This is Ford's way of saying, "We're more than happy to build more fuel-efficient cars as long as the government enacts policies that make people want to buy those cars. Don't sit there and do nothing and then act like it's our fault when all our customers buy Expeditions."

Peter:

Can we assume that the Big-3 + coal fired power generating plants, etc will not take positive actions on their own to reduce fuel consumption and GHG and that they will always wait for government intervention to be forced to do it? It reminds me of tobacco companies reactions to the poison they were feeding us for decades.

For all of us who do not want or like government interventions, this is not a very pretty situation.

Fortunately, many of us agree with necessary government interventions to stop a few from poisoning so many.

Peter is right on the money. Remember though that these big corporations are even more political than congress - and it's brutal. The minute Ford starts making big money anywhere, that's what they'll start making. Right now, Ford knows GM & Chrysler are on the ropes...there is blood in the water with the small cars (especially relative to GM & Chrysler)...they're going in for the kill while they can. Big vehicles are down & out for now but not for long.

Making cars smaller and lighter is the easiest way to get better fuel economy. The lighter you can make a battery powered car, the more range the car will have with the same battery.

However, when steel is removed to lighten a car, the car is generally made less safe in collisions.

Today, the death rate for micro cars is double the rate for larger cars.

Please help me promote this invention which will reduce
CO2 and save lives.

www.safersmallcars.com

At least we're seeing more honesty about Milankovich cycles (solar - i.e. the sun) having the predominant influence on Earth's climate - for the last 20M years or so. Unfortunately alarmists still cling to "positive feedback from CO2" to buttress their agenda. But the story gets clearer every day which is good for all.

Peter's comment that Ford is asking government to do their part in selling these low carbon vehicles seems right. Without tax credits, discounts, cash back and other incentives (how about zero sales tax?) - the only people that will purchase EVs will be Tesla buyers and early adopters.

And there are way too few of them.

@shopa,
Your idea is quite interesting, however, please illustrate the crumple zone box within the 3-D model of a real car, with floor pan, seats, gas tank, etc. to see how everything will fit. For a car as small as a Kei car, every cubic inches of space is valuable...how would you convince the buyer to sacrifice valuable space for an additional crumple box and other hardwares? Would that make the car taller and would become even more unsightly?

Collision data show higher collision casualty risk from side collision vs. front or rear collisions in small cars...imagine hit on the side by the higher bumper of a 6000-lb SUV...How would you address that issue? Ban SUV's altogether?

"we are concerned about is the effect of the vast amount of anthropogenic CO2 released into the atmosphere over a geologically-short time frame."

Ridiculous. Read Plimer on volcanic release of CO2 over geologic time. Far higher volume and in in far shorter time frame than a hundred years of anthro industry. If you study geologic time you'll also find huge increments with CO2 at levels five times what we have now. The Devonian at 1800-2100ppm helped the emergence of plant life on Earth with NO thermal runaway recorded.

At present man-made CO2 is about .000340 percent of Earth's atmosphere. Sober scientists recognize that without wildly exaggerated "feedback" the heating capacity of this volume is negligible. AGW is a myth.

As to the job-making greening process - all well and good. We have long supported alternative energy of every stripe, especially sustainable biofuels. But there is no need to attempt to sell these reforms via "climate change/global warming." Get honest. Four simple reasons to change our energy profile:

1) Economy - $700B US annually for foreign oil
2) Jobs - domestic non-fossil energy grows jobs
3) Security - energy independence IS national security
4) Environment - low carbon energy is cleaner & sustainable

Forget the warming babble and get to work on the issues human beings respond to. The list is above.

Thanks, Reel$$, for the re-assuring 4 reasons for "changing our energy profile."

However, Coal, a domestic fuel that can be converted to liquid fuel, is still being burned at a fast rate, far too fast for those who are knowledgeable about AGW. And we have about 200-year reserve of coal at our current rate of consumption, enough to give nightmares to those who are environmentally-conscious. Thank God that petroleum has hit its peak, but, without a strong conviction about the role of CO2 in AGW, I am very much afraid that those who are in power will not act fast enough to avert global catastrophe, by continually allowing escalating consumption of coal, like in China, beside the USA, since coal is cheap and domestically produced.

You mentioned "The Devonian at 1800-2100 ppm helped the emergence of plant life on Earth..." That was before the emergence of higher life forms, which are more sensitive to heat. Human brain is very sensitive to heat (so is the Pentium processor!). Human's higher culture and intellectual achievements were mostly developed in the cooler temperate zone and not the miserably hot tropics, with all those tropical diseases, parasites, and mosquitoes and malaria...etc. I think that Rome in BC era, and Mesopotamia was cooler back then, than now.

