[Biofuel] Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/01/AR2006 070100962.html Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm By Dan Morgan, Gilbert M. Gaul and Sarah Cohen Washington Post Staff Writers Sunday, July 2, 2006; A01 EL CAMPO, Tex. -- Even though Donald R. Matthews put his sprawling new residence in the heart of rice country, he is no farmer. He is a 67-year-old asphalt contractor who wanted to build a dream house for his wife of 40 years. Yet under a federal agriculture program approved by Congress, his 18-acre suburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual direct payments, because years ago the land was used to grow rice. Matthews is not alone. Nationwide, the federal government has paid at least $1.3 billion in subsidies for rice and other crops since 2000 to individuals who do no farming at all, according to an analysis of government records by The Washington Post. Some of them collect hundreds of thousands of dollars without planting a seed. Mary Anna Hudson, 87, from the River Oaks neighborhood in Houston, has received $191,000 over the past decade. For Houston surgeon Jimmy Frank Howell, the total was $490,709. I don't agree with the government's policy, said Matthews, who wanted to give the money back but was told it would just go to other landowners. They give all of this money to landowners who don't even farm, while real farmers can't afford to get started. It's wrong. The checks to Matthews and other landowners were intended 10 years ago as a first step toward eventually eliminating costly, decades-old farm subsidies. Instead, the payments have grown into an even larger subsidy that benefits millionaire landowners, foreign speculators and absentee landlords, as well as farmers. Most of the money goes to real farmers who grow crops on their land, but they are under no obligation to grow the crop being subsidized. They can switch to a different crop or raise cattle or even grow a stand of timber -- and still get the government payments. The cash comes with so few restrictions that subdivision developers who buy farmland advertise that homeowners can collect farm subsidies on their new back yards. The payments now account for nearly half of the nation's expanding agricultural subsidy system, a complex web that has little basis in fairness or efficiency. What began in the 1930s as a limited safety net for working farmers has swollen into a far-flung infrastructure of entitlements that has cost $172 billion over the past decade. In 2005 alone, when pretax farm profits were at a near-record $72 billion, the federal government handed out more than $25 billion in aid, almost 50 percent more than the amount it pays to families receiving welfare. The Post's nine-month investigation found farm subsidy programs that have become so all-encompassing and generous that they have taken much of the risk out of farming for the increasingly wealthy individuals who dominate it. The farm payments have also altered the landscape and culture of the Farm Belt, pushing up land prices and favoring large, wealthy operators. The system pays farmers a subsidy to protect against low prices even when they sell their crops at higher prices. It makes emergency disaster payments for crops that fail even as it provides subsidized insurance to protect against those failures. And it pays people such as Matthews for merely owning land that was once farmed. We're simply administering it the way Congress established, said John A. Johnson, a top official at the U.S. Agriculture Department. Today, even key farm-state figures believe the direct-payment program needs a major overhaul. This was an unintended consequence of the farm bill, said former representative Charles W. Stenholm, the west Texas Democrat who was once the ranking member on the House Agriculture Committee. Instead of maintaining a rice industry in Texas, we basically contributed to its demise. Freedom to Farm The program that pays Matthews was the central feature of a landmark 1996 farm law that was meant to be a break with the farm handouts of the past. Subsidies began when the Roosevelt administration stepped forward to support millions of Depression-era farmers suffering from low prices. By the early 1990s, U.S. agriculture was a productive marvel, yet was still mired in government controls and awash in complex subsidies. When the Republicans took control of Congress in 1995, they brought a new free-market philosophy toward farm policy. In a break with 60 years of farm protections, they promoted the idea that farmers should be allowed to grow crops without restrictions, standing or falling on their own. The result was the 1996 bill, which the Republicans called Freedom to Farm. The idea was to finally remove government limits on planting and phase out subsidies. But GOP leaders had to make a trade-off to get the votes: They offered farmers annual fixed cash
Re: [Biofuel] An Inconvenient Truth
http://eatthestate.org/ Eat the State! Vol. 10, Issue #22 6 July 06 Preparing For an Inconvenient Future Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth is a commendable movie, not least for its attempts to educate, rather than terrify, people about the facts and consequences of global warming. In particular, Al Gore specifically warned against justifying inaction first by denial (the platform of most American politicians), then by despair. Instead, he concluded the movie by listing actions that individuals and societies can take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. To see specific suggestions, visit www.climatecrisis.net and read Colin Wright's thoughtful article in the last issue of Eat the State! (What would Gandhi drive? ETS! vol. 10, no. 21 http://snipurl.com/std1). Making valiant efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions immediately is not only a good idea, but a necessity. We must not confuse this imperative, however, with a solution to the problems of global warming, for at least three reasons. First, not all of the means within our technological grasp for reducing emissions are necessarily wisely employed toward that end, even if we grant that they will have the magnitude of effect that Gore credited them with--which is far from certain. Thus, in a movie graphic showing how carbon emissions could be reduced to 1970 levels, a considerable chunk of reduction was attributed to carbon sequestration, the viability and long-term consequences of which are hotly debated. We must be careful not to make matters worse in a desperate effort to make them better. Second, even if carbon dioxide emissions were immediately reduced to 1970 levels, the long time periods required for the Earth system to respond to that decrease will result in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations that nonetheless continue to increase for decades to come. Remarkably, although Gore correctly related higher average global temperatures to higher atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, not emissions, this response lag was not addressed in the movie. Third, various global feedback mechanisms affected by higher temperatures may result in further increases in temperature or greenhouse gas concentrations that are not a direct function of human activity. Although these are notoriously difficult to predict, possible examples include greater retention of solar heat due to changes in cloud and ice cover, or release of methane, a more potent though shorter-lived greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, from melting permafrost. In short, controlling emissions is only part of the necessary response to the