In the last post I suggested that the U.S. learn from Europe in the use of high speed trains as a core component of a national transportation system.  Trains are more energy efficient than cars, give off far less greenhouse emissions than airplanes, rarely get cancelled or delayed due to ‘weather’ or ‘flow control’ and depart and arrive near the central city.  Given that America is much larger than any country currently utilizing high speed trains, it can only be a part of the transportation mix.  What might the composite national transportation profile look like in 2015?

High speed trains could operate in the highly populated corridors mentioned in the last post.  These are mostly on a north-south axis.  Utilization of these trains would alleviate congestion in the air and at airports.  Airlines, using ever more fuel efficient planes, could be the primary transcontinental and east-west transport.  Airports in cities served by high speed trains could have direct local trains connect to the central train station.

By 2015 a significant percentage of cars on the road can be plug-in hybrids or pure plug-in vehicles.  Both GM, with their Chevrolet Volt, and now Toyota have promised mass production of plug-ins by 2010-2011.  Currently Americans keep their cars for an average of 8 years.  Hybrids are already being sold.  This means that by 2015 50% or more of the cars on the road in the country can be either pure electric or hybrids.  The benefits of this are obvious:  much lower consumption …

There were three reported news stories last week that taken together point to clear trend lines.  In a court ruling, the state of Vermont won the right to set auto emissions and MPG standards that are stricter than those of the Federal government.  The dollar reached an all time low against the Euro and oil crossed over the $80 a barrel price barrier.  

Vermont is one of twelve states where the state government is going to court to gain the right to institute lower emission standards.  Most of these initiatives are patterned after a policy already signed in California. This points to the continued lack of any leadership whatsoever regarding energy in Washington D.C.  The states are where the leadership is to do what is necessary regarding energy.  Neither the Federal government nor the auto makers are leading the way toward lower emissions in any meaningful way.  This case precedent will most likely affect the court battles in the other states.  [Note: since the Vermont decision, there was a court decision in California where a suit blaming automakers over emissions and requesting damages was thrown out.  In that case, the judge ruled that it was not a proper task for the courts to rule in this area, therefore sending it back to the other two branches of state government to institute laws regarding damages due to greenhouse gas emissions].

The long term trend in oil prices is up.  In early 2006 and again at the beginning of 2007 I predicted that …

The news out of Detroit last week was that GM had given up the title of the world’s number one auto company to Toyota.  This was a development that had been expected, but when both companies reported first quarter sales last week, the numbers made it official.  Toyota sold 2.35 million cars and trucks, about 100,000 more than GM. These numbers were expected, as GM had made a decision last year to cut back on bulk sales to rental companies which have historically been included in the total sales numbers.

The reporting in the media was predictable.  Why did this happen?  What did GM do wrong?  How will Toyota take over the title of being number one without stoking nationalistic trade conversations?  Then of course there were all the interviews with executives and assembly workers who have worked for GM for decades, discussing this occurrence with sadness and frustration.

Let’s take a look at this changing of the guard at the top of the automotive world through another lens, the lens of history.  First, it must be pointed out that GM has been the number one auto company in the world since 1931.  That is impressive!  Seventy-six years as the number one company in its category.  Do you think Microsoft will have as long a time as the number one software company?  How long did Xerox stay at the top of the copier heap?  How long did monolithic IBM stay at the top of the computer world?  All things must pass.

In addition …

In the prior post I gave a general definition and overview of peak oil for those that have yet to track this development.  Until recently, the brightest minds unencumbered by vested oil interests have strongly suggested, and with good documentation, that the world could well run out of extractable petroleum sometime around the mid twenty-first century.

Up until a year ago, this was cause for great alarm.  Most countries in the world, with the U.S. being at the top of the list, have, in the last 50 years, allowed economic development, urban planning, real estate development and transportation issues to be made within the context of always having cheap oil to allow us to construct a society around the internal combustion engine.  If you were to look at a time lapse photographic history of the U.S .landscape from 1900 to 2000, taking one photograph a month for 100 years, the changes will be almost entirely based on an automotive culture.  This culture, while transforming the countryside, has basically been using the same mechanical invention, the internal combustion engine the entire time.  It has been as though once we fell in love with the car and the cheap gasoline that powered it we decided that we arrived at the highest point of civilization and our infatuation blinded us to any kind of consequence other than some nasty smog and ever lengthening drive times.  These were judged to be small prices to pay for an American Dream that gave us 300 horsepower …