Although I don't agree with it, it seems the debate on the causes on Global Warming is over.

With this in mind, it won't be long till lawmakers start making legislation to curb excess CO2 output.

Auto and Drag racing obviously use a very large amount of resources: fuel, oils, fluids, and rubber for the many tires that are used during the course of a race. Then on top of that, the tremendous amount of CO2 that these cars emit.

Questions for debate:

1. Aside from entertainment, what are the benefits of auto/drag racing for using such a tremendous amount of resources and CO2 they expel into the atmosphere?

2. Should lawmakers tax or prohibit auto racing to help curb the effects of CO2 on the atmosphere?

As a drag racer- I have to say- what a giant load of fecal material. I use one 55 gallon drum of fuel FOR AN ENTIRE RACING SEASON- also- my vehicle HAS to reach 110% VE- in other words- if I dump raw fuel out my exhaust- I am not in good tune, and will lose.

Also- you do an average, at a small regional track, of about 7-10 runs, which, in my case, only has around NINE SECONDS of flat out run time- and about 2-3 minutes of actual run time.

A dragster even runs a shorter time, and runs nitromethane- (liquid dynomite) and runs for about 2-3 minutes, max, or it simply becuse a very, very expensive paperwieght!

the real issue is land grabbing by NIMBYs- has nothing whatsoever to do with the enviroment. They buy land around a drag strip, and then start moaning and complaining about how they are too loud etc. I seriously would love to punch each and every one of them in the 'nads

The breathing of folks in one city in one day will put out more Co2 than all the race tracks in the nation combined- they just don't run long enough.

ON top of that- MOST of the cars on the track are "EVERYDAY" drivers- meaning, they are also the family commuter.

Drag Racing is a a true 'sportsman" racing- meaning, they run on handicap, so you can go out there in your toyota hybird and race and beat my full on 500ci fire breathing race car- if you got the skillz!

So- quite frankly, what car you going to ban with this?

ALL forms of motorized racing is such a miniscule race of resources, that it is completely insignificant to the debate- anybody with gasoline in thier viens will tell you that the hippie-yuppie Volvo is a far bigger polluter than ANY race vehicle- simply because the person just can't, or doesn't, keep the vehicle in the optimum state of tune.

Very, very, very few cars on the road, EVER reach 100% volumetric efficiency- and a hybird Prius uses more fuel in a commute in it's year of commuting than I use in my race car in an entire season of racing.

I am quite sure this is a ploy by the anti-global warning crowd to get kneejerk and effective reaction AGAINST any REALISTIC curbing of Co2 gases- because it torques off so many poeple, when they know how completely ridiculous the entire argument is

it is like this- we stop children from having pets because cows in India put out so much methane- and one pet horse in Alaska puts out methane- so let's kill the horse. Just that one though- and leave the 1 billion cows in Inda alone.


Sleeper- I am curious- where do you get the idea that they 'obviously" use so much resources?

Like I said- I use one 55 gallon drum of "Trick 114" 114 octane fuel per SEASON - it is also EXTREMELY clean fuel- has to be- and costs me 8.50 cents a GALLON- you can bet I am a bit stingy with it! My car, by the way- has 850hp and a 500ci motor- and burns that fuel more efficiently per Ci than ANY production car on the PLANET- why? Because if it is NOT burning that efficiently- I am losing HP, and it means I LOSE. and I use ONE set of tires per season- and that is ONLY the back tires- the front tires are like brand new- I only put mileage on them 1/4 of a mile at a time - I bet I have less than 2000 miles on them- and most of them is from driving around on the street.

How much fuel do you use in a month Sleeper? You fill up your car once, twice, three times in a month?

There are, oh, lets say- about NO MORE than 100 cars at a local drag strip race- and that is being really, really generous. A national event usually happens once a month through the 8-9 month season on the national level- and really- if you want to see wastage of fuel- it is in the spectators, waiting in line for parking.

Still, that doesn't equal the gridlock on a SoCal hiway in one morning rush hour!