problems confronting us. A second part of that response is to prepare for the predictable consequences of global warming, starting immediately. The environmental movement must incorporate such preparations into its agenda, not in place of but alongside attempts to attenuate climate change. Limiting our response only to attenuation is naive, if not palliative and fatalistic. What is it that we should be preparing for? The melting of ice sheets and glaciers is expected to result in a rise in sea level that will render uninhabitable low-lying islands and coastal regions, thus creating a refugee crisis on a scale perhaps never before seen in human history. We must begin planning for these refugees now. It is anticipated that greater average surface temperatures will fuel more violent storms, including tornadoes and hurricanes. Having seen the chaos and tragedy resulting from Katrina, as well as the ineptitude, profiteering, and racism of the American government's reaction, surely we should begin preparing a better response now. Overall changes in regional weather patterns, including in some places an increasing frequency of droughts, will dramatically affect the availability and distribution of water and agriculture. Only advance planning can mitigate the tragedies these changes imply. And of course, unless we begin preparing now, all of these anticipated effects will likely lead to major conflicts among peoples and nations. Perhaps more subtly, our preparations must embrace changing how we think. First and foremost, we must not perpetuate the myth that the problems we face can be addressed without major changes in our lifestyles and cultures. This is an error with which Gore's film flirts. But if we begin the debate by denying the necessity of major changes, we relieve the debate of both its urgency and its point. Pathos and panic are not the necessary corollaries of recognizing this fact; we must instead learn to represent the necessity and achievability of these changes. Second, global warming and its consequences cannot be countered effectively if we limit our deliberations only to short time scales, for example, those of election cycles. We must teach ourselves to think instead on decadal, generational and longer time scales. We must furthermore set up social and political structures
Re: [Biofuel] Growers Reap Benefits Even in Good Years
I read that. Total ripoff. Keith Addison wrote: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/02/AR2006 070200691.html?referrer=email Growers Reap Benefits Even in Good Years Crops That Sell High Qualify for Payments By Dan Morgan, Sarah Cohen and Gilbert M. Gaul Washington Post Staff Writers Monday, July 3, 2006; A01 EDEN, Md. -- Roger L. Richardson, a vigorous 72-year-old who grows corn on 1,500 acres of prime Eastern Shore farmland, had a good year in 2005. Thanks to smart planning, shrewd investing and a little luck, he grossed a healthy $500,000 for his crop. But the federal government treated him as if he needed help and paid him $75,000. The money came from a little-known, 20-year-old U.S. Agriculture Department program that was intended to boost farmers' incomes when prices are low. The farmers do not have to sell at distressed prices to collect the money. They can bank the government payments and sell when prices are higher. Since September, the program has cost taxpayers $4.8 billion. Most of that money -- $3.8 billion -- went to farmers such as Richardson who sold at higher prices, according to a Washington Post analysis of USDA payment data. The subsidy is called the loan deficiency payment. Although it has cost taxpayers $29 billion since 1998, it is virtually unknown outside farm country. But in rural America, the LDP is a topic at backyard barbecues and local diners along with the high school football team and the weather. Despite its name, it is neither a loan nor, in many cases, payment for a deficiency. It is just cash paid to farmers when market prices dip below the government-set minimum, or floor, if only for a single day. The LDP has become so ingrained in farmland finances that farmers sometimes wish for market prices to drop so they can capture a larger subsidy. In the fall of the year, we find the farmer wanting the price to go down, John Fletcher, a Missouri grain dealer, told Congress last year. It's almost unnatural. Corn farmers collected the LDP on 90 percent of their crop last year, but most did not suffer the losses that traditional subsidies are meant to offset. Some collected hundreds of thousands of dollars. Most smart farmers are cashing in on it, said Bruce A. Babcock, director of the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University. It shows me that farmers are being overcompensated. The LDP bears little resemblance to the original price-support system, created in 1938 to help millions of desperate farmers during the Depression. The government then propped up prices by buying grain and cotton whenever the market dipped below a government-set floor. But by the 1980s, the government had accumulated huge stockpiles of commodities that it could not sell abroad. With the backing of Southern rice- and cotton-state lawmakers, Congress in 1985 came up with a way to protect farmers from low prices: the LDP. The government encouraged farmers to sell their crops on the market and paid them cash when prices fell below the floor. This reduced the stockpiles and made U.S. farm products a better buy abroad. But few foresaw where the program would end up, according to Arkansas Secretary of Agriculture Richard E. Bell, who lobbied for the change as president of the state's largest rice cooperative. When corn prices fell in the late 1990s, the cash payments to farmers soared. 'Location, Location . . .' Roger Richardson's experience with his corn farm in Maryland's Worcester County illustrates one way farmers take advantage of the LDP. After harvesting his corn last summer, Richardson stored 190,000 bushels in silos that he owns with other farmers. He then waited for prices to rise. He had reason to be hopeful because the corn-dependent Delmarva poultry industry pays a premium to lock up local supplies for chicken feed. Meanwhile, in the Midwest, prices briefly dropped to their lowest level in five years after Hurricane Katrina. The storm stalled grain barges up and down the Mississippi. Huge yellow piles lay in fields outside stuffed grain elevators, and a sign outside one elevator said, Blame it on Katrina. The drop in prices brought the government's safety net -- the LDP -- into play. In DeKalb County, Ill., the subsidy had reached 46 cents a bushel one day in September. (The LDP for each county is calculated by subtracting the USDA's daily estimate of the local market price from the government's floor, which is set each year and was $1.98 a bushel in DeKalb.) Yet in one of the oddities of the system, across the country on the Eastern Shore, where corn market prices were much higher, the subsidy was about the same: 48 cents. It hovered around that level for the next two months. To book the subsidy being paid on a particular date, Richardson simply had to walk into the local USDA office in Snow Hill, Md., with the ability to prove that he owned a harvested corn
Re: [Biofuel] An Inconvenient Truth
