The cart has already left the barn, but where were the unions 4 or 8 years ago when the future was clear, and they negotiated contracts with no demands on future product development directions for thier companies?

Can you imagine if, instead of focusing so much on benefits, that had demanded a business strategy that kept the big three in business? Like cars with modern technology; premium small cars, and cars that got high mileage? Where were the unions as the management teams at their employess were auguring these companies into the ground? Worrying about $5 on prescription copays? I believe so. Did they think thier jobs would exist if the companies were not successful in the market?

Now, unions, if your contracts are coming up for renewal, be sure to fight for a say in company strategy, instead of more leftovers as your employers disappear. You would be helping out America, too.

Having just read a Business Week article on GM running after high mileage years after it was clear the market was heading this way, they imagine they can some how make up a $10,000 cost adder per car for hybrid technology, vs. $4000 per car for Toyota, which will be in its third generation by the time GM has its first on the market. What can the unions do to ensure GM survives with a $6000 cost penalty, if they can't seem to stem the tide of defections with a relatively puny $1000 health care penalty?

The best thing that could happen to Detroit is for those companies to leave Detroit and relocate to more forward thinking locales.

One issue that will rear its head in about 4 letters is that smaller cars are less safe than trucks. There are various statistics to show things one way or the other; regardless, here are some transitional "rules" to make trucks safer as people move to smaller cars.

1. On highways with two or more lanes in one direction, any vehicle with a gross vehicle weight over 5000 pounds will be limited to 55 mpg. (Lower speeds = less damage in a collision to both vehicles).

2. For any vehicle in excess of 5000 lbs GVW, the manufacturer shall provide, within one year, a retrofit kit to be isntalled at the manufacturer's expense, that enables the vehicle to interact with automobile crash structures as they were designed to operate. (For example, a bar below the bumper of a Ford Excursion was used so as not to override the crush structure of the typical car.)

3. Vehicles higher than 60 inches at the roof shall be prohibited from making left turns at unsignaled intersections. (They block the view for the driver across the way who is trying to turn).

Etc.

This will be an important issue, and we need to start talking about how to transition safely.

Every projection I've seen for fossil fuel consumption shows dramatic increases over the next 10, 20, or 30 years.

None of these seem to recognize the possibility that we will tackle global warming through conservation or carbon taxes which can be set to drive consumption to any level up or down. If we drive right by the need to limit carbon emissions to focus on projected consumption, there will be bigger problems than $10/gallon fuel driving 100 mpg cars. Ultimately, we need to reduce carbon emissions from today, and this doesn't seem to mean that we will need 50 million more barrels per day of oil.

There are three good reasons to focus our economy on efficiency now, and any of the three are sufficient in and of themselves: 1. Fight global warming; 2. Reduce dependence on supply from volatile areas. 3. Fight for the lead in renewable technologies. Will we take any or all of these actions? With our current congressional system paralyzed by the narrow interests of established money (can the solar power industry buy a congressman owned by Exxon, or will they need to wait until that person retires?), doubtful. But at least with the internet's archiving ability, no politician will be able to say (as Condi did for WMD) "No one could have anticipated the effects of not becoming more energy efficient". Not so, we know right now, and future generations will look upon our profligacy in the way we denigrate the cutting of redwoods, the massacres of Bison for fun, and any other natural despoliations of the past 200 years.

The letter writer who noted that not all fuels need to have the energy density of fossil fuels is correct. We have moved from the sun to wood to coal to oil - increasing energy density, and ability to create even more instant power, at each step.

The sun can be used quite easily to heat homes and the water they use in most parts of the country. This is a great way to use the sun: homes and hot water heating can have built in capacitors to match the rate of energy input needed to that put out by the sun.

So, as we agree every time this topic is raised, there are plenty of solutions around today, and at a modest cost premium, and occassionally a small convenience premium. The question always comes down to the same thing: how do our politicians convince voters to change before the change becomes dreadfully painful to implement? Although I can insulate myself as best I can via public transit and an energy efficient home, everyone else's choices affect me.