I recently had the opportunity to catch some Discovery Channel, which is quite a rarity since we don’t have cable or dish at our house. One of the shows that I saw, Mean Green Machines, was actually a sneak peak episode of the series that will run on Discovery Networks new channel, Planet Green, set to launch June 4th. This is one sweet show, and it completely throws out the notion that green has to be serene.

The episode that I watched featured an electric motorcycle called Killacycle, which is aptly named. This is no ordinary bike- it is a lightning quick bullet that proves it belongs at the drag strip with it’s sub 8 second quarter mile. At over 500 horsepower and a 0-60 time of under 1 second, it thoroughly gives hope to those who want to be go green without giving up performance.

The bike’s lead designer, Bill Dube, from the University of Colorado, and his team took on the ultimate challenge: competing against the fuel-sucking counterpart ridden by motorcycle drag racing’s ‘first lady’, Connie Cohen. It wasn’t outwardly obvious, but there seemed to be tension between the two teams. Killacycle had a point to prove, and Cohen’s team probably wasn’t too keen on getting showed up by the eerily silent newcomer. I won’t spoil the outcome for you, since this episode will surely air again in the future, but its definitely a good watch!

Like I mentioned before in my post about the Tesla Roadster, one of the biggest concerns that a lot of people have, (myself included) with green is the supposed loss of performance. Sure we want to be green, but we don’t want our future to include putting around in slow, electric cars why we reminisce about the thrill of internal combustion engines. This show gives me more hope that this won’t be the case!

Senators John McCain and Hillary Clinton recently proposed a plan that likely resonates well with many potential voters, but is absolutely terrible.  They announced that they would like a summer-long, from Memorial Day to Labor Day I believe, holiday free from federal gas taxes.  Supposedly eliminating that 18 cent/gallon tax would help consumers at the pump.  It’s a load of crock though!

We are supposed to be slowly weaning ourselves from our enormous thirst for cheap oil, and here are two of our presidential candidates basically saying they are going to help us use more of it.  This reinforces a huge public notion that government can and should do something about the high gas prices.  Truth is, this is just political garbage that they desperately hope will reel in some undecided voters.

Taking away the federal tax would most likely just increase demand to the point where it was with the tax in place (Perhaps McCain and Clinton need macroeconomics 101 again?).  Then we are still at square one, with prices the same and no tax revenues coming in.  When the tax would be reapplied in September, prices would be even higher because of this stupid move.  Besides, our road infrastructure is crappy enough here in the States (Uhh, did they get the memo about the disaster in Minneapolis?).  How many billions of dollars in revenues would we lose that we desperately need to fix our roads?  Here’s a better idea: let’s actually raise the tax, and fund some alternative energy development with the revenues.  What do you think?  Do McCain and Clinton actually ignorant to believe this is a good idea, or is just a political ploy?

For all the attention paid to developing automobiles that will lessen our reliance on fossil fuels, one trend that perplexes me is the continued release of bigger and bigger cars. Ever since the energy shortages of the 70s brought a new generation of small cars, those vehicles have steadily grown since then, even with the recent surge in fuel prices.

I really noticed this when I sold off my 94 Accord for my current 04 Civic. I traded Honda’s midsize sedan for their compact car, yet didn’t give up much car at all. Compared to the new 2008 Accords, which are now considered a full-size sedan, mine was a lightweight (about 9 inches shorter and 400 pounds lighter).

Even in the face of the current issues, it is still apparent that bigger is often better when it comes to our automobiles. It makes some sense though, since the average size of Americans has dramatically increased as well. Still, do we really need our vehicles to be so big?

Thanks increases in engine technology, today’s engines are more efficient than ever. The problem is, those improvements in efficiency are negated as the engines and cars swell in size. I’d like to see what our current car models would get for mileage with smaller engines and bodies. The new models that come out every year don’t lose anything in efficiency, and they often increase it some, but they could be a heck of a lot more efficient if they would lay off on the growth hormone (our cars have gone the way of our baseball :()

Even with this long-term growth spurt we are in the midst of, hope remains. Automakers are rolling out subcompacts that are smaller than anything we’ve seen in a while. This is a good sign, and hopefully the increasing sales of them will send a message to the automakers that there are plenty of Americans who want a smaller car. However, even these models get beefed up for the US market. Whereas foreign Honda Fit’s are offered with 1.2 or 1.3 liter engines, ours comes standard with a 1.5. This is indeed tiny by American standards, but it shows that we still like ‘em bigger here, even our subcompacts.

How bout we see some 1.0’s released, reminiscent to the old Geo Metros and Ford Festivas (a bit more car wouldn’t hurt here though, for obvious safety reasons)? What do you think about this? Will higher and higher gas prices finally reverse this trend soon?

With gas prices at record levels and no end in sight, a common ply from consumers is often to lower gas taxes.  While this would temporarily ease prices some, I think it would be a terrible move. 

If anything, I think we should actually have higher gas taxes.  While this suggestion would never fly with the prices we have now, we should have been considering it long before.  We would be in a lot better position than we are now. 

The problem is that we were so used to cheap oil that we pretty much assumed we had a right to gasoline under $2.00 in America.  That assumption still runs rampant today, with people calling for the heads of politicians and big oil CEOs.  I don’t think these misguided attempts are going to do any good; cheap oil is most likely gone for good.  That said, we should have been preparing for this long ago.

We use taxes in this country to discourage behaviors such as smoking while profiting off of those consume the product anyway.  Why don’t we do the same with gasoline?  We could have prevented millions of Americans from getting too comfy with their behemoth vehicles and wasteful driving habits by simply making it more expensive to drive.  Plus, we could have prepared our entire economy for higher fuel costs gradually, making the transition much more pleasant. 

While Europe’s gas taxes may seem a bit steep to us, we should have followed their lead to some extent.  A British commenter of a recent TreeHugger article further strengthens the argument.  They recently paid the equivalent of $8.60 a gallon for gas, and they pointed out that the average motor size in the UK is between 1-2 liters.  It’s not hard to see the connection.  They can’t afford to drive 6.0 V8’s.  And you know what?  They realize they don’t need them.  Neither do most of us.

Higher gas taxes all along could have done wonders for the future of our transportation.  We could have funded new vehicle technology, alternative fuels, mass-transit systems, all while lowering our dependence on oil.  As it stands though, we are in for a much rougher adjustment to a post-cheap oil world.  What do you think?