I have wonder if the weather we are enjoying here in DC is a symptom of global warming. Keith Addison wrote: http://eatthestate.org/ Eat the State! Vol. 10, Issue #22 6 July 06 Preparing For an Inconvenient Future Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth is a commendable movie, not least for its attempts to educate, rather than terrify, people about the facts and consequences of global warming. In particular, Al Gore specifically warned against justifying inaction first by denial (the platform of most American politicians), then by despair. Instead, he concluded the movie by listing actions that individuals and societies can take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. To see specific suggestions, visit www.climatecrisis.net and read Colin Wright's thoughtful article in the last issue of Eat the State! (What would Gandhi drive? ETS! vol. 10, no. 21 http://snipurl.com/std1). Making valiant efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions immediately is not only a good idea, but a necessity. We must not confuse this imperative, however, with a solution to the problems of global warming, for at least three reasons. First, not all of the means within our technological grasp for reducing emissions are necessarily wisely employed toward that end, even if we grant that they will have the magnitude of effect that Gore credited them with--which is far from certain. Thus, in a movie graphic showing how carbon emissions could be reduced to 1970 levels, a considerable chunk of reduction was attributed to carbon sequestration, the viability and long-term consequences of which are hotly debated. We must be careful not to make matters worse in a desperate effort to make them better. Second, even if carbon dioxide emissions were immediately reduced to 1970 levels, the long time periods required for the Earth system to respond to that decrease will result in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations that nonetheless continue to increase for decades to come. Remarkably, although Gore correctly related higher average global temperatures to higher atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, not emissions, this response lag was not addressed in the movie. Third, various global feedback mechanisms affected by higher temperatures may result in further increases in temperature or greenhouse gas concentrations that are not a direct function of human activity. Although these are notoriously difficult to predict, possible examples include greater retention of solar heat due to changes in cloud and ice cover, or release of methane, a more potent though shorter-lived greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, from melting permafrost. In short, controlling emissions is only part of the necessary response to the problems confronting us. A second part of that response is to prepare for the predictable consequences of global warming, starting immediately. The environmental movement must incorporate such preparations into its agenda, not in place of but alongside attempts to attenuate climate change. Limiting our response only to attenuation is naive, if not palliative and fatalistic. What is it that we should be preparing for? The melting of ice sheets and glaciers is expected to result in a rise in sea level that will render uninhabitable low-lying islands and coastal regions, thus creating a refugee crisis on a scale perhaps never before seen in human history. We must begin planning for these refugees now. It is anticipated that greater average surface temperatures will fuel more violent storms, including tornadoes and hurricanes. Having seen the chaos and tragedy resulting from Katrina, as well as the ineptitude, profiteering, and racism of the American government's reaction, surely we should begin preparing a better response now. Overall changes in regional weather patterns, including in some places an increasing frequency of droughts, will dramatically affect the availability and distribution of water and agriculture. Only advance planning can mitigate the tragedies these changes imply. And of course, unless we begin preparing now, all of these anticipated effects will likely lead to major conflicts among peoples and nations. Perhaps more subtly, our preparations must embrace changing how we think. First and foremost, we must not perpetuate the myth that the problems we face can be addressed without major changes in our lifestyles and cultures. This is an error with which Gore's film flirts. But if we begin the debate by denying the necessity of major changes, we relieve the debate of both its urgency and its point. Pathos and panic are not the necessary corollaries of recognizing this fact; we must instead learn to represent the necessity and achievability of these changes. Second, global warming and its consequences cannot be countered effectively if we limit our deliberations only to short time scales, for example, those of election cycles. We must teach ourselves to think
[Biofuel] Growers Reap Benefits Even in Good Years
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/02/AR2006 070200691.html?referrer=email Growers Reap Benefits Even in Good Years Crops That Sell High Qualify for Payments By Dan Morgan, Sarah Cohen and Gilbert M. Gaul Washington Post Staff Writers Monday, July 3, 2006; A01 EDEN, Md. -- Roger L. Richardson, a vigorous 72-year-old who grows corn on 1,500 acres of prime Eastern Shore farmland, had a good year in 2005. Thanks to smart planning, shrewd investing and a little luck, he grossed a healthy $500,000 for his crop. But the federal government treated him as if he needed help and paid him $75,000. The money came from a little-known, 20-year-old U.S. Agriculture Department program that was intended to boost farmers' incomes when prices are low. The farmers do not have to sell at distressed prices to collect the money. They can bank the government payments and sell when prices are higher. Since September, the program has cost taxpayers $4.8 billion. Most of that money -- $3.8 billion -- went to farmers such as Richardson who sold at higher prices, according to a Washington Post analysis of USDA payment data. The subsidy is called the loan deficiency payment. Although it has cost taxpayers $29 billion since 1998, it is virtually unknown outside farm country. But in rural America, the LDP is a topic at backyard barbecues and local diners along with the high school football team and the weather. Despite its name, it is neither a loan nor, in many cases, payment for a deficiency. It is just cash paid to farmers when market prices dip below the government-set minimum, or floor, if only for a single day. The LDP has become so ingrained in farmland finances that farmers sometimes wish for market prices to drop so they can capture a larger subsidy. In the fall of the year, we find the farmer wanting the price to go down, John Fletcher, a Missouri grain dealer, told Congress last year. It's almost unnatural. Corn farmers collected the LDP on 90 percent of their crop last year, but most did not suffer the losses that traditional subsidies are meant to offset. Some collected hundreds of thousands of dollars. Most smart farmers are cashing in on it, said Bruce A. Babcock, director of the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University. It shows me that farmers are being overcompensated. The LDP bears little resemblance to the original price-support system, created in 1938 to help millions of desperate farmers during the Depression. The government then propped up prices by buying grain and cotton whenever the market dipped below a government-set floor. But by the 1980s, the government had accumulated huge stockpiles of commodities that it could not sell abroad. With the backing of Southern rice- and cotton-state lawmakers, Congress in 1985 came up with a way to protect farmers from low prices: the LDP. The government encouraged farmers to sell their crops on the market and paid them cash when prices fell below the floor. This reduced the stockpiles and made U.S. farm products a better buy abroad. But few foresaw where the program would end up, according to Arkansas Secretary of Agriculture Richard E. Bell, who lobbied for the change as president of the state's largest rice cooperative. When corn prices fell in the late 1990s, the cash payments to farmers soared. 