Honda Clarity: A Technologically Geopolitical, Environmentally Conscious, Patriotic Discussion. Feel free to join in.

My brothers (Jim my brother for 35 years and Dan my brother in law for 6 years, friend for 13) exchanged a spirited and thoroughly interesting thread of emails recently regarding a new hydrogen powered car from Honda called the Clarity. I emailed to them a link to two videos about the car, and after re-reading the conversation between the three of us thought it would be interesting to share with others. I'm fascinated at how each of us were individually drawn into blended discussions of politics, technology, and environmental responsibility.....about a CAR. I think this is an example of how technology can be more than just machines and silicone chips to make our lives 'better'. Technology has and will continue to play an ever increasing role in everything we humans discuss, create, enjoy, ignore, revile, and worship. It will permeate not only our garages, kitchens and offices but our political soap boxes and likely our religious pulpits. Technology is part of our human condition, and part of our evolution as an advanced species.

Ahem. Sorry, back to the discussion. My soap box can be an intoxicating place to stand at times.

Rather than forward - spam like - to my entire gmail address book I'm posting the conversation here with an open invitation to all: whether you know me or my family or are a stranger who stumbled into this blog by accident, feel free to read, enjoy, and if the spirit moves you join in with your comments.

Entire email exchange, unedited.

START
======================

Subject: Honda Clarity (Hydrogen car)
From: Bill Voigt Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 5:45 PM
To: James Voigt, Daniel Rucci Yahoo

Guys

Jim, I know you're way into alternative energy, low environmental impact products, etc.
Dan, I know you're also into these things, plus the technology of this new Honda (next Summer, '08) is almost beyond state of the art, and will be for sale shortly.

Check out the two videos at a website I frequent, they give a lot of information of interest.

http://www.vtec.net/news/news-item?news_item_id=722888

Enjoy.
B


From: Jim Voigt Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 7:09 AM
To: Bill Voigt, Daniel Rucci Yahoo

This car is extremely cool. Unfortunately, it will only be available in two metropolitan areas of Southern California starting in the summer of 2008. They are currently developing a home refeuling station which would make widespread distribution possible.

The other bummer is that you cannot buy one. They are only available for lease at $600 per month. Seems like alot, but that does include your standard collision and liability insurance for some reason. Curious as to why they did that. Maybe insurance companies are hesitant to insure the new techbology?

My favorite thing about this: Zero gasoline. If we were to wake up tomorrow with absolutely no infrastructure for fuel in place and had to decide which form of energy to use, would we even consider oil? No way. It has to be shipped all over the world, processed, re-processed, etc. etc. etc. It's a completely crazy form of energy that is only used because we have so much invested in it already.

I love this car and will buy it, or something like it, when they become available in the Midwest.

The only thing that scares me is that the rollout of this car is exactly like the EV1 back in the 80s. Only available in Southern Cal. Only available for lease. But it was a GREAT electric car, perfectly suited for daily commuters. One night out of nowhere, GM pulled the car, cancelled all the leases, and literally destroyed every one of those cars. The assumption is that they buckled under huge pressure from the oil companies.

So obviously for alot of reasons, the oil companies have way too much influence on our daily lives. What frustrates me is that people only argue this on an environmental level. Yes, oil is bad for the environment. But look at the havoc it is currently wreaking on our economy. And I believe it to be a threat to our national security. I know there are all sorts of reasons that we are fighting a war in Iraq right now. But would we be there if there was no oil in that region of the world? Even if we cast off the extreme "blood for oil" perspective, how would terrorists go about funding themselves without oil?

If oil were worth nothing, how would our global climate change on all levels: political, environmental, diplomatic, economic, philanthropic, and so on?

This car is a piece of that answer. I think what we need to do is let Honda know that we are interesting in it, and that it would be worth their time to invest in an infrastructure here in the Midwest. Will they do so based off of one letter? No. But it's a start. They made a bold move by creating the car. The least we can do is take the time to write a letter.

Sorry for the impromptu sermon.

See ya,

JDV


From: Bill Voigt Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 9:44 AM
To: Jim Voigt

Good point about the iron fist of the oil companies, but -- the EV1 was one car among a sea of traditional gas burning cars with little or no real exposure to the general public. Put another way, it was ahead of its time. I do think Big Oil had a lot to do with shutting that car down, but now that Hybrids are the flavor of the month and companies are advertising their "greenness" more and more as part of a larger global PR "environmental responsibility" angle, now may just be the time to move forward, as evidenced by some of BP's marketing of the past couple of years or so. After all, they had been known as "BP -- British Petroleum" for something like 70 years, then all of a sudden they're now called "BP - Beyond Petroleum". That speaks volumes in my mind, they (and most likely other oil companies) are sensing that these environmental folks aren't a few hundred wackos on the West Coast blathering on that the demise of the planet is imminent unless they have a zero emission, zero fuel car. No. In fact, it's places like Middle America that are fueling (pun intended) the drive away from oil.

