[Daniel Robb, Dec.2, 2008] An Open Letter to the Big Three
After listening to the CEOs of the “Big Three” (Ford, Chrysler and GM) testify last month before the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee of the U.S. Senate, I was struck by what Jon Tester, D-Montana, said. He said (and I paraphrase) that in his experience (as a farmer in Montana) light trucks get about the same dad-gum mileage as they did thirty years ago. His tone was one of incredulity.
My experience of trucks, as a self-employed carpenter in Massachusetts, has been similar. I typically haul (in my 1994 Toyota Tacoma ½ ton 4x4 pickup) about 300 pounds of tools to jobsites all over the state. Covering these tools is a cap which weighs about 250 pounds. The truck, which has no amenities other than windows, gets about 24 miles per gallon on the highway (in two-wheel drive) if I drive the speed limit.
This vehicle does a satisfactory job for me, except that it gets pretty lousy fuel mileage. Sadly, it gets better mileage that any other small (4 cylinder) 4x4 available to me.
Now, I know a few things: 1. My first car was a 1981 (German) VW Rabbit diesel that got 50 miles to the gallon on the highway; 2. Japanese (Toyota and Isuzu) small diesel pickups were imported to this country in the 1980s – a friend had a great Toyota 4x4 diesel truck then that got 32 mpg; 3. This country figured out during World War II how to build a Liberty Ship per day and how (with the help of our allies) to defeat Germany and Japan.
If in 1981 I could buy a German car that got 50 miles to the gallon, and if in the U.S. today I can buy a German car that gets 50 mpg with low emissions, and if in the U.S. it is possible to buy a Japanese Prius hybrid that gets 55 miles to the gallon in warm weather, why then can’t I buy a decent American-made pickup that will haul my tools across the state and get thirty-five miles to the gallon, or a car that will get 50 mpg? What happened to us?
I have to believe that between the 1. Shallow requirements of U.S. auto-fashion (fashion is a huge part of the auto-industry, in terms of how Americans want to dress themselves, in SUVs, or overlarge pickups, or whatever’s the rage); 2. The encouragements of oil-industry lobbyists; and, 3. Industrial hubris, the Big Three have somehow neglected to make the truck (or car) I want to buy. And that is a problem, because I am the guy they want to sell a truck to – the small potatoes yeoman farmer/builder/citizen.
Four years ago I bought a Toyota (used) because of Toyota’s reputation for reliability and longevity. In 60,000 miles (from 160,000 to 220,000 miles) I have had a thermostat (a thirty dollar part) fail on me. That’s it. Other than typical maintenance (new belts, brake pads, and oil changes), I haven’t had a single repair.
So where’s my incentive to buy an American truck that won’t outperform my Toyota? Should I do it out of patriotism? Perhaps. But I thought we were supposed to award outstanding performance, not mediocre performance, so I’m not sure that would be patriotic, really.
What I’d like the Big Three to do is this: Build me a truck that makes sense. A truck that a barely-making-it-small-family-farmer or carpenter can feel good about. Advertise it truthfully as tough-as-nails, long-lasting, easy-to-fix – a truck that our yeoman farmer forbearers would have driven. And while you’re at it, advertise real simple value as cool, rather than the macho crap you use to sell trucks now. Build my truck with a light turbo-diesel or hybrid drivetrain, 4x4 wheel drive, and let me get thirty-five miles to the gallon on the highway. All I want is an honest to goodness truck. I know that a country that can build a Liberty Ship in a day can get there.
Nothing will help America (or her security) more that to allow guys like me to get out from under the fist of big oil. In fact, I think you can do better than 35 mpg in the truck I want. I think you can get me 40 mpg. But I’d settle for 35. In two years, because my Toyota will have close to 250,000 miles on the clock then, and it might really be time for a new vehicle.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
What Conservative Means in America, 2008 (This was penned early in the Autumn of 2008).
As a Democrat, I’d like to (and I am going to) take back some of the definition of conservative that’s been lifted (by light fingers) from me in recent times.
First, consider that the Dems. are absolutely the more Constitutionally conservative party, in terms of their desire to preserve any of our Constitutional rights which you care to name. I may have to admit that the second Amendment has been more fiercely fought for by the Republicans of late; however, it is clear to me that if one of these Bill of Rights is abridged, all are more susceptible, and I am personally a strong supporter of the second Amendment.
