There is a cycle in the automotive industry of enlarging cars with each and every redesign. The latest casualty is the Honda Accord, once known as a more sensible choice in the face of ever-larger sedans from the American automakers. Back in the early eighties, American companies were still building large rear-wheel drive cars while companies like Volkswagen, Honda and Toyota were just beginning to roll out their smaller front-wheel drive designs. As it became apparent that consumers in America were increasingly choosing the smaller imports instead of the Detroit land barges, the big three started to change their designs, mimicking the designs from Japan. Today, things are starting to reverse, with cars like the Chrysler triplets, the 300, Charger and Magnum, as well as the new rear wheel drive GM's like the upcoming Pontiac G8 and Impala. Japan has noticed this trend as well, and their cars are becoming larger in an effort to be size-competitive. The aforementioned Accord has grown to the point that it is classified as a large car. So is the Crown Victoria.

We are not suggesting that the masses in general purchase microcars, but we are suggesting that the ever-increasing sizes are not entirely necessary. Keep the Accord an Accord, please. Wanna bet that the next Camry will try and one-up the Accord in size? The Civic of today is larger than the Accord from the '80s, and that's just wrong. Now, the Fit has taken up the place in Honda's line as the small car of choice, proving that the market for a vehicle that size is still alive and well - and that the automakers are capable of building a good, small car. Comments, questions and snide-remarks are welcome in the comments, as always.

I'm not sure how I feel about writing this... I mean, I've never been inspired to do anything by Lindsay Lohan before. I'm not so sure that I want to be either, but oh well. Unlike (prepare for an obscure reference) Isabelle Tyler from The 4400, I have only had one chance to grow up in this world, and I have seen the media in general focus largely on matters that do not... uh, matter. Is this how it was for the rest of our readers? Has anything changed? I know that there was the hippy movement back in the '60s and '70s when my parents were growing up, and to some extent, the green movement today seems a bit like that. Back then, there were any number of suitable "causes" to get behind, and the same is true today. Sometimes, smaller groups choose to focus on one in particular, but, by and large, the media seems to focus on celebrities like Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton. Even we have gotten in on the game, because our readership is interested. Lohan wonders why. She even feels bad about it. Lindsay would rather have the focus on "the other things that are important, like global warming." So, is she right? For whatever reason, we, as a society, do care what she's doing. If we didn't, it wouldn't be on the news. Deny it all you want, but I can say with certainty (because I can see the numbers) that our posts on celebrities tend to get just as much, if not more, traffic than our posts on what really matters. To be honest, though, I've decided that I am all right with it. Honestly, I wouldn't have written about Jennifer Aniston, Paris Hilton or now Lindsay Lohan if I didn't care, so I am just as guilty as those who choose to read about them. So, I guess the thing to do is be entertained by those trivial pursuits and to really care about the important stuff. Our brains are powerful enough to sift through it all and decide what to focus in on. So, let's get back to global warming now, shall we?

Side note: obviously, whatever Lindsay might have done to try and get the spotlight off of here and on global warming, it must have backfired. That quote was made before her last run-in with the police.

[Source: Ecorazi]

Just yesterday, July 1st, Al Gore authored an opinion editorial which was published in the New York Times. I have copied a few choice portions from the editorial, and will have a few comments after the break, if you care to read them. All of the following are quotes attributed to Gore from his editorial:

"On Sept. 21, 1987, President Ronald Reagan said, 'In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world.'

"This threat also requires us, in Reagan's phrase, to unite in recognition of our common bond.

"Americans must come together and direct our government to take on a global challenge. American leadership is a precondition for success.

"To this end, we should demand that the United States join an international treaty within the next two years that cuts global warming pollution by 90 percent in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy Earth.

"We should aim to complete this global treaty by the end of 2009 - and not wait until 2012 as currently planned.

"It is, after all, a planetary emergency.

"Are we so scared of this challenge that we cannot lead?"

- Al Gore

Click past the break for a few comments on this editorial piece from Al Gore.

[Source: New York Times]

Ah yes, the media. The media loves their scandals, debates and tragedies. That would be because the public loves them too. Or, am I wrong? And Global Warming could fall under all three of those categories. It could be a scandal and a tragedy at the same time, in fact, depending on who is doing the research and reporting. Of course, it always turns into a debate. What better to editorialize, then? I really mean that, too. The whole point of an editorial is to get people thinking and talking. You make a point, or pose a question and wait for people to voice their own opinions, in favor or not. And, that is exactly what is happening over at The Truth About Cars right as you read this. If you want to check it out, click here. The subject: the automotive influence on climate change.

[Source: The Truth About Cars]

Flight. Drag racing. Radio controlled vehicles. Monster trucks, motocross... the list goes on and on. What list am I making? A list of activities or hobbies that could be considered by some to be environmentally irresponsible. Why? Let's examine some of them, starting with flight.

Much has been made regarding high-profile travelers, such as Al Gore and Mark Fields of Ford using jets to travel back and forth across the world, or even just our own country. Some believe that using systems already in place, such as by bus, boat or train, is more environmentally responsible. But, that is not where I was thinking of going with this editorial. I am thinking more along the lines of hobbyist flight, for instance ultralights. Some have been in love with the idea of flight for some time, ever since the Wright brothers proved it was possible. You know, environmentally speaking, there might not be anything wrong with it. Consider our past discussions of solar-powered flight and electric powered flight. Don't discount hang-gliding and parachuting. I have never done any of them, but I have heard from many that they offer an experience unlike any other. Also, there has been talk as of late about using biofuels as aircraft fuels.

