From Copenhagen to Climategate, 2009 was a busy year for those of us at ecopolitology and anyone else interested in environmental politics. Here’s a rundown of what we saw as the year’s biggest environmental politics stories.

Van Jones’ Resignation

Van Jones, one of the people who was fighting hardest to create jobs in a green economy resigned his job at the White House as Special Adviser to President Obama for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at the Council on Environmental Quality. Jones was the target of a coordinated attack spearheaded by conservative media pundit, Glen Beck, for what Beck claimed was Jones’ communist leanings.

From that to Number 5:

Economic Downturn and its Impact on Environment

One of the biggest stories in 2009–environmental or otherwise– was the massive economic downturn that gripped the U.S. and many other parts of the world. A tanking housing market, collapsing banks, and folding financial institutions all but dried up the available credit. As a result, homes were foreclosed, people lost their jobs and a general reluctance to invest in clean energy and pass legislation for the betterment of the environment permeated nearly every environmental debate in the country. The renewables sector was hit particularly hard for most of the year as banks were not lending up-front capital required for many renewable energy projects. Despite the economic slump, the wind industry continued to grow through the 3rd quarter, but suffered much more in Q4 of 2009.:}

From that to number 1:

Inauguration of Barack Obama as President

On January 20, 2009, the world watched as Barrack Hussein Obama was sworn-in as the 44th President of the United States. Throughout his campaign, Obama promised renewed attention to energy efficiency and renewables and a return to science-based policymaking. Many argue that Obama’s unprecedented commitment to science stands in stark contrast to the previous administration’s tampering with and dismissal of scientific findings that were not in line with its political agenda.

There is much much more in this article including, Cash for Clunkers; ClimateGate, Copenhagen, cccccChanges…oh sorry got carried away with the Cs.

Smart Car By Bizzaro – Dan Piraro

Posted on December 22, 2009 by Doug Nicodemus

I post about 4 of Dan’s cartoons a year because:

a. he’s hilarious

2. he’s brilliant

[]. he is good for the environment

b. his wife is gorgious

5. all of the above

You decide.

The Top 50 Environmental Blogs – They are cheaper by the dozen

Posted on December 1, 2009 by Doug Nicodemus

Community Energy Systems is a nonprofit 501c3 organization chartered in Illinois in Sangamon County. As such we are dependent on public donations for our continued existence. We also use Adsense as a fundraiser. Please click on the ads that you see on this page, on our main page and on our Bulletin Board (Refrigerator Magnets) and you will be raising money for CES. We say a heartfelt THANK YOU to all who do.

We start out today’s enumeration with a blog that if you believe its title is the Environmental Blog of all time. They are pretty good but they only post once a week:

http://www.theenvironmentalblog.org/

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Chromium 6 Emissions from ESCO in Portland

ESCO, chromium 6

This story comes the NW Examiner in the Northwest Neighborhood of Portland, Oregon. http://www.nwexaminer.com/issues/11November2009.pdf

Hexavalent chromium accumulates in organisms and does not break down in the environment. No level of human exposure is considered safe.

The EPA says that the respiratory tract is the major target organ for chromium 6 toxicity, both for acute (short term) and chronic (long-term) inhalation exposures. Shortness of breath, coughing and wheezing were reported from a case of acute exposure to chromium 6, while perforations and ulcerations of the septum, bronchitis, decreased pulmonary function, pneumonia and other respiratory effects have been noted from chronic exposure. Human studies have clearly established that inhaled chromium 6 is a human carcinogen, resulting in increased risk of lung cancer.

Most of the of the 64 toxic substances emitted by ESCO have multiple health consequences. In addition to seven substances known to cause cancer, another 12 are suspected carcinogens.

ESCO is increasingly the topic of discussion among anti-toxics groups in Oregon. Neighbors For Clean Air, the Northwest District Association, and now the Oregon Toxics Alliance are all taking note of ESCO’s toxics emissions. Please join these groups to help put pressure on the DEQ to do its job.

Thoughts, Comments, Questions…

OK that was pretty yuckie. Next we have to include the transportation world. This is a pretty geeky site:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/

Mitsubishi Motors Corporation and Japan Delivery System Corporation Develop EV Charging System for Apartment Buildings in Japan

1 December 2009

Over view of the i-CHARGER system. Click to enlarge.

Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC) and Japan Delivery System Corporation (JDS) have jointly developed an electric vehicle (EV) charging system for apartment complexes. The system, called i-CHARGER, is to be sold by JDS starting 1 December.

Installation and management of EV charging infrastructure for shared parking lots of apartment complexes is an issue in Japan for the popularization of electric vehicles. The i-CHARGER addresses this problem by utilizing existing “delivery box” systems. A “delivery box” is a system of lockers that allow for delivery or sending of packages when tenants are not at home. The “delivery box” notifies tenants when a package has arrived, and the package can be retrieved by the tenant by PIN code or verification card.

Continue Reading “Mitsubishi Motors Corporation and Japan Delivery System Corporation Develop EV Charging System for Apartment Buildings in Japa

Those guys got acronyms out the yingyang. If you are after something a bit more sporty:

http://www.greenercars.org/

greenest vs. meanest: highlights of the model year ratings

GREEN DRIVING TIPS

Buying green is just the first step in reducing the environmental impacts of automobile use. Your choice of vehicle is most important, but how you drive and how well you maintain your car, van, or light truck will also make a difference. More…

2009 MARKET TRENDS

Reading the tea leaves for the vehicle market is greatly complicated by the current turmoil in the auto industry. New vehicle sales in 2008 barely broke the 13 million mark, the lowest since 1993 and down from over 16 million in 2007. More…

LEED CERTIFIED VEHICLES

A downloadable excel spreadsheet of all model year 2000 – 2009 vehicles that meet the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED criteria can be found he

If you are in Bellevue Washington you might get ahold of these guys:

http://www.thegreencarco.com/about_us/contact_us.php

About Us

>> Contact Us
Current Events
Employment
Environmental Commitment
GCC Staff
Investor Relations
Green Links
Hymotion Event
BACKUP–current Events
BACKUP–contact Us

The Green Car Company
Sales Department

We Have Moved!!!!
Address: 345 – 106TH AVE NE, Bellevue, WA 98004
Telephone: 425-820-4549
Hours: Now Open 7 days a Week for your convenience!!!
Hours Have Changed For The Winter::
Service:: Monday through Friday 8am to 4pm | 9am-6pm for sales
Sales:: Saturday from 9am-6pm and Sunday 11am-5pm

Email: Sales@greencarco.com
The Green Car Company is located just off the NE 4th St. exit off of the I-405. From the NE 4th exit, go west toward downtown Bellevue. Turn Left at 106th Ave NE. We will be immediately on your right hand side. The building has a funny round roofline and used to be Backstreet Frame and Art. We are next door to Bellevue Auto House and two doors down from Taco Time.