It is also clear that the remaining nine of the first ten Amendments have been far more zealously championed by the Democrats of late, particularly in light of the wrongs committed against the fourth and sixth Amendments by the Patriot Act, and by policy set forth by the G.W. Bush administration at Guantanamo Bay, at Abu Gharaib, and in the prosecution of the War In Iraq, in which lawful international treaties have been ignored, the writ of habeas corpus has been cast aside, and the practice of extraordinary rendition has left our standing among our international peers in tatters.
The Dems. are also clearly the more conservative party when it comes to national security, in particular with regard to conserving those natural resources which contribute to our national security. We believe in saving energy, in using our own renewable sources, and in so doing being stronger as a nation, less reliant on foreign oil, and so more secure within our borders. This is a fundamentally conservative policy.
It can also be argued that the Dems. are clearly more behaviorally conservative, in that we have a deep respect for the ways and beliefs of others, and want to live under a government that does not intrude into the living rooms or bedrooms of its citizenry. We believe that a man or woman’s home is his or her castle, looking for precedent in this to the magna carta, and we want to defend that right of the home, secure from the unlawful intrusions of big government.
We also believe in conserving the educational and intellectual resources of our nation, in that we believe it is good conservative policy to educate every American as well as possible, in order that the nation may be as great as possible, because (and precisely because) a highly-educated populace will keep and defend the Constitutional values which make this nation great, and will, individually, need little long-term help from the nation as self-reliant adults. An uneducated populace, on the other hand, is more likely to allow its rights to be abridged, will gradually lose control of its own destiny, and will be more easily manipulated by those who stand to make a profit on its back.
Don’t let the current "conservatives" fool you. What they’d like to do is: spend your money (by giving tax breaks to the very wealthy, but not to you); limit your freedom; limit your educational possibilities; limit your Constitutional rights; expand their own ability to take (by force) the resources of others when that can turn them a profit; and force all Americans to conform to a narrow version of what constitutes a good life.
However, I have hereby rendered the above paragraph moot, because, as I said before, I am taking back the name conservative for use by the Democrats, or by anyone who feels that their particular policy is conservative, in that it conserves something important, and isn’t a spend-thrift when it comes to our rights, our money, our security, or our natural resources.
In this, I would like to encourage us all to cast aside some of the truly tired labels that have been the flails of the past many decades of partisan politics in this nation, and to consider that it’s high time to redefine some of these words, or to cast them out completely. Might it be possible for a conservative to wish not to spend our natural resources profligately, not to threaten our Constitutional rights with flawed legislation borne of fear, not to bankrupt our government with ill-advised war, not to break our military with same, not to divide our country with partisan rhetoric, not to threaten our international standing by practicing torture? Could we, as a nation, decide that we all would like to conserve the nation, our rights, our freedoms, our high standards of education, our morality? Perhaps, deep down, we’re all conservatives.
As a Democrat, I’d like to (and I am going to) take back some of the definition of conservative that’s been lifted (by light fingers) from me in recent times.
First, consider that the Dems. are absolutely the more Constitutionally conservative party, in terms of their desire to preserve any of our Constitutional rights which you care to name. I may have to admit that the second Amendment has been more fiercely fought for by the Republicans of late; however, it is clear to me that if one of these Bill of Rights is abridged, all are more susceptible, and I am personally a strong supporter of the second Amendment.
It is also clear that the remaining nine of the first ten Amendments have been far more zealously championed by the Democrats of late, particularly in light of the wrongs committed against the fourth and sixth Amendments by the Patriot Act, and by policy set forth by the G.W. Bush administration at Guantanamo Bay, at Abu Gharaib, and in the prosecution of the War In Iraq, in which lawful international treaties have been ignored, the writ of habeas corpus has been cast aside, and the practice of extraordinary rendition has left our standing among our international peers in tatters.
The Dems. are also clearly the more conservative party when it comes to national security, in particular with regard to conserving those natural resources which contribute to our national security. We believe in saving energy, in using our own renewable sources, and in so doing being stronger as a nation, less reliant on foreign oil, and so more secure within our borders. This is a fundamentally conservative policy.
It can also be argued that the Dems. are clearly more behaviorally conservative, in that we have a deep respect for the ways and beliefs of others, and want to live under a government that does not intrude into the living rooms or bedrooms of its citizenry. We believe that a man or woman’s home is his or her castle, looking for precedent in this to the magna carta, and we want to defend that right of the home, secure from the unlawful intrusions of big government.
