Toys R Us breaks bad news to children

Opinion_breaking bad

Why pulling meth-dealing action figures is a fruitless cause

By Elliot Chan, Opinions Editor
Formerly published in The Other Press. October 28, 2014

On October 21, Toys R Us effectively pulled a series of Breaking Bad inspired action figures off their shelves after a petition conducted by a collective of mothers from Florida. With 9,000 signatures, the Walter White and Jess Pinkman toys were sent away for their “sabbatical,” leaving me wondering how those concerned mothers came to such a nearsighted solution.

Now and then I wander into a Toys R Us retailer and feel disappointment that resembles a knee to the groin. There is no nostalgia; the florescent-lit store could not feel more foreign to me. Still, I’ll explore the aisle and see the common toys: fake weapons, brawny plastic action figurines constructed to battle to the death, and sultry dolls that nurture the unobtainable expectation of beauty. As Aaron Paul tweeted: “Hmmmm… I wonder what is more damaging?”

Paul continues to stand by the toys constructed from his image. His countering petition to return the Breaking Bad toys to Toys R Us has already received approximately 30,000 supporters. And although I haven’t signed anything to contribute, I do think the original removal of the toys to be a ridiculous initiative.

First off, if parents are worried about their children becoming methamphetamine addicts or dealers, then they’ll have to do a bit more than eliminate a few toys. Moms, talk to your children about what drugs even are: explain the legalities and educate them on the harmful effects of addiction. Action figures are not the gateway into a life of crime, but poor parenting is.

Nothing hinders the growth of children more than paranoid, overprotective parents. We’ve seen many attempts to hide drug usage and deter temptations, but it appears that concealing cigarettes behind the corner store cabinets and administrating drinking ages is only creating another obstacle that can easily be thwarted should the youth dare to experiment.

Secondly, mothers need to focus on the big picture. Drugs, violence, and sex cannot be avoided in this world, so prepare your kids effectively with confidence and intelligence. Hell, maybe even watch Breaking Bad with them and show them the horrible destructive outcome of each character involved.

There are a billion other concerns out in the world that should worry mothers. It’s funny that they chose a battle against an inanimate object. After all, the worst pain those action figures could cause is the crippling pain of stepping on them barefoot. Moms of Florida, why not turn your attention toward gun control, drug trafficking, the broken educational system, overzealous spending, racism, sexism, gang crimes, pollution, heart disease, cancer, homelessness, unemployment, and many other dire problems in the world?

On a chaotic planet, we should just let the children play, imagine, and have the freedom to explore what they are curious about, guiding their curiosity in a positive direction without limiting them. No more half-measures, moms.

4 Reasons Why You Should Ditch That Old Clunker

Posted by  | September 18, 2014 |
Originally published on Unhaggle
4 Reasons Why You Should Ditch That Old Clunker

That old clunker sitting in your driveway might have once been your pride and joy, but now it has depreciated to the point where it only has sentimental value. Sure, the memories are priceless, but you know that deep down, buying a new car is a much more feasible and enjoyable prospect.

Like most consumer products, cars are built to fall apart over time. It doesn’t matter what the make or model is – unless your are consistently maintaining it like you would a vintage collector’s car – owning an old clunker and expecting it to function with the same showroom pristine after five, 10 or 20 years is simply unrealistic.

It takes up space, becomes a habitat for critters and pests and cheapens your image and life. It’s time to admit it: that old clunker has got to go.

4. Old clunkers look and feel bad

A rusty exterior, ripped upholstery, malfunctioning air conditioner, etc. When the “new car” smell is long gone and vehicle degradation has taken its course, the old clunker is not the most inviting confined space on the road. While some people find antiquities intriguing and nostalgic, many would still throw away old microwaves and toaster ovens. Bookshelves and armoires may last hundreds of years, but decrepit cars don’t and they shouldn’t be used as storage space either. The reason your vehicle is in such a state is because it had been neglected for so many years, so if you truly care about it and yourself, set it free. Odds are, you’ll probably become a better person without that rust bucket dragging you behind anyway.

3. Old clunkers are dangerous and unreliable

Anti-braking systems, safety sensors, electronic stability control and many other technological enhancements have become standard safety features in today’s vehicles. For old clunkers, you’d be lucky if you have seatbelts. Even if your car does have safety features, the power of time and the wear-and-tear element may cause deterioration – if not properly maintained – rendering the protection useless or even harmful.