Everything is so much more fun when you put GREEN in front of it.

Electric Cars Are Coming, Electric Cars Are Coming – Just not to your town yet..

Posted on November 17, 2009 by Doug Nicodemus

I mean unless you happen to live in the 25 lucky towns this model covers. Most certainly not if you want an electric car.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10398375-54.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

November 16, 2009 9:42 AM PST

CEOs endorse ‘foothold strategy’ for electric cars

by Martin LaMon A group of CEOs on Monday came out favor of a regional roll-out of electric vehicles in up to eight cities to demonstrate the viability of the technology and incubate the fledgling industry.

The Electricifcation Coalition held a press conference in Washington, D.C. and released an Electrification Roadmap, which prescribes the business and policy steps required to ramp up electric vehicle adoption.

There are 13 members of the coalition, including the CEOs of Nissan Motor, FedEx, Pacific Gas & Electric, and battery maker A123 Systems. The coalition was spun out of Securing America’s Future Energy, a lobbying group focused on reducing U.S. imports of oil.

Photos: Plug-in vehicles in Motor City

The Electrification Coalition argues that light-duty electric vehicles are the only technology that can cut oil imports and reduce carbon emissions in the near term. Its report (click for link) focuses on what’s required to make electric cars available at large scale.

“I think we have the conditions for the mass market. But it’s going to take more time,” said Carlos Ghosn, the president and CEO of Nissan. “The investments to be made are huge. To make 50,000 batteries is a $250 million investment.”

Of all the major automakers, Nissan is the most bullish on electrification. It is releasing an all-electric family sedan called the Leaf in the U.S. and Japan next year. It projects that 10 percent of new cars sales in 2020 will be electric, which is higher than most analysts’ projections.

The shift presents challenges to auto makers that are unsure of consumer acceptance. Utilities and municipalities need to prepare in order to make these vehicles more consumer-friendly but they, too, are unsure what the volume of sales will be.

To take some uncertainly out of the picture, the Electrification Coalition advocates a “foothold strategy.” Six to eight cities would create a number of incentives for electric vehicles, such as preferential parking and public charging stations. They would apply for government incentives and then test out the system to help bring electric cars to “critical mass,” explained David Crane, the president and CEO of power generator NRG Energy.

In the first phase, the plan calls for getting 50,000 to 100,000 light-duty plug-in vehicles on the road per year in certain areas starting next year and then expand to 25 cities. Its report sets a target of having 25 percent of new vehicle sales be plug-ins by 2020, which is 5 million vehicles. A jump to 90 percent of new vehicle sales being plug-ins by 2030 would represent roughly 17 million units, according to data from consulting company PRTM.

For consumers, batteries should be owned and financed separately from the car itself, Crane said. Because batteries are an expensive component that makes it more expensive than a comparably-sized gasoline car, auto makers, including Nissan, are looking at ways to keep monthly car payments roughly the same by leasing batteries.

Course, if you want to get around all this hemming and hawing and get going today there is ZAP:

http://www.zapworld.com/

100% Electric – Zero Air Pollution (ZAP)

ZAP is a leading distributor of affordable, efficient, 100% electric vehicles in the United States and has established a network of licensed automobile dealers throughout the United States. Plans for European distribution are underway as well. In January 2009, ZAP unveiled a high performance electric roadster called the Alias which is planned for deliveries in late 2010. ZAP launched the XEBRA in 2006. Our first automotive product comes in a four-passenger sedan version and a two-passenger utility pickup truck.. Almost all EVs sold are LSVs. With speed restricted to 25 MPH. Xebra Zapcars and Zaptrucks are licensed to go up to 40 MPH to fill the growing demand for electric vehicles in use for urban, in-town driving. Other vehicles sold by ZAP include the XL truck, the Zapvan Shuttle, and ATV called Dude and the always popular Zappy3 scooter line.
:}

So quit fooling around.

Gasoline Down And It Will Never Be As High Again – You could call this peak gasoline but you would be wrong

Posted on October 7, 2009 by Doug Nicodemus

There are 2 reasons for a product to run its course in a capitalist society. 1. the resource runs out like carrier pigeons in the wild or whale oil, 2. they become unfashionable or unsaleable. You could think of this as Peak Raccoon Skin or Peak Hats. If people quit buying the stuff, the manufacturers have to quit making it. Many times the manufacturers don’t even admit that their way of life has ended they simply vanish…Can anyone say Pet Rock? The immediate effect of the recent Cash For Clunkers program was to immediately and permanently decrease the demand for gasoline in the US.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2009/10/06/peak-gasoline-is-here.aspx

Peak Gasoline Is Here

By Toby Shute
October 6, 2009The jury’s still out on peak oil, but the concept of peak gasoline has some very credible proponents.

Last Thursday, ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM) CEO Rex Tillerson argued that U.S. gasoline consumption peaked in 2007. In his words, “motor vehicle gasoline demand is down, is headed down, and is going to continue to head down.”

This isn’t a new position for the prominent oil patch poobah. Back in April, The Wall Street Journal cited Exxon’s belief that U.S. light duty gasoline demand will drop by 22% by 2030.

Tillerson isn’t alone in the peak-gasoline camp, either. The government’s own estimates indicate that gasoline consumption peaked in 2007, at 371.2 million gallons per day. Cambridge Energy Research Associates has concluded that 2007 was probably the peak, barring a collapse in the oil price.

The main drivers (ahem) of this trend are the dovetailing desires for reduced oil dependence, lower emissions, and better fuel efficiency. The high oil prices of 2008 — and even today’s prices, which are quite high by historical standards — have been a major force to shift consumer preferences toward more compact and efficient vehicles, including hybrids. Lithium-ion battery whiz A123 (Nasdaq: AONE) certainly has high oil prices — and government greenbacks — to thank for its recent warm reception on Wall Street.