Click past the break to read more about upcoming green hobbies, and submit your own in the comments!

Just in the last few days, we have shown you some different high-performance engines and vehicles designed to run on E85. We also showed you the fastest vehicle in the world that runs on E85. There has been much debate over the merits of such creations. This is not a question of whether they deserve coverage on our site - they absolutely do... we cover ethanol here. The question is this: Do these creations qualify as being environmentally friendly? I will give my opinion here.

Is ethanol better than dino-juice? I would say yes. Even in it's corn-derived stage here in the U.S., it burns off less carbon than gasoline. In my opinion, it would be better in a cellulosic-derived form, but let's work with what we have here for a minute, not what might or should be. The ethanol Americans can buy comes from here in the U.S., and is generally made by workers here too. Is that necessarily a bad thing? It helps our economy in its present form. I will not delve into how it impacts the land it is grown on, or in the price of corn. We all know that. But, I would still give it preference over gasoline imported from somewhere else for the reasons mentioned earlier. So, there is my opinion on the state of ethanol. In a nutshell, it is better than petroleum, right here and right now; it could be even better and hopefully will get there.

Now... performance comes into play. I would argue that performance cars (like the Viper) play a role in our society that should be filled somehow. I like the Tesla roadster a whole bunch. I want one really bad. I can't have one. Neither can you. There are none for sale right now. So, what is one to do if one wants to have a fast car? Buy one. That is the United States. Yes, we got ourselves into a bit of an environmental mess right about now... what with cars that pollute more and get worse mileage than in other countries. Those are what people bought in mass quantities. That, with any luck, is going to change with cars like the Tesla, and others which are still in their designers minds, soon. But, we are not there yet. So, a guy goes out and buys a performance car (say a Viper) and wants to make a statement about helping the environment in the process of enjoying his toy. He converts it to E85. Did he help the environment? Not really, no. What good did he do, then? Good question. One that I will answer with a brief true-story.

Click through to read more thoughts.

Notice the words "Global Warming" were not mentioned during the State of the Union address, but we did hear the words "global climate change". What is the difference? One is burned into the public psyche and the other isn't; one sounds worse than the other. But, really they mean the same thing for our purposes. Have you ever watched "An Inconvenient Truth"? I must be honest here and let you all know that I am not into politics or politicians at all. Go ahead and ask me for an opinion and you are likely to hear "I have no opinion on that". Go ahead and find out yourself if you want... ask me, I dare you. Anyway, like I said, not into politics, but if you have seen the movie and still don't think that global warming is happening, please explain to me in the comments what I am missing here. Again, only if you have seen the movie and don't think global warming is real.

Here are a few recent stories on global warming in general. All of these stories were found using Google news. All of these stories were from the last 48 hours.

• Experts predict Alps' glaciers will melt
• Climate change: Public concern is rising fast
• Global Warming Serious for 70% of Americans
• Increasing Renewable Energy in U.S. Can Solve Global Warming
• The world must urgently face up to the global violence and conflict that would result from rapid climate change, warns Tony McDermott, adviser to Al Gore
• Strong Actions Needed After Bush's Warning on Global Warming

What is the point of all that? Global warming is for real, kids. Would you like to do something to help? Keep reading this site, and when the time comes to replace you car, think long and hard about your impact on the environment. If you don't care, you probably are not reading this site, but, if you really don't care then don't have any kids.

[Source: Google News]

Remember the Oregon state program where volunteer drivers are taxed on the number of miles they drive daily? The monies gathered would be used for road construction and repair.

An editorial in the Toledo Blade blasts the program. It points out that such a program, if it were made into law, would discourage consumers from considering fuel-efficient vehicles. Auto makers would then have no incentive to develop such vehicles, either, refocusing to on higher horsepower engines or larger and heavier vehicles like SUV. The editorial points out the latter have a greater impact on road deterioration than lighter cars with "axle-mile taxes" on truckers applied in several states to maintain their highways.

The issue's a tough one. Comments are open for your thoughts on the matter.

[Source: Toledo Blade]

Mark Phelan of the Detroit Free Press, reflecting opinions similar  to Inside Line's Karl Brauer on the EV1, adds that General Motor's research may have hamstrung the automaker's future in hybrid development. Phelan, who was one of the few journalists who actually test-drove the electric vehicle, found it impractical for the real-world. While the electric vehicle had a theoretical range of 160 miles, Phelan found it to be far less with the battery nearly drained three-fourths after 40 miles of combined street and highway driving. Worse, the battery was fully drained before reaching 90 miles out while driving the EV at 60 mph. Phelan believes General Motors was right to cancel the project after spending billions on it and sees the EV1 may have delayed the automaker's own hybrid engine projects which Honda and Toyota, seeing the EV1's spectacular lack of success, used to bring their hybrids to market first.

Related:
Exclusive Q&A with Chelsea Sexton about the EV1, why the Prius gets a 'C', and who really killed the electric car
Counterpoint: Who Killed The Electric Car?

[Source: Detroit Free Press]