Old clunkers are not the most reliable either. Believe me when I say that missing an appointment and waiting for roadside assistance due to a dead battery, engine trouble or a broken transmission is not fun. Avoid all of that, dump your clunker and consider getting a modest alternative, like a Toyota Camry. It’s really not that more expensive, and it’ll save you a lot of time.

2. Old clunkers cost more

Cars are expensive, but keeping your old clunker may be costing you more than buying a new(er) car. If you are planning to maintain your old car, take into consideration that older vehicles tend to need additional maintenance and have a higher insurance fee. After the 10-year mark, various parts of the vehicle will require repairs or replacements, and that is no simple or cheap task. Also to prevent parts of the old clunker from rusting up or getting jammed, the vehicle needs to be consistently driven. And clunkers are not revered for being economical either. Newer vehicles simply have better fuel mileage, so do the math: does regular maintenance plus frequent usage plus higher gas consumption equal the same as a newer vehicle? Probably not.

1. Old clunkers are not environmentally friendly

Over the past decade or so, green initiatives have changed the automotive industry and the psyche of most drivers. Manufactures are now focused on building vehicles that are fuel-efficient with low CO2 emissions. However, old clunkers often run on the environmental standards of yesteryears. Not only do old clunkers guzzle more gas, they also tend to lose fuel due to leakage and evaporations. Older vehicles simply aren’t built with the same green sensitive priorities and have been proven to be harmful.

Not only are old clunkers an expensive stain on the road, they are also damaging to the environment and unsafe to the people driving them. Sure, having the old clunker around might be an attention-grabbing token of the “good ol’ days” and losing it might make you feel a bit homesick, but you know what will make you feel sicker? Paying the extra fees and risking your life every time you hit the road.

How Making, Recording, and Measuring Decisions as a Team Can Change Your Company

Nothing says teamwork better than a group of people aligned in the decision making process. While some workplaces are guided by the “executive decisions” of the boss, that leadership practice might not necessary be the best approach in advocating change, nurturing involvement and learning from prior mistakes (i.e. bad decisions).

Steven Forth, CEO and director of Nugg, an application that enable workplace team members to focus, decide, track and align ideas, believes that decisions should not be made in a vacuum, and that the full decision-making cycle begins and ends with proper communication.

Forth wrote: “Some would say research, and research is sometimes needed, but the best decisions are made as part of conversations.”

Intuitive decisions should not feel random

The decision making cycle includes five key steps: surface, discuss, decide, execute, and review; all of which plays into a long-term goal. It’s true that not all decisions are of equal value; some are undoubtedly more serious than others. With that being said, the process of making decisions should not feel random, even though gut feelings, deadlines and stress may play a role.

“Emotions are critical to making intuitive decisions. ‘It feels right’ is a valid reason to make a decision,” wrote Forth. “But you still need to think through what the outcomes will be. Nugg let’s you mark any update or comment as a decision and then you or another person on your team can unfold that decision in more detail.”

Designate time to perform and review

By establishing a workplace culture that track, measure and review decisions after time have passed, allows team members to stay alert and execute appropriately in the future. Setting deadlines may seem like a stress magnifier, but that is not necessarily true. Implementing deadlines can sharpen intuitive decision-making, dampen procrastination and offer a more focused timeframe for exploration.

“Review date and getting explicit about expected and actual outcomes is so important,” Forth wrote. “And in most cases the first review should be relatively soon, within three months at the very longest. If you expect an outcome and are not getting it you need to review the decision.”

Don’t let good ideas and bad results get lost in the clutter

It’s not surprising that most people would want to quickly dismiss a bad decision from the past, wipe it from their mind and start anew. But that mentality will lead to history repeating itself. Don’t simply brush bad results under the desk, because they’ll likely reemerge in another form to waste time, effort and money.

On the flip side of the coin, good ideas are exchanged on the daily with zero trace. These ideas are often lost in an email thread, scattered amongst the shambles on your desk or simply placed in the back of your mind.

“Recording decisions and measuring the outcomes is critical today,” noted Gord Kukec, Member of the BCFerries Board of Directors, in a conversation with Nugg. “With so much happening it is easy for people to lose track of decisions and fail to check what actually results, but few teams do this in any systematic way. If you don’t record your decisions and measure the outcomes, you will never improve.”