'Location, Location . . .' Roger Richardson's experience with his corn farm in Maryland's Worcester County illustrates one way farmers take advantage of the LDP. After harvesting his corn last summer, Richardson stored 190,000 bushels in silos that he owns with other farmers. He then waited for prices to rise. He had reason to be hopeful because the corn-dependent Delmarva poultry industry pays a premium to lock up local supplies for chicken feed. Meanwhile, in the Midwest, prices briefly dropped to their lowest level in five years after Hurricane Katrina. The storm stalled grain barges up and down the Mississippi. Huge yellow piles lay in fields outside stuffed grain elevators, and a sign outside one elevator said, Blame it on Katrina. The drop in prices brought the government's safety net -- the LDP -- into play. In DeKalb County, Ill., the subsidy had reached 46 cents a bushel one day in September. (The LDP for each county is calculated by subtracting the USDA's daily estimate of the local market price from the government's floor, which is set each year and was $1.98 a bushel in DeKalb.) Yet in one of the oddities of the system, across the country on the Eastern Shore, where corn market prices were much higher, the subsidy was about the same: 48 cents. It hovered around that level for the next two months. To book the subsidy being paid on a particular date, Richardson simply had to walk into the local USDA office in Snow Hill, Md., with the ability to prove that he owned a harvested corn crop. He applied for the subsidy for different
Re: [Biofuel] was..was..smart car coming to US in 2008
Smart Cars are considered one of the safest cars on the road next to a Volvo. The frame is solid steel. Large SUV's are the most dangerous cars because they roll easily. Don't let size determine safety, it does not work that way. Terry Dyck From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] was..was..smart car coming to US in 2008 Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 09:01:51 -0400 I'd stay off the highway, heck, I'm scared to ride my Harley on the interstate... mark manchester wrote: I hate to see these things on the highway, looks like people flying along under an umbrella. Surely can speed along, this is pretty much a four-wheel hooded motorcycle. Incredibly cute, though, and comfy. Very popular here in Toronto, but there's zero trunk space. Jesse From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 10:44:51 -0400 To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] was..was..smart car coming to US in 2008 I've been thinking that what I need would be a two seater with a fairly large storage space as I usually go downtown with servers and stuff. My Golf works ok with the seats down, but if the whole vehicle were designed for hauling small and medium loads a Smart Car design would be perfect. Now think of a diesel/electric hybrid... -Weaver AltEnergyNetwork wrote: Haken, I've seen the 2 seater up really close, took a look inside, watched it being parked in a miniscule spot, been behind one and in front of one in traffic, haven't driven one yet. They are really cool little cars. I think it is going to fill an important niche market for couriers, deliveries, fleets and businesses that like the fact that it sips thimbles of gasoline. Still, in order to wean Americans off of their obsession with suvs, it might be a good idea if the company made a heftier 4 seater utility that would appeal to the suv crowd and still sip at the pump. Image is everything and if the average joe thinks that they can get one of these green machines and still be able to lug around the stuff that they do AND save at the pump, great. It's the old having cake and eating it too syndrome but people respond to it, regards tallex Smart Car Coming to US in 2008 Launch by DaimlerChrysler http://www.alternate-energy.net/N/news.php?detail=n1151818384.news ---Original Message--- From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] was..smart car coming to US in 2008 Sent: 02 Jul '06 08:22 Tallex, The market for 250 pound people is very much smaller in Europe than in US and I think that it is not a primary target for SMART cars. Do not only look at one, try it and you will be surprised on how spacious it is for 2 people and how well it transport/park for urban dwellers. I do however agree on the problems in US, it is little space for the oversized chip and snack packs, that seems to be the essentials for US commuters. I am not a small person 186 centimeter and 96 kilo (which is too much), but I fit well in a Smart. I did however not consider the image problem. Hakan At 09:15 02/07/2006, you wrote: That's great Haken, so if they already have a four seater, it is not to much of a stretch to do a minivan version as well and still be considered a smart car? Also, I've seen the two seater and while really cool, there is no way you are going to fit 2 - 250 pound people side by side, they would look like circus clowns stuffed into the seats. People want utility in their vehicles and still be as efficient as possible. tallex Smart Car Coming to US in 2008 Launch by DaimlerChrysler http://www.alternate-energy.net/N/news.php?detail=n1151818384.news ---Original Message--- From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] smart car coming to US in 2008 Sent: 02 Jul '06 06:56 They do have a 4 seater model already, it is selling in Europe for quite a while. Hakan At 08:06 02/07/2006, you wrote: Great idea but I think that they better make a four seater for the US market. Smart cars have been out for about a year in Canada and while really cool, I have a hard time imagining 2 average Americans in one ;) LOL, regards tallex Smart Car Coming to US in 2008 Launch by DaimlerChrysler http://www.alternate-energy.net/N/news.php?detail=n1151818384.news Get your daily alternative energy news Alternate Energy Resource Network 1000+ news sources-resources updated daily http://www.alternate-energy.net Next Generation Grid http://groups.yahoo.com/group/next_generation_grid/ Tomorrow-energy http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tomorrow-energy/ Alternative Energy Politics http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Alternative_Energy_Politics/
Re: [Biofuel] was..was..smart car coming to US in 2008
