A Non-Fiction Night-Table Need-to-Read List

I reached out to my network the other day, seeking suggestions for interesting non-fiction. The results appear below, with some minor curating from me. The ink is still drying on some of these titles, while others have been around for some time. (One book is almost 70!)

It looks like a solid list of interesting and eclectic stuff, so I thought I’d share it here. Thanks for all the recos, friends, and feel free to leave a comment below if you’ve read something lately that isn’t here, but that you feel needs to be.

Straphanger: Saving Our Cities and Ourselves from the Automobile, Taras Grescoe

How to Win Campaigns: Communications for Change, Chris Rose



Elizabeth I, Margaret George

The Swerve: How the World Became Modern, Stephen Greenblatt

1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, Charles C. Mann

Civilization: The West and the Rest, Niall Ferguson

Dreams from my Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, Barack Obama

The Brain that Changes Itself: Stories of Personal Triumph from the Frontiers of Brain Science, Norman Doidge

Testimony for Earth, Bob and Linda Harrington

Making Good: Finding Meaning, Money & Community in a Changing World, Dev Aujla and Billy Parish

Imagine: The Science of Creativity, Jonah Lehrer

The Beekeepers Lament: How One Man and Half a Billion Honey Bees Help Feed America, Hannah Nordhaus

The World As It Is: Dispatches on the Myth of Human Progress, Chris Hedges

My Stroke of Insight: A Brain Scientist’s Personal Journey, Jill Bolte Taylor

Real Happiness: The Power of Meditation, by Sharon Salzberg

The Boy in the Moon: A Father’s Search for His Disabled Son, by Ian Brown

The History of Western Philosophy, Bertrand Russell

Blood Bones and Butter: The Inadvertent Education of a Reluctant Chef, Gabrielle Hamilton

The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, Rebecca Skloot

Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer, Siddhartha Mukherjee

The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires, Tim Wu

The Good Rain: Across Time & Terrain in the Pacific Northwest, by Tim Egan

The Biology of Belief: Unleashing the Power of Consciousness, Matter, & Miracles, Bruce Lipton

Design in Nature: How the Constructal Law Governs Evolution in Biology, Physics, Technology, and Social Organization, Adrian Bejan and J. Peder Zane

In The Plex: How Google Thinks, Works, and Shapes Our Lives, Steven Levy

Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle, Chris Hedges

At Home: A Short History of Private Life, Bill Bryson

How to Live: A Life of Montaigne in One Question and Twenty Attempts at an Answer, Sarah Bakewell

This Book Will Make You Smarter: New Scientific Concepts to Improve Your Thinking, John Brockman

Thinking Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman

Snakes In Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work, Paul Babiak

The Little Prince, Antoine Saint-Exupery

Something Fierce, Carmen Aguirre

Trauma Farm, Brian Brett

The Wave, or The Devils Teeth, Susan Casey

Behind the Beautiful Forevers: Life, death, and Hope in a Mumbai Undercity, by Katherine Boo

The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind: Creating Currents of Electricity & Hope, William Kamkwamba

The Unsettling Of America: Culture and Agriculture, Wendell Berry

Reading Lolita in Tehran: A Memoir in Books, Azar Nafisi

The Next Upsurge: Labor and the New Social Movements, Dan Clawson

The Invention of Brownstone Brooklyn: Gentrification and the Search for Authenticity in Post-War New York, Suleiman Osman

The American Way of Eating: Undercover at Walmart, Applebee’s, Farm Fields and the Dinner Table, Tracie McMillan

Stayin’ Alive: The 1970s and the Last Days of the Working Class, Jefferson Cowie

Dark Matter: Art and Politics in the Age of Enterprise Culture, Gregory Sholette

Jaccard: Pipeline Not the Only Problem

This recent Mark Jaccard column articulates so much of what I want to say, and what I am feeling these days, that I want to reproduce all of it here until someone asks me to take it down. Original article appears here.

Pipeline itself not the only problem we should worry about

BY MARK JACCARD, VANCOUVER SUN JANUARY 26, 2012
As a sustainable energy researcher, I have been inundated with media requests to comment on the pro-posed new pipelines from Alberta’s tar-sands, especially Enbridge’s Northern Gateway here in British Columbia. I have mostly declined, assuming that with such intense public interest the key issues would get a full airing. But I was wrong – for no one is discussing the proverbial “elephant in the room.” This is the connection between tarsands expansion and Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s 2007 promise to Canadians to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions 65 per cent by 2050.