We also believe in conserving the educational and intellectual resources of our nation, in that we believe it is good conservative policy to educate every American as well as possible, in order that the nation may be as great as possible, because (and precisely because) a highly-educated populace will keep and defend the Constitutional values which make this nation great, and will, individually, need little long-term help from the nation as self-reliant adults. An uneducated populace, on the other hand, is more likely to allow its rights to be abridged, will gradually lose control of its own destiny, and will be more easily manipulated by those who stand to make a profit on its back.
Don’t let the current "conservatives" fool you. What they’d like to do is: spend your money (by giving tax breaks to the very wealthy, but not to you); limit your freedom; limit your educational possibilities; limit your Constitutional rights; expand their own ability to take (by force) the resources of others when that can turn them a profit; and force all Americans to conform to a narrow version of what constitutes a good life.
However, I have hereby rendered the above paragraph moot, because, as I said before, I am taking back the name conservative for use by the Democrats, or by anyone who feels that their particular policy is conservative, in that it conserves something important, and isn’t a spend-thrift when it comes to our rights, our money, our security, or our natural resources.
In this, I would like to encourage us all to cast aside some of the truly tired labels that have been the flails of the past many decades of partisan politics in this nation, and to consider that it’s high time to redefine some of these words, or to cast them out completely. Might it be possible for a conservative to wish not to spend our natural resources profligately, not to threaten our Constitutional rights with flawed legislation borne of fear, not to bankrupt our government with ill-advised war, not to break our military with same, not to divide our country with partisan rhetoric, not to threaten our international standing by practicing torture? Could we, as a nation, decide that we all would like to conserve the nation, our rights, our freedoms, our high standards of education, our morality? Perhaps, deep down, we’re all conservatives.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Sloop - what an old boat has to do with economic policy
With regard to the Economy, and its current state:
I recently published a book about the restoration of an old sailboat built by the Herreshoff Manufacturing Company in Bristol, Rhode Island, in 1938. (The book (Sloop) was brought out in June, 2008 by Simon and Schuster).
I bring this up because one of the policies, written in stone, that John B. Herreshoff and his brother Nat (Nathanael G.) Herreshoff followed as businessmen was: Never buy anything that couldn't be purchased with cash on hand. They didn't extend themselves to creditors, ever, and so their company lasted and flourished as long as they did, and longer.
They contracted with millionaires like J.P. Morgan, and with the U.S. Navy, and with normal people too, and they didn't ever go out on a limb. They played hardball in the major leagues, as it were, and they always played within themselves, understood their limits, and insisted on fiscal discipline. And they are in the Hall of Fame, when it comes to building boats.
This sort of reasoned behavior was common practice at one time - never to over-extend oneself. Perhaps it was common practice because those who practiced it had not yet forgotten the actual feeling (first had when they were children) of being too far out on a literal tree limb. It is a bad feeling, when one climbs a tree with too much enthusiasm, and finds oneself swaying on a too-thin limb. A feeling one hopes is not punctuated by a crack! and a thump!
I make light, yet I knew a man who grew up in a rural community in Scotland, and fell out of a tree as a boy. He broke his arm badly, a compound fracture, and because his family lived so far from medical facilities, he lost the arm. It had to be amputated. This was very sad for him, yet he grew up to be a great strong man, with a wonderful family, a professor of geology. It turned out that he missed his arm, but that he forged on.
In these shaky economic times, I wonder why it is that the Fed. (and Mr. Bush, and Mr. Paulson, and Mr. Bernanke) feel it is such a priority to encourage the continued behavior of going too far out on a limb. Americans, it seems to me, have become too used to being able to borrow money at unrealistic interest rates in order to have things (like new cars and gazebos) which, sadly, many can't really afford.
Rather than shoring up investment banks that have failed through poor practice, and encouraging our fellow Americans to live beyond their means, we ought to be encouraging people to think differently about how to live. This may cause the economy to contract in the short term, and cause some businesses that can't survive without government subsidies to disappear. But this is what adults would do.
Aren't we supposed to be about encouraging people to live within their means, and encouraging businesses that improve people's lives in tangible ways, and so are in demand and sustainable by a real economy? In the beginnings of this nation, people, by and large, produced useful products, and food, and were paid for that.
Now, one (as a broker) can trade bundles of high interest loan futures, back and forth, and make a pile of cash, at least until someone (an investor, perhaps) says, "Hey, wait a minute, I want to know what's in this bundle that I've bought, and which has been bought and sold many times before."