But , this weekend, at the races, there were about 35 cars- in a city of 350,000 poeple, where 40k commute to work, 50 miles a day, every day, minimum, from Eagle River to Anchorage.

How do you get the comparison of use of resources there?

I would say there are really only two types of racing that REALLY drinks the fuel- and that is 200mile + road racing, at the pro level. Not so much in the race car- but the support teams- OMG do those guys go through the $- a helicopter or learjet or three, a couple three semi's full of tools and generators and mobile machine shops, etc etc

Even still- Nascar can't hold up to the morning commute in any city of over 1 million poeple!

But aren't those unnecessary wastes of fuel?

Look at all the toxins that are spewed into the air when a dragster does its burnout to heat the tires for better grip on the track.

I have seen you champion the environment in other threads CR. Racing is a complete waste of vital resources and unnecessarily emits green house gases into the atmosphere.

People that are commuting are using their cars to get to work and live their lives.

Oh and I need some resources for these statements:



By the way I am sure NASCAR will be one of the first targets long before drag racing.

The debate isn't anywhere near close to over, although the alarmists will do everything they can to posture that it is, especially as more and more evidence contrary to their position comes in...

1. Aside from entertainment, what are the benefits of auto/drag racing for using such a tremendous amount of resources and CO2 they expel into the atmosphere?
Research. Racing brings substantial technical advances to technologies, whether they be automotive, maritime, cycling, skiing, etc. Competition and warfare (an extremely vigourous and violent form of competition) have historically proven to be the most effective means of advancing technology.

2. Should lawmakers tax or prohibit auto racing to help curb the effects of CO2 on the atmosphere?
No. Why not tax or prohibit rock festivals or Burning Man based on this cockamamie theory? The crowd attending Lolopalooza likely uses more resources to get to/from the event than the NHRA uses in a year.


Tires. A perfect example of how "racing improves the breed." Do some research into the evolution of tires, both automotive, and more glaringly, motorcycle, and learn.

Believe me I am with you on this BD, but I think the independent thinkers on this are lost. Anthropogenic global warming is an agenda that is moving down the track at full speed and there will be changes made in the future.

The far left in the world loathes the internal combustion engine and we will soon see the effects of that hatred through extreme regulation and environmental taxation.

1. Aside from entertainment, what are the benefits of auto/drag racing for using such a tremendous amount of resources and CO2 they expel into the atmosphere?
I've had this discussion before and unfortunately it didn't go well. The arguement in part assesses how much energy can be used verses insert electric/hybrid/alternative energy X by breaking down the internal combustion engine and getting technical. Getting technical does not go over with enviromentalism so the info goes in one ear and out the other.

So in the simplest terms I could muster I made an arguement that started out very much like Bikerdad's.

Most production I.C. engines run around 75% volumetric efficiency. The rest gets wasted either out the tailpipe or thrown off as heat. If we switched over to electric tommorrow, we would incur similar problems by placing greater demand on a failing energy grid which experiences lossses greater than 25%. This means we have to build bigger power plants to overshoot. We'd also experience more concentrated pollution on a level never before experienced. We would in effect replace smaller tailpipes for larger ones and because of a weak grid system be forced to rethink proven power producing methods by returning to coal and nuclear fuel. This are political unpopular at the moment.

Forget about political correctness. What nascar does is give us new ways to bump up the efficiencies either through sequention fuel injected, crank triggers as opposed to distributers and a myriad of sensors which pay attention to engine activity. The technological advances in racing served as a R and D of sorts for the big three in the hey day.

2. Should lawmakers tax or prohibit auto racing to help curb the effects of CO2 on the atmosphere?
I wouldn't simply because there aren't a lot of cars on the road anymore that are carburated and the amount of run time by the racing industry is minimal compared to the amount of time spent by people running cars which are out of tune.

I'd much rather see basic rationing put in place giving you X many litres or gallons per week. Sure a black market would pop up over night but it would discourage the 90 minute suburb commute bigtime! So would running passenger car that wasn't designed for diesel.

Excuse me while I a few hundred times...

You would rather place a ration limit on people living their daily lives rather than limit a form of entertainment? Just wow.