Harper’s promise, recently recon-firmed, simply reflects the overwhelming scientific consensus that while any increase in average global temperatures from pre-industrial levels is dangerous, increases above 2 degrees Celsius will likely have cataclysmic effects for the ecosystems on which we depend. Yet human combustion of fossil fuels has already driven the temperature 1.2 degrees higher, and we are on a path of 4 degrees or more in this century alone, which will ultimately increase the sea level by tens of metres. This is why leaders of industrialized countries, like the U.S. and European Union, agreed to reduce emissions 80 per cent by 2050 and will work to require global emissions to start declining this decade.

A target 38 years hence might seem safely distant. But this is incorrect. All leading independent climate policy institutes concur that only with immediate action will we achieve a 65-80 per cent reduction in less than four decades. In the case of vehicles, this means the rapid deployment of near-zero-emission technologies which, thankfully, are already commercially available. These include hybrid vehicles using biofuels (ethanol or biodiesel), plug-in hybrid vehicles, and battery-electric vehicles. In contrast, our demand, and soon the global demand, for oil must contract, especially the demand for high-cost, high-emission tarsands.

Thus, for his promise not to be a lie, Harper cannot allow expansion of tarsands and associated pipelines, and he must require a growing market share of near-zero-emission vehicles. He knows this because his analysts are privy to the work of the world’s leading researchers. Canadians on all sides of the issue should read a 20-page report from MIT’s Joint Pro-gram on the Science and Policy of Global Change entitled Canada’s Bitumen Industry Under CO2 Constraints (found at http: //globalchange.mit. edu). The report shows how and why the Canadian tarsands must contract as part of a global effort to prevent a 4 degree increase in temperatures and catastrophic climate change.

Why, then, would anyone argue for tarsands expansion and pipelines like Gateway? The reasons are obvious, as writers have known through the ages.

People who stand to get rich from tarsands development will delude themselves and try to delude others that the climate science is faulty or uncertain. As Upton Sinclair wrote, “it is hard to get a man to understand something when his income depends on his not understanding it.” And those who stand to gain from the tar-sands indirectly (like politicians) will distract people from the obvious connection between tarsands expansion and climate catastrophe. “Tarsands are a small part of the problem.”

“What about the Chinese?” “The tar-sands will inevitably be developed.” “Low-emission vehicles and fuels are not ready yet.” And so on – all of it bogus. As H. L. Mencken wrote, “the truth that survives is simply the lie that is pleasantest to believe.”

The oft-heard argument that B.C. needs the jobs and tax revenue is particularly galling. This is like arguing we need jobs making a toxin or nuclear weapons. We are not helping ourselves and our children by creating jobs that spew CO2 into the atmosphere. We are already creating jobs that propel our vehicles without CO2 emissions, and we can do so much more.

And where is the logic in the almost-complete focus on pipeline or oil tanker spills by environmentalists and first nations? If Enbridge is able to convince the hearing panel that these local threats are acceptable, then the project goes ahead. But since climate change will devastate all of the ecosystems potentially affected by the project, efforts to prevent local damage from spills are fruitless if they are not part of a concerted effort to stop CO2 emissions. Otherwise, it’s like trying to prevent a fuel leak on the Titanic as it steams toward the iceberg. We need to turn the ship.

The facts are simple. Our political leaders are lying to us if they aid and abet the expansion of tarsands while promising to take action to prevent the imminent climate catastrophe. If you love this planet and your children, and are humble and objective in considering the findings of science, you have no choice but to battle hard to stop Gateway and other tarsands pipelines. It is time to face up to this challenge with honesty and courage.

Mark Jaccard is a professor at Simon Fraser University and lead author for sustainable energy policy in the upcoming Global Energy Assessment.

The Greenest Building in Vancouver?

Photo: Lucas Finlay, lucasfinlay.com

Is the new Van Dusen Botanical Gardens visitors’ center “the greenest building in Vancouver,” as the headline on my new article on the place claims? That depends on how you slice it. Van Dusen’s architecture team, Perkins + Will, also designed the incredible  CIRS Building across town at UBC, which goes a level or so beyond LEED Platinum.