When it's found out that the commodity in question is not corn or whale oil or lumber or stone, but just a concept of something with no inherent value, that this is the kind of commodity upon which we've built our economic temple, then we're in real trouble. We're not way out on a real limb. We're too far out on the limb of a tree that doesn't even exist.
My actual old boat still sails, well-built in a time when that was more prevalent in this country, and we've got to get back to that. And away from thinking that a new car, or a new anything, is going to be what makes us happy. We've got to start living like adults. Like mature, weathered, mortal, sagacious adults, who understand that happiness comes from noticing the riches already inherent in our surroundings, in the beauty of things as we find them, rather than in the shine of a new car's paint.
If we can transform our notion of richness, and of wealth, and begin again to include community, personal discovery, family, friends, and experience in that equation, rather than what predominates at the top of the consciousness of this nation - aquisition of new stuff - then we've got a chance to turn this thing around.
I recently published a book about the restoration of an old sailboat built by the Herreshoff Manufacturing Company in Bristol, Rhode Island, in 1938. (The book (Sloop) was brought out in June, 2008 by Simon and Schuster).
I bring this up because one of the policies, written in stone, that John B. Herreshoff and his brother Nat (Nathanael G.) Herreshoff followed as businessmen was: Never buy anything that couldn't be purchased with cash on hand. They didn't extend themselves to creditors, ever, and so their company lasted and flourished as long as they did, and longer.
They contracted with millionaires like J.P. Morgan, and with the U.S. Navy, and with normal people too, and they didn't ever go out on a limb. They played hardball in the major leagues, as it were, and they always played within themselves, understood their limits, and insisted on fiscal discipline. And they are in the Hall of Fame, when it comes to building boats.
This sort of reasoned behavior was common practice at one time - never to over-extend oneself. Perhaps it was common practice because those who practiced it had not yet forgotten the actual feeling (first had when they were children) of being too far out on a literal tree limb. It is a bad feeling, when one climbs a tree with too much enthusiasm, and finds oneself swaying on a too-thin limb. A feeling one hopes is not punctuated by a crack! and a thump!
I make light, yet I knew a man who grew up in a rural community in Scotland, and fell out of a tree as a boy. He broke his arm badly, a compound fracture, and because his family lived so far from medical facilities, he lost the arm. It had to be amputated. This was very sad for him, yet he grew up to be a great strong man, with a wonderful family, a professor of geology. It turned out that he missed his arm, but that he forged on.
In these shaky economic times, I wonder why it is that the Fed. (and Mr. Bush, and Mr. Paulson, and Mr. Bernanke) feel it is such a priority to encourage the continued behavior of going too far out on a limb. Americans, it seems to me, have become too used to being able to borrow money at unrealistic interest rates in order to have things (like new cars and gazebos) which, sadly, many can't really afford.
Rather than shoring up investment banks that have failed through poor practice, and encouraging our fellow Americans to live beyond their means, we ought to be encouraging people to think differently about how to live. This may cause the economy to contract in the short term, and cause some businesses that can't survive without government subsidies to disappear. But this is what adults would do.
Aren't we supposed to be about encouraging people to live within their means, and encouraging businesses that improve people's lives in tangible ways, and so are in demand and sustainable by a real economy? In the beginnings of this nation, people, by and large, produced useful products, and food, and were paid for that.
Now, one (as a broker) can trade bundles of high interest loan futures, back and forth, and make a pile of cash, at least until someone (an investor, perhaps) says, "Hey, wait a minute, I want to know what's in this bundle that I've bought, and which has been bought and sold many times before."
When it's found out that the commodity in question is not corn or whale oil or lumber or stone, but just a concept of something with no inherent value, that this is the kind of commodity upon which we've built our economic temple, then we're in real trouble. We're not way out on a real limb. We're too far out on the limb of a tree that doesn't even exist.
My actual old boat still sails, well-built in a time when that was more prevalent in this country, and we've got to get back to that. And away from thinking that a new car, or a new anything, is going to be what makes us happy. We've got to start living like adults. Like mature, weathered, mortal, sagacious adults, who understand that happiness comes from noticing the riches already inherent in our surroundings, in the beauty of things as we find them, rather than in the shine of a new car's paint.