A parallel development is the army of venture capital-backed science projects seeking all manner of petroleum alternatives to stick in your fuel tank. Renewable fuel standards — optimistic, given current funding levels –hold out the promise of a robust end market for these products.

Yah know how I know?

http://philadelphia.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/stories/2009/10/05/daily22.html

Tuesday, October 6, 2009, 4:40pm EDT

Sunoco idling Eagle Point plant, furloughing 400 workers

Philadelphia Business Journal – by Peter Key Staff Writer

Sunoco Inc. said Tuesday it is indefinitely idling its Eagle Point refinery in Westville, N.J., and furloughing all 400 workers there.

The Philadelphia-based oil refiner and gasoline retailer also said it is halving its quarterly dividend to 15 cents from 30 cents, starting with the first quarter of next year.

Sunoco (NYSE:SUN) said it decided to idle Eagle Point in response to the margin pressure faced by refiners from the sagging economy, weak demand and increased global refining capacity.

The company said it will shift production from Eagle Point to its refineries in Philadelphia and Marcus Hook, Pa. It said it will be able to produce the same amount of refined products at those two refineries that it had been producing at them plus Eagle Point and still meet demand.

Sunoco said it will keep Eagle Point idle until market conditions improve and will consider other options for the refinery, including using it to produce alternative fuels.

The company said it will continue to pay its contribution to medical benefits for the Eagle Point employees for the duration of their furlough. It also will offer them a voluntary severance program that includes job-placement assistance and retraining.

Sunoco said it expects to incur pre-tax charges of $475 million to $500 million, most of which will be noncash, from idling Eagle Point. It will record most in the recently ended quarter and the rest in the current quarter.

It must be tough to become obsolete.

Why The Automobile Is Stupid – It had to be invented in America

Posted on August 6, 2009 by Doug Nicodemus

America is the home of instant gratification. There IS nothing more instant than the automobile and capitalism and nothing more American than the car. At no time in the history of humans have people been able to go some place distant at a whim. The Odyssey remains a famous work precisely because it takes Odysseus 10 years to get home and he never got out of the eastern Mediterranean. For a historical perspective it took mankind 50,000 years to get around the world. Yet I can just get in my car and for a few hundred dollars drive to California. How dumb is that…better yet how irresponsible? For that priviledge 32,000 people (roughly) a year die. That figure has not changed since 1962.

That is again roughly 1,536,000 people. That is more casualities then most major wars. Driving put the casual in casualities. Staggering numbers when compared to Vietnam, or Korea and especially compared to the various incursions in the Arab or Persian Gulf (Iraq, Kuwait, and I include Afghanistan). So let me be clear, I hate the internal combustion engine and not just the one under your hood. But cars do not make any sense no matter what powers its drive train, whether its bio-diesel, electricity or water. It is a bad use of resources. If you need to cover long distances…take the damn bus. If you have to get to the store RIGHT NOW…take your bike. You want to go really really long distances…take the freakin train… But every last one of us having a 2000 lb. car (many weigh much more) that carries 50 lbs. of fuel (usually much more) and transports one 300 lb. human (usually much less) is just stupid. There really is no other way to characterize it dumb dumb dumb.

Please also do not misunderstand me. As long as people have traveled they have died in transit. Think the Titanic here, sometimes in spectacular numbers:

http://www.titanic-facts.com/

But:

A traffic collision is when a road vehicle collides with another vehicle, pedestrian, animal, or geographical or architectural obstacle. Traffic collisions can result in injury, property damage, and death.

Terminology

Phrases commonly used to describe collisions include: auto accident, car accident, car crash, car smash, car wreck, motor vehicle accident (MVA), motor vehicle collision (MVC), personal injury collision (PIC), road accident, road traffic accident (RTA), road traffic collision (RTC), road traffic incident (RTI), smash-up and fender bender.

As the factors involved in collisions have become better understood, some organizations have begun to avoid the term “accident,” as the word suggests an unpreventable, unpredictable event and disregards the opportunity for the driver(s) involved to avoid the crash. Although auto collisions are rare in terms of the number of vehicles on the road and the distance they travel, addressing the contributing factors can reduce their likelihood. For example, proper signage can decrease driver error and thereby reduce crash frequency by a third or more.^[1] That is why these organizations prefer the term “collision” rather than “accident”.

However, treating collisions as anything other than “accidents” has been criticized for holding back safety improvements, because a culture of blame may discourage the involved parties from fully disclosing the facts, and thus frustrate attempts to address the real root causes.^[2]

Background

Road crashes causing death, injury, and damage have always happened since animals were domesticated. History tells people who were the victim of such incidents. Louis IV of France died in 954 after falling from his horse, as did at least two kings of England: William I (William the Conqueror) in 1087 and William III in 1702. Handel was seriously injured in a carriage crash in 1752.^[3]

The British road engineer J. J. Leeming, compared the statistics for fatality rates in Great Britain, for transport-related incidents both before and after the introduction of the motor vehicle, for journeys, including those by water, which would now be undertaken by motor vehicle:^[4] For the period 1863–1870 there were: 470 fatalities per million of population (76 on railways, 143 on roads, 251 on water); for the period 1891–1900 the corresponding figures were: 348 (63, 107, 178); for the period 1931–1938: 403 (22, 311, 70) and for the year 1963: 325 (10, 278, 37).^[4] Leeming concluded that the data showed that “travel accidents may even have been more frequent a century ago than they are now, at least for men“.^[4]

Irish scientist Mary Ward died on 31 August 1869 when she fell out of her cousins’ steam car and was run over. She is believed to have been the world’s first motor vehicle accident victim.

A truck crash.

