Bahoot? Kersplat!

I still have my 900. I wanted to love my 9-5 Aero, but it was a bad car. My BMW 530xi, in contrast is a dream. Easy to steer, no oversteer, rock solid, responsive, aggressive, doesn't feel like it's trying way too hard.

Dutch car maker Spyker is being named as the last possible option for Saab, last weekend the deal was called of by GM's head quarters which wasn't happy about technology getting in the hands of the Russians (Spyker was bidding with the assistance of some Russian investors). The last bid is without the Russians, so apparently now they're talking again.

The Saabs of the last decade or so are not Saabs, but re badged GM vehicles. The buyers of Saab knew that, that's why Saab didn't sell cars any more. If they make anything close to what they were making 20 years ago, they'll sell cars again. Maybe that's not in the best interest of GM, which may explain the desire to shut down Saab all together.

here is an article that came up on one of my google news alerts today.

http://industry.bnet.com/auto/10003183/rescue-or-no-rescue-saab-owners-are-already-gone/

Quote

Even if some white knight miraculously puts together the money to rescue Saab, car buyers have already voted with their feet and left the Saab brand.

When you buy a premium brand, you expect premium quality. Saab wasn't able to fulfill that desire. Coincidently, another brand that did really badly in the 80s (Alfa Romeo) has come back with a vengeance just by delivering on the basic premise; quality. Sorry, but glorified Opels and Daewoos with a Saab logo is not what makes them a Saab.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/22/2009 07:30AM by tliet.

I fear for the future of Volvo. Ford has had 10 years to destroy the company and while they aren't exactly doing great financially, their quality hasn't fallen apart like Saab.

I'm seeing reports in the media now that Volvo is close to being sold off by Ford to the Chinese...

I love my BMW. It's solid. Unless I have a bad experience, I won't go back to Saab. I paid a lot more for the BMW than I did for the Saab, but you know what?

The cost of my repairs on the Saab in the last two years were greater than the payments on the BMW. That sucks. Trade in value on the 2000 9-5 Aero? $1,500.

Thought this was funny:



(It says energy efficient light bulbs and particle filter next to the EU train)

Har, the EU focus on tweaking for 'green" seems too true.
Not sure that I would put the Chinese in the position of playing caboose to the US locomotive --the obvious miles-apart differences in the attitudes of the more well off EU members and that of the Chinese is shifting pretty rapidly from what I gather -- Chinese realize they really have a heckuva an opportunity to beef up manufacturing of higher value goods that meet the desires of "green consumers". US firms that have any significant interests in manufacturing are already pretty messed up with regard to the tax structures and lack of access to markets, basically the Yanks are off on a whole other set of tracks compared to others...

well, it's more like US had a far-ahead lead both in private and public (as well as mixed) programs, until the reagan administration dismantled the whole support structure for such. and then the command-economy chinese govt saw an opportunity and jumped on it -- there's still a lot of corruption (as there is here), and their motives are far from pure or admirable (it's really just a market grab), there are still a lot of very dirty and quick coal-burning plants that are popping up over the place, the govt is fucking up badly in pushing car ownership and paving over huge areas with highways with no mass-transit or bicycle (hugely used in the past) plans... but http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/12/21/091221fa_fact_osnos

ddt

I agree that the motives of the Chinese are almost certainly about the "market grab", and I'd even concede that the support structures for some of the "alternative energy" firms were dismantled while those in other parts of the globe were ramping up -- the net result is that other parts of the world are much more receptive to these things.

Part of me understands the reason that the incentives were pulled back, but it strikes me as goofy that such things are needed -- I really believe that if firms that invest in such things would focus MORE on the pure technology and tune-out the political shifts there will be some clear winners. I suspect such a day is more likely to happen in Silicon Valley than in Spain, Germany or Japan, and given China's notorious opacity in what their government considers subsidies vs what the whole rest of the world acknowledges is more than a little push form their central planner it is too much to hope that they'll ever really admit to a playing on an un-level field... http://www.pvsociety.com/article/203088-Spain_s_Solar_Industry_Faces_Support_Cutbacks.php

In Germany 15% of the energy is already renewable, its clean energy market is huge. And it's only happening because the government is pushing the whole country in that direction, although this is more of less true for most of the EU. A lot of advanced tech is currently being made in Germany, precisely because the market's on fire.