If we can transform our notion of richness, and of wealth, and begin again to include community, personal discovery, family, friends, and experience in that equation, rather than what predominates at the top of the consciousness of this nation - aquisition of new stuff - then we've got a chance to turn this thing around.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Thursday, Sept. 11, 2008
Today, according to the New York Times, marks a new high in annual deaths for American service men and women in Afghanistan: 112 Americans have been killed in that country this year thus far, more than in any other year of the "War on Terror" that we are waging.
Admiral Mike Mullen, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Wednesday (as recounted in an AP story by Robert Burns today) as he addressed the House Armed Services Committee, that "Frankly, we are running out of time" in Afghanistan, and that "We cannot kill our way to victory" there. This came one day after Mr. Bush announced yesterday that one Marine battalion and one Army brigade would be shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan this fall. Adm. Mullen and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who joined him in testifying, both stressed that relying on military force to win in Afghanistan was short-sighted, and said that what is needed is better Afghan government, a more diverse economy (shifted away from a reliance on poppy farming), more cooperation with Pakistan, and more non-military U.S. aid.
What is plain to me (and I hasten to add that I echo these two) is that our strategy in Afghanistan needs to change. I have long wondered, given the clear effects of the Marshall Plan in post-WW II Western Europe, why we continue to rely principally on our military power to solve what is at least as much an economic and sociologic problem on the ground in Afghanistan. This is a nation that for many years, until the 1970s, was a peaceful and stable nation. The Taliban has risen because of a lack of sources of strength available to the people there - it has arisen in a vacuum, so to speak, where economic and educational possibilities are practically nil after nearly forty years of war, first with the Russians, and now among the forces that seek to hold sway over a ravaged nation. If we give the people of Afghanistan evidence that their long lack of possibility is over, by rebuilding economic and educational infrastructure in their nation, the Taliban will inevitably fade. This ought to be our main effort.
Easy for me to say, yet there it is.
And I must say it is refreshing to hear two such estimable men speaking what has, to me, the ring of truth.
Today, according to the New York Times, marks a new high in annual deaths for American service men and women in Afghanistan: 112 Americans have been killed in that country this year thus far, more than in any other year of the "War on Terror" that we are waging.
Admiral Mike Mullen, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Wednesday (as recounted in an AP story by Robert Burns today) as he addressed the House Armed Services Committee, that "Frankly, we are running out of time" in Afghanistan, and that "We cannot kill our way to victory" there. This came one day after Mr. Bush announced yesterday that one Marine battalion and one Army brigade would be shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan this fall. Adm. Mullen and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who joined him in testifying, both stressed that relying on military force to win in Afghanistan was short-sighted, and said that what is needed is better Afghan government, a more diverse economy (shifted away from a reliance on poppy farming), more cooperation with Pakistan, and more non-military U.S. aid.
What is plain to me (and I hasten to add that I echo these two) is that our strategy in Afghanistan needs to change. I have long wondered, given the clear effects of the Marshall Plan in post-WW II Western Europe, why we continue to rely principally on our military power to solve what is at least as much an economic and sociologic problem on the ground in Afghanistan. This is a nation that for many years, until the 1970s, was a peaceful and stable nation. The Taliban has risen because of a lack of sources of strength available to the people there - it has arisen in a vacuum, so to speak, where economic and educational possibilities are practically nil after nearly forty years of war, first with the Russians, and now among the forces that seek to hold sway over a ravaged nation. If we give the people of Afghanistan evidence that their long lack of possibility is over, by rebuilding economic and educational infrastructure in their nation, the Taliban will inevitably fade. This ought to be our main effort.
Easy for me to say, yet there it is.
And I must say it is refreshing to hear two such estimable men speaking what has, to me, the ring of truth.
Monday, September 8, 2008
What it's all about.
This will be an ongoing dialogue about place, ethics, and culture. Matters arising will include energy, witness, clarity of sight, profit, value, economy, justice, boats, trout, cranberries, granite, glacial till, navigation, story, character, bronze fastenings, and heart. Among other things.
What does this all mean? Well, today I am reflecting on the fact that the bilge pump in my fifteen foot-long, seventy year-old, wooden sailboat can be easily and entirely powered by a five-watt solar cell, charging a 75 amp-hour deep cell marine battery. The solar cell I speak of is about 18 inches by 18 inches square. About the size of a small pizza. In reality, it could, by trickling energy steadily into such a battery 15 hours a day, power 5 or 10 such pumps (which run only occasionally).