In the United States the calculable costs of motor-vehicle crashes are wage and productivity losses, medical expenses, motor vehicle damage, employers’ uninsured costs, and administrative expenses. (See the definitions for a description of what is included in each component.) The costs of all these items for each death (not each fatal crash), injury (not each injury crash), and property damage crash was: Average Economic Cost per Death, Injury, or Crash, 2006: Nonfatal; Disabling Injury; $55,000; Property Damage Crash (including nondisabling injuries) $8,200; Death; $1,210,000; Expressed on a per death basis, the cost of all motor vehicle crashes—i.e. fatal, nonfatal injury, and property damage—was $5,800,000. This includes the cost of one death, 197 property damage crashes (including minor injuries, 54 nonfatal disabling injuries). This average may be used to estimate the motor vehicle crash costs for a state provided that there are at least 10 deaths and only one or two occurred in each fatal crash. If fewer than 10 deaths, estimate the costs of deaths, nonfatal disabling injuries, and property damage crashes separately.

Defined in sections 2.3.4 through 2.3.6 of the Manual on Classification of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents (7th Edition) ANSI Standard D16.1-2007 are defined by severity motor vehicle injuries Estimates are given here of the costs by severity of injuries. http://www2.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/estcost.htm

Road incidents result in the deaths of an estimated 1.2 million people worldwide each year, and injure about forty times this number (WHO, 2004).

OR:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_your_Car!

Divorce your Car! Ending the Love Affair with the Automobile (New Society Publishers, ISBN 0-86571-408-8), written by Katie Alvord and with a foreword by Stephanie Mills, proposes that automobiles have lost their value as a convenience and have become a hindrance, even an addiction. “Today’s relationship with the automobile inflicts upon us pollution, noise, congestion, sprawl, big expenses, injury, and even death. Yet we continue to live with cars at a growing cost to ourselves and the environment.” ^[1] There are several arguments for her thesis presented throughout the text as well as some suggestions for how to wean one’s self from automobiles.^[2]

Reception

The book was well received by critics and has been hailed by environmentalists as a realistic description of the current situation in which we live. Alvord cites many sources throughout the text to back up her claims, however there have been complaints that some of them are biased, originating from sources with an apparent agenda, such as Asphalt Nation. Jay Walljasper of Utne Reader claims the book is “A clear-headed approach to reducing or even eliminating our dependence on cars, Divorce Your Car! [is] full of common sense and fresh insight.”

About the Author

Katie Alvord, born in northern California, is a freelance writer, environmentalist, and avid bicyclist. A graduate of the University of California at Davis and with a Master’s degree from the University of California at Berkeley, Alvord has worked with many non-profit agencies focused on environmental issues. She has had articles printed in such publications as E Magazine, Wild Earth, and The Urban Ecologist. In 1992 she received several awards, including the Clean Air Champion award, for her self documented experience of divorcing her car while living in a rural part of Sonoma County, California.^[4]

[edit] Main Points

[edit] Supporting Arguments

In the book, Alvord states that air pollution from cars is damaging to the health of humans directly because of contaminants in pollution and indirectly through the destruction of the environment and contribution to global warming.^[5] Oil spills, acid rain, and dirty rivers are some of the results of widespread use of cars, according to Alvord. The destruction from oil spills can wreak havoc on entire ecosystems.^[6] In addition to the cost of the car, an owner can expect to pay much more in repairs and upkeep throughout the car’s life.^[7] Additionally, tens of thousands of people die every year from car crashes, and hundreds of thousands are injured.^[8]

[edit] Solutions

Alvord proposes that there are benefits to walking, cycling and using mass transit beyond saving the Earth, such as exercise, money conservation, and self reliance.^[9] By modifying land use, financial policies, and urban infrastructure, efficiency can be increased world wide and society can learn to function without a car in every household.^[10] With the advent of the Internet and decreasing phone prices, it is more efficient to work from home or video conference online in many circumstances, and just as effective. This not only reduces pollution but can save money for businesses.^[

Feds Form 5695 That You Use To Claim The Big Ticket Items In The Stimulus Package

Posted on June 19, 2009 by Doug Nicodemus

I know that this is an obvious ploy for google numbers but I am the original google whore. I tried to get the PDF file from the Feds converted to a Word file so we could become the goto site for such things but I failed miserabley…(psss. it jam band friday –http://www.youtube.com )

All I succeeded in doing was getting the instructions but I think even they are instructive. In fact I will put the locations of the forms 5695, 3800 and 8910:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f5695.pdf

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8910.pdf

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f3800.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8OgkjcW0g4

There was a comedian whose whole stick was to read the tax code in a very high minded and serious tone and used to cause audiences to roar. This was the case because we have all had our tax code moments, because we can imagine little people in offices dreaming this shit up, and because we can see people taking advantage of it.

General Instructions

Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code.

What’s New for 2008 Nonbusiness energy property credit expired. You cannot take the nonbusiness energy property credit for property placed in service in 2008.

Credit expanded. You can now include costs for qualified small wind energy property and qualified geothermal heat pump property in figuring the residential energy efficient property credit.

What’s New for 2009 Nonbusiness energy property credit available. The nonbusiness energy property credit will be available for property placed in service in 2009. The credit is available for items such as high-efficiency heating and cooling systems, water heaters, windows, doors, and insulation. The amount of the credit will be limited by the amount of any nonbusiness energy property credit you took in 2006 or 2007.

Qualified solar electric property. There is no limit on the amount of qualified solar electric property costs when figuring the residential energy efficient property credit.

Purpose of Form

Use Form 5695 to figure and take your residential energy efficient property credit, including any credit carryforward from 2007. :}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zkEppr68PM

Apperently you can not be a human and take advantage of this but if you are a Home well you are in like Flin.

Who Can Take the Credit

You may be able to take the credit if you made energy saving improvements to your home located in the United States in 2008. For credit purposes, costs are treated as being paid when the original installation of the item is completed, or in the case of costs connected with the construction or reconstruction of your home, when your original use of the constructed or reconstructed home begins. If less than 80% of the use of an item is for nonbusiness purposes, only that portion of the costs that are allocable to the nonbusiness use can be used to determine the credit.

Home. A home is where you lived in 2008 and can include a house, houseboat, mobile home, cooperative apartment, condominium, and a manufactured home that conforms to Federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards.

You must reduce the basis of your home by the amount of any credits allowed.

Main home. Your main home is generally the home where you live most of the time. A temporary absence due to special circumstances, such as illness, education, business, military service, or vacation, will not change your main home.

Special rules. If you are a member of a condominium management association for a condominium you own or a tenant-stockholder in a cooperative housing corporation, you are treated as having paid your proportionate share of any costs of such association or corporation.