It's a common misperception that SUV's are safer than smaller cars. It's not true look up number of fatalities at iihs.org or hldi.org... Terry Dyck wrote: Smart Cars are considered one of the safest cars on the road next to a Volvo. The frame is solid steel. Large SUV's are the most dangerous cars because they roll easily. Don't let size determine safety, it does not work that way. Terry Dyck From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] was..was..smart car coming to US in 2008 Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 09:01:51 -0400 I'd stay off the highway, heck, I'm scared to ride my Harley on the interstate... mark manchester wrote: I hate to see these things on the highway, looks like people flying along under an umbrella. Surely can speed along, this is pretty much a four-wheel hooded motorcycle. Incredibly cute, though, and comfy. Very popular here in Toronto, but there's zero trunk space. Jesse From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 10:44:51 -0400 To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] was..was..smart car coming to US in 2008 I've been thinking that what I need would be a two seater with a fairly large storage space as I usually go downtown with servers and stuff. My Golf works ok with the seats down, but if the whole vehicle were designed for hauling small and medium loads a Smart Car design would be perfect. Now think of a diesel/electric hybrid... -Weaver AltEnergyNetwork wrote: Haken, I've seen the 2 seater up really close, took a look inside, watched it being parked in a miniscule spot, been behind one and in front of one in traffic, haven't driven one yet. They are really cool little cars. I think it is going to fill an important niche market for couriers, deliveries, fleets and businesses that like the fact that it sips thimbles of gasoline. Still, in order to wean Americans off of their obsession with suvs, it might be a good idea if the company made a heftier 4 seater utility that would appeal to the suv crowd and still sip at the pump. Image is everything and if the average joe thinks that they can get one of these green machines and still be able to lug around the stuff that they do AND save at the pump, great. It's the old having cake and eating it too syndrome but people respond to it, regards tallex Smart Car Coming to US in 2008 Launch by DaimlerChrysler http://www.alternate-energy.net/N/news.php?detail=n1151818384.news ---Original Message--- From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] was..smart car coming to US in 2008 Sent: 02 Jul '06 08:22 Tallex, The market for 250 pound people is very much smaller in Europe than in US and I think that it is not a primary target for SMART cars. Do not only look at one, try it and you will be surprised on how spacious it is for 2 people and how well it transport/park for urban dwellers. I do however agree on the problems in US, it is little space for the oversized chip and snack packs, that seems to be the essentials for US commuters. I am not a small person 186 centimeter and 96 kilo (which is too much), but I fit well in a Smart. I did however not consider the image problem. Hakan At 09:15 02/07/2006, you wrote: That's great Haken, so if they already have a four seater, it is not to much of a stretch to do a minivan version as well and still be considered a smart car? Also, I've seen the two seater and while really cool, there is no way you are going to fit 2 - 250 pound people side by side, they would look like circus clowns stuffed into the seats. People want utility in their vehicles and still be as efficient as possible. tallex Smart Car Coming to US in 2008 Launch by DaimlerChrysler http://www.alternate-energy.net/N/news.php?detail=n1151818384.news ---Original Message--- From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] smart car coming to US in 2008 Sent: 02 Jul '06 06:56 They do have a 4 seater model already, it is selling in Europe for quite a while. Hakan At 08:06 02/07/2006, you wrote: Great idea but I think that they better make a four seater for the US market. Smart cars have been out for about a year in Canada and while really cool, I have a hard time imagining 2 average Americans in one ;) LOL, regards tallex Smart Car Coming to US in
Re: [Biofuel] was..was..smart car coming to US in 2008
Around here I've certainly seen more SUV's upsidedown in the creek in the snow than cars... Just based on how poorly most of even the new SUV's handle in the snow compared to my 20 year old subaru, I'm not really suprised. High center of gravity, high horsepower, short wheelbase, and bad front/rear weight distribution just isn't too good on icy highways. ZOn 7/6/06, Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's a common misperception that SUV's are safer than smaller cars.It's not true look up number of fatalities at iihs.org or hldi.org...Terry Dyck wrote:Smart Cars are considered one of the safest cars on the road next to a Volvo.The frame is solid steel.Large SUV's are the most dangerous carsbecause they roll easily.Don't let size determine safety, it does not workthat way.Terry Dyck From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSubject: Re: [Biofuel] was..was..smart car coming to US in 2008Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 09:01:51 -0400 I'd stay off the highway, heck, I'm scared to ride my Harley on theinterstate...mark manchester wrote:I hate to see these things on the highway, looks like people flying along under an umbrella.Surely can speed along, this is pretty much afour-wheelhooded motorcycle.Incredibly cute, though, and comfy.Very popular herein Toronto, but there's zero trunk space.Jesse From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.orgDate: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 10:44:51 -0400 To: biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSubject: Re: [Biofuel] was..was..smart car coming to US in 2008I've been thinking that what I need would be a two seater with a fairly large storage space as I usually go downtown with servers and stuff.MyGolf works ok with the seats down,but if the whole vehicle weredesigned for hauling small and medium loads a Smart Car design would be perfect.Now think of a diesel/electric hybrid...-WeaverAltEnergyNetwork wrote: Haken,I've seen the 2 seater up really close, took a look inside, watched it beingparkedin a miniscule spot, been behind one and in front of one in traffic, haven'tdriven one yet.They are really cool little cars. I think it is going to fill an importantniche market forcouriers, deliveries, fleets and businesses that like the fact that it sipsthimbles of gasoline.Still, in order to wean Americans off of their obsession with suvs, it mightbe a good idea if the company made a heftier 4 seater utility thatwould appeal to the suv crowd and still sip at the pump. Image is everythingand ifthe average joe thinks that they can get one of these green machines and still be ableto lugaroundthe stuff that they do AND save at the pump, great. It's the old havingcake and eating it toosyndrome but people respond to it, regardstallex Smart Car Coming to US in 2008 Launch by DaimlerChrysler http://www.alternate-energy.net/N/news.php?detail=n1151818384.news ---Original Message---From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [Biofuel] was..smart car coming to US in 2008Sent: 02 Jul '06 08:22 Tallex,The market for 250 pound people is very much smaller in Europe than in USandI think that it is not a primary target for SMART cars. Do not onlylook at one, try it and you will be surprised on how spacious it is for 2 people andhow well ittransport/park for urban dwellers. I do however agree on the problems in US,it is little space for the oversized chip and snack packs, that seemsto be the essentials for US commuters.I am not a small person 186 centimeter and 96 kilo (which is too much), butIfit well in a Smart. I did however not consider the image problem.Hakan At 09:15 02/07/2006, you wrote: That's great Haken, so if they already have a four seater,it is not to much of a stretch to do a minivan version as well and stillbe considered a smart car?Also, I've seen the two seater and while really cool, there is no way you are going to fit 2 - 250 pound people side by side, they wouldlooklike circus clowns stuffed into the seats.People want utility in their vehicles and still be as efficient aspossible. tallexSmart Car Coming to US in 2008 Launch by DaimlerChrysler http://www.alternate-energy.net/N/news.php?detail=n1151818384.news ---Original Message--- From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [Biofuel] smart car coming to US in 2008 Sent: 02 Jul '06 06:56They do have a 4 seater model already, it is selling in Europe for quite a while.HakanAt 08:06 02/07/2006, you wrote: Great idea but I think that they better make a four seater for the US market. Smart cars have been out for about a year in Canada andwhile really cool, I have a hard timeimagining 2 average Americans in one ;) LOL, regardstallexSmart Car Coming to US in 2008 Launch by DaimlerChrysler http://www.alternate-energy.net/N/news.php?detail=n1151818384.news Get your daily alternative energy newsAlternate Energy Resource Network 1000+ news sources-resourcesupdated daily http://www.alternate-energy.net Next Generation
