Clarkson makes several good points. First, a very concise criticism of greenhouse gas hysteria:
While I have yet to be convinced that man’s 3% contribution to the planet’s greenhouse gases affects the climate,...And then an equally concise statement of the most important concern:
...I do recognise that oil is a finite resource and that as it becomes more scarce, the political ramifications could well be dire. I therefore absolutely accept the urgent need for alternative fuels.Then Clarkson sums up some important technological history:
Since about 1917 the car industry has not had a technological revolution — unlike, say, the world of communications or film. There has never been a 3G moment at Peugeot nor a need to embrace DVD at Nissan. There has been no VHS/Betamax battle between Fiat and Renault.Car makers, then, have had nearly a century to develop and hone the principles of suck, squeeze, bang, blow. And they have become very good at it.
And then he points out the challenge that change presents:
But now comes the need to throw away the heart of the beast, the internal combustion engine, and start again. And, critically, the first of the new cars with their new power systems must be better than the last of the old ones. Or no one will buy them. That’s a tall order.A tall order indeed. Unlike Clarkson, however, I'm not convinced that Hydrogen holds the answer (can you imagine the explosions that would accompany high-speed collisions?), but hey, it might. In any case, I think we'd do ourselves a favor if we saw hybrid technology to be the "half-arsed halfway house for fools and madmen" that it is.
Email Me