Employ team members to participate in the decision-making process

Making decisions, especially on behalf of a whole company, is a scary venture. Ultimately, most long-term results are unpredictable.

That being the case, an individual may panic, second-guess or be guided by a bias intention. Even the most apt leaders will have trouble making those “executive decisions,” but the pressure shouldn’t fall solely on the boss—the supporting team should have equal responsibility to supply input and review previous cases, thus leading the best possible result, even if the decision was made in haste.

The Olympics that no one wants

Freestyle Skiing - Winter Olympics Day 13

Why world-class cities opt out of hosting

By Elliot Chan, Opinions Editor
Formerly published in The Other Press. October 21, 2014

And then there were two: Almaty, Kazakhstan and Beijing, People’s Republic of China. How on Earth did this happen? Is it because hosting an Olympic event is such a drain on a country’s economy, or is it because people just don’t care about the Winter Olympics?

When Oslo, Norway—the frontrunner to host the 2022 Olympics—withdrew its bid on October 1, many fans, organizers, and athletes awoke to a realization: the Winter Olympics was just not worth the trouble. For too long, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) had been the popular girl at prom, but now she might have a profile on Plenty of Fish.

The problem is not necessarily the Olympics’ attractiveness, but rather its high standards. The IOC is demanding, and that was the greatest turn-off for the Norwegians. After all, the committee did send over a 7,000-page handbook and requested alterations of traffic and airport customs just for the officials, in addition to a cocktail party with the Norwegian royal family. Such pompous demands say a lot about the organization’s culture. And it’s not too surprising to see that Norway wanted nothing to do with it.

With that being said, there is prestige from hosting the two-week event. Just look at the result of the 2010 Winter Olympics here in Vancouver, and you’ll see that the event elevated the city into the world-class standard. It put us centre stage and we astounded the world, in addition to proving many skeptics wrong. We can all agree that Vancouver’s infrastructure, traffic, and tourism economy has taken a step in a positive direction since.

The global situation is that not many cities are capable of becoming world-class cities. Sochi, for example, struggled with the event to the very last moment, and tourism is not exactly flourishing there now. Recessions across many European countries also make the opportunity to host risky.

The most likely event now is that the IOC will select Beijing as the host of the 2022 Olympics—it’s the most reasonable choice. The second possibility is that the committee will offer the opportunity to a country that has proven experience hosting recent large-scale events. What the committee needs to establish is six to 10 world-class cities across the globe that can host the Olympics should a newcomer fail to meet the exceptionally high standards. The United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Canada, South Korea, Italy, France, Russia, and whoever else the IOC deems suitable should be added to their little black book.

No doubt having a list of suitable candidates will reduce the status of the IOC, but is that such a bad thing? What’s the alternative? Waiting by the telephone, hoping that a rich country will call? The IOC should know better: the Winter Olympics is not to be compared with the World Cup or the Summer Olympics. People just don’t need it as much.

Innovators at Interface Summit Forecast Paradigm Shift in Personalization of Tech and Healthcare

Innovators in digital healthcare assembled at Sanotron’s third annual Interface Summit at Vancouver Convention Centre to wrap up the last couple of days of September and to connect technology leaps to global wellness.

A collective voice from many influential speakers addressed a strong demand for practicality in digital health innovations. No longer are stakeholders, practitioners and patients looking for “cool,” “complex” gadgets—they are looking for devices and treatment that “empower” people in all markets and wellness to take better care of themselves.

One area of technology worth highlighting is the design aspect. According to Dr. David Dunne of Rotman School of Business, in digital healthcare designers need to understand three key aspects in order to enhance the user’s experience and achieve the desired outcome: reframing the problem, understanding the user and the context and making is the way of thinking.

“Doctors are empathetic about diseases, they know what diseases and the effects are,” said Dr. Dunne. “I would argue that doctors’ empathy is about the effects, while designers’ empathy is about the experience.”

For chronic diseases, such as diabetes, patients don’t approach therapy and treatment as the “centre of their life.” People get disconnected with the treatment they have, so it is critical that digital healthcare—in order to be effective—must approach treatment through the user’s lifestyle.