Subsidized energy financing. Any amounts provided for by subsidized energy financing cannot be used to figure the credit. This is financing provided under a

federal, state, or local program, the principal purpose of

which is to provide subsidized financing for projects designed to conserve or produce energy.

Residential Energy Efficient Property Credit

You may be able to take a credit of 30% of your costs of qualified solar electric property, solar water heating property, fuel cell property, small wind energy property, and geothermal heat pump property. This includes labor costs properly allocable to the onsite preparation, assembly, or original installation of the property and for piping or wiring to interconnect such property to the home. This credit is limited to:

• $2,000 for qualified solar electric property costs,

• $2,000 for qualified solar water heating property costs,

• $500 for each one-half kilowatt of capacity of qualified fuel cell property for which qualified fuel cell property costs are paid.

• $500 for each one-half kilowatt of capacity of qualified small wind energy property for which qualified small wind energy property costs are paid (not to exceed $4,000), and

• $2,000 for qualified geothermal heat pump property costs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byjPd28KegM

I could let this stuff go with out comment but then that is nearly impossible. So if I spend money to cut down my neighbors tree so I can get my solar access back, is that tax deductible?

Qualified solar electric property costs. Qualified solar electric property costs are costs for property that uses solar energy to generate electricity for use in your home located in the United States. This includes costs relating to a solar panel or other property installed as a roof or a portion of a roof. The home does not have to be your main home.

Qualified solar water heating property costs.

Qualified solar water heating property costs are costs for property to heat water for use in your home located in the United States if at least half of the energy used by the solar water heating property for such purpose is derived from the sun. This includes costs relating to a solar panel or other property installed as a roof or a portion of a roof. To qualify for the credit, the property must be certified for performance by the nonprofit Solar Rating Certification Corporation or a comparable entity endorsed by the government of the state in which the property is installed. The home does not have to be your main home.

Qualified fuel cell property costs. Qualified fuel cell property costs are costs for qualified fuel cell property installed on or in connection with your main home located in the United States. Qualified fuel cell property is an integrated system comprised of a fuel cell stack assembly and associated balance of plant components that converts a fuel into electricity using electrochemical means. To qualify for the credit, the fuel cell property must have a nameplate capacity of at least one-half kilowatt of electricity using an electrochemical process and an electricity-only generation efficiency greater than 30%.

Costs allocable to a swimming pool, hot tub, or any other energy storage medium which has a function other than the function of such storage do not qualify for the residential energy efficiency credit.

Qualified small wind energy property costs.

Qualified small wind energy property costs are costs for property that uses a wind turbine to generate electricity for use in connection with your home located in the United States. The home does not have to be your main home.

Qualified geothermal heat pump property costs.

Qualified geothermal heat pump property costs are costs for qualified geothermal heat pump property installed on or in connection with your home located in the United States. Qualified geothermal heat pump property is any equipment that uses the ground or ground water as a thermal energy source to heat your home or as a thermal energy sink to cool your home. To qualifiy for the credit, the geothermal heat pump property must meet the requirements of the Energy Star program that are in effect at the time of purchase. The home does not have to be your main home.

Married taxpayers with more than one home. If you or your spouse lived in more than one home, the credit limits would apply to each of you separately. For qualified fuel cell property, the homes must be your main homes. If you are filing separate returns, both of you must complete a separate Form 5695. If you are filing a joint return, figure your nonbusiness energy property credit as follows.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e3cR2H38Wo&feature=related So what do you want to be when you grow up little Johnny? Tax payer A or Tax payer B?

1. Complete a separate Form 5695 for each home through line 21.

2. On one of the forms, complete line 22. Then, figure the amount to be entered on line 23 of both forms and enter the combined amount on line 23 of this form.

3. On the dotted line to the left of the entry space for line 23, enter “More than one home”. Then, complete the rest of this form.

4. Attach both forms to your return. Joint occupancy. If you occupied your home jointly, each occupant must complete his or her own Form 5695. To figure the credit, the maximum qualifying costs that can be taken into account by all occupants for figuring the credit is $6,667 for qualified solar electric, solar water heating, or geothermal heat pump property; and $1,667 for each one-half kilowatt of capacity of qualified fuel cell or small wind energy property (not to exceed $13,333 for qualified small

wind energy property). The amount allocable to you is the lesser of:

1. The amount you paid, or

2. The maximum qualifying cost of the property multiplied by a fraction. The numerator is the amount you paid and the denominator is the total amount paid by you and all other occupants.

These rules do not apply to married individuals filing a joint return.

Example. Taxpayer A owns a house with Taxpayer B where they both reside. In 2008, they installed qualified solar water heating property at a cost of $8,000. Taxpayer A paid $6,000 towards the cost of the property and Taxpayer B paid the remaining $2,000. The amount of cost allocable to Taxpayer A is $5,000 ($6,667 X $6,000/$8,000). The amount of cost allocable to Taxpayer B is $1,667 ($6,667 X $2,000/$8,000).

Specific Instructions

Also include on lines 1, 5, 9, 13, or 18, any

labor costs properly allocable to the onsite

preparation, assembly, or original installation

of the property and for piping or wiring to interconnect such property to the home.

Line 1

Enter the amounts you paid for qualified solar electric property. See Qualified solar electric property costs on page 3.

Line 5

Enter the amounts you paid for qualified solar water heating property. See Qualified solar water heating property costs on page 3.

Line 9

Enter the amounts you paid for qualified fuel cell property. See Qualified fuel cell property costs on page 3.

Line 13

Enter the amounts you paid for qualified small wind energy property. See Qualified small wind energy property costs on this page.

Line 18

Enter the amounts you paid for qualified geothermal heat pump property. See Qualified geothermal heat pump property costs on this page.

Line 25

If you are claiming the child tax credit for 2008, include on this line the amount from line 12 of the Line 11 Worksheet in Pub. 972.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8jDc_vu9is

Right about now you are saying I can’t take anymore. Why did I ever think about doing these energy improvements. Get me out of this tax hell. But there is more.

If you are not claiming the child tax credit for 2008, you do not need Pub. 972.

Line 28

If you cannot use all of the credit because of the tax liability limit (line 26 is less than line 23), you can carry the unused portion of the credit to 2009.

