bolt-on kit that he co-engineered, any diesel vehicle can be transformed to burn 50% less fuel and produce 80% fewer emissions.  On a full-size gas-guzzler, the kit will earn its money back in about a year.  The results have thrilled eco-evangelists and red-blooded Americans alike. In the corner of his office sits Neil Young’s 1960 Lincoln Continental – his target for the car?  One hundred miles per gallon!

          Goodwin has proven that he is in a league of his own, and better yet, is hook-free of the very politicians and organizations that have stifled our economic growth by imposing rules and regulations on anyone or anything that stands in their way of making a profit (Thompson, Clive.  “Motorhead Messiah”.  November, 2007).

Curbing Our Oil Addiction

          The 2006 documentary, “Crude Awakening”, argues that the entire global economy is predicated on unending reserves of oil even though our reserves clearly cannot sustain current consumption levels.  Yet our nation’s oil "addiction" gets nothing beyond lip service from our politicians because the powers that be — the oil companies, the automakers, and the current vehicles offered by our automakers are too heavily vested in the status quo to promote meaningful change.  As our politicians continue to kick the can down the road, our deterioration looks more plausible.  Without radical changes in the way we design and develop vehicles, the old oil machine will simply keep pumping until the wells go dry (Gelpke, Basil & Ray McCormack.  “A Crude Awakening:  The Oil Crash”.  November 9, 2007).

          Michigan’s automakers are no better.  They know that oil dependency and global warming are serious problems for our nation –yet we are held hostage as we watch gas prices rise to record levels, the Big Three hemorrhage jobs, and profits climb as foreign competitors answer the rising global demand for fuel-efficient cars.  If the U.S. wants to play catch up with its foreign counterparts, we can no longer continue down this path.  The need to drastically change our current policies is no longer a debatable proposition.  It is not a question of whether, but how; not a question of if, but when - for the sake of our economy and our planet - the age of oil must come to an end.  It is time to establish a competitive, clean, and efficient future for Michigan, and a more secure future for our planet.  It is time for the "eco" car.

          The gauge is edging toward empty, and as it does, the political, environmental, and economic cost of doing business continues to squeeze humanity.  This crisis has become urgent, and this time it is not money at stake--it is humankind.  Definitive actions must replace diluted words and Michigan needs to step up to the plate with the "can do" attitude that once made our State one of America’s greatest.  Our current oil dependency and the global warming it exacerbates create a clear and present danger – economically, diplomatically and environmentally – and the stakes remain high as we try to achieve the technological advances needed in order to break our addiction.

The State Of Our Environment in a Nutshell

          Our nation’s oil addiction has had a huge negative impact on our health and environment.  Reports conclude that consuming just one gallon of gasoline releases 24-28 lbs of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere—19 pounds directly from the tailpipe and an additional 5-8 lbs from upstream sources, such as transporting gasoline and refueling.  U.S. cars and light trucks alone produce more CO2 pollution than all other countries combined except for China, Russia and Japan!

          And, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a standard SUV that gets only 12 miles per gallon in the city will emit an estimated 800 pounds of CO2 over a distance of 500 city miles.  In other words, for each gallon of gas this vehicle consumes, 19.6 pounds of CO2 are emitted into the air.  Compare these figures to the new “eco” Honda Insight which gets 61 miles per gallon, and only emits about 161 pounds of CO2 over the same distance driven, adopting new higher standards should be a priority (UNEP, UNESCO, & WHO.  World Health Organization.  September 15, 2006).  If the U.S. were to adopt higher CAFÉ standards of say 40 mpg, it would avert 345 million tons of CO2 emissions; up to 187 million pounds of toxic emissions; and up to 404 million pounds of smog forming pollutants.  Adopting a higher CAFÉ standard of say 55 mpg, would avert as much as 888 million tons of CO2 emissions; up to 481 million pounds of toxic emissions; and up to 1,039 million pounds of smog-forming pollutants alone (NHTSA.  CAFÉ Overview.  <www:http//nhtsa.dot.gov>)!