Which leads us to the revolving-door-pharmaceutical experience, something we’re all familiar with. After all, approximately 600,000 Canadians visit a pharmacy in a day. We drop out and pick up with little to no information acquired. We take the daily dose as prescribed and cross our fingers, no questions asked. In an aging demographic, it becomes ever more important that doctors, pharmacists and the patients themselves participate in both the monitoring of health and the follow-up stages to ensure that the treatment is performing as planned.

Pharmacist and UBC grad Aaron Sihota believes the dispensary transaction-based paradigm has to change: “I heard a lot today about telehealth and telemedicine, but not too much about telepharmacy. There is huge potential. Take for example the clinic model; you can have the pharmacy work alongside the prescriber to identify safe and effective therapy. Once that’s been done, the person can just fire it off to a vending machine, where a technician can dispense it or that machine can automatically dispense it and do a live feed counseling. So it’s a completely different practice model. I don’t envision it taking over mainstream dispensary, but definitely working alongside it.”

Moreover, much of pharmaceutical medicine is trial and error, an ancient method that has lasted to this day. In a world where automobiles are tested repeatedly before hitting the showroom and airplanes are soaring 35,000 feet in the sky, it’s hard to accept that doctors and pharmacist are still playing the guessing game with our wellbeing. It seems that only technology can change that, and all that will start with experts from different fields joining hands.

“We have to understand that as much as we have to think about the cause, the solution is very important,” said Ali Tehrani, Zymeworks, “and that is the marriage of high-tech and bio-tech.”

Ultimately, changing one aspect will affect another. In the case of global health, there is much to be done in developing countries. If affordable treatments are a problem here in our industrialized world, it is seemingly impossible for those in third worlds. Digital healthcare should not, and cannot, be exclusive to the rich. Therefore, business models need to change along with the technology created.

“There is a view that you can only deal with these problems in developing worlds by having the money endlessly poured in by Gates Foundation or Grand Challenges Canada,” said Loki Jorgenson, LionsGate Technologies, “and it’ll simply be something the market will never be interested in. And so what we have defined as our mission is to make that market work; it’s a business innovation. How do we make money going into developing worlds? And make a lot of money saving those lives? The reason they die and continue to die is because the market is never interested. Why not?”

Digital healthcare is making significant strides, but there are still many leagues to go, a fact proven by all the paradigm shifts suggested at Interface Summit. If a product, a treatment or a solution wants to succeed and help people in the digital health space then it must be guided by those in need of it. After all, the coolest technologies are the one that saves lives.

What’s in a name?

Opinons_Bad namesA bad name lasts a lifetime

By Elliot Chan, Opinions Editor

Formerly published in the Other Press. October 9, 2014

Like a birth defect, poor name choices can be an everlasting nuisance to a person’s life. Although, I don’t know the formula for perfect naming, I do know that certain words have a particular connotation that may evoke emotions that you wouldn’t necessarily want to have associated with a person.

When I was growing up, I didn’t like the name Elliot. I thought it had too many syllables, too many variations, which would lead to incorrect spelling, and of course, it rhymes with idiot, if the person could even pronounce it properly. Elliot is an uncommon name, but it grew on me, and now, I can’t imagine my life with any other name. All in all, I’m sure glad my parents didn’t give me a name that was the first noun they heard when arriving in Canada or a direct translation of a name from another culture or language. Elliot fits me; it fits my environment.

Naming is a big responsibility, and parents should not mess around with it and try to be original or clever. Allow your children to be unique by giving them a blank canvas to work with, rather than imposing a name that they’ll have to explain every time they introduce themselves at a party. Believe me, the story of why your kid is named after your favourite patio furniture will not be enjoyable to tell when they’re at a job interview.

There is nothing wrong with reusing names that have been around for generations. Some of my best friends are people with the same names as each other. I’m talking about the Ryans, the Stephanies, the Michaels, and the Erics out there who actually have a personality that doesn’t play into having a particular name.

Your Instagram user name can be witty, but your real name—the one you have on your birth certificate—should not. And if it is, you should really ask your hipster parents why they decided it was a good idea. You deserve an explanation.

Liberal naming, such as hyphenated surnames, are cool and all, and have come to the fore in this generation. I’m meeting more and more people with two last names and a couple of middle names in addition to their first name. As someone with only a first and a last name, I’m a bit befuddled as to why so many names are needed to represent a person. Can it be that having more is better? I don’t think so. I think all that having extra names does is add to the confusion: a small identity crisis.