But the new Van Dusen center is easily a contender for the title. It’s aiming for a Living Building certification from the International Living Building Institute, the most rigorous green-building standard in the world. To meet the spec, the place must address a truly daunting series of imperatives and prerequisites, including being mostly free of PVC plastic and a variety of other nasty chemical cocktails, making all its own energy, treating all its own wastewater, and more. (Read the standard here.)

Jim Huffman, associate principal for Busby, Perkins + Will, and Rebecca McDiarmid, project manager for Ledcor Construction (the builder)—showed me around the site late last summer. Here’s a snip from the article.

When the VanDusen Botanical Garden Association decided it was time for a new visitor centre, in 2000, the idea that the building should be the greenest in the city—one of the greenest in the country—did not even make it onto the whiteboard. They had enough to deal with just raising the facilities to the level of adequate. “The existing buildings were built in the 1970s,” explains John Ross, project manager for the Vancouver park board. “They were small, not very efficient, with single-glazed windows and not much insulation, so they were expensive to run.” There was also little on hand for families—mums and dads couldn’t even get a cup of soup for their kids on a rainy day—and the library and educational program facilities were inadequate.

The garden, on 22 city-owned hectares off Oak Street, is managed jointly by the nonprofit VanDusen garden association and the park board. An early design for a new visitor centre proved useful for fundraising purposes, and when the partners sent out an expression of interest for architects, Peter Busby was among the respondents. “They brought energy and enthusiasm,” recalls Ross of the Busby Perkins + Will presentation. “They were quite interested in green buildings. That was an aspect the committee hadn’t considered.”

All the more surprising, then, that the recently opened $21.9-million centre should turn out to be a green overachiever. Early on, Busby’s team decided LEED Platinum just wouldn’t cut it. Instead of merely shrinking the building’s footprint, they set out to build something revolutionary. The centre’s water-harvesting roof, which evokes a series of giant orchid petals, is crowned in part with a glittering array of solar-thermal tubes. (The building is broadly modelled after a flower.) Below, a gently curving rammed-earth wall—a massive and sensual structure that will likely endure for centuries—beckons visitors.

Read the rest of the article over at Vancouver magazine.

B.C. Ferries to Cut Our Carbon Count

Switching to gas in 2012.

According to an open letter to Bowen Island customers published in the local paper this week, in late 2012, B. C. Ferries will be converting the Queen of Capilano—our car ferry—to liquified natural gas fuel. This conversation, which will begin in October, will be the first such switch in the whole B.C. Ferries fleet.

This is good news on a number of levels. First—unlike bunker diesel fuel—in the event of a collision or fuel spill, natural gas will quickly evaporate. Second, burning bunker diesel fuel makes smog, while natural gas will produce a fraction of these particulates and compounds. But the best news in my opinion is that natural gas burns a fraction 27 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions than diesel.

The Queen of Capilano is our second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. According to the 2003 Bowen Island Community Energy Planning Options Report, the boat kicks about 7,500 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions up to the atmosphere every year. However, this figure is likely low; in 2007 the company installed a less-efficient—albeit more robust— propulsion system.

Given that we have done virtually nothing as a community to reduce our share of heat-trapping pollution in almost a decade, it is encouraging to see B.C. Ferries showing leadership. Obviously, the company is making the move because the business case makes sense; gas is cheaper. It’s is far from perfect, of course. The process of extracting (“fracking”) and processing gas produces a tremendous amount of pollution.

Update: A friend reminds me of the Cornell University study from last year that concluded that, because of the way it is extracted, shale gas is is a worse source of greenhouse gas emissions than coal.

I’d love to hear from the company about what the conversion will mean for greenhouse-gas emissions.

Writing to the Mayor on Smart Meters

I just sent the following letter to my local government leaders. Please feel free to copy and adapt it for your own muncipality.

Dear Mayor and Council,

Within the coming months, B.C. Hydro will be installing smart meters on homes and businesses across Bowen Island. I understand that, as in other communities in British Columbia, a number of residents are concerned with what they believe to be potential health risks associated with the meters.

