Why can't Ford do it?

Why can't Chrysler do it?

Why can't GM do it? (OK, I know that GM has promised us the Chevy Volt. I'll believe it when I see it on the road.)

Are all U.S. auto executives brain dead?

And where is our national hydrogen production and distribution network for refueling vehicles with fuel cells? Where is the planning? Where is the investment? Honda is already producing the fuel-celled Clarity.

Meanwhile, we plod along subsidizing ethanol production for no net gain in either energy or carbon footprint, while at the same time driving up food prices, largely because of the diversion of corn from fodder to ethanol production.

Not going to happen anytime soon.  Almost as much of a boondoggle as ethanol.  It is really just PR right now.

people think hydrogen fuel cells are some sort of attractive alternative to gasoline.  Besides the fact that this technology is a LONG way from being economical, the question is how do you produce the hydrogen?  From Wikipedia, note all the fossil fuels listed:  

The molecular hydrogen needed as an on-board fuel for hydrogen vehicles can be obtained through many thermochemical methods utilizing natural gas, coal (by a process known as coal gasification), liquefied petroleum gas, biomass (biomass gasification), by a process called thermolysis, or as a microbial waste product called biohydrogen or Biological hydrogen production. Hydrogen can also be produced from water by electrolysis. If the electricity used for the electrolysis is produced using renewable energy, the production of the hydrogen would (in principle) result in no net carbon dioxide emissions. On-board decomposition to produce hydrogen can occur when a catalyst is used.

The bottom line is that, while it SOUNDS good to have all-electric or hydrogen cars, you've got to know where the electricity or hydrogen are coming from (e.g., how they are generated, by coal, oil, natural gas, what?) to really understand whether or not it's beneficial on a system-wide basis.  

but if biohydrogen and electrolysis (via wind turbines, hydroelectric power, solar power, or even nuclear plants) can produce the hydrogen, we should be able to replace fossil fuel consumption and reduce our carbon footprint at the same time.

generating the electricity via a method that does not produce carbon.

Even the so-called plug-in hybrids are using fossil fuels, albeit discreetly, by pulling power from your local electric utility (which is more often than not - natural gas, coal, or some other fossil fuel).  

The cheapest way to begin to lessen our carbon footprint is to change the way we live right now. Some people can tele-commute to work. Some companies can go to a four-day work week. People can realize that Jimmy Carter was right when he said to turn the thermostat up in the summer and down in the winter. Buy flourescent light bulbs. Don't leave floodlights outside on all night. Do an inventory of how many appliances, etc., in your home use power even when "off." Organize trips to get errands down with less driving.

Also, there are vehicles available right now that can save money and energy - and not just the Prius. I bought a 2006 Toyota Scion XA a couple of years back. I get 38-40 miles to the gallon in a really nice, well-equipped car that I only paid $14,000 for - new. (And, yes, it can hold five people.)

Also, if American companies don't get on board with newer technology, we will be left behind. The Japanese will hit the market big soon with cars that are plug-in electric hybrids. (It sure has hurt to have had eight years of Bush hindering things.)

Then, there's that NIMBY attitude toward wind energy!

So this vehicle's able to more than quadruple current fuel efficiencies largely to a new lightweight carbon fiber-based body? Does this mean it will crumple like a paper bag against other vehicles?