...since (BioD) Romm does not like the idea of biofuels from past comments, I suppose he is talking about hybrids, and since hybrids evidently won't do much, and as Romm points out, increased car use will kill most efficiency gains anyway, then his clause,increased fuel efficiency was (and remains) clearly the best hope for cutting vehicle greenhouse-gas emissions by the year 2025. is clearly wrong, ipso facto, qed, the best way to cut vehicle emissions is to get them off the roads by instituting a massive program of constructing a decent high-speed rail and city-based public transit system (inhale).

The other most bizarre thing about this post is that he pulls what I consider a typical conservative maneuver, blame the government for something corporations did.  So GM was incredibly stupid, and got some well-meaning help from the government on the way, so it's the government's fault that GM was incredibly stupid.  Does not compute. GM and friends ripped up and destroyed a world-class public transit system after WWII, they've had 30 years to catch up to the Japanese, they've controlled very powerful congressmen during that time, and it's the government's fault (just give them to what's left of their unions, please).

I'm not defending N&S's equally misdirected priority on breakthrough R&D, but Romm seems to be on even shakier ground because he won't even admit that public investment is a clearly reasonable alternative.

Agree 100%.  When was the last time the government labs invented a technology that was truly transformational?

Instead of spending billions on largely wasted R&D efforts in search of some magic bullet technology, the government should simply use its purchasing power on real actions today.  One simple step would be the government purchase of green electricity (e.g. non-hydro renewables or energy efficiency upgrades) for all its activities.  I believe the national government is the single largest purchaser of electricity in the country and its influence would be substantial.  

Likewise, the national government could replace its vehicle fleets (e.g. postal vehicles) with zero-emitting options (with an emphasis on non-motorised options).

Now that would be transformational.

Good point there BioD and I actually liked what Mr. Romm wrote.  I'd be careful about accusing him (or me) of being a conservative - since by definition a conservative leans LESS government regulation.  We want MORE.  Look at what California is doing, for goodness sake, regulating everything they can.

BTW, government / private inventions include the Internet, Mylar, carbon fiber, radar, and much more than you give credit.  Some products, such as flourinated plastics for gasoline cans, were invented by universities with hefty federal funding.

Some of the failures you talk about, like the ZEV mandate (all-electric vehicle) were not a result of technology itself, but because of litigation.  It seems that "extreme Greens" only like the litigation that goes there way, such as affirmation that EPA could and should regulate CO2 as a pollutant (US Sup. Ct.).  

So good job Joe Romm and please keep writing for the Grist.

Onward through the fog

...is considered more "left" (opposite of conservative?) than regulation...I'm not saying Romm is conservative, and I very much enjoy his posts, but I stand by my criticism his use of GM to criticize governmental R&D.

I think I can see your point Jon, that GM made horrendously poor business decisions over the years including about anything except for the "flex fuel" vehicle - and we all have our opinions (many times negative) about ethanol or methanol powered vehicles. But putting it together the argument seems weird, like public investment is good even though companies like GM blew a billion in public investment.  So that's bad for GM and good for the government?  Seems like the deal blew up in everyone's faces and all are to blame, a Pogo Moment.  But forgive me, I'm rather like that 'Columbo' TV figure, Peter Faulk.  

I've worked with many EPA folks and dealt with NREL over the years and I want to say staff was always a joy to work with - in the Texas air program and as a consultant.  But the way the management treated those folks at EPA and NREL on the budget was nothing short of a ... no it maybe wasn't an outright conspiracy but it was bad, bad, bad.  

Onward through the fog

I appreciate that you have real on-the-ground experience with this stuff.  Blowing a billion, particularly on GM is bad, no doubt there is plenty of blame to go around.  But venture capitalists blow billions all the time -- an untold amount in the dot com bubble -- and we don't use it to condemn markets.  Let 100 flowers bloom -- and to steal a line, it's pretty foggy out there, but we have to go on anyway.

You're right, it is the future that matters.  Given the burn rate and brain-drain from leading agencies such as NREL, EPA, and NOAA perhaps a new paradigm is in order, a new way of leveraging public funds for the public good.  That would be an interesting topic for a Grist entry.  

But I think we seem to agree that waiting for future technology, which might or might not materialize, is a very dangerous course.  We need results today.  

What is happening is truly starting.  Even in spite of 25 years of regulation, emissions are expected to go up simply because of population growth, which would offset any reductions achieved in the past.  Putting my "mobile source hat" on, it can be explained that even with clean technology, there will be so many more cars and trucks on the road that net emission would break through and actually increase relative to 1990 and 1970 baselines.  

Interestingly, tis "tipping point" could be very close to when peak oil could happen.  Umm, no, that's not a good thing, it means two bad things at once.  It could paralyze our economy as we know it today.  That's why we need some planning, engineering, and funding.

As to other tipping points, I'm celebrating Happy Hour.

Onward through the fog

The internet was not developed by the US national labs.  The credit belongs to Tim Berners-Lee and Robert Calliu who were working at CERN in Switzerland at the time.  

  The traditional non-plug-in hybrid has accomplished practically none of the goals originally claimed by those in government who
taxed the many to subsidize the few who bought them. GM followed the non-hybrid path and chose fuel cells because of the federal government
"experts" who were telling everyone that we were inexorably headed for a "hydrogen economy."
They recently said the reason they didn't pursue a Chevy VOLT type electric car with range extender was because of the stupid way the California Zero Emission law was written - it aimed for the home run when the technology simply wasn't there. California and its hysterical and arrogant arrempt to decarbonize their electricity
is a perfect example of ignorant government officials spending billions on crappy technology way too soon. Windmills and photovoltaic will be the big losers as alternative energy sources, that's becoming abundently clear from the recent
events with solar thermal ala Ausra's contrcats with CA and Florida. And nuclear will produce 40 times as much carbon-free electricity as wind and at a build cost  10 times cheaper.  I might also add that California's electricity produces more carbon than South CArolina and costs 60% more.  I note CA generating producers spewing almost 700 pounds of carbon for every megawatt they produce and also observe Vermont producing 5 (!!!!) pounds per megawatt.
Yeah, right California - keep making loud noises about how low your emissions are.