          With all of the harmful emissions being pumped into our air, it should not come as any surprise that we are such an “unhealthy” nation.  As these greenhouse gases are pumped into the atmosphere, the phenomenon of global warming occurs which raises the temperature of the earth.  Almost 20% of U.S. CO2 emissions come from the burning of gasoline in the internal-combustion engines of cars, light trucks, and buses.  And in typical urban areas at least half of those pollutants come from off-highway mobile sources such as construction vehicles and boats.  This alone should warrant a state of emergency spanning our local politicians to our national leaders, yet they have yet to make a move (Cars & Pollution. <www.indiacar.com/pollution>).

          Other side affects of global warming include the altering of precipitation patterns as the atmosphere becomes warmer and holds more water.  In turn, these patterns have lead to wetter climates in some areas and drier climates in others.  If this continues, we can expect more extreme weather, more heat waves, more severe storms, and even cooler temperatures world-wide in some locations.  The floods caused by these changes are contaminating the water supply with bacteria, viruses, and parasites, making water in some areas unfit to drink and posing severe dangers to both our fresh water and salt water aquatic life.  Other changes have also had a devastating affect on our wildlife.  For instance, our Polar Bears in the Arctic are literally losing their living space due to the melting of sea ice.  Other areas have succumbed to such high levels of smog that plant growth has been inhibited and irreversible damage has occurred in their crops and forests!

          That’s not all.  Car emission also contribute to acid rain which looks, feels, and tastes just like clean rain, but the pollutants that cause it -- sulfur dioxide (SO2 ) found in the engine exhaust of our car, “poison” advanced catalytic converters and reduce their ability to remove noxious emissions from car engines, and nitrogen oxides (Nox).  Nox is formed when catalytic converters in car exhaust systems break down heavier nitrogen gases.

          We can do our part to curb pollution by limiting our use of automobiles during afternoon and early evening hours in the late Spring, Summer, and early Fall months.  Decreasing the use of gasoline-powered lawn equipment, refraining from fueling our vehicles during those times, and keeping our car engine tuned up are all simple acts which would boast huge results in alleviating ozone pollution (Science Daily. Ozone Pollution. November 10, 2007.

          If Michigan would increase fuel economy standards from the current 27.5 mpg average to 40 mpg, we could cut annual greenhouse gas emissions by 106 million tons; if we increased it to 55 mpg, we could cut annual greenhouse gas emissions by 275 million tons in one year alone.  By designing such a car, Michigan automakers would have an opportunity to become “kings of the road” once again.

Unfortunately, current diesel engines can last a million miles if maintained properly, so the incentive to produce eco-friendly vehicles is virtually non-existent for the auto manufacturers or the oil industry.

          Our U.S. government could raise and enforce The Clean Air Act standards.  The Clean Air Act was created in 1970, and last amended in 1990.  The Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for widespread pollutants which are considered harmful to public health and the environment, and is based on the highest ozone exposure that sensitive persons can tolerate.  Unfortunately nearly 100 U.S. cities currently exceed the EPA NAAQS, and nine cities, home to 57 million people, are considered "severely" polluted and experience peak ozone levels that exceed the standard by 50% or more!

          Opportunities to clean up our act are endless, yet our leaders remain stagnant.  Raising and enforcing CAFÉ standards is the single biggest step that our country can take to aid in curbing global warming.  Adopting new standards would not only help to reduce key air pollutants, but would improve public health and help cities and states meet clean air standards.

Cars are Hazardous to our Health

          Ozone pollution is caused in part by cars and is the major component of smog.  Ozone presents this country's most intractable urban air quality problem and when you inhale ozone, it travels throughout your respiratory tract.  Ozone is also very corrosive and damages the bronchioles and alveoli in your air sacs that are important for gas exchange.  Ozone exposure can aggravate existing respiratory conditions such as asthma, reduce lung function and capacity for exercise, and cause chest pains and coughing.  Young children, adults who are active outdoors, and people with respiratory diseases are most susceptible to the high levels of ozone encountered during the summer months.