And the war on terror may have a lot to do with this. You nailed it when you said these fringe radical Islamic groups get a ton of their dough from oil revenues, and that makes me sick. Even though patriotism appears to have waned significantly since 9/11, a lot of us would relish the chance to present a big American middle finger in the face of groups and governments that are using oil profits to harm us. I'm thinking specifically of the stories of the Ayatollahs, when voting a few years ago to expand Iran's nuclear program, standing in their Parliament loudly declaring "DEATH TO AMERICA!" as they voted for nuclear 'energy'. Iranian oil funds a lot of that, I'm sure.

Anyway, aside from politics, Big Oil and the EV1, I think this car has got some real traction. 130 equivalent horsepower, that's basically like my 2003 Civic, and about a zillion people are more than satisfied with that amount of power. And I have to say, the 'valet factor' of pulling up in a hydrogen car will play a big part in this marketing, mark my words. The car 'to have' in Hollywood a few years ago was the Prius (or as some in Southpark, CO spell it, "Pious"), and these were not only left wing blow hard stars like Leo DeCaprio, but also a lot of rich folks who want to feel like they're helping the planet, even if they're driving two blocks to the Starbucks for a $4.50 latte in a biodegradable cup that they'll toss in their garbage along with that season's out of style wardrobe. Lexus is apparently selling quite a lot of their luxury hybrids to these folks, because let's face it -- the Prius is a small car, no leather, no real mahogany woodgrain steering wheel and dash inserts -- how can folks survive on less?

So my point is, the Honda may just spark the next wave of "look at me!" hysteria among the environmentally pious, the way they did with the Hybrid back in the mid-90's when everyone said "you can never sell a hybrid car that people will actually want".

Hm. Maybe I should copy and paste this conversation as a blog entry at technicalllythinking.

Hope you, Becca and Lisa are doing well -- keep us posted with those blog entries on Lisa's condition! And give young Becca a hug.

Bill



From: Daniel Rucci Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 10:05 AM
To: Jim Voigt
Cc: Bill Voigt

Jim & Bill,

What an amazing piece of conversation this is. I had to chime in because there is so much in your letter, Jim, that fired me up. First of all I completely feel the same way you do about this geopolitical terrorism and wars and oil thing. Obviously they're so intertwined and I find it SO completely awesomely amazing that the environmental global warming issue is really becoming our mainstream culture now, in 2007. Clearly that environmental push has been going on since before the 70's but I feel like 2007 was the big year for it. I think Al Gore's movie was just a huge screaming voice that people finally are hearing, even though other people have dedicated their lives to it for decades, and as much credit as people want to take from him, it really doesn't matter, this is a monstrosity of a main-stream issue now.

Here we are, poised on the edge of what should be an immediate and sweeping revolution in our world, our economy, our lives. Think about it, if capitalism had no influence on the course of things we would make an immediate and sweeping change in everything we do. Fossil fuels would go out the window immediately, now that we know global warming is real and our dependence on foreign oil has EVERYTHING to do with our national security. But alas we cannot seem to make immediate sweeping change. And for this you could blame anything and everyone, George Bush for leading our country, our complacency as fat americans with an entitlement society and a severe lack of struggle, strife, world war, starvation, and depression during our era of life.

PHEW this is getting heavy. Let me pull back here and focus on the topic at hand, because I'm sure I could go on for pages about Geopolitics and culture and change and time...

The Clarity.

I

Love

Technology.

Watching one of these generations of technology get smaller and better and faster and cheaper is like watching any one of them. Compression codecs, computers, portable goods, cars, appliances, phones, it's all the same and all intertwined. Technology is still accelerating at the same speed it was when the industrial revolution started. There's no doubt. We have so much more to do.

The issue here is voltage. Literally. Voltage is potential, stored potential, the difference in energy between one place and another. This is what a battery is, it's a little two-cell box with the ability to connect the two cells (+/-) and make things move because of the push. Gasoline has an analogy to voltage in it. It is a liquid, and when it explodes it makes polluted air. That's the two little cells in gasoline. the change, the connection between those two sides of a battery, or gasoline is what makes it stored energy. Right now we go to the gas station to get our voltage. We, all of us, pay a little money in to the system, the system gives us a wad of voltage (gasoline).