If I really believed in Anthropogenic global warming the first thing I would do is limit unnecessary use of fossil fuels which emit green house gasses into the air. Starting with STOCK/INDY cars. I can really do without a bunch of rednecks(and yes I used to be a redneck) turning left.

1. Aside from entertainment, what are the benefits of auto/drag racing for using such a tremendous amount of resources and CO2 they expel into the atmosphere?

This is a good example of how not to promote the reduction of greenhouse gas release. The transformation has to be societal not through attacking people's individual pet passions like racing. I'm sure that CruisingRam is right in that the fuel consumption devoted to racing is minor compared to driving generally and even in comparison to the fuel used by fans traveling to and from races. We have to concentrate on transforming the fuel efficiency of all vehicles and in encouraging alternate transportation. Racing cars with internal combustion engines is a product of most people driving similar vehicles and being fascinated by high performance. Presumably, if most people are driving super efficient cars contests will grow up to demonstrate their best performance and to help drive research.

2. Should lawmakers tax or prohibit auto racing to help curb the effects of CO2 on the atmosphere?

No, but I favor passing a carbon tax on all sources of CO2 that starts out at a low rate and is steeply graduated over time to provide market incentive for improvements in end use efficiency and alternatives to carbon based fuels.



Like all such generalizations, this one doesn't hold water!

You place great emphasis on "volumetric efficiency" which refers to the efficiency with which the engine can move the charge into and out of the cylinders but says little about overall efficiency. It would be more appropriate to compare the Carnot efficiency of different alternatives as heat engines. Better yet would be to compare their"end use efficiency," which would include throttling losses, breaking losses, and friction losses as well as heat losses. After all, what's important is the amount of useful work that can be done with a given volume of fuel, in this case, moving a warm body from point A to point B. I like to refer everyone to the work of Amory Lovins and the Rocky Mountain Institute. Seethe Hyper Car and the RMI Homepage.

Lovin's approach to lowering vehicle weight standards involves turning the average chassis into a formula one car composite tube chassis. I've spent most of my time with his wife Hunter when she visits through town, and while I agree Amory is one smart apple, his ideas are largely theoretical, which includes his supercar.

Amory sells blue-sky appeal. His own website reinforces this. Take for example his supercar which you graciously provided.



Any guy that makes hard claims about fuel economy at 99mpg on a virtual construct and nothing more is my definition of a charlatan. He hasn't even settled on a power plant and he is already making extensive predictions without acknowledging the difficulty in mass producing these exotic materials.

Hey if exotic materials were easy to produce the De Lorean would have been a hit. The cost hinderance in making a car entirely from stainless steel was too large an obstacle to overcome. Keep that in mind when Mr. Lovin's peddles similar notions. His hope is to design an ever lighter car so that he can downsize the required power plant. What Mr. Lovin's fails to acknowledge however is that cars have come down in weight over the past 30 years by incorporating more plastics and lights gauges of metal. Guess what? They reached a limit as to how far they could skim without compromising public safety.

Look at all the extra engineering that goes into a formula one car so that all impact damage is a controlled shear. WE CAN'T AFFORD TO DO THAT WITH A PRODUCTION CAR.


The amount saved from stopping the "entertainment" is negligible when compared to public usage. If you wish to pursue a dead horse for no real savings other than principle and stereotypes by all means go ahead. You'll find the teaspoon you've saved does not begin to address the problem in terms of fuel savings or emissions.

My route forces car pooling by relying on cooperative efforts to buddy people up on the way to work. My route addresses the inherently inelastic demand driving verses rising prices, while indirectly spurring on efficiency. It does not require removing infrastructure nor does it require star trek technology. All it relies on is depression era foodstamp usage and placing real limits on consumption. You will not find a technological solution to a societal problem.

1. Aside from entertainment, what are the benefits of auto/drag racing for using such a tremendous amount of resources and CO2 they expel into the atmosphere?

[b]2. Should lawmakers tax or prohibit auto racing to help curb the effects of CO2 on the atmosphere?