          Greenhouse gases have also been linked to health risks, such as gastrointestinal infections caused by shortages of clean water; severe attacks of asthma and other respiratory and cardiac problems, including lung inflammation, bronchitis, pneumonia, and decreased resistance to respiratory infections caused by increased air pollution and ozone (smog) levels; and vector-borne infectious diseases, such as malaria, dengue fever, and West Nile virus due to the rise in temperature and the warmer climates.  And if that isn’t enough to scare you green, reports also confirm that global warming is known to cause heat-related illness and deaths in seniors, young children, as well as developmental delays, disabilities, and even premature death in infants!

          Our fossil-fueled power plants are no better.  These power plants create nitrogen dioxide, a primary ingredient in smog, which is emitted into our air making lung tissue more sensitive to allergens, less able to ward off infections, and scars airway tissue as well.  And, as these particles are inhaled, they are absorbed into the bloodstream, where they are known to contribute to atherosclerosis, the disease of the arteries, which is a major cause of heart attacks, strokes, and cancer!

          It is time for Michigan to raise the bar when it comes to our air quality regulations and fuel efficiency so that we can be sure that the air that we breathe is the cleanest it can be.   If Michigan would demand that U.S. automakers develop the untapped technology of eco friendly vehicles, we would not only save billions by combating the current threats on our natural resources – but also pocket the billions we currently spend on combating human conditions such as asthma and cancer.

          So why does the U.S. continue to play Russian Roulette with our future by putting the world at risk and jeopardizing the health and well-being of its citizens?  It is most likely because American policy makers work as hired help of big business, spending most of their working hours soliciting favors and bribes (a.k.a. "campaign contributions").  In turn, their corporate masters expect them to plunder the biosphere and its people, convincing them that, in President Cleveland’s words, "the business of America is business." (Nissani, Moti. Dissident Voice. November 23, 2005).

          This behavior continues to run rampant, making it clear that many of our country’s laws and regulations are made for political gain, rather than our nation’s interest.  Republicans and Democrats are raking in the cash from wealthy "special interests"--in exchange for allowing these interests to shape laws to their advantage and gain "access" at every level of government.  Most of the time this takes place behind the scenes--though the politicians sometimes come up with a public justification for helping out their big business buddies, like the lie that Bush’s tax cut giveaways to the super-rich are really about creating jobs.  Either way, Washington revolves around money.

Fuel Economy 101

          Improving fuel economy is crucial to cleaning up our act.  Fuel economy is defined as the average mileage traveled by an automobile per gallon of gasoline (or other fuel) consumed and measured in accordance with the testing and evaluation protocol set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  If we could boost our standards and get, say 60 miles to the gallon in an eco car, a 600 mile drive would burn only 10 gallons of gas.  On the other hand, driving one of our current gas guzzlers getting only 6 miles to the gallon, the same 600 mile drive would burn a hefty 100 gallons of gas.  It is clear that driving an eco car would be a huge hit in saving both our health and our environment!

          It is no secret that the fuel economy of our foreign counterparts has raced ahead of the U.S.  And, unless we act now, it will be a miracle of sorts just to catch up.  Europe has been producing vehicles capable of 40 and 50 mpg for quite some time; Audi introduced a 3 cylinder turbo diesel that boasted 65 mpg city and 80 mpg highway in 2000; and BMW currently offers a 6 cylinder diesel model that gets 52 mpg.  These cold hard facts should prove incentive enough for us to shift gears and drive greener vehicles.