I am writing to urge you to not to fall prey to the fear and alarmism that can spread quickly in the absence of strong leadership backed by factual and objective information. To be clear: There is no scientific evidence that the very low levels of radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic fields emitted at infrequent intervals by smart meters pose any risk to human health.

Smart meters are a very promising tool in the drive to modernize our electrical infrastructure. They could well help reduce the province’s overall energy demand and help British Columbians use our existing energy resources more efficiently. Ultimately, smart meters will help the province meet a greater portion of its energy needs through conservation—lessening the need to build new generating facilities.

Instead of being drawn into misinformation and hearsay, I urge you to instead show leadership. Please consider making a clear statement or resolution that Bowen Island Municipality supports the installation of smart meters as a promising new technology that will help members of the community better understand their energy consumption and ultimately reduce their overall energy use, saving money and conserving our shared resources.

That is a grassroots movement I would be proud to see my local government become a part of.

Where our Official Community Plan Falls Short

Here’s the letter I submitted to Bowen Island Municipal Council for today’s hearing into the Official Community Plan [.PDF, 12MB] that is about to be adopted for final reading. I think the plan does not do enough to reduce global warming pollution.

Mayor Turner and Council

Bowen Island Municipality

re: Bylaw No. 282, 2010 – cited as the “Bowen Island Municipality Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 282, 2010 (OCP).”

Dear Mayor Turner and Council,

In September 2007, Bowen Island Municipality signed British Columbia’s Climate Action Charter, and in doing so committed to develop strategies and take actions to achieve a number of goals to reduce global warming pollution at the local level, including:

creating complete, compact, more energy efficient rural and urban communities (e.g. foster a built environment that supports a reduction in car dependency and energy use, establish policies and processes that support fast tracking of green development projects, adopt zoning practices that encourage land use patterns that increase density and reduce sprawl.)

Under subsequent updates to the Local Government Act, greenhouse gas emission targets, policies, and actions became required content in official community plans like the one we are discussing today.

In my professional life, I advocate for policies, programs, and actions that fight climate change. I also serve on Bowen Island’s Advisory Planning Commission, though I am not speaking on  behalf of that organization today.

And I know that while a national policy to put a price on carbon dioxide is the single best way to solve climate change, I also know there is another way to attack the challenge that brings so many more direct benefits to people. As this OCP states, as much of 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions are under local-government control. Many of the low-hanging fruit solutions to climate change are tied up in how we live on the land.

As the Climate Action Charter notes, if we focus our growth into complete, compact, and walkable communities, we burn less gasoline and we use less energy and we reduce emissions. We make transit viable, and car sharing, and neighborhood energy systems, and curbside recycling pickup. And the quality of life benefits are unbeatable, because even with a modest increase in density, the research shows that we walk and cycle more, and lead healthier lives. We spend fewer tax dollars on roads, and have more for other things that we want.

The authors of this OCP suggest that Bowen Island is well positioned to meet the provincial target of 33 percent reduction from 2007 levels by 2020. That is eight years away. That is the same number of years since we were first presented with a range of these policy solutions, in our Community Energy Plan which this municipality adopted back in 2003.

Unfortunately, in the intervening years, we have implemented none of the recommendations of that plan. We have done absolutely nothing to address our escalating carbon emissions.

To comply with the Local Government Act, this OCP outlines a number of worthy objectives with respect to carbon pollution. Unfortunately, it offers no policies to achieve them. Instead, it largely pushes the responsibility for action onto private citizens and homeowners. For example, it encourages the people of Bowen Island to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles. It promotes the use of electric cars. It “strongly encourages” building energy efficiency, and “supports initiatives” to produce green energy.

This soft language is familiar to anyone who has followed the inaction of our federal government on this file. These are not policies, they are suggestions. And I guarantee you, they will fail to reduce global warming pollution.

Meanwhile, this OCP seems to suggest that Bowen Island consider adopting a new provincial database of carbon emissions. It’s called an inventory, because its about taking stock. This inventory overlooks the pollution from our ferry, and our trips driving off-island. In the previously adopted, but largely ignored, 2003 energy plan, we identified these as our two leading sources of emissions.

Our municipally-adopted 2003 baseline greenhouse-gas inventory, including ferry and commuters.