Paperwork Reduction Act Notice. We ask for the information on this form to carry out the Internal Revenue laws of the United States. You are required to give us the information. We need it to ensure that you are complying with these laws and to allow us to figure and collect the right amount of tax.

You are not required to provide the information requested on a form that is subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act unless the form displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a form or its instructions must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any Internal Revenue law. Generally, tax returns and return information are confidential, as required by section 6103.

The average time and expenses required to complete and file this form will vary depending on individual circumstances. For the estimated averages, see the instructions for your income tax return.

If you have suggestions for making this form simpler, we would be happy to hear from you. See the instructions for your income tax return.

Now all you have to do is make copies for your records, double check that everything is signed, put it all in an envelop with the proper postage and address, mail it off and PRAY…have a nice day.

http://www.rooftopcomedy.com/watch/SouthernObamaSupport

Feds Credits To Trade In An Old Inefficient Car – It’s called the Clunker or the Gas Guzzler Bill

Posted on June 18, 2009 by Doug Nicodemus

It is not law yet, but if it will become law and it looks like it will. Waiting to buy a new car until it passes could be well worth it. I say this because it is unclear whether you will be able to take advantage of both the Clunker Bill and the Tax Credit for buying specific cars. In other words if you trade in an old car (getting a government rebate) and buy a Prius (getting a Tax Credit) would both apply? If they would you could get like nearly 10K off the price of the car making Prius or any other hybred car affordable. Since it is a House of Reps. Bill on first read in the Senate I can not tell you what it will say in the end but as I say, first the Proposed Tax Credit.

Not there silly here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:9:./temp/~bdJxBz::|/bss/|

H.R.2751
Title: To accelerate motor fuel savings nationwide and provide incentives to registered owners of high polluting automobiles to replace such automobiles with new fuel efficient and less polluting automobiles.
Sponsor: Rep Sutton, Betty [OH-13] (introduced 6/8/2009) Cosponsors (59)
Related Bills: H.R.2640
Latest Major Action: 6/11/2009 Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 74.

Interpreted in a sick way here:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/bailout-watch-554-cash-for-clunkers-passes-house/

Bailout Watch 554: Cash For Clunkers Passes House

By Edward Niedermeyer
June 10, 2009

The House of Representatives has passed Rep Betty Sutton’s $4 billion scrappage scheme [download full text here], reports CNN Money. The bill now goes to the Senate. Under Sutton’s bill, clunkers with a combined 18 miles per gallon rating or worse would be eligible for a scrappage rebate. Purchasing new vehicle which exceeds its replacement’s rating by four miles per gallon would earn a $3,500 rebate. Improve the combined EPA average by 10 mpg and snag $4,500. Offer good for one year. Or until we tear through $4 billion in a wholesome, American display of redemptive consumption. I’m sorry, I mean “shore up millions of jobs and stimulate local economies . . . improve our environment and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The [Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save] act demonstrates that we can free ourselves from the false argument of either you are for the environment or you are for jobs. You can do both, you must do both.” As the bill’s author modestly puts it.

CNN Money »

I hate to be pessimistic but anytime you involve the Feds, the House and the Senate in legislation that directly effects, OIL, Gasoline and the Internal Combustion Engine, I think you have troubles ahead my friend. Here is a site that is very optomistic:

http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=94525

A ‘Cash for Guzzlers’ website was launched to help keep consumers informed and aware about the pending approval of the Cash for Guzzlers bill. The measure, if approved by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama, would offer up to $4,500 in the form of a voucher for consumers who would trade in their old gas guzzler for a more fuel efficient car.

The new bill aims at improving environmental conditions by encouraging consumers driving old cars to trade in their vehicle for a voucher of up to $4,500 that can be used towards the purchase of a more fuel efficient vehicle. If passed, the new bill could lead to the purchase of over 1 million fuel efficient cars, a measure some say could help the US become less dependent on foreign oil. The bill is expected to be passed before Memorial Day weekend.

According to the proposal, consumers would get a $3,500 voucher if they trade in a car that gets less than 18 mpg for a new car with mileage of at least 22 mpg. Vouchers of $4,500 would be awarded if the new car gets at least 10 mpg more than the old.

More information for consumers is available at the recently established website for the Cash for Guzzlers bill, http://www.cashforguzzlers.net/

This one kinda thinks NOT:

http://www.ohio.com/news/nation/44956957.html

Gas-guzzler voucher plan hits roadblock Calif. senator criticizes compromise for failure to boost fuel economy

By Kevin Freking
Associated Press

Published on Thursday, May 14, 2009

WASHINGTON: Legislation that would give car buyers a government voucher up to $4,500 when they trade in gas guzzlers hit a speed bump in the Senate amid concerns that a compromise between the White House and House Democrats doesn’t go far enough to protect the environment.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who authored the ”cash for clunkers” bill in the Senate, said Wednesday that she can’t support the compromise announced last week after House Democrats met with President Barack Obama on global warming.

”Essentially what it means is that perfectly good vehicles would be scrapped, so that vehicles with below average fuel economy could be purchased,” Feinstein said.

Rep. Betty Sutton, D-Copley Township, introduced the House version in March, reviving an effort that failed in Congress earlier this year.

The program is supposed to serve two purposes: Help the struggling automobile industry and the environment by replacing gas guzzlers with more fuel efficient autos.

Stay tuned. It is going to be a long global warming summer.

Feds Tax Credits For New Cars – What a bold attempt

Posted on June 17, 2009 by Doug Nicodemus

With gasoline prices headed towards 3 $$$ and consumers sitting on their hands, this is not a bad first attempt to get the internal combustion engine off the road. Discussing this credit takes us away from residential issues but unless you live in one every household in America is effected by this. The more money you save the more you can put back into your house. You might want to wait until the Gas Guzzler or “Clunkers” law goes into effect because you could get a whole lot more money with 2 credits…depending on how they word it…but that is a subject for tomorrow. First the Tax Credits.

Not there silly here:

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=products.pr_tax_credits#s3

Cars	Hybrid gasoline-electric, diesel, battery-electric, alternative fuel, and fuel cell vehicles		Based on a formula determined by vehicle weight, technology, and fuel economy compared to base year models	There is a 60,000 vehicle limit per manufacturer before a phase-out period begins. Toyota and Honda have already been phased out. Credit is still available for Ford, GM and Nissan.For more information visit: Fueleconomy.gov Use IRS Form 8910 for hybrid vehicles purchased for personal use.Use IRS Form 3800 for hybrid vehicles purchased for business purposes.
Cars	Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles		$2,500–$7,500	The first 250,000 vehicles sold get the full tax credit (then it phases out like the hybrid vehicle tax credits).Effective January 1, 2009.