          In order to “sell” the eco car to the buying public, the following statistics would play a major part in proving just how important it is to go green.  According to CAFÉ standards, the average mpg for a standard U.S. vehicle is 27.5 mpg (CAFÉ Overview NHTSA.gov); and according to the U.S. Department of Transportation, the average miles driven annually in the U.S. is 21,187 (Highway Statistics 2005, Section VII National Household Travel Survey (NHTS).  If we were to take the average miles per gallon, or 27.5 mpg and divide it into 21,187, the average miles driven per year, the total comes to 770 gallons of fuel used per year.  Multiply the 770 gals by $4.00, or the average prospective cost of one gallon of gas, we find that we spend $3,080 annually on fuel.  Taking this a step further, if we multiplied the $3,080 spent annually by 52, or average years driven, the average consumer spends a whopping $160,160 on fuel during their lifetime.

          If on the other hand, we drove an eco car which got 110 mpg, we would divide 21,187, the average miles driven annually by 110 mpg, and would only use 192 gallons of fuel per year.  We could then multiply 192 gallons by $4, the average cost of a gallon of gas and find that we would only spend $768 annually versus the $3,080 with a standard vehicle.  Taking this a step further, if we multiplied the $768 by 52, or average years driven, we would spend a mere $40,000 for fuel during our lifetime.  The cost difference for driving a green vehicle would save an estimated $2,312 per year, or an astounding $120,000 per lifetime!

General Motors Surpasses Ford

          Before "The Big Three" became a household word, it was Ford's market dominance that gave the competition a run for its money.  However, that all changed in the 1920’s when General Motors (GM) reorganized its conglomerate in an attempt to devise a strategy to crack Ford’s lock on the market. GM’s plan was to put more effort into a psychologically more appealing vehicle, presuming that the customer could be enticed by something more than just basic transportation and quality.  GM came up with the 1923 Chevrolet with hopes of surpassing the Ford Model T.  Although the engine was delayed due to technical problems, the vehicle, with its nine year old technology, graced a new body style which gave it the look of an expensive luxury car.

          This Chevy was a huge sensation, and brisk sales convinced GM that it was not necessary to lead in engineering, but merely to offer consumers better looking cars.  As a result, aesthetic innovation integrated their previously independent brands into a scheme of parts-sharing.  The different models and makes not only shared mechanical parts, like transmissions and brakes, but also the structural foundations of the body shell.  And, although a variety of models were built from just three shells, they appeared unique by sporting superficial features like fenders, headlights, taillights, and chrome trim.  The icing on the cake was the introduction of a nitro-cellulose lacquer paint - its dazzling colors eclipsed the black Ford models and propelled GM to the top when the Model T was discontinued in 1927.

          Thus "tradition" was born.  These selling tactics became widespread and left customers clueless to the fact that underneath all of the glitz and glamour, the body and mechanical parts of the cars that they were buying remained unchanged, were often of poor quality and unsafe.   Over the years, the quality of U.S. vehicles has improved but only because American consumers demanded it.  For the most part it seems as though U.S. automakers cut corners wherever and whenever they could, all for the sake of profit.  The cars that Americans would like automakers to make and the cars that America needs automakers to make, differ fundamentally from those that the automakers have been making.  Unfortunately, until they lose the totality of their market share and the Michigan jobs that they support, it is doubtful that we will see a change.

Moving in the Right Direction

          We can no longer afford to point fingers of blame at the automakers, the oil men, the bankers, or our government.  If we hope for another miracle out of Michigan, we must demand that production be revamped, we must assist in the transition, and we must make the choice to buy these cars when we have the option.  We all have a responsibility and we all are required to act.

          Despite the obstacles in the road, it would make sense to develop a viable and a realistic strategy to overcome our current woes.  In order for the "eco" car to succeed, oil companies and automakers need to work jointly with the Federal or State government.  The key for success would derive from the synergy of bringing together the best and brightest scientists from industry, the government, and academia in the pursuit of the perfect automobile.  Until then, our politicians will continue to speak in soaring rhetoric about the need to reduce America's gasoline and energy dependence, and offer plans and policies to do so, yet every year that dependence continues to grow.  Good ideas are crushed under the weight of typical Washington and Lansing politics; politicians are afraid to ask the oil and auto industries to do their part; and those industries hire armies of lobbyists to make sure that it stays that way.  Auto workers fearful of losing their jobs and wise to the tendency of having to pay the price of management's mistakes, also join in the resistance to change.  The rest of us whip ourselves into a frenzy whenever gas prices skyrocket, but once the headlines recede so does our motivation to act.