By extension, this means that other, much larger appliances (like refrigerators) can be powered by more solar cells, charging one or several deep-cycle batteries (with an inverter on the back end to change the current from direct to alternating).
With a few twenty-year-old solar cells totalling in area about the size of a sheet of plywood (4 feet by 8 feet), one can power a refrigerator and deep freezer, all winter long, in New England, with the solar cells merely slanted toward the south at 45 degrees from vertical and fixed in that position. I know this from experience, as we did this on Penikese Island. Multiply this array by 2, and the appliances one can run become legion. Divide this array in half, and one can still easily operate laptops, radios, small appliances and occasional power tools. Increase such an array by four or six, and the need for an external supply of electricity becomes doubtful.
But, for some reason, there is still a feeling among many that to burn fossil fuel to power our appliances or cars is still preferable, or is somehow better, or is the only option.
What we've got to do is make solar energy as cool as baseball, as cool as driving a Corvette. Right now it's still not seen as cool, as hip, as true blue, as what real kick-ass Americans do. And that's bunk. Because I do it. I do solar.
Powering up a car with solar is cooler than driving a Corvette, every day of the week. And just think - with a decent array of solar cells, some extra batteries in the trunk of your hybrid bomber, and a few more big extra batteries in the shed, you could just pull your car up to the plug at the end of your own private bank of batteries, plug that baby in, and be good to go, with a full tank of stored sun every morning, with no need to visit the filling station again. Ever.
Yes, you'll need to spend a couple grand on batteries. And maybe several grand on solar cells. But in a time when I am spending seventy-five dollars a week on gas, so, close to four grand a year on gas, there's no question that such a deal could pay for itself fast.
In addition, with an economy as large as ours in the USA, we can produce and consume enough solar cells and batteries and inverters domestically to make everyone a buck - it'll create jobs, cut costs, and make us feel as cool as driving a Corvette does. Cooler, even, when we come up with a bad-ass, rubber-burning, sun-powered son-of-a-bitchin' new American sportscar that will outrun anything on the road now.
What does this all mean? Well, today I am reflecting on the fact that the bilge pump in my fifteen foot-long, seventy year-old, wooden sailboat can be easily and entirely powered by a five-watt solar cell, charging a 75 amp-hour deep cell marine battery. The solar cell I speak of is about 18 inches by 18 inches square. About the size of a small pizza. In reality, it could, by trickling energy steadily into such a battery 15 hours a day, power 5 or 10 such pumps (which run only occasionally).
By extension, this means that other, much larger appliances (like refrigerators) can be powered by more solar cells, charging one or several deep-cycle batteries (with an inverter on the back end to change the current from direct to alternating).
With a few twenty-year-old solar cells totalling in area about the size of a sheet of plywood (4 feet by 8 feet), one can power a refrigerator and deep freezer, all winter long, in New England, with the solar cells merely slanted toward the south at 45 degrees from vertical and fixed in that position. I know this from experience, as we did this on Penikese Island. Multiply this array by 2, and the appliances one can run become legion. Divide this array in half, and one can still easily operate laptops, radios, small appliances and occasional power tools. Increase such an array by four or six, and the need for an external supply of electricity becomes doubtful.
But, for some reason, there is still a feeling among many that to burn fossil fuel to power our appliances or cars is still preferable, or is somehow better, or is the only option.
What we've got to do is make solar energy as cool as baseball, as cool as driving a Corvette. Right now it's still not seen as cool, as hip, as true blue, as what real kick-ass Americans do. And that's bunk. Because I do it. I do solar.
Powering up a car with solar is cooler than driving a Corvette, every day of the week. And just think - with a decent array of solar cells, some extra batteries in the trunk of your hybrid bomber, and a few more big extra batteries in the shed, you could just pull your car up to the plug at the end of your own private bank of batteries, plug that baby in, and be good to go, with a full tank of stored sun every morning, with no need to visit the filling station again. Ever.
Yes, you'll need to spend a couple grand on batteries. And maybe several grand on solar cells. But in a time when I am spending seventy-five dollars a week on gas, so, close to four grand a year on gas, there's no question that such a deal could pay for itself fast.
In addition, with an economy as large as ours in the USA, we can produce and consume enough solar cells and batteries and inverters domestically to make everyone a buck - it'll create jobs, cut costs, and make us feel as cool as driving a Corvette does. Cooler, even, when we come up with a bad-ass, rubber-burning, sun-powered son-of-a-bitchin' new American sportscar that will outrun anything on the road now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)