On the whole global warming issue, let's not use car racing as a scapegoat. On any given day, there are millions of cars on America's roads but maybe a few hundred drag races going on. If lawmakers were serious about cutting CO2 emisisons, right now is kind of late for doing so, then the lawmakers should put high taxes on gasoline and close down parking lots and do other things to encourage people to cut down on their driving and use public transportation and carpooling instead.

There are whole classes of drag and road racing sanctioned events that foster the very kind of tech that could actually save us from ineffiecent fuel usage- and BTW- Megasquirt Fuel injection is a new shareware set up that allows you to convert old iron to EFI type motors- this was designed completely by the aftermarket parts demand- along with billions of dollars worth of other innovations and parts sales

Methanol- its use has pretty much been confined TO the track, though most classes it is illegal- makes too much power!

I would say about 90% of all diesel technological innovations are coming out of drag racing right now- though I understand the Craftsmen Truck Nascar series is looking into a diesel class- which will run bio-diesel BTW-

Almost every person at a drag strip or motor-based race event- that participate's in it- is some part of the industry that they race in-moto mechanic in a motobike race scene for instance.

Smokey Yunik, of NASCAR fame, has over 100 patents dealing with fuel savings and some really killer innovative homogenous fuel saving systems- in all vehicles today, you run a heterogenous mixture of fuel and air, and he came up with a way to make it a homogenous fuel compound that burned nearly 100% of all fuel that ran through the cylinder.

Volumetric efficiency and total efficiency are quite different

An internal combustion engine, the gasoline type, I believe can never hit over 18% efficiency, a Diesel somewhere around 26%, a turbine around 80+% , only an external combustion engine like a steam engine can hit around 95%- higher in the lab.

That is because so much heat is lost in the internal combustion engine= lots of heat out the exhuast, that is not being put to use as power.

Steam engines we have not made safe enough, light enough or powerful enough for most transport needs- we can't even get semi trucks to run them YET. Steam engines are great for water transport though!

Turnine engines are too expensive to manufacture at today's tech- the tolerances have to bee too close

Chyrsler had some outstanding turbine cars, and made 500 of them in the 60s, but the expense of manufacture made the price per unit out of site

Diesel tech is taking over Europe, and we are starting to see the light now

And hybirds are starting to slowly take off for the gasoline motors.


Pretty much ANY innovation that is going to come out of any practical application for individual family transportaton is going to happen in the race field

racing is were engineers fied test thier ideas- most folks don't realize this angle at all.

There was a team called "the ramchargers" back in the 50s and 60s in drag racing- made up of what is still considered the most innovative and talented pool of engineers assembled on the planet for personal transportation ever= they were all engineers and mechanics for Chrysler- and were feeding select racers thier innovations for Dodge vehicles "out the back door"- they would build a piece of something, and sneak it out the back (TOTALLY sanctioned by the big wigs- but damn few memos to prove it ) - and race it on sunday- take it back to the factory, and have a look see about how it stood up to the "acid test enviroment" of the drag strip or super-speedway.

Also- safety comes out of these racing venues as well- the ENTIRE helmet industry we know for racing today, that also trickled down into everything from bike helmets for the kiddies to impact studies on the human body come out of a guy watching his friend die on a race track in the 50s- helmets, seat belts, break away body panels and car systems to keep frm killing the occupants- detroit turned to the racers every time to make YOUR car safer

because WE crash test them at200mph + VOLUNTARILY-

Wanna know why you can have confidence in your seat belt?It is because someone like me strapped one on and proceeded, to field test a seat belt at 180mph one day- and walk away! - not that I was intending originally to test a seat belt.

Take the death of Dale Earnhardt, Mark Donahue and Shirley Muldowny's horific burns from a crash back in the early 70s-

Dale Earnhardt's crash was one of the most recent. Simpson racing safety products are the best in the world, and I have every confidence in them- and Dale Earnhardt had confidence in them too- and died anyway.