It might not make a lot of sense just right now, but boy, am I longing for the day where we can look back and see that we've cut down on dino fuel by 50%.

Interesting talk.

http://fora.tv/2009/08/18/A_REALLY_Inconvenient_Truth_Dan_Miller

This is sorta interesting: http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14994848

(so far as I know Murdoch has not infiltrated this rag, and at least some folks seem to think it is not entirely right wing smut { http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2008/10/who-will-the-economist-endorse/ } so I brace for what ever flaws others will find in the linked article...)


This is something that I think is overdue too: http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2009/10/a-load-of-greenwash/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/28/2009 12:42PM by stan adams.

Indeed, most the world is still in denial. As the speaker in my link explains; the problem is that humans (while being human) are just unable to cope with threats they cannot see and thus comprehend. I must admit myself that it's hard to change my ways, although energy policies like jacking up the price of it could go a long way in cutting down on usage. But that takes leaders with courage, also something I'm not too optimistic about these days.

But as is also told by the speaker, there is a good chance it is already too late. The permafrost is thawing, releasing huge amounts of greenhouse gasses along the way, thus feeding itself. Once it passes a threshold, no technology in the world is going to save us.

we will be fine the way we are.

your amount of faith is disturbing

What I find most wrong with the "its already too late" type statements is that such statement both "shifts blame" on some level (the same way that people with health issues, even though they may have genetic predisposition to chronic disease / risk factors, can still say "well with good health insurance the acute problems can be dealt with") AND it sorta forces a "why even try" response -- as that piece from the Economist suggests, the actual SUCCESSES of dealing with CFC's ought to be a model for dealing with all HFC's and carbon particulate. If this is a serious problem that is caused primarily by the activities that put the most strongly heat trapping compounds in the atmosphere than the focus ought to be on the compounds and not the countries. If that means that an effort has to be made to make if attractive to use other 'technologies" then work with the industries most capable of promoting those "good things to life". When then got rid of Freon they did not say "no more compressor based heat pumps" -- the effort was to work with Dow and Carrier and Lennox to make better alternatives.

Make it a crime to put SOOT in the air. Spread responsibility and encourage development that, even it forces people to change their lives, changes than to something more modern and sustainable. You can't convince me that some boring solar box that can bake a pita in 12 minutes is better than a nice cooking fire, how are you going to convince the billions of folks in the undeveloped world of that. If the developed countries really got serious about that sort of thing it would involve more than the "trade in your wood fires for a solar cooker" (which is, even in a wonderfully "retro-science geek" world an awfully big trade off) but a serious effort to get actual SIZZLING electric stoves {and the houses that makes sense to have them in...) to people in the more primitive world. The nomadic lifestyle is not romantic or noble, it is unsustainable. That means developing better means of electric generation (I think nuclear has lots more potential, but large scale solar thermal ought to be well suited to some places, and hydroelectric and even, gasp, natural gas, which has near zero carbon particulates and tons of potential, even though it does contribute CO2, it is so amenable to "carbon capture / sequestration" that it could be done for a fraction of the cost of that associated with other sources. It may even be the perfect "feedstock" for a hydrogen based economy...


While I know that methane can and does bubble to the surface in parts of the world it is ridiculous to have that in a presentation that adheres to the orthodoxy of anthropomorphic climate change -- even if one tries to make some convoluted argument that human activity has caused the rise in temperature to release the methane hydrates from the seas (or that if/when our actions force such an even 'its all over') the fact is that methane was present in much greater quantities in the Earth's atmosphere in prehistoric time -- http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20011210/

While I agree with you that an 'it's already too late' stand can trigger a 'why bother' reaction, he's not saying 'it's definitely too late'. But there is no time left to act. And yes, the methane is literally spewing out of the ground in areas that should normally be frozen solid year round.

Also, the main reason people are worried about global warming is not the fact that it gets warmer or stuffier, but the simple fact that most of the population live in areas that will flood when the sea levels rise a meter or two.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/29/2009 01:28PM by tliet.

Noah comes to mind.
lemons ... lemonade.

Don't sweat the small stuff.