I’m happy with my name, and I’m sure many people who have “bad” names are happy as well. But we’ve all met someone or overheard a conversation where we leave saying to ourselves: “What an unfortunate name. His parents must have hated him.” For those thinking of having kids in the future, please heed the name.

I’m not a creep; I’m not a weird-oh

Male fear of being labeled a creep is the creepiest thing of all


By Elliot Chan, Opinions Editor
Formerly published by The Other Press. September 30, 2014

Boys, have you ever been talking to a girl and suddenly have a thought pop into your head? You know, the one that says: “She’s not interested in you. She doesn’t want to talk to you. You should probably just leave.” Of course, this anxiety is normal. But feeling nervous is one thing, letting it sink in and destroy you is another.

Once that thought materializes it’s hard to overcome it, but understand this: if you aren’t able to rise above that thought, you have officially self-destructed. So please, do walk away before your lack of confidence rips you open and causes you to bleed anxiety all over the sweet girl. It doesn’t matter if she was interested in you or not, whether you were just chatting or if you were flirting, you cannot sell what you aren’t persuaded by yourself.

The overwhelming fear of being labeled a “creep” is what keeps most men from approaching women—not the other way around. So stop identifying everything you do as creepy. Making eye contact with a woman is not creepy. Asking a woman a question is not creepy. Being engaged in a conversation is not creepy. The only thing that is creepy is the weird thought inside your head that is telling you to feel guilty over nothing.

Good intentions shine through and bad intentions deserve to be discovered.

In many scenarios, a man often feels as though he is in a competition for a woman’s attention, but if that is your mentality, then you will be doomed; maybe not in a short-term sense, but definitely in the long run. You should not subject yourself to such pressure, especially if you are in a social environment where other people are waiting for you to strike out. Trying to control someone’s attention is not only creepy, but also neurotic. Don’t try to win someone over with a grand gesture or a long-winded story. The goal is not to keep her attention, the goal is to allow her to comfortably establish a rapport with you.

Your fear of losing the spotlight makes you creepy. You don’t need to be in the spotlight to be appreciated. Most people don’t want to engage with the entertainer, most people want to engage with a fan. So try to be attentive instead of attractive. Show that you can actively listen. Listening is the least creepy thing you can do.

As the Shins said, “caring is creepy,” but worrying about being creepy is 10 times creepier. Forget about it, act cool, and try to stay out of the spotlight. Focus on the story she is telling you, make eye contact, and don’t worry about what your subconscious might think of you.

Not a walk in a park(ing lot)

Opinions_Parking Space

The problem with hoarding parking spaces

By Elliot Chan, Opinions Editor
Formerly published in The Other Press. September 30, 2014

Unless you have paid to reserve a spot to park your vehicle, you have no right to block a space on a public road with a lawn chair, a traffic cone, or an empty milk jug.

While some residential street parking requires a visible permit, many others don’t. This can cause unpredictability for those who drive to and from work. Drivers tend to have little patience to seek out an empty spot; so instead, they will just mark one as their own. Parking spaces are a limited commodity, especially in neighbourhoods where homes don’t have driveways, and garages are used as multi-purpose storages and home fitness centres. With each family having an average of two cars, the streets can become crowded, causing people to wrongfully reserve public property.

While homeowners will argue that the property immediately in front of their house belongs to them, that is untrue. The area belongs to the city and that means anyone in the city can use it. Although the “No Parking” sign people buy from dollar stores is forthright, it often ushers a tone of entitlement, instead of asking for others to be considerate. Perhaps—in Canadian fashion—there should be “Please, I had a long day at work and would like to just get home with as little effort as possible” signs available at Dollarama. Alas, there are not. And unless it’s a government-issued sign, it doesn’t have any authority.

Private or reserved street parking in residential areas do not exist in this city. It doesn’t matter what sign or obstruction you have, you cannot claim a space that doesn’t belong to you.

Street parking is completely legal, and if you see someone who has placed objects on the road to assert their territory, throw them in the trash, because that is littering. With that being said, drivers should also know that according to Vancouver’s city bylaws, a vehicle may only be parked in front of a stranger’s house for a maximum of 72 hours, unless signage states otherwise.