¹Subject to a $1,500 maximum per homeowner for all improvements combined.

Efficient Cars

Starting January 1, 2009, there is a new tax credit for Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, starting at $2,500 and capped at $7,500 for cars and trucks (the credit is based on the capacity of the battery system). The first 250,000 vehicles sold get the full tax credit (then it phases out like the hybrid vehicle tax credits).

Tax credits are available to buyers of hybrid gasoline-electric, diesel, battery-electric, alternative fuel, and fuel cell vehicles. The tax credit amount is based on a formula determined by vehicle weight, technology, and fuel economy compared to base year models. These credits are available for vehicles placed in service starting January 1, 2006. For hybrid and diesel vehicles made by each manufacturer, the credit will be phased out over 15 months starting after that manufacturer has sold 60,000 eligible vehicles. For vehicles made by manufacturers that have not reached the end of the phase-out, the credits will end for vehicles placed in service after December 31, 2010. See the IRS Website for updated information .

So if you are wandering around wondering what are the most efficient cars I could buy. Well:

http://www.greenercars.org/highlights.htm

Greener Choices 2009

A Selection of Gasoline Vehicles that Score Well

TOYOTA PRIUS
HONDA CIVIC HYBRID

TOYOTA YARIS

HONDA FIT

FORD ESCAPE HYBRID

HYUNDAI SONATA

SUBARU OUTBACK WAGON

NISSAN ROGUE

TOYOTA TACOMA

FORD RANGER

TOYOTA SIENNA

CHEVROLET TAHOE HYBRID C1500

I can go into more detail. for that you will have to go to the website…I was not able to copy the total graph.

For really clean cars:

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/magazine-green-car-journal-5211.html

Magazine: Green Car Journal

Hello -My friend gives me copies of this magazine because he knows I am an MPG nut :Electric Cars & Hybrid Cars | Green Car .comIt doesn’t spend too much time saying what’s wrong with the automotive industry. It’s focus is to spotlight the good things that are happening. Here are some example articles from the features section :

Preview: 2010 Ford Fiesta for U.S. | Green Car .com

Quote:

Ford Motor Company, responding to customer demand for smaller and more fuel-efficient vehicles, is accelerating its efforts to bring six small vehicles from Ford’s respected European lineup to the North American market sooner than originally planned. To accomplish this, several of Ford’s large assembly plants will be converted from truck and SUV production to build the new-to-America models.

The automaker is banking heavily on its EcoBoost gasoline turbocharged, direct-injection engine technology and engine downsizing to reduce fuel economy by 20 percent and lower CO2 emissions by 15 percent. Plans are to have the capacity to build more than a million North American four-cylinder engines by 2011.

Kewet’s New Electric City Car | Green Car .com

Quote:

When it comes to promoting the use of battery electric vehicles, Norway is probably the world’s leader. Helping are policies like exemption from road taxes, tolls, and parking fees as well as permitting EVs to drive in bus lanes. The result is that the Th!nk, once planned as a Ford product, is back in production. Now it has a competitor in the form of the Norwegian-built Buddy.

Like the Th!nk that was born in 1991 as the Pivco City Bee, the Buddy has a history that also dates back to that same year, when Knud Erik Westergaard founded Kewet in Denmark to produce the Kewet electric car. In 1995, production was transferred to Nordhausen in the former East Germany. By 1998, Kewet was bankrupt with over a thousand Kewet electric cars and vans built. Rights to the Kewet were acquired in 1999 by Kollega Bil A/S in Norway. With a name change to Elbil Norge AS, it is now offering the improved sixth generation of the model, now simply called the Buddy. It’s aimed initially at the Norwegian market but plans are to distribute the car throughout Europe. …

:}
These guys want mileage and they want it now.

Small Fuel Efficient Cars ARE NOT Dangerous – Everytime the Auto Industry is pressed for changes

Posted on April 14, 2009 by Doug Nicodemus

this is how they respond. They lie. They spend a lot of money and hope the World Goes away:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTKeo4w7npA

or maybe it sounds like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFE0C_5gtzE

or this original:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_1TqRgPbTI

But it usually looks like this:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2009-04-14-big-cars-safer_N.htm

Crash tests show small car ratings are misleading

By James R. Healey, USA TODAY

Buyers choosing the smallest cars for low price and high gas mileage could be endangering themselves and their passengers, says a major auto-safety researcher.

In new crash tests, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety rammed three automakers’ smallest cars into their midsize models. Although the small cars had passed other IIHS tests, they flunked in collisions with larger but still-fuel-efficient sedans. “The safety trade-offs are clear,” IIHS President Adrian Lund says. “There are healthier ways to save gas.”

IIHS, funded by auto insurers, usually crashes cars into stationary barriers at 40 miles per hour. This time, it was car into car, each going 40 mph.

Barrier tests, in effect, show how a car holds up crashing into one like itself, Lund says. These tests show colliding with a larger car at the same effective speed as the barrier test.

IIHS picked three small cars that got its top rating of “good” in barrier tests. In these tests, they fell to “poor” The report comes as small cars take a larger share of U.S. new-vehicle sales. While R.L. Polk registrations show 13.8% of vehicles on the road are classed “small cars,” their share of new-car sales rose from 14.5% in 2006 to 18.1% last year, says Autodata.

But wait later in the article:

Dave Schembri, president of Smart, says, “If you carry this to the nth degree, we’d all be driving 18-wheelers.” And, he says, fewer than 1% of crashes are as violent as the IIHS test.

Lund says the car vs. car tests are meant to mimic killer crashes, not fender benders. He also says that the only difference between the barrier test, in which Smart got a “good,” and the latest test is the size of the obstacle the Smart ran into.

Cynthia Sholander. of Fairfax, Va., praises Smart. She survived a horrific rear-end crash last October that sent her Smart sailing off Interstate 95, into trees, then bouncing back. Sholander says she suffered a concussion but no other injuries.