IN interview after interview you see with the engineers and innovators at Simpsons, they take his death as though they pulled a trigger on a gun and killed him. Even though he died through no fault of thier own, they make it thier personal mission to see that NO ONE DIES if they can invent something that makes someone safer.

And every single innovation for personal safety in a vehicle comes out of that particular company- INCLUDING- for you parents- car seats for children. EVERY.SINGLE. ONE.

You buckle up, from the locking mechanism to the fabric to the way it bolts to the floor- at some point, the basic design came from Simpson.

And it is all because some dude named Simpson didn't want to see friends die at the race track.

Racing, of any type that involves human transportation- is the 'REAL WORLD" engineering test bed for EVERYTHING that comes down to benefit mankind.

It is the only place where the smart monkey will do the dangerous things voluntarily, all in the name of fun though!

Not quite “over” as we have not yet signed the silly “Treaty” which will do squat for the environment and cost us 400 billion/year. Plenty of debate left.

IMO all we see now is political posturing by Bush on the issue. Dems wil do the same as we get into 08. The gas mileage increases by Bush are for more important for this country and our environment.


As for auto/drag racing it uses so little of any “oils” rubber etc and puts out so little CO2 – it is insignificant.

What “lawmakers” should go after is power plants that spew all kinds of pollution including CO2 – they have gotten breaks for far too long. Where the hell are the new nuke plants we heard about 2 years ago????

Okay- here is another things- Repsol Fuel, the same company that has fielded the winniest Honda teams in MOtogp history, including Nickey Hayden, the Kentucky Kid that won the championship last year, has possibly invented an actual bio-fuel, using algae in giant tanks, that is actually feasible to use as a global personal transportation fuel source- and they came up with it out of thier racing fuels department.

That innovation alone could possibly make the entire world less dependent on CO2 spewing factories and cars current fuel technologies.

Also- most forms of racing are the leading edge of "recycle technology" and have amazingly small 'carbon footprints" as well- my race car came out of an old grannies back yard- more fuel goes into making steel for a vehicle than the car uses in it's serviceable lifespan- so when we extend that lifespan, no new steel is used- and the enormous amount of energy it takes to make the steel for that car (or motorcycle in my case as well)

1. Aside from entertainment, what are the benefits of auto/drag racing for using such a tremendous amount of resources and CO2 they expel into the atmosphere?

The same benefits that any other professional sport has (or doesn’t have). You don’t think the thousands of fans driving to football/baseball/hockey/soccer/basketball, etc. games don’t burn unnecessary fuel getting there? What about the massive energy consumption during any major sports event? Energy to heat indoor arenas and power lights and equipment comes from fossil fuel sources. All sports are "entertainment". It's unfair to say "aside from entertainment" when that's all any sport is.

2. Should lawmakers tax or prohibit auto racing to help curb the effects of CO2 on the atmosphere?

No, as others have pointed out, it’s a blip on the pollution radar screen. Besides, this abstract (sorry, it’s premium content, so I can’t access it) says that NASCAR is transitioning to cleaner fuels.

We’d be better off banning gasoline-powered lawnmowers. Now THERE is a polluter. Buy a Neuton.

DG and others- you can see from my AVATAR- that I am a hard core racer, and have been since the age of 7- I changed tires and fuel for my Uncle Coot's record holding 1964 Ram Max wedge "Savoy"- a 426 cross rammed wedge David vs Goliath world beater- we beat both the ramchargers and the national sponsored teams, at six different national events, destroying old records in the process. I myself have won national and regional events in sprint car, outlaw and drag racing events, and numerous cycling events- both mountain bike and the gas powered type

So ya, I have gasoline in my blood

funny thing is, THE RACERs have been BEGGING the santioning bodies to allow us to use alternative fuels and hybird cars- we had to lobby like crazy just to get them to let us use EFI.

When a class rule is opened up, innovations come so fast, darn near light speed, that the sanctioning body has to be careful that the cars/bikes/whatever don't go faster than the safety equipment innovations that must accompany them.