The Clarity is simply an advancement in technology that allows us to do the same exact thing, but without the puff of polluted air. Hydrogen is clearly the wave of the future because we just cannot let go of our capitalism. In the 80's the gas people were not ready for the EV1. Yeah, I think you're right that GM buckled under the pressure. But now almost 30 years later I KNOW the gas companies are preparing for the coming revolution, that's why we have hydrogen power coming, and not electric. Because the Gas companies that have this huge infrastructure of distributing liquid fuel to refueling stations have the same basic paradigm to follow, with simply a different fuel and some technical/logistical things here and there, they're going to be behind this hydrogen issue. They can reasonably charge the same amount as gas for hydrogen, shit possibly more if they argue that the tankers need to be insulated or whatever.

Maybe: Home refueling stations will oust gas stations. Gas stations will become like cigarettes and slowly get taxed out of our economy.

Interesting: Hydrogen requires two things: pure water and electricity. This is how we might have home fueling stations. We still suck off the teat of the power companies and our waste becomes nuclear waste instead of polluted air. We need to convert our electric infrastructure over to nuclear so that we're not just moving the pollution into concentrated coal-fired power plants. How interesting that water is already becoming a hot commodity. Maybe these gas companies are conspiring to make water a more expensive natural resource so that they can capitalize on shipping purified water for home hydrogen fueling stations? UGH! I hate starting to think this way. But anyway, our home water source and SOLAR PANELS ON THE ROOF are enough to make it happen!!! This is fantastic.

God can we not drop our complete dependence on capitalism in this country? No way we just cannot. Our government would never allow it. It's part of the reason I support less mainstream more revolutionary candidates who are willing to say the scary stuff.

Another huge thing here, solar panels. HELLO? Is anyone else realizing that solar is going to be huge. Also other alternative ways of creating energy, like wave/tidal power and wind and all these ways that the rotation of the earth and moon phases just naturally create energy we can harness easily, just with the advancement of inventions and technology.

Clearly we are about to undergo and environmental revolution here, boys. I can assure you that capitalism, democracy, and the middle east will make sure that it happens VERY VERY slowly. This is my only concern. The rest of my feelings are absolute calm confident reassurance that it is going to happen. It's just going to take a few generations. You'll see.

-Daniel





From: Bill Voigt Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 2:25 PM
To: Daniel Rucci Yahoo, James Voigt

Jim and Dan, I'd like to post this email thread as it appears here on my little technology blog. Before I do, can I have your respective permissions?

Thanks guys, good talk.
B


From: Daniel Rucci Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 2:51 PM
To: Bill Voigt
Cc: James Voigt

post at will


-Daniel



From: Jim Voigt Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 4:06 PM
To: Bill Voigt

Yep.


From: Jim Voigt Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 4:16 PM
To: Daniel Rucci
Cc: Bill Voigt

Dan,

Just to be clear, I think we're on a different page regarding global warming. I do think that the earth is warming, but I am not convinced that it has anything to do with our conduct as humans. I also think the argument is dangerous from an environmental standpoint. Here's why:

Environmentalists are famous for trying to "shake the world awake" at the damage we're doing to the planet. Sometimes this is successful, as in the book "Silent Spring" many years ago. But often, the movement saddles itself to pseudoscientific "proof" that ultimately is disproved (at least in the common perception, which it was matters) and then all the goals attached to that proof go out the window. This is unfortunate. Because the goals of the environmental movement are lofty goals that do nothing to harm us other than tighten our wallets a bit. So we often lose out on these goals when they are advocated along with data that proves to be shakey.

I think global warming is a similar situation. Some people argue that the earth is not warming at all. I disagree. But those who argue that it is warming, but is doing so on a completely on its own as a natural cycle of warming and cooling make a compelling argument. Remember that the same groups that are crying wolf now about global warming were crying wolf about global COOLING only a few decades ago.

So even if they are right and humans are to blame for global warming, what happens to everything the environmentalists tell us to do once they are disproved? Suddenly, once we've concluded (rightly or wrongly, it makes no difference) that global warming is NOT our fault, then everything we were doing to prevent or reverse it goes out the window as superfluous.

But the goals of reducing our emissions, energy consumption, increasing use of renewable energy, recycling, and so on are GOOD GOALS even if they do nothing to slow or prevent global warming.

