WILD-EYED SCAREMONGERING FROM OBAMA'S GREENIAC ENERGY SECRETARY

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Obama's Secretary of Energy Steven Chu told the Los Angeles Times

"We're looking at a scenario where there's no more agriculture in California." And, he added, "I don't actually see how they can keep their cities going" either."

"Chu is not a climate scientist. [Naturally and like a vast majority of the political hacks on the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] He won his Nobel for work trapping atoms with laser light. He taught at Stanford University and directed the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, where he reoriented researchers to pursue 'clean energy' technologies to help reduce the use of greenhouse-gas-emitting fossil fuels in the U.S., before Obama tapped him to head the Energy Department."

"In the course of a half-hour interview, Chu made clear that he sees public education [e.g. a propaganda blitz geared to make energy "burners" into outlaws and public pariahs] as a key part of the administration's strategy to fight global warming -- along with billions of dollars for alternative energy research and infrastructure, a national standard for electricity from renewable sources and cap-and-trade legislation to limit greenhouse gas emissions."


Cap and trade, of course, will lead directly to ill-founded vehicle scrappage programs, such as Unocal's musclecar crushing plan of twenty years ago.


And cap and trade will probably lead to regulations against any aftermarket parts or modifications that potentially increase fuel consumption, or huge taxes on consumers buying the "right" under the caps to emit more C02 and N20.

And if we're dealing in speculative "worst case scenarios" (as is Dr. Chu in his reckless scaremongering), then "cap and trade" and other targeted land use regulations aimed at limiting fuel burning could be used to shutter motorsports facilities or tax them into virtual disuse. Even if Daytona and Indy survive with token levels of professional motorsports, will marginal local dirt tracks and drag strips be able to buy enough emissions credits to stay viable? Will sportsmen competitors be able to afford to race?

If Chu and his gang of power-mad greeniac bureaucrats use flawed science and billions in "re-education" tax dollars to con millions of non-Car Crafting Americans that all agriculture and cities in California are on the brink of oblivion, how can SEMA ever hope to cope with that Tsunami of popular opinion?

Only a few stalwarts are standing up to the hysterical "climate change religion." For example, Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, recently commented on the Democrats’ new climate principles:

"At a time when Congress is debating a near term multi-billion dollar bailout for the American economy, once again the Democrats are proposing principles for climate legislation that will impose a long-term multi-trillion dollar energy tax on families and workers,” Senator Inhofe said.

“As demonstrated last year, when it comes to drafting comprehensive climate legislation, the devil is in the details. These principles offer nothing more than a punt on all of the difficult issues that Americans expect to be honestly debated. Congressional cap-and-trade bills, often touted as an ‘insurance policy’ against global warming, would instead be nothing more than all economic pain for no climate gain. We look forward to debating these tough issues in the Committee this year.”

Automotive enthusiasts should expect to get "hammered" in climate change legislation and regulation because of their minority status and the staggering costs in play.

The L.A. Times story estimated the risk to California agriculture under Chu's "worst case scenario" at over two and one-half TRILLION dollars.

Moreover,

The International Energy Agency concluded in a new report that the price of reducing greenhouse gases by half by 2050 could be as much as $45 trillion and require the construction of tens of thousands of new wind turbines as well as many hundreds of new nuclear plants. While that might sound like a lot, the agency concluded that "the current path is not sustainable."

In comparision, the interests of the various automotive communities will appear to be "chump change."

The storm clouds are darkening . . . .

CUT IN FLEET SALES LEADS FOMOCO LOWER IN JANUARY 2009

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Ford, Lincoln and Mercury car sales dropped 35.1% to 28,707. Total trucks fell 40.5% to 61,889 with the flagship F-Series pickup down 38.6%.

Ford said fleet sales, primarily to rental car companies, plunged 65%. The retail business slipped 27%, though Ford pointed out that it gained retail market share for the fourth consecutive month, a streak that hasn't happened since 1995.

Ford Motor Company's pull-back from rental car sales is painful but necessary. While rental fleet units keep factories humming at a predictable level (and yield some economies-of-scale profit potential), they drive down the residual values and brand reliability scores.

Moreover, with the a few exceptions, such as the limited-production Hertz Shelby GT Mustang, fleet cars are equipped as bland commodity vehicles. These vehicles tend to give potential customers the wrong impression of model features and flagship technologies.

Some fleet sales are useful, such as FoMoCo's taxi and police business. Fleet sales can also be used to highlight a halo or niche model that might otherwise be ignored in the crowded marketplace (Speedzzter wonders if Mercury might have had more success with the somewhat understated, underpowered, and overpriced 2003-2004 Marauder if it had featured it as a fleet model in place of the pedestrian Grand Marquis).

However, as Ford rebuilds its image among skeptical, import-biased consumers, reduction in fleet sales should have a long-term positive effect on brand perceptions, even if it causes some short-term "pain" through reduced sales.

RWD DODGE CHARGER AND PONTIAC G8 GONE IN 2011?

The current issue of Road and Track features a Battle-of-the-American-Pushrods shoot-out between the 425-horsepower SRT-8 Charger and the 415-horsepower Pontiac G8 GXP. The end of the story encourages potential buyers not to wait in their purchases.

Good advice.

Notwithstanding the precarious conditions of GM and Chrysler, the R&T story notes that the huge increases in Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards coming from the Obama Administration (not to mention even stricter state standards that will be rammed through by California and the nearly one-quarter of U.S. states that will follow in lockstep) will likely mean the death of rear wheel drive and high-performance V8s in the redesigned Charger and G8 by 2011.

Ford, of course, will completely miss out on this last round of RWD V8 super sedans. Its 2010 Taurus is still on the ill-proportioned, V8-adverse Volvo D3 platform. Although much of the bland, orthopedic-shoe styling will be gone in the next Taurus, Ford will enter the "last dance" for "American Muscle" with nothing more than a 350-horsepower EcoBoost V6.

That's a sad legacy.

However, one could argue that the die was cast when Ford failed to develop world-class RWD V8 sport sedans in the 1980s. Most certainly, Ford's failures to (a) recognize the resurgence of RWD in this decade and/or (b) make sure that the FWD-ready modular V8 would fit into its mass market AWD sedans were missed opportunities.

Hopefully at some point Ford will tap into its long heritage of popularly-priced V8 leadership with a "right-sized" DOHC Eco-Boost V8, featuring variable valve timing and lift, cylinder deactiviation, variable-geometry intake manifolding and other high-efficiency technologies. Sadly, that day -- if it ever comes -- will be after fuel efficiency standards have killed off the traditional RWD V8 sedan for years to come.