Does A $2,500 Tata Nano in India Mean Higher Gas Prices and More CO2 Everywhere Else? (WIRED)

As the hype surrounding the Tata Nano subsides, we're seeing a sharper picture of what a $2,500 car means for the environment and global energy demand. It doesn't look good.
The world's cheapest car is a marvel of engineering and ruthless cost-cutting sure to bring greater mobility to people throughout the developing world. And that is what makes it so troubling.

The Nano doesn't go on sale until fall, but already environmentalists say it will bring big increases in carbon dioxide emissions and pollution. "This car promises to be an environmental disaster of substantial proportions," Yale environmental law professor Daniel Esty told Newsweek. Some energy experts say all those new cars will increase demand for gasoline, with one telling CNN, "we'll get into a situation where we'll have to compete with them for gasoline, $4, $5 a gallon. Who knows how high we could go?"

It would be easy to denounce the naysayers as western do-gooders with no moral standing to criticize India. But the most vocal critics include Indians who say the Nano will deepen the country's critical pollution, infrastructure and traffic woes.
Could the Nano really be so bad?

NVDL: In a word: Duh! The problem is we are addicted to oil, we cannot live without it, and our consumption levels (demand levels) are so outrageously high... And everyone wants this lifestyle. You can't blame them, or stop them, but something has got to give.

By Chuck Squatriglia
For the rest of this excellent article, go here.

Kunstler: Falling Out of the Sky

As a pilot for a scheduled airline I would like to say the following. The reason we have so many delays is that we are basically trying to fit a quart into a pint pot. The airline business is a vastly complex ballet that requires much time, effort, and money to work properly. Money the airlines don't have. So they try and "sweat the assets" [planes and people] as much as possible in an attempt to stay solvent.

Yes we work to a schedule but it is now so tight that the slightest problem has a exponential knock-on effect. As I sit in yet another queue for departure [number 20 or 30 is not unusual], I ponder on the futility of the companies' latest efforts to save fuel against this backdrop of inefficiency.

We use 3000kgs [about 4000 litres] an hour in the air and about one third of that figure sitting on the ground. Add the number of planes together and multiply by the average time spent waiting to depart.

Funnily enough when we get to our destination we usually enter a holding pattern for between 10 and 30 minutes.I won't bore you with the details but airlines are fully aware of the cost implications of additional fuel-burn due to delays but seem reluctant to actually tackle the real cause. So we get endless memos about how we can save 50kg's here and another 100kg's there whilst at the same time wasting 1000's....personally it drives me nuts.

Anyway, this problem will probably be self-correcting in the short term as fuel costs increase and fewer aircraft make it into the skies on a daily basis.We grounded Concorde because of the fuel costs, it looks like the B747 [Jumbo] may be next. The "great white hope" is the new B787...twin jets are getting increasingly popular for this very reason, coincidence?Looking forward to the new book."A Pilot"London [not far from the airport]

From James Kunstler's Daily Grunt Archive.

NVDL: This is one of the few writers who acknowledge one of those realities we don't like to think about. Why should high oil prices make front page headlines? Because the implications are vast. Like aeroplanes (entire airlines), no longer flying. I am a huge fan of Singapore airlines. I've flown them often. It's unfortunate bthat they've bought the first juggernauts, because these planes are already too expensive to fly profitably.