So my concern is that the environmentalists are at it again: focus every ounce of energy on one single topic that you perceive to be your "smoking gun" in the honest belief that it is certain to finally change the world's perspective on caring for the environment.

Lofty goal. Good goal. One problem: disprove the smoking gun, and you eliminate the need for any of the other changes. And it is always easy to disprove the smoking gun, no matter what it happens to be this time around.

So do this: serve up a need for environmental change in a forum that everyone can understand: national security. Terrorists are funded by wealthy nations. Those nations, in large part, are funded by the oil business. We are literally placing weapons into the hands of our adversary every time we fill up the tank.

No potentially disprovable environemental data there. Get off oil. Now. It's a matter of national security. It almost sounds like a Harrison Ford movie.

I like this new car because I like to care for the environment. I recycle even though we aren't required to. I started a paper recycling and re-use program at our office. Stuff like that. But most people don't care about that.

We can do what environmentalists have done for decades: Try to make people care. It fails every time.

Or we can pitch the need for change, and do so honestly, in an entirely different forum: Politics and national security.

Let's face it: If there is one thing we've learned from the last two elections is that the left can be as correct as the day is long, and still find a way to drive their argument into the ground and lose. This argument is too critical to risk being lost by an organization that clearly lacks the tactical and strategic skills to win an election. Hell, there's a chance they may even lose the next election too.

So let's get this out of the environmental argument category, which is a purely left-wing agenda, and into the only category of politics that is genuinely non-partisan: National defense. Let's get it done. Let's make some change. Let's pitch it to Congress and the executive branch in such a way that to ignore the argument would be tantamount to treason. Try getting elected when you back an industry that is literally putting our nation at risk.

Suddenly those millions from the oil companies don't look quite as lucrative.

JDV



From: Daniel Rucci Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 4:41 PM
To: Jim Voigt
Cc: Bill Voigt

Jim,

Interesting point and approach. Indeed as much as we've both heard about global warming, being a natural cycle or a man-made disaster, at present there seems to be more than one school of thought for it. And I suppose it doesn't really matter how you approach it as long as we're both going for the same goal, then it's a great idea.

Unfortunately I think your approach still paves the way for unregulated pollution of streams, rivers, chemical air pollution from refining. Our dependency on oil is not the same as dependency on FOREIGN oil, and this opens up a whole world of issues like drilling in ANWR and the like. Hydrogen seems a long way to go when you consider that we have billions of gallons of oil underneath our own country. I doubt you'd like the US to rip open every square acre of forest preserve with oil derricks, ay?

Clearly there is more to it than this, wouldn't you say?

Either way, when we are off foreign oil completely, there still may be terrorism. These muslim extremists arent talking about oil as much as they're talking about the destruction of our way of life, equality for women, and other insanities. On the other hand when we're off any kind of oil completely there will still be nuclear pollution and it may take centuries to reverse the warming we've caused. We're really screwed either way

In a few years you and the rest of the world may start to be convinced that global warming (on the scale we're going to see in the next 20 years) is undeniably scientifically proven to be man-made and not a natural cycle (I firmly believe this to be true). Then you might realize that it's STILL in our national security interest to prevent it, because global warming will cause changes in weather patterns, global flooding, intense hurricanes, etc... Changes that our infrastructure cannot handle and will cause chaos worldwide, threatening our national security, which I take hand-in-hand with our national safety like food supply, water availability, "acts of god" and the like.

There is good here. I honestly wish more politicians could tout the common goals we're talking about. No matter what reason you think we need 0-emission cars.... we NEED 0-emission cars! Someone should realize that there are a few major things we can do that both sides of the congressional aisles would agree to, even if for different reasons! You see what I mean? Whoever wins this election is going to hopefully realize this and make PROGRESS in that regard because there are common goals, albeit for different reasons, but someone should focus on those goals. Gosh, it makes so much sense to me.

I'm very positive and hopeful in the approach to all this in the coming years. And I agree with you that the left does screw things up (Case in point: Pelosi arguing the armenian genocide, overspending) sometimes. I also think the right does the same thing (focusing on divisive cultural issues, overspending) sometimes too.

Yes we need to figure out our cultural issues, abortion, gay marriage, all that stuff that hangs in the balance. But it would be nice to get someone into office who wants to spend the majority of his/her time in office focusing on the things we agree on, and have four years of positive movement as the culture wars battle themselves out. Appoint moderate middle-of-the-road judges to wage constitutional judgement, not partisan or religious judgment. Etc..

-Daniel


======================
END


Comments?