Re: [Biofuel] was..was..smart car coming to US in 2008
As I keep telling people, all 4WD does is get youy moving. You'd be amazed at the number of people that think it allows you to drive faster in the snow due to better all weather handling. These are the same morons that put high octane gas in their Civics for more power... Zeke Yewdall wrote: Around here I've certainly seen more SUV's upsidedown in the creek in the snow than cars... Just based on how poorly most of even the new SUV's handle in the snow compared to my 20 year old subaru, I'm not really suprised. High center of gravity, high horsepower, short wheelbase, and bad front/rear weight distribution just isn't too good on icy highways. Z On 7/6/06, *Mike Weaver* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's a common misperception that SUV's are safer than smaller cars. It's not true look up number of fatalities at iihs.org http://iihs.org or hldi.org... Terry Dyck wrote: Smart Cars are considered one of the safest cars on the road next to a Volvo. The frame is solid steel. Large SUV's are the most dangerous cars because they roll easily. Don't let size determine safety, it does not work that way. Terry Dyck From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] was..was..smart car coming to US in 2008 Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 09:01:51 -0400 I'd stay off the highway, heck, I'm scared to ride my Harley on the interstate... mark manchester wrote: I hate to see these things on the highway, looks like people flying along under an umbrella. Surely can speed along, this is pretty much a four-wheel hooded motorcycle. Incredibly cute, though, and comfy. Very popular here in Toronto, but there's zero trunk space. Jesse From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 10:44:51 -0400 To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] was..was..smart car coming to US in 2008 I've been thinking that what I need would be a two seater with a fairly large storage space as I usually go downtown with servers and stuff. My Golf works ok with the seats down, but if the whole vehicle were designed for hauling small and medium loads a Smart Car design would be perfect. Now think of a diesel/electric hybrid... -Weaver AltEnergyNetwork wrote: Haken, I've seen the 2 seater up really close, took a look inside, watched it being parked in a miniscule spot, been behind one and in front of one in traffic, haven't driven one yet. They are really cool little cars. I think it is going to fill an important niche market for couriers, deliveries, fleets and businesses that like the fact that it sips thimbles of gasoline. Still, in order to wean Americans off of their obsession with suvs, it might be a good idea if the company made a heftier 4 seater utility that would appeal to the suv crowd and still sip at the pump. Image is everything and if the average joe thinks that they can get one of these green machines and still be able to lug around the stuff that they do AND save at the pump, great. It's the old having cake and eating it too syndrome but people respond to it, regards tallex Smart Car Coming to US in 2008 Launch by DaimlerChrysler http://www.alternate-energy.net/N/news.php?detail=n1151818384.news ---Original Message--- From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] was..smart car coming to US in 2008 Sent: 02 Jul '06 08:22 Tallex, The market for 250 pound people is very much smaller in Europe than in US and I think that it is not a primary target for SMART cars. Do not only look at one, try it and
[Biofuel] Beyond Genetically Modified Crops
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/03/AR2006 070300922_pf.html Beyond Genetically Modified Crops By Jeremy Rifkin Tuesday, July 4, 2006; A15 For years the life science companies -- Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, Pioneer Hi-Bred, etc. -- have argued that genetically modified food is the next great scientific and technological revolution in agriculture and the only efficient and cheap way to feed a growing population in a shrinking world. Nongovernmental organizations, including my own, the Foundation on Economic Trends, have been cast as the villains in this unfolding agricultural drama, and often categorized as modern versions of the English Luddites, accused of continually blocking scientific and technological progress because of our opposition to genetically modified food. Now, in an ironic twist, new, cutting-edge technologies have made gene splicing and transgenic crops obsolete and a serious impediment to scientific progress. The new frontier is called genomics, and the new agricultural technology is called marker-assisted selection, or MAS. This technology offers a sophisticated method to greatly accelerate classical breeding. A growing number of scientists believe that MAS -- which is already being introduced into the market -- will eventually replace genetically modified food. Moreover, environmental organizations that have long opposed genetically modified crops are guardedly supportive of MAS technology. Rapidly accumulating information about crop genomes is allowing scientists to identify genes associated with traits such as yield, and then to scan crop relatives for the presence of those genes. Instead of using molecular splicing techniques to transfer a gene from an unrelated species into the genome of a food crop to increase yield, strengthen resistance to pests or improve nutrition, scientists are using MAS to locate desired traits in other varieties of a particular food crop, or its relatives that grow in the wild. Then they cross-breed those related plants with the existing commercial varieties to improve the crop. With MAS, the breeding of new varieties always remain within a species, thus greatly reducing the risk of environmental harm and potential adverse health effects associated with genetically modified crops. Using MAS, researchers can upgrade classical breeding and reduce by 50 percent or more the time needed to develop new plant varieties by pinpointing appropriate plant partners at the gamete or seedling stage. While MAS is emerging as a promising new agricultural technology with broad application, the limits of transgenic technology are becoming increasingly apparent. Most of the transgenic crops introduced into the fields express only two traits -- resistance to pests and compatibility with herbicides -- and rely on the expression of a single gene. This is hardly the far-reaching agricultural revolution touted by the life science companies at the beginning of the era of genetically modified crops. Of course, marker-assisted selection researchers emphasize that there is still much work to be done in understanding the choreography -- for example, between single genetic markers and complex genetic clusters and environmental factors, all of which interact to affect the development of the plant and produce desirable outcomes, such as improved yield and drought