I understand that having someone else parked in front of your house feels like a violation of your privacy, but it isn’t. You live in a community with people who have equal rights as you. The same way you don’t have a reserved spot on the bus or SkyTrain when you get on board, you cannot have a reserved parking space on a public street.

Driving is all about sharing the road, but just as important, it should also be about sharing parking spots. So what? Walk a little for once.

Pros and Cons of Owning a Solar Car

Posted by  | September 03, 2014 |
Originally published for 
Pros and Cons of Owning a Solar CarAs car owners become more and more environmentally conscious about the vehicles they own, it’s only reasonable to ask if you should get an “environmentally-conscious” vehicle, like a solar car. Solar power has always been appealing since relying on a renewable resource like sunlight will undoubtedly save money over time and cut down on the carbon footprint we leave behind while driving fossil fuel-powered vehicles.

Although concepts have been developed, and solar cars may in fact be available in showrooms in a few years, there are still many sceptical opinions out there that suggest that solar cars will always remain a pipe dream. However, with electric cars now surging into the market and onto the road, one can only hope that solar cars are not too far behind.

At the Consumer Electronic Show 2014, Ford presented the C-Max Solar Energi, a vehicle that takes the hybrid model to the next level by relying on solar energy. Multiple factors are at play when it comes to powering this hybrid, which enable it to be driven even on cloudy days and dark nights – albeit the large photovoltaic panel on the roof of the vehicle looks kind of goofy.

Nevertheless, the question remains: should you get a solar car? Here are some pros and cons that might paint a clearer picture:

Pro: Environmentally Responsible

A cloud of guilt often hangs over many car owners’ heads. Even by driving the most fuel-efficient vehicle, drivers are still adding to the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing pollution, which in turn harm our health and the wellness of the planet. Needless to say, the solar car will go a long way in solving the problems we have created for ourselves. However, if we want to make strides towards a proper solution, tiny steps will need to be made, and if public transit, riding the bike and walking are the first steps, then surely driving a solar-powered car that omits the need for fossil fuel is the second.

Con: Not Accommodating Enough

For any driver who had spent many frustrating minutes looking for a parking spot downtown would know that there is just not a whole lot of space for cars in the city. Odds are, only urban drivers would consider purchasing a solar car because they don’t always have to park where there is no sunlight, but it seems as though it will create a challenging lifestyle for those who do decide to buy one. Electric cars, such as the Nissan LEAF, can be plugged into an outlet to charge, but a solar car will need sunlight. Can there be a way to modify garages and parking lots so that sunlight could enter? The radio station I listen to while driving cuts out when I enter a cavernous parkade, so I must say that sunlight’s presence there would be even less likely.

Pro: Savings

Our gasoline-chugging lifestyle often forces us to consider alternatives, but are solar cars actually cheaper than buying a tank of gas over a couple of weeks? Unfortunately, there are still many variables to consider, but I predict that once a reliable system is implemented, money will in fact be saved in the long run. Even if the vehicle is a hybrid, relying on both solar energy and combustion will pay off the initial cost over time. However, the cost for a solar car at the moment is quite high, and batteries require frequent replacements. That being said, solar cars may soon be a more feasible option.

Con: Performance and Design Complications

More energy equals more power equals greater speed. You don’t need to be a scientist to know that in order for a solar car to go faster, it’ll need more “solar” energy. Sure, a small solar panel might be able to power your calculator, but for a car, you’ll need a lot more. The thing is, solar panels take up space and it’s not necessarily lightweight or aerodynamic either. Drivers need to understand that solar cars are not designed for performance, but rather for economy. Automakers are hesitant when dropping money to develop solar cars, because North American drivers are often reluctant to purchase new, high-priced and under-performing technology.

Should You Get a Solar Car?

After weighing the pros and cons, it’s clear that at the moment, the cons are hard to ignore, even if the pros are alluring. Solar cars are not ready for the open market yet. But there is definitely demand and a market out there for them. There are also many companies working on automotive innovations that include solar power. Although some are still dubious about the prospect of solar cars, I truly believe that they are a possibility. Remember when electric cars were shunned as a fantasy from eco-friendly dreamers? Now, an electric car is just another vehicle on the road.

However, at the moment, it’s best to avoid purchasing a solar car. If you want to be fuel and green conscious, consider a Chevrolet Volt or a hybrid. Until then, know that technology development moves very quickly and whether you’re in a solar car or not, the sun will rise again tomorrow.