You can say what you want about the many proposals to bail out the big three, but I think it’s really bad news that the hard times that have hit Detroit have caused some of the automakers to scale back or cancel some of their more fuel-efficient models. General Motors has delayed the introduction of the new Saturn Vue Hybrid, and Chrysler has discontinued it’s Dodge Durango and Chrysler Apsen Hybrid SUVs. Only Ford seems to be staying the course, with the introduction of its 2010 Hybrid Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan still on schedule. Meanwhile, Toyota is cranking out more and more Priuses, Honda is going ahead with it’s all-new hybrid Prius competitor, and Nissan has announced that it will introduce a new electric vehicle for 2010.

So why is Detroit moving in the exact opposite direction as the Japanese–AGAIN? Why, when the times are hard, do you cancel or delay the very products that have the best chance of leading you out of the wilderness and back to profitability? It’s just more of the same old-fashioned thinking that put Detroit in the hole in the first place.

Along with all the press the last two weeks about the imminent demise of General Motors, Chrysler and possibly Ford, there has also been much written about whether a car like the Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid, due to go on sale in 2010 for about $40,000 a pop, can save the U.S. auto industry. It’s a fair question to ask, and worthy of a great deal of discussion, but the other day I read a column in the Wall Street Journal that gets the Volt so completely wrong that I have to wonder where this discussion is going. and why.

The columnist, Holman W. Jenkins Jr., writes in his November 12th column, “We’re talking about a headache of a car that will have to be recharged for six hours to give 40 miles of gasoline-free driving. What if you park on the street or in a public garage? Tough luck.” Uh… Mr. Jenkins? The Volt will drive up to 40 miles without using gasoline; that doesn’t mean it’s dead after 40 miles. It means that after 40 miles of driving the gasoline engine kicks in to charge the batteries and keep the car running.

The odd thing is, he seems to know this, because he goes on in the very next sentence to write that “The Volt also will have a small gas engine onboard to recharge the battery for trips of more than 40 miles.” So why does he claim that you would be stuck on the street or a public garage after 40 miles of driving?

This is what irks me about Jenkins’ column. He’s not making a flawed argument based on simple ignorance; he’s making a flawed argument based on a deliberate twisting of the facts. And he’s making it in the Wall Street Journal, where it’s going to influence the thinking of a whole lot of people who could be and should be instrumental in charting our energy future. That’s just a disgrace.

I don’t know if the Chevy Volt can possibly save GM; I don’t know if anything can. But if you’re going to argue that point, Mr. Jenkins, please get your facts straight, and be honest about them.

My last blog entry about the presidential election drew some heated responses, so in this week’s entry I’m going to try to write about something we can all agree on.

Today is Veteran’s Day, and I’d like to thank every man and woman who has ever worn a uniform of the armed forces and served our country, whether in time of peace or war. It’s looking as though many of our troops serving in the Middle East may be coming home within the next two years, and on this Veteran’s Day I’m thinking about what kind of America they’ll be coming home to. There’s no doubt it will be a different country than the one they left; that will be a good thing to many of them, but a difficult adjustment for some. I personally believe that they’ll be coming home to a better place, but it’s up to us to make sure that that’s the case.

One of the reasons we publish Fuel Advantage is to promote the energy security of our country. I’d like to believe that the more we can do to reach that goal, the less we’ll have to ask of our servicemen and women in the future, and the more we can offer them when they return home from their tours of duty.

I know I’m supposed to write about fuel economy issues here, but today is election day and there’s only one thing on my mind! I stopped in to vote in my city’s municipal building at 7:30 this morning, and was gratified to see that the parking lot was full and a steady stream of people was filing in and out of the building. I had to wait in line to vote; not a long line, but in a city of 11,000 even a line of eight people is something unusual.

There are a whole lot of reasons to vote today, but one of the most crucial, in my opinion, is our energy security. I’m proud to say that I voted for Senator Obama, in part because I believe he sees the big picture where energy is concerned. Even in an age of energy scarcity, his energy proposals display a real abundance mentality. Revolutionizing our energy infrastructure and reducing our reliance on oil can and will create jobs and wealth, and Barack Obama sees that. John McCain and Sarah Palin, not so much; “Drill, baby, drill” only increases our reliance on fossil fuels, and takes valuable resources away from the development of alternative energies.

I was only a teenager when the Arab Oil Embargo made the country energy aware, and energy insecure, for the first time, back in 1973, but I knew even then that our country’s response to that crisis seemed suspiciously weak and tentative. We should have learned our lesson then, but we didn’t. Maybe today we will.

What’s your take on things? Which candidate do you think has the better energy policy? Have gas and diesel prices influenced your voting decision?