The point here is they PUT THE CARS THROUGH TESTS THEY NEVER PERFORM.

Fact is roughly 37,000 people die in cars every year. This has been true since the mid 1960’s. Do you find this shocking? You should. That is again roughly 3,000 deaths a month. Even with the use of seat belts and airbags. Why? Because there are millions more drivers and cars then back then and the increase of large long and short haul trucks. But to slam a much larger vehicle into a much smaller vehicle head on and then “tut tut” that the smaller cars are more dangerous is just dumb. Top that off with Walter Williams and Robert Novak trembling on about the destruction they cause and you can tell the state of emotional alarmism echoing around the far right. That is until Novak ran over a pedestrian with his Corvette for God’s sake. The truth is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-on_collision

Road transport

Head-on collisions are an often fatal type of road traffic accident. U.S. statistics show that in 2005, head-on crashes were only 2.0% of all crashes, yet accounted for 10.1% of US fatal crashes. This over-representation is because the relative velocities of vehicles traveling in opposite directions is high. A head-on crash between two vehicles traveling at 50 mph is comparable to a vehicle traveling at 100 mph striking a stationary vehicle.

Head-on collisions, sideswipes, and run-off-road crashes all belong to a category of crashes called lane-departure or road-departure crashes. This is because they have similar causes, if different consequences. The driver of a vehicle fails to stay centered in their lane, and either leaves the roadway, or crosses the centerline, possibly resulting in a head-on or sideswipe collision, or, if the vehicle avoids oncoming traffic, a run-off-road crash on the far side of the road.

Preventive measures include traffic signs and road surface markings to help guide drivers through curves, as well as separating opposing lanes of traffic with wide central reservation (or median) and median barriers to prevent crossover incidents. Median barriers are physical barriers between the lanes of traffic, such as concrete barriers or wire rope safety barrier. These are actually roadside hazards in their own right, but on high speed roads, the severity of a collision with a median barrier is usually lower than the severity of a head-on crash.

The European Road Assessment Programme‘s Road Protection Score (RPS) is based on a schedule of detailed road design elements that correspond to each of the four main crash types, including head-on collisions. The Head-on Crash element of the RPS measures how well traffic lanes are separated. Motorways generally have crash protection features in harmony with the high speeds allowed. The Star Rating results show that motorways generally score well with a typical 4-star rating even though their permitted speeds are the highest on the network. But results from Star Rating research in Britain, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden have shown that there is a pressing need to find better median, run-off and junction protection at reasonable cost on single carriageway roads.

So what are they afraid of and what are they spending billions to avoid? The “old car warrior”:

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0809-06.htm

Published on Friday, August 9, 2002 by CommonDreams.org

The Quest for the Fuel Efficient Car

By Ralph Nader

Once again the Congressional toadies for the auto industry have beaten back efforts by legislators such as Democrat, Senator John Kerry and Republican John McCain to gradually increase fuel efficiency standards from the abysmally wasteful levels now inflicted on your pocketbook. Instead of choosing the path of reduced pollution, consumer savings, efficiency of engines and less reliance on imported oil, these indentured lawmakers turned their back on automotive engineers who know how to do the job but are not allowed by their bosses.

The Sierra Club has decided to stop spinning its wheels on Capitol Hill and go directly to the people. In surveys of likely voters in Missouri and South Dakota, 79 percent of the people wanted the auto industry to be required to increase fuel efficiency and that included light truck owners. The voters do not buy the auto company propaganda that more fuel efficient vehicles means less safety. Sixty percent of these voters say they would pay more for a higher mileage vehicle in return for its much larger dollar savings.

Long time car owners know that fuel efficiency overall is no better than what vehicles did in 1980! They are wary of the sudden spikes in gasoline prices. They also know that the companies spend lots of money on engine hyper-performance rather than on engine hyper-efficiency. Despite massive advertising by the auto companies to the contrary, they do not believe them.

Bolstered by public opinion, the Sierra Club announced a three year campaign to pressure automakers to improve fuel economy. Executive Director, Carl Pope, said “The technology exists today to allow the automakers to continue offering their most popular models, but with significantly improved fuel economy. These new safe, fuel-saving SUVs and pickups could be on the shelf very soon.” (see www.sierraclub.org for specific examples)

The Sierra Club is publicizing a “Freedom Option Package”, which is a set of fuel-saving components that could be added to most standard models and that, taken together, could put the fleets of the Big Three on the road to 40 miles per gallon.

Dan Becker, the Club’s Clean Energy director says that “Detroit wants to sell option packages featuring seat warmers and cup holders” instead. He is mobilizing the Club’s 700,000 members across the country to hold events at local auto dealers. Becker has enlisted a prominent Chevrolet dealer, Chuck Frank in support of this initiative.

The Sierra Club, once enthralled by Bill Ford’s environmental statements and assurances of major increases in Ford’s SUV’s is now so disappointed with his company’s joining the other auto giants to lobby against fuel-efficiency laws that it has singled him and Ford Motor Company for special pressure by motorists.

Soon to come (September 17th) is the most jolting book against the auto company executives since Unsafe at Any Speed came out in 1965. I am referring to New York Times reporter, Keith Bradsher’s devastating expose of the SUVs which he calls the world’s most dangerous vehicles and how they got that way. Titled The High and Mighty, this book explains how the auto industry’s grip on Congress got these SUVs (hoked-up, over-priced light truck) exempted form safety, fuel efficiency and pollution requirements that were imposed on automobiles. That was accomplished when these vehicles were a small percentage of overall sales. Now they are a large part of sales; they kill their occupants in roll overs three times the rate of cars; areuniquely dangerous to other motorists and will become more serious when drunks, teenagers, typically the worst drivers on the road, start buying the older used SUVs, Bradsher says.

With an impressive attention to detail and special documentation, Bradsher reports on the enormous advertising money ($10 billion spent since 1990) to deceive their customers and persuade Americans to switch from cars to the very profitable SUVs. While, he declares, “Gas-guzzling SUVs emit one-third more global-warming gases per mile than cars, and up to 5.5 times as much smog-causing nitrogen oxides per mile.”

If the media grasps the importance of this book, September will be a hot month for the high and mighty in Detroit’s executive suites. And long overdue.

I think the automakers are in real trouble.