xcel
02-12-2007, 09:41 AM
The answer, as tough and unpalatable as it may be in some quarters, is to use taxes, not half baked rhetoric, to persuade consumers to modify their vehicle choices. (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070212/AUTO02/702120340/1148/AUTO01)
http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/Hummer_H2_Pic.jpgJohn McCormick - Detroit News - Feb. 12, 2007
Instead of a Tax credit, why not Tax the gas guzzlers like the Hummer H2?
With much of the nation in the grip of severe winter weather, it's a peculiar time to be discussing global warming. But now that an international panel of scientists has declared that humans are 'highly likely' to be responsible - to some, undetermined degree - for a perceived warming trend, the topic is front of mind.
It's especially topical for those of us involved in the auto industry here in Detroit, or even for those who live in Phoenix, where it snowed during my visit a few weeks ago.
Now, let's for a moment ignore the multiple uncertainties embedded in the scientists' report; let's put aside the fact that there are plenty of equally credible scientists who still doubt the alarmists' theories about the effects of global warming, let alone the soundness of the science behind the warming thesis; let's even ignore those who argue that global warming, whether man-made or natural, is actually beneficial to the planet, potentially making large areas of previously inhospitable land fertile and fit for human habitation.
Furthermore, let's overlook the ridiculous flaw in the Kyoto treaty which gives the world's worst polluters - China and India - a free pass because they are still 'developing.' Does it make sense to ignore the prospect of billions of people ready to abandon their bicycles for motorized transport? Hardly.
All these considerations aside, the rational minds running Motown's automakers are left facing a dilemma. On the one hand they know that the modern automobile is actually responsible for a relatively small part of the emissions 'load' that mankind's activities impose on the earth. At the same time they recognize that cars - versus coal-fired power plants, heavy industry or even the hundreds of jets streaking across our skies daily - are far more visible to the general public. Unjust though it is, the automobile's exhaust pipe has become the poster child for air pollution and, by extension, global warming.
As a consequence, environmentalists repeatedly attack the auto industry as if it is single handedly to blame for the planet's climatic problems, real or imagined. The so-called 'greens' argue that the carmakers must sell vehicles that they think people should buy, rather than the vehicles people want to buy, thus ignoring the most basic tenet of a market driven economy.
These same activists point to General Motors' withdrawal of the plug-in electric car, the EV1, during the 1990s, as proof that the auto industry is not serious about producing environmentally sensitive vehicles. The absurdity of this argument is self-evident. Does anyone truly believe that GM chose to waste billions of dollars on a vehicle that would not succeed? The fact that only a few people bought the EV1 (or any other electric vehicle of the time) was because they were impractical. Consumers in a free market economy buy what they wish to buy; be it a Hummer, Toyota Prius or anything in between.
What influences the vehicle buyer's decision is a subtle combination of desire, practical considerations and dollars and cents. And it is this last factor that should be given the biggest weight as we debate the relationship between the automobile and the world's environment. It is not the job of the automobile industry to tell buyers what to purchase, any more than it is the job of house builders to promote smaller homes. This role is best played by the government, not by direct edict, but by exerting financial pressure on a vehicle purchaser's decision.
The most obvious example of this process in action is Europe's vehicular tax strategy. For example, European governments tax fuel in a manner that encourages diesel, which is much more energy efficient and therefore lower in CO2 emissions than gasoline. They also tax higher displacement engines, leading consumers and therefore automakers to concentrate on smaller, more efficient vehicles. This policy does not prevent consumers from buying larger cars and trucks; it simply makes the choice more expensive.
If a US administration, now or in the future, is ever to make a serious effort to curb this country's appetite for the world's energy resources and corresponding imbalance in overall emissions, then attacking the auto industry with legislation is not the answer. Nor is the misguided focus on grossly inefficient corn-based E85 production. It's wiser to concentrate on producing cellulosic-based ethanol, or much better still, to give major financial assistance to the development of advanced batteries for a new generation of electric cars.
But in the short term, the answer, as tough and unpalatable as it may be in some quarters, is to use taxes, not half baked rhetoric, to persuade consumers to modify their vehicle choices.
http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/Hummer_H2_Pic.jpgJohn McCormick - Detroit News - Feb. 12, 2007
Instead of a Tax credit, why not Tax the gas guzzlers like the Hummer H2?
With much of the nation in the grip of severe winter weather, it's a peculiar time to be discussing global warming. But now that an international panel of scientists has declared that humans are 'highly likely' to be responsible - to some, undetermined degree - for a perceived warming trend, the topic is front of mind.
It's especially topical for those of us involved in the auto industry here in Detroit, or even for those who live in Phoenix, where it snowed during my visit a few weeks ago.
Now, let's for a moment ignore the multiple uncertainties embedded in the scientists' report; let's put aside the fact that there are plenty of equally credible scientists who still doubt the alarmists' theories about the effects of global warming, let alone the soundness of the science behind the warming thesis; let's even ignore those who argue that global warming, whether man-made or natural, is actually beneficial to the planet, potentially making large areas of previously inhospitable land fertile and fit for human habitation.
Furthermore, let's overlook the ridiculous flaw in the Kyoto