Even if we do not assume responsibility for our own ferry and driving trips to town for work, swimming lessons, school, COSTCO, and everything else, which we must, we will not come close to meeting our aspirational targets with this OCP. Objectives are great, but without policy they are empty promises. I may have the objective of being a famous opera singer one day, but unless I have a plan to meet that objective, I will still be singing terribly in the shower like the rest of you.

So why are we doing nothing? Why are we not reducing sprawl and embracing a more complete, compact, and walkable community with this OCP? The kind that also gives us the diversity of housing forms that we told this council in the community consulation process that we desperately need. Why are we skipping over the obvious taxpayer savings and health benefits associated with 21st century planning practices?

I’d like to cite one telling example. The concordance document that tracks changes made to this OCP since the public input phase notes that council and staff discussed the idea of mini-lots in and around the cove. These are smaller lots that would support more clustered, and more affordable, housing forms in our village. They are the kinds of lots that are proposed for the Parkview Slopes affordable housing development near Artisan Square.

The comment? “Staff and planning consultants consider mini lots too urban and not completely compatible with the form and character of Snug Cove.” The idea was dropped.

Fear rules this document. Because of a perceived threat, because of misplaced and frankly bizarre fear of creeping urbanization, because this is how some of our leaders think you preserve and protect an island, our municipality is not pursuing real and practical solutions. We are not reducing car dependency and energy use, we are not fast tracking green development projects, and above all we are not adopting zoning practices that encourage land use patterns that reduce sprawl.

None of these things will happen unless they are enshrined as policy in our Official Community Plan, our community’s constituion.

This OCP Review instead places a strong focus on what many people in the green movement call “critter environmentalism.” It seeks to preserve and protect our herons and sensitive island ecosystems. But by overlooking the proven land-use planning solutions that local governments have at their disposal, it does nothing to address a greater threat that elsewhere in the world is wiping out species and acidifying oceans. Do you like forests? Here in British Columbia, it has killed millions of hectares of pine forest. If you care about seabirds and salmon, you care about climate change. If you care about people, you care about climate change.

In 2009, this council sent a letter to Prime Minister Harper, asking him to ensure “the important role of local and regional governments be maintained” in any texts negotiated at Copenhagen climate change conference. We all know how that worked out. As far as I can tell, that was the last time we spoke up on the issue.

Yes, our overall impact here on Bowen Island may be tiny compared to other jurisdictions, but we can do our part, and should do our part especially given the multiple benefits that come with the solutions. Other small communities around British Columbia are winning awards for their leadership on this file. Unfortunately, we will not win any prizes with this OCP. It takes us backwards, and deepens our dependency on vehicles. It represents a tremendous missed opportunity.

Edmund Burke, one the founding fathers of conservatism, once said, “Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little.”

I will remain engaged on this issue as long as I live in this community, simply because the opportunities that come with solutions are too good to keep passing up. Whether we think this is our problem here on Bowen Island, or not, I guarantee you it’s going to become our problem. And if the solutions — solutions that are proven to address affordability, and obesity, and social alienation, and rising taxes, and food security, and yes, greenspace protection — are perceived by this council to be unsuitable for our community, well, that’s nothing an election can’t fix.

B.C.’s Big Clean-Tech Opportunity

How about a Clean Tech stimulus package?

It’s great that Premier Christy Clark recently reaffirmed our province’s commitment to the Western Climate Initiative and the Carbon Tax. They’re good policies and we need to stick with them. Unfortunately, they do not appear to be part of a bigger vision for transforming this province’s economy away from its growing dependence on natural gas extraction and processing.

In a recent Vancouver Sun story, the premier underscored how the sector is pretty much keeping the lights on in our emergency rooms:

Every heart operation in this province is paid for by oil and gas out of the northeast …. Boy, you want a health care system, you better be damn happy we’re getting oil and gas out of the northeast, because that’s what’s paying for it.

Thanks to a variety of royalty-based incentives and regulatory changes wrapped up as the 2009 Oil and Gas Stimulus Program, the sector is booming. According to the Budget and Fiscal Plan – 2010/11 to 2012/11, the province expects natural gas royalties will soar from $698 Million this year to a forecast $1.2 Billion by 2012/2013 (see page 12).

