Al Gore for President... of Chrysler?

[DeSwiss]

By Devilstower

Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 08:13:05 PM PDT

They say that more than half of all marriages end in divorce. Apparently, that applies to corporate marriages as well. It was only a bit over eight years ago that German auto giant Daimler-Benz merged with "Big Three" American maker Chrysler to form DaimlerChrysler.

At the time, there were great predictions of corporate synergy: the engineering of a Mercedes, the economy of Chrysler. But almost from day one this "merger of equals" looked more like a takeover than a merger -- a lot more Daimler, a lot less Chrysler -- and the promised gains failed to materialize on either side of the Atlantic. After reaching the conclusion that it had little interest in sullying the Mercedes brand by associating with economy cars, DC announced last week (after months of speculation) that they were going to put their American brands on the sales block. Not only that, the selling price is expected to be only a fraction of what was paid for Chrysler in the heady days of courtship.

Potential buyers for the struggling automaker have included everyone from investment groups who could take the company private, to General Motors using the Chrysler - Dodge - Jeep brands as a way to extend their own reach and keep their first place position ahead of a surging Toyota.

But Michigan Live columnist Rick Hagland has a http://www.mlive.com/business/statewide/rick_haglund/index.ssf?/base/business-0/1176243004147020.xml&coll=1">more interesting idea: why doesn't Al Gore buy Chrysler? And if this sounds like a joke, Hagland has a point.

You can stop laughing now. Al isn't just your typical former U.S vice president, best-selling author, Oscar winner for his movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," and 2007 Nobel Peace Prize nominee.

He's also chairman of Generation Management LLC, a private equity firm whose managing partner is former Goldman Sachs executive David Blood. The firm, with offices in Washington, D.C., and London, is known in financial circles as "Blood and Gore."

With the recent ruling that greenhouse gases can be regulated, and even http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/04/11/PM200704111.html">ConocoPhillips coming out in support of mandatory caps on greenhouse gases, the market is ripe for the kind of car that the "Big Two" have been reluctant to provide.

It's time for him to stop relying on the bully pulpit and the big screen, and put some skin in the game. He should buy Chrysler, which parent DaimlerChrysler put up for sale in February, and make it the greenest automaker on the planet.

Dump Chrysler's gasoline-fueled internal combustion engines altogether and replace them with fuel cells, electric motors and engines that run on biofuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel.

I have to admit, I like this idea. A lot.

It wasn't so long ago that Chrysler had to call on the nation for a bail out. It would seem only fair if they -- with Gore's leadership -- could turn around and save the rest of us.

link: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/11/182322/290


===================================================================
*** - As much as I like this idea too, I'd still rather see him sitting in the WH. With a Dem controlled Congress, they can put the economic incentives in place that would allow all the car companies to go green. Or failing that, just go....

~DeSwiss

[Kolesar]

1. Fuel cells and biofuels might as well be di-lithium crystals and anti-matter drive

I am really worried for the American press: there is a gaping lack of scientific knowledge. None of those technologies will be ready to meet our needs for a long period of time, a decade at the least.

[DeSwiss]

2. I don't mean to sound dismissive....

....but I've been hearing that since the 70s. Right after the first OPEC price increases that through the whole country into an inflationary spiral. Gas prices doubled, then tripled. My 1970 Chevy Impala back then, got about 10 or 12 miles to the gallon. In 1975-76 dollars, that's the same as if we now went from $2.80 a gallon to $5.60, then $8.40. All within about a year. So its not like this is new.

I agree that those technologies aren't ready for prime time, but we need to have long-since started. The innovations and improvements in these technologies will only come through putting what we can out there and using it. That, and competition. The same way that is was with gasoline-powered vehicles when they first showed up.

As for the press, I wrote the MSM's off some time ago. Back when media companies who themselves were owned by multinational conglomerates bought them all. And then turned the news into entertainment. And as inaccurate and/or overly simplistic that the reporting sometimes is, if the internets hadn't come along when it did, we'd really be screwed.

And I realize too, that bio-fuels and ethanol isn't sustainable nor cost-effective. And energy providers (of all stripes), like technologies that keep us dependent upon them. That's why they don't like rechargeable batteries. And they absolutely hate the sun and thermal cause that's almost free.

It will take a concerted effort in a number of energy-use areas to address the energy needs adequately. That's why I say Al can do more from the Oval Office.

IMHO

~DeSwiss

[Strelnikov_]

3. I agree on fuel cells

My reading on the subject always runs into the 'further breakthroughs needed' to make fuel cells affordable for the masses.

Regarding biofuels, however, there seems to be some space. For example, if the entire US auto fleet were modest 20 mi. EV range PHEV's, we could nearly provide the liquid fuel required from corn ethanol (assuming wind power for process energy, of course).

Make the fleet a mix of 50% BPEV/50% PHEV, and biofuels should be able to provide the small amount of liquid fuel required relative to our current usage.

But if someone thinks that our current liquid-fueled fleet can be run on biofuels, they may as well believe in teleporters, as you say.


I think we have options. The reason I am a doomer is that I am afraid the rate of fossil energy depletion will outpace our ability to adapt, particularly considering a society hobbled by climate change and the sclerosis from 26 yrs. of GOP/Reagan policies.