The Game Plan

          Whatever course we take, in order to succeed in the brave new "eco" world we will have to get our hooks into those automakers, bankers, oil men, and politicians who are left behind.  Maybe if they see that consumers crave the new cool "eco" cars which no longer pose a threat to our planet - they may just develop an interest in them without even thinking about what is or isn't sputtering out of the tailpipe.

          When it comes to selling such a concept, there are both the written and unwritten rules in the political sales game.  One of the best ways for a voice to be heard is to access Governor Granholm’s Constituent Services Division at Michigan.gov.  This site not only allows Michigan residents to communicate their questions, concerns and opinions, but assists them in reaching the state department or office best suited to offer assistance or clarification on whatever issues are at hand.

Constituent Services

PO Box 30013

Lansing, MI 48909

Telephone (517) 335-7858

Fax 517-335-6863

 

          An "eco" car proposal would be best received by Governor Granholm if it is hand written and presented on one page of quality stationery – anything more will be left unread as it takes up too much of her time.  The information included in the proposal should be clear and concise and offer brief history of the 1983 Volvo LCP 2000.  The proposal should also explain that had the automakers done their homework – our gasoline dependency would be a thing of the past.  Also, relevance of fuel efficiency and the affects of gasoline on our health and our environment should stress the importance of the "eco" car and the fact that it is not only the obvious choice – but the only choice for sustaining Michigan’s future.

          Networking with the Department of Transportation, automakers, and local and national media would also prove helpful by allowing us to familiarize ourselves with the culture of doing government business.  This in turn, would put us on the path to establishing relationships and other possible partnerships in the quest to save our future.

Where Do We Go From Here?

          We live in a world where our political system gives the appearance of offering a choice, without really offering one.  This isn’t democracy.  We deserve better than a system rigged against the majority of people--where political power and influence is sold to the highest bidder.  We need to take America back from the disconnected decision-makers, policy-makers, and self-serving politicians who are selling out our future.  Each one of them continues to muddy the waters by obsessing about what went wrong in the past and have no clue as to how to go about fixing our current problems.

          We can only hope that Michigan’s leaders choose to harness the dynamics of these ideas and proposals, which would not only generate wealth and protect our climate, but build security by creating a vehicle which would do it all – at an affordable price – and hence ensure the overall success of Michigan’s future.

          And, while it is clear that the Darwinian business mantra "Adapt or die" applies to the current state of affairs in Michigan, with its abundant cornfields, its automotive background and our green thinking, Michigan has the opportunity to lead the industry in flex fuel technology and manufacture a better breed of cars.  It is rare that so many pieces of the puzzle are in one place — the resources are in our very own backyard, and if we stand up and make ourselves heard, we have the power to change the course of history and make Michigan greener all around.

          Now is our chance to shine and meet the challenges before us - challenges that will not only take a great deal of shared sacrifice and responsibility from all of us, but also from the auto industry and Michigan workers, the oil companies, the power plants, the legislators, and consumers in every U.S. city and town.  It is time to head back into the factories and universities; and back to the boardrooms and the halls of Congress so that we can roll up our sleeves and find a way to bring us back alive!


WORKS CITED

Baldwin, J. "Eco-Cars - The Volvo LCP 2000 Research Auto".  Whole Earth     Review.  1990.

 

Begley. Sharon.  "The Road Not Taken".  National Wildlife Magazine .

 

Bradsher, Keith.  “U.S. Automakers Showing Interest In Fuel Economy”  The New    York Times.  January 5, 1998.

 

CAFÉ Overview.  http://NHTSA.gov.