resistance. So, of course, a word of caution is in order. It should be noted that MAS is of value to the extent that it is used as part of a broader, agro-ecological approach to farming, one that integrates introduction of new crops with a proper regard for all the other environmental, economic and social factors that together determine the sustainability of farming. The wrinkle here is that the continued introduction of genetically modified crops could contaminate existing plant varieties, making the new MAS technology more difficult to use. A 2004 survey conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that non-genetically modified seeds from three of America's major agricultural crops -- corn, soybeans and canola -- were already pervasively contaminated with low levels of DNA sequences originating in genetically engineered varieties of these crops. Cleaning up contaminated genetic programs could prove to be as troublesome and expensive in the future as cleaning up the viruses that invade software programs. As MAS technology becomes cheaper and easier to use, and as knowledge in genomics becomes more dispersed and easily available over the next decade, plant breeders around the world will be able to exchange information about best practices and democratize the technology. Already, plant breeders are talking about open source genomics, envisioning the sharing of genes. The struggle between a younger generation of sustainable agriculture enthusiasts anxious to share genetic information and entrenched company scientists
[Biofuel] GM is obsolete - non-GM biotech now the first choice
http://www.gmwatch.org/print-archive2.asp?arcid=6668 GM is obsolete - non-GM biotech now the first choice (21/6/2006) The Foundation on Economic Trends (FET), founded by the economist Jeremy Rifkin, who has highlighted the dangers of genetic engineering since the early 1980s, has recently completed a white paper on the next generation of biotech agriculture, called Marker Assisted Selection (MAS). Rifkin, like many others, is convinced that MAS has eclipsed genetic engineering in its potential and that GE is a failed technology whose limitations are hotly denied by corporate-friendly scientists and the entrenched interests they represent. Rifkin's FET sees its position paper as opening up a new conversation in the debate surrounding GM food. Those boiotech proponents wedded to an already outmoded vision of the future of agriculture, centered on GE and patents, can be relied upon to do their damndest to try and drown out that conversation. EXCERPTS: ...new cutting edge technologies have made gene splicing and transgenic crops obsolete and a serious impediment to scientific progress. The new frontier is called genomics and the new agricultural technology is called Marker Assisted Selection, or MAS. Wally Beversdorf, former vice president of plant science research at Syngenta, candidly admitted that although the company was still engaged in GM technology, marker assisted selection is the first choice now in the company's research priorities. European Environmental Commissioner Stavros Dimas raised the question of [GM] contamination of plant varieties and loss of biodiversity in a speech to environmental ministers of the 25 EU member states on April 5, 2006. Dimas told his colleagues that GMO products raise a whole new series of possible risks to the environment, notably potential long term effects that could impact on biodiversity. Dimas said he was particularly concerned about loss of biodiversity because of the vast potential afforded by the new MAS technology... Dimas noted that MAS technology is attracting considerable attention and said that the European Union should not ignore the use of 'upgraded' conventional varieties as an alternative to GM crops. --- http://www.foet.org/FETSupportStatementonMAS.pdf The Foundation on Economic Trends (FET) Statement of Support for Genomics Research and Marker Assisted Selection Technology within the Context of a Broader, More Holistic, Agroecological Approach to Farming For years, the life science companies - Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, Pioneer, etc. - have argued that GM food is the next great scientific and technological revolution in agriculture, and the only efficient and cheap way to feed a growing population in a shrinking world. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), including my own, The Foundation on Economic Trends, have been cast as the villains in this unfolding agricultural drama, and often categorized as modern versions of the English Luddites, accused of continually blocking scientific and technological progress because of their opposition to GM food. Now, new cutting edge technologies have made gene splicing and transgenic crops obsolete and a serious impediment to scientific progress. The new frontier is called genomics and the new agricultural technology is called Marker Assisted Selection, or MAS. The new technology offers a sophisticated, new method to greatly accelerate classical breeding. A growing number of scientists believe that MAS - which is already being introduced into the market - will eventually replace GM food. Scientists are mapping and sequencing the genomes of major crop species and using the findings to create a new approach to advancing agricultural technology. Instead of using molecular splicing techniques to transfer a gene from an unrelated species into the genome of a food crop to increase yield, resist pests, or improve nutrition, scientists are now using Marker Assisted Selection to locate desired traits in other varieties or, wild relatives of a particular food crop, then cross breeding those plants with the existing commercial varieties to improve the crop. With MAS, the breeding of new varieties always remain within a species, thus, greatly reducing the risk of environmental harm and potential adverse health effects associated with GM crops. Rapidly accumulating information about crop genomes is allowing scientists to identify genes associated with traits like yield and then scan crop relatives for the presence of those genes. Using MAS, researchers can upgrade classical breeding and reduce by 50% or more the time needed to develop new plant varieties by pinpointing appropriate plant partners at the gamete or seedling stage. An increasing number of researchers around the world in academic, government, and commercial laboratories are switching to MAS as an alternative to gene splicing technology in the development and enhancement of existing
Re: [Biofuel] was..was..smart car coming to US in 2008
Mike Weaver wrote: As I keep telling people, all 4WD does is get youy moving. You'd be amazed at the number of people that think it allows you to drive faster in the snow due to better all weather handling. These are the same morons that put high octane gas in their Civics for more power... Hey, you can get more power out of a Civic if you put high octane gas in it! ... You just have to follow that with putting a turbo on it, crank the boost pressure way up, and pray you don't blow a piston out the bottom end! ;p -Kurt ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] was..was..smart car coming to US in 2008