And there’s more where that came from. According to a recent report by the National Energy Board and B.C. Ministry of Energy and Mines, the northeast potentially contains 78 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, enough to fuel Canada’s entire existing needs for 26 years. (Don’t hold your breath hoping for “peak gas” to kick in anytime soon.)

What does this mean for our climate leadership? Well, a 2010 analysis by Mark Jaccard concluded that completion of just one of the natural gas processing plants in the region would blow away any chance we have of reaching our climate-pollution goals. So much for keeping your car tires properly inflated.

The Premier is has a point, though. The public revenue has to come from somewhere. What’s the alternative? Well, I look to the province’s thriving clean tech sector.

The KPMG B.C. Clean Tech Report Card, commissioned by the British Columbia Cleantech CEO Alliance and released this week, notes that the province has one of the most vibrant cleantech clusters in North America. We have more than 200 “pure play” technology companies, employing over 8,000 people and generating $2.5 billion in revenues annually, primarily from exports. These are companies involved solely in the research, development or deployment of technological innovations in energy generation, energy transmission and storage, energy use in transportation, energy efficiency, and resource management.

Many of BC’s cleantech companies are recognized international leaders, competing for and winning business around the world. It’s also a very young, fast growing sector – over two-thirds of the companies did not exist ten years ago.

With the right policies, B.C. could be the silicon valley of clean-tech. The report recommends a number of options for government.

The role of government in supporting and encouraging emerging cleantech clusters cannot be understated. Programs such as Scientific Research and Experimental Development (SR&ED) tax credits, Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC), the federal Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP) and Innovative Clean Energy (ICE) Fund and the revenue neutral Carbon Tax have provided welcome support for the industry; however, there is more to be done to improve BC’s competitiveness as a destination for cleantech businesses and capital.

Pssst…. Christy: Fracking isn’t our future. Families and investors alike are very keen to transition B.C. into a green economy. Where’s the stimulus program for that?

Time for a Little Professional Development

Courtesy Social Change Institute

I was lucky enough to snag one of the remaining spots at Social Change Institute 2011 at the Leadership Institute at Hollyhock, on spectacular Cortes Island, June 8 to 12. I’m hoping to meet some new people who are working towards similar goals, build my engagement network, and ideally pick up a few ideas and skills along the way. I expect I’ll be outside my comfort zone for much of this conference, but I also expect to come home inspired and charged up.

Read the rest of this entry »

“Powerful: Energy for Everyone” Premiere

I’m looking forward to catching the Vancouver premier of Powerful: Energy for Everyone, a new documentary about our dysfunctional global energy system, and how we might fix it. Filmmaker David Chernushenko promises to “tackle the spin of the big energy lobby and dispel the myths of a ‘green utopia’ envisioned by many.” The film is billed as a candid examination of what a sustainable future may actually look like. It’s Friday afternoon at SFU Woodwards, part of the Projecting Change Film Festival. A clip from the film appears below.

Read the rest of this entry »

Clinton Foundation to EV Leaders: “Keep the Faith”

The Juice Goes Here

At the opening plenary of Vancouver’s EV 2010 VE electric vehicle conference, William Clinton J. Foundation senior director Steven Crolius struck a parallel between the electric car business today and Southwest airlines five years ago.

Crolius’ organization works as a catalyst to help launch greenhouse-gas-reduction projects. It’s a partner in C40—formerly the Large Cities Climate Leadership Group—16 members of which recently formed the C40 Electric Vehicle Network and committed to making their  streets more accessible to electric vehicles.

Crolius cited a recent Goldman Sachs report that throws cold water on the dream of an electric mobility revolution. Of a global auto market of 85 million vehicles in 2020, the firm expects only about 1.7 million of them—a scant 2 percent—will boast batteries instead of tanks.

“We wonder why the mainstream has such a pessimistic view of the prospects,” Crolius said, pointing to the graph, which showed EV adoption bumping along the bottom of the chart like a dead eel.

He then showed the penetration of hybrids in the United States, which has flattened out at 2.5 percent. “This is the foundation of the mainstream view,” he explained. “Hybrid cars are almost a rounding error in the total market for vehicles.”

Read the rest of this entry »