"Car Mileage and Average MPG".  For Those Who Want To Know.            http://Www.wanttoknow.info / newenergysources.

Cars & Pollution.  http://indiacar.com / pollution.

Chan, Jennifer.  "What are the Human Health Effects and Environmental         Consequences of Motor Vehicle Pollution?"  HSC Weekly .  February 2,2007.

Chou, Kimberly.  "Fuelish Thoughts."  Metromode .  May 10, 2007.

 

Economist Intelligence Unit Viewswire.  <http://www.economist.com.

          June 21, 2007

“Effects of Acid Rain”.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  http://epa.gov.

 

"Environment and Breast Cancer: Science Review."  Silent Spring Institute .

          August 9, 2007.  < http://www.sciencereview.silentspring.org>.

 

Fossen, John.  Ford Communications Network.  Ford Motor Company.

          September 13, 2004.

 

Gartman, David.  "General Motors Style Overtakes Ford Efficiency."  The Cultural     Antagonisms of Engineering and Aesthetics in Automotive History.

 

Gauderman, W. James. Hita Vora. Rob McConnell. Kiros Berhane. Frank Gilliland.     Duncan Thomas. Fred Lurmann. Edward Avol. Nino Kunzli. Michael Jerrett.        and John Peters.  "Effect of Exposure to Traffic on Lung Development from 10 to 18 Years of Age.  A Co-Hurt Study.  The Lancet .  Volume 368.

          February, 2007.

 

Gelpke, Basil & Ray McCormack.  “A Crude Awakening:  The Oil Crash”.

          November 9, 2007.

 

Hawkin, Paul.  “Hypercar”.  April, 1997.

 

Highway Statistics.  Section VII National Household Travel Survey.  2005.

Janssen, Peter.  <http://M&Clifestyle.com>.  July 25, 2007.

Lavelle, Peter.  "Jogging in the Fumes".  The Pulse .  June 23, 2005.

Long, Scott.  “The Control That Culture Can and Will Have Over Technology”.            <http://fubini.swarthmore.edu>.  February 6, 2003.

Lovins, Amory B.  "Reinventing the Wheels".  Journal USA.

Madson, Travis. Timothy Telleen-Lawton. and Mike Shriberg.  "Energizing       Michigan’s Economy."  Environment Michigan Research & Policy Center.     February, 2007.

 

"Medical News Today."  Public Health News .  December 3, 2003.  <http://           www.medicalnewstoday.com />.

 

(NHTSA.  CAFÉ Overview.  <www:http//nhtsa.dot.gov>).

 

Nissani, Moti.  <http:// www.dissidentvoice.org >.  November 23, 2005.

"Pollutants and Programs".  Transportation and Air Quality.  <http:// www.epa.gov           / otaq >.

Ricciuti, Alex.  "S-Max USA? No way"!  AutoSavant – Cars and the Car Business.     July 19, 2007.

Science Daily.  Ozone Pollution.  November 10, 2007.

Stauffer, Nancy.  “Atomic Insight May Lead to Cleaner Cars”.  MIT Laboratory for    Energy and the Environment.  September 24, 2003.

"Teaching for a sustainable world".  Griffith University and the Department of the     Environment, Sport & Territories.  1997.

UNEP, UNESCO, & WHO.  “Reducing The Health Risks for Children from Ozone Layer           Depletion”.  World Health Organization.  September 15, 2006.

The EPA website: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/roads.html.

Thompson, Clive.  “Motorhead Messiah”.  http://www.fastcompany.com.      November, 2007.

Walsh, John.  "Will the Eco Car Fly".  August 7, 2007.  http://Suite 101.com.

 

Welch, David.  "As Detroit Stalls, Japan Drives in".  Business Week .

          August 14, 2000.

Wiliwan, Jantraprap, Viparat, and Pongpitak.  "Planet Ark".  World Environmental      News .  August 6, 2007.

 

  Class Gateway      

Moti Nissani's Homepage