That's true even if you don't consider the fact that SUV's in combination with the soccer mom's who think they are safer, make everyone less safe - including those driving Smarts and Volvos. Mike Weaver wrote: It's a common misperception that SUV's are safer than smaller cars. It's not true look up number of fatalities at iihs.org or hldi.org... Terry Dyck wrote: Smart Cars are considered one of the safest cars on the road next to a Volvo. The frame is solid steel. Large SUV's are the most dangerous cars because they roll easily. Don't let size determine safety, it does not work that way. Terry Dyck From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] was..was..smart car coming to US in 2008 Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 09:01:51 -0400 I'd stay off the highway, heck, I'm scared to ride my Harley on the interstate... mark manchester wrote: I hate to see these things on the highway, looks like people flying along under an umbrella. Surely can speed along, this is pretty much a four-wheel hooded motorcycle. Incredibly cute, though, and comfy. Very popular here in Toronto, but there's zero trunk space. Jesse From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 10:44:51 -0400 To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] was..was..smart car coming to US in 2008 I've been thinking that what I need would be a two seater with a fairly large storage space as I usually go downtown with servers and stuff. My Golf works ok with the seats down, but if the whole vehicle were designed for hauling small and medium loads a Smart Car design would be perfect. Now think of a diesel/electric hybrid... -Weaver AltEnergyNetwork wrote: Haken, I've seen the 2 seater up really close, took a look inside, watched it being parked in a miniscule spot, been behind one and in front of one in traffic, haven't driven one yet. They are really cool little cars. I think it is going to fill an important niche market for couriers, deliveries, fleets and businesses that like the fact that it sips thimbles of gasoline. Still, in order to wean Americans off of their obsession with suvs, it might be a good idea if the company made a heftier 4 seater utility that would appeal to the suv crowd and still sip at the pump. Image is everything and if the average joe thinks that they can get one of these green machines and still be able to lug around the stuff that they do AND save at the pump, great. It's the old having cake and eating it too syndrome but people respond to it, regards tallex Smart Car Coming to US in 2008 Launch by DaimlerChrysler http://www.alternate-energy.net/N/news.php?detail=n1151818384.news ---Original Message--- From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] was..smart car coming to US in 2008 Sent: 02 Jul '06 08:22 Tallex, The market for 250 pound people is very much smaller in Europe than in US and I think that it is not a primary target for SMART cars. Do not only look at one, try it and you will be surprised on how spacious it is for 2 people and how well it transport/park for urban dwellers. I do however agree on the problems in US, it is little space for the oversized chip and snack packs, that seems to be the essentials for US commuters. I am not a small person 186 centimeter and 96 kilo (which is too much), but I fit well in a Smart. I did however not consider the image problem. Hakan At 09:15 02/07/2006, you wrote: That's great Haken, so if they already have a four seater, it is not to much of a stretch to do a minivan version as well and still be considered a smart car? Also, I've seen the two seater and while really cool, there is no way you are going to fit 2 - 250 pound people side by side, they would look like circus clowns stuffed into the seats. People
Re: [Biofuel] was..was..smart car coming to US in 2008
A couple of weeks ago, some family friends from the Midwest visited for the night on their way to visit their extended family in Maine. At one point, one of them informed me that if we all use Ethanol in our cars, we'll get at least twice the fuel economy and our cars will handle better in inclement weather conditions. Perhaps all these rolled-over SUV drivers thought that their 4WD SUV was also a flex-fuel vehicle -- and that the combination of the two made their Explorer into the Batmobile. True story. -John On Jul 6, 2006, at 8:02 PM, Mike Weaver wrote: As I keep telling people, all 4WD does is get youy moving. You'd be amazed at the number of people that think it allows you to drive faster in the snow due to better all weather handling. These are the same morons that put high octane gas in their Civics for more power... Zeke Yewdall wrote: Around here I've certainly seen more SUV's upsidedown in the creek in the snow than cars... Just based on how poorly most of even the new SUV's handle in the snow compared to my 20 year old subaru, I'm not really suprised. High center of gravity, high horsepower, short wheelbase, and bad front/rear weight distribution just isn't too good on icy highways. Z On 7/6/06, *Mike Weaver* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's a common misperception that SUV's are safer than smaller cars. It's not true look up number of fatalities at iihs.org http://iihs.org or hldi.org... Terry Dyck wrote: Smart Cars are considered one of the safest cars on the road next to a Volvo. The frame is solid steel. Large SUV's are the most dangerous cars because they roll easily. Don't let size determine safety, it does not work that way. Terry Dyck From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] was..was..smart car coming to US in 2008 Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 09:01:51 -0400 I'd stay off the highway, heck, I'm scared to ride my Harley on the interstate... mark manchester wrote: I hate to see these things on the highway, looks like people flying along under an umbrella. Surely can speed along, this is pretty much a four-wheel hooded motorcycle. Incredibly cute, though, and comfy. Very popular here in Toronto, but there's zero trunk space. Jesse From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 10:44:51 -0400 To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] was..was..smart car coming to US in 2008 I've been thinking that what I need would be a two seater with a fairly large storage space as I usually go downtown with servers and stuff. My Golf works ok with the seats down, but if the whole vehicle were designed for hauling small and medium loads a Smart Car design would be perfect. Now think of a diesel/electric hybrid... -Weaver AltEnergyNetwork wrote: Haken, I've seen the 2 seater up really close, took a look inside, watched it being parked in a miniscule spot, been behind one and in front of one in traffic, haven't driven one yet. They are really cool little cars. I think it is going to fill an important niche market for couriers, deliveries, fleets and businesses that like the fact that it sips thimbles of gasoline. Still, in order to wean Americans off of their obsession with suvs, it might be a good idea if the company made a heftier 4 seater utility that would appeal to the suv crowd and still sip at the pump. Image is everything and if the average joe thinks that they can get one of these green machines and still be able to lug around the stuff that they do AND save at the pump, great. It's the old having cake and eating it too syndrome but people respond to it, regards tallex Smart Car Coming to US in 2008 Launch by DaimlerChrysler http://www.alternate-energy.net/N/news.php?detail=n1151818384.news ---Original Message--- From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] was..smart car coming to US in 2008 Sent: 02 Jul '06 08:22 Tallex, The market for 250 pound people is very much smaller in Europe than in US and I think that it is not a primary target for SMART cars. Do not only look at one, try it and you will be surprised on how spacious it is for 2 people and how well it transport/park for urban dwellers. I do however agree on the problems in US, it is little space for the oversized chip and snack packs,