Methanol and Ethanol are "Alcohol" classes- they are considered a "power adder"- and funny enough- WE have been the ones saying, way back in the 60s and 70s "why are we running fossil fuels in the grocery-getters? "

All kinds of "pollution controls" are there not because they really make a motor more efficent, more smog free etc (with the possible exception of the PCvalve and the EGR valves- which we all use anyway- it keeps raw fuel fumes fom leaching into the atmosphere)

it is there because the average person doesn't know how to keep thier car in optimum tune,

here is an example. My race car has a 500ci, 850hp motor with "shorty" collectors- not even mufflers (okay- noise pollution- you got us on that one )= my care passes the "sniffer" test for a 2007 4 cylinder hybrid, and puts out less NOX than a hybird Prius! Why? Because I tune my car before it leaves the driveway- very few here could do it, I imagine- and my fuel is 8.50 cent a gallon premium fuel- no unneccesary additives here, and it is very, very refined.

At idle, and under power, I can tune my car with an old palm pilot (though, right now, I have a very old laptop I picked up for 10 bucks- another recycle use for hot rods ) and lean or richen the mixture, which I can actually do by ear better than the computer mapping programs, because I have done this so long (the computer tells me it is a bit "fat", and I think it is just right- the tail pipe sniffer tells m I am the correct one, I listen to the rise and fall of RPMs througout the power band)

I have just finished a "power tour" set up for my 1969 Coronet , it is now going to be running a 500ci EFI "hybird" (here meaning, it is a custom stroke and bore ratio that was never offered from the factory) with a six speed transmission I took from a modern corvette.

I have built this car, and cars before it, that get over 30mpg, while pumping out AT LEAST 500HP, - because it is purpose designed to do this.

The factories pay us innovator big bucks on occasion to buy our ideas- and there is no harder "scouting for talent" in any venue- including basketball and football- than what auto factories do looking around pro-mechanics at the drag strip or race track- that is why they send HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars our way, and give us cars, and motors, and pretty much anything we ask for, because they know where the innovation happens.

I made 60k in 5 weeks in 1996, for "contingency bucks"- putting stickers of products I run on my car- and everyone of them was for a product innovated for that form of racing- and about 90% of it has trickled down into your "grocery getter"

My uncle again- he basically invented the "stall converter" (vs "torque converter") for racing by welding the snout off a chrysler 727 torqueflight transmission onto a Ford Cortina 4 cylinder powered torque converter, and then actually cutting the stock converter apart, and rewelding every vane to a new angle that increased performance.

This is now a multi-billion dollar industry- my uncle got a pretty big pile of cash from it- but he had no idea that it would be THAT big.

You take away drag racing, or any other motorized sport- you will IMMEDIATELY stagnate all forms of transportation-

here is another thing, right now, ALL electric/hybird testing goes through a racing venue- it is the only way to be sure if it is an economically feasible vehicle, - a bunch of cats from Norway have broken the 7 second barrier on motorcycles- powered strictly by batteries and a super-efficient electric motor- each thinner than a but same size as deck of cards battery has more "juice" than the big ol' 12v in your car/

and again- it is the racers begging the car industry to keep up here too

we want the whole world to convert to 48 volt batteries from the 1950s tech of the 12v battery- because we know that, in doing so, not only will the batteries last much, much longer, we can make them much less toxic to through away- WHEN we do finally need to throw them away- and they are "bio-cell" tech, which means that you can REALLY start thinking "outside the box" in mounting, and electrical systems etc

We think that this will revolutionize hybird tech- but the auto and motorcycles (though bikes go much faster to the newest tech) industries are far, far behind the racers, and we are always dragging them kicking and screaming past the bean counters to new tech.

Take variable valve rate tech- you see it in every new vehicle today, makes cars far more efficient- this was invented by racers IN THE 1960s!!

Rhodes lifters invented the "anti-pump up" lifters back in the late 70s, it took nearlly 15 years for the car companies to start using this tech!

I stand corrected on this. CR has made several very good points that many useful innovations have come out of auto racing. I don't think the same can be said for football and the other sports.

CR - yeah, I 'd say you are a true gearhead! (Uncle Coot - ) You lost me about halfway through the post.