I can recall that 30 plus years ago, there was ice, snow, and sleet every winters where I lived. Now, in the same geographic area, there is hardly any ice, snow, nor sleet in the winter...Summer now is miserably hot, whereas back then, summer was quite enjoyable...Please give me back the earth that I've experienced just 30 years ago... That's why the AGW is a very personal and emotional thing for me, aside all the theoretical and abstract information.

Dear Friends... You do bring a touch of blue to a cloudy day! MarkBC, you and IPCC have flogged the residence time of CO2 for far too long. IPCC models require CO2 RTs of 50-200 years, but the latest research shows for bulk atmospheric CO2, the molecule (12)CO2, RT is ~5 years. Such a short RT does not allow for observed rate of rise in atmospheric CO2.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef050276y

My man-made CO2 number was incorrect. Essenhigh et al (2009) finds 96% atmospheric CO2 is naturally occurring (from ocean, volcanic, interior degassing)- meaning 4% of the .038% is man-made, or .00152 total atmosphere. Still a number statistically insignificant.

As for, "AHA! So you DO work as a mouthpiece for the oil industry! The truth comes out!!!" Frankly, I think the overzealous use of exclamation points demonstrates the preposterous content of the statement. But that's me.

Roger, if genuine, I appreciate your remarks. Summer temperatures in the cradle of civilization for 8,000 years have been 110-130F, with long dry spells. Rome somewhat cooler. Climate and weather change naturally, barely influenced by man-made activity. Man-made pollutants are another issue. There is no good reason to emit gas and particulates that pollute the atmosphere. If China and India are pressured to scrub their coal stacks - that's a beginning. Any attempts to limit their industrial growth due to "climate change" will be met with what we've got - refusal.

I suspect, considering natural variability that you will get to return to your cool summers. By all appearances we are already in a new cooling phase. The four reasons remain at your enlightened disposal.

The 0.038% of the atmosphere that is CO2 is not insignificant because the majority of the atmosphere, nitrogen and oxygen, do not have greenhouse properties. Humanity has increased CO2 concentration by about 30%. Additionally, about 1/3 of the greenhouse effect is caused by CO2, the majority of the rest by water vapour. And, as I have already explained, when air temperature rises, so does its potential to hold more water vapour.

The lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is defined as the time required to restore equilibrium following an increase in its concentration in the atmosphere. Individual atoms or molecules may be lost or deposited to sinks such as the soil, the oceans and other waters, or vegetation and other biological systems, reducing the excess to background concentrations. It would take far longer than just 5 years. It takes 30 years to remove 50% of the CO2 and it decreases in a non linear fashion. In centuries, 70% persists. (national geographic). The 50 years is the best estimates given in mainstream science and it goes up after that. 5 years is total nonsense but then what did you expect from the poster who constantly posts nonsense.

Pilmer's book is hardly science and certainly not accepted peer reviewed science. I can see the appeal to the fundamentalist streak of Reel though but otherwise unremarkable except to the straight jacket, frothing mouth types.

The CO2 creates favourable conditions for feedback effects that overall create a total GH effect of 33K. Instead of living on an iceball that averages -18C, the temp on earth in 15C. CO2 is pivotal in this aspect.

Fertile cresent climate was more amiable 5000 BC at the start of agriculture than the present climate. It was the desertfication of the area that pushed the innovation of the agricultural revolution. Your assertion of climate 8000 years ago for the area are a complete fabrication.

Your sober scientists are decrepted old semi retired windbags who can't stand the fact that science passed them by. Name a recognizable instituition and not the blogs that you seem addicted to.

I would also point out to the energy self sufficiency crowd that this post by a business puts it very simply.

People won't buy vehicles strictly in terms of self sufficiency only.

You get that you dogmatic myoptic ideologues?!?! It didn't work in the past. It won't work in the future or the present. That prius-pious complaint? Well people buy things for more reasons than the closed minded neo-conservative line and the people who have already been willing to pay, didn't do it exclusively for the small number of reasons that Reel-fundamentalist can't see out of their box. They did for their vision of the earth and doing something and being green. And yes they paid and will be willing to pay for AGW.

Um... Obviously a nerve has been plucked since AGW's premium debunker/attack dog has been summoned to the ring.

"Your sober scientists are decrepted old semi retired windbags who can't stand the fact that science passed them by."

Even allowing for emotional alarmist stridency - this statement evidences the unsuppressed misanthropy of alarmists. When outargued with facts, data and evidence they retreat to infantile ad hom attack.

"It takes 30 years to remove 50% of the CO2 and it decreases in a non linear fashion. In centuries, 70% persists. (national geographic)."

Use Reel's link to the Essenhigh et al peer-reviewed paper. It's there to enlighten your misinformed (by National Geographic!) mind. You might also take your meds and then re-read your last post. It appears to stray dangerously close to incoherence. Sorry to sound so harsh')