Ya DG, pretty much a gear head- no doubt about it.

It is no secret that guys like me, that have had life long love affairs with certain brands of cars, have become very angry at domestic auto-manufacturers mis-management of the subject of our love.

Here is another example- Toyota, Honda etc top level execs LISTEN to the guys at these various race tracks, and even hire them as consultants when they build a car- and the "big three" actually even go so far a to INSULT the race track guys and gals, claiming they don't know what they are talking about- and tell me, who is doing better right now?

Waggoner (GM CEO) was overheard making fun of some of the car builders at one show- something about "redneck greasemonkeys, good thing they don't design cars" - guess who is the overpaid exec with a company that just lost the #1 spot in the world?

All while toyota is BASING thier designs on race track body styles.

How can you call Lovins "one smart apple" in one breath and in the next call him a "Charlatan." His was one of the few voices promoting end use efficiency improvements for electricity in the late 70s and early 80s and, as a consequence, predicting a flattening of the demand curve for electricity as opposed to those in the industry who predicted steady increases in demand and canceled numerous half completed power plants when they were proved incorrect. Amory has authored or helped write several prescient studies for various government agencies including "Brittle Power" and "Winning the Oil End Game." You might want to take a look at both, the later is still linked to the RMI website.

I have followed his work since the publication of "Soft Energy Futures" in the mid 70s. Subsequently, I had somewhat of a personal relationship with him and Hunter while resisting the effort to subsidize an oil shale industry into existence and subsequently fighting a major unneeded power-line in Western Colorado. Based largely on Lovins' work, I predicted in the Public Utility case that, if the GTA involved was allowed to build the powerline in conjunction with a new generation station, it would face bankruptcy. The line was built and within a few years the GTA was bankrupt. His ideas are more and more widely accepted within industry and not just the environmental community. See This Article in that bastion of environmental propaganda, the "Wall Street Journal."

The Lovins reference in my original post, however, was only an illustration of the kind of efficiency that is important. The focus on "end use efficiency" is something he pioneered in the 70s. We should have listened then, it will be a disaster if we fail to listen now! You, however, seemed to drop any discussion of efficiency even though it seemed to be a focus of your original post.

I have read much of his writings as well including a good article in Scientific American on . "end use efficiency” I really like his idea to go to carbon composites for cars.

But IMO this will not happen unless the government really pushes the CAFÉ requirement up (as Bush is starting to do) such that they cannot “get there” without going to composites.

I also like his ideas on energy efficient homes – where we waste at least as much energy as cars – or more. If any of our politicians had any guts we would be well down the road by now – oh well.


Too many US companies see only the short term – bottom line. The wake up call will come if oil ever really spikes.

Ted, I'm glad to see that we finally agree on something although for reasons that do not entirely overlap. You seem to be mostly concerned about moving toward energy independence while that is a side benefit to me. My major concern is the reduction of greenhouse gases with the added fear that we will reach peak oil before major improvements in end use efficiency are achieved.

You're right, Bush is "starting" to push modest increases in CAFE standards but only because he had to have some response to the drastic increase in gasoline prices. The bulk of the Democrats in Congress over the last several decades have pushed for more restrictive and comprehensive CAFE standards only to be stymied by the large majority of Republicans and a few important Democrats like Dingle who are also closely identified with the auto industry. Lets wait and see what develops between the current Congress and the Administration before giving Bush any credit on this issue.

Tedn5 and Ted- cafe' standards have some problems as well- they ensnare the innovator as well.

Look at Jesse James of "Monster Garage" fame. He got fined for EPA violations on his custom bikes (which are, what, 12 a year- oooo, global warming! ) - he offered to retro fit them with the correct equipment- tey said "no way, just give us the money"- he showed' them up real good!

My business is booming due to gas prices. There will be at least 200 year around riders this next winter- in a city of 350k, not a huge % of the population- but a good 5-10k bikes out on the road (meaning motorcycles) on a good day in a summer time commute for Anchorage- and recycling old bikes into commuter bikes are putting me into hyperdrive out in my little bike shop!

A bike that I usually send out the door gets around 50mpg.

Add to the fact that there is a recycling of the "carbon footprint" of these bikes since no new steel is usually created. Whole other parts bikes are picked to the bone as well.

The point is this- as fuel prices climb steadily up, alternatives will be found, and we have to be very careful that we don't supress the creative urges of those that have an emotional attachment to the problem and have the most motivation to fix the problem.

I am developing a retro-fit electronic fuel injection as well, and will bump that mpg up to as high as 70mpg on many of these bikes!

I can pop out about four or five basket case to glory bikes a month.

Compare that to the carbon footprint of one soccor mom SUV!

Yes to me energy independence is far more important and immediate and it will help the environment as well. Why waste 400 billion on a “maybe” when we know what we need to do for energy independence. Mr. Lovins has all the right ideas – lets take the 400 billion and DO what he has been suggesting for years.




I know you are reluctant, as many are, to give Bush credit for anything but this one is clear. He proposed the increase now we can watch and see who votes it up or down. Personally I think the increase is too small. IMO you will never get to “composite materials” in cars unless the auto companies have NO choice. And they will always scream that they are losing money and cannot be competitive if they are forced to do it.

Ted- there are far too many loopholes in Cafe standards, and it stifles innovation, badly.

Anchorage is actually going to repeal it's emmisions testing, because air quality is simply not affected by emmsions controls, as evidenced by our air being about the most pure in America- and no difference in the air quality pre-IM testing vs post-IM testing.

I think the only REAL way to do it is to tax the crap out of fossil fuels, and then give dividends to those that don't use fossil fuels.

It is fuel over 3 bucks a gallon that fuels my biz- pun intended.

I have guys that make 100k a year coming to me and saying "fuel costs are killing me in my truck, how much to get this thing running so I can commute"- right now, I have 4 bikes in my shop with just that scenario.

Yesterday, there were over 100 bikes at the traditional 'way station" on the Seward hiway, and not ALL of them were bike whores like myself (slang for those that own more than 2 motorcycles - don't hate!) Many were there because it became much cheaper to get away for the weekend via two wheels vs the pukerhome route- I saw a guy with a 500dollar fuel bill charging it at the gas station

It cost me 7.64 cents to fill up, I got 48mpg at 80-100 miles an hour HAMMERING on the throttle. I MAYBE spent 16 bucks, for over 200 miles of e-ticket to disneyland fun!

The loopholes in the standard are being closed. They can no longer test at 70 deg F – and must assume cars are started colder in much of the country.

The CAFÉ is the club in the head that will get the auto industry innovating. We are not all going to 2 wheel vehicles and “gas” is not going away but sure as hell we can do better.


High gas prices are the stick as well and it is having an effect. We will never be free of oil dependence until we have a vast nuclear power network and have mined all out natural gas resources.

Don’t hold you breathe. Congress moves at a snails pace.

Auto racing's impact on the environment is negligible. There is so little of it. I would estimate that less than 1/10 of 1% of all fossil fuel is used in any kind of motorsports. In fact, much more fuel is burned by patrons going to football games than all motorsports uses combined.

If you really believe in this nonsense, then why not quit eating meat--it will do more good:

"Nature designed us as carnivores, but what does nature know about nature? Meat has been designated a menace. Among the 51 exhortations in Time magazine's " Global Warming Survival Guide" (April 9), No. 22 says a BMW is less responsible than a Big Mac for "climate change," that conveniently imprecise name for our peril. This is because the world meat industry produces 18 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, more than transportation produces. Nitrous oxide in manure (warming effect: 296 times greater than that of carbon) and methane from animal flatulence (23 times greater) mean that "a 16-oz. T-bone is like a Hummer on a plate."

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will041207.php3

The world is always subject to drout; flood; changes in temperature; etc. The only constant is change. The only difference now is we actually think, in a fit of hubris, that we are the problem and we can do something about it.

Bioengineers will soon craft trees that inhale greater amounts of carbon dioxide than before, we'll plant lots of these trees, and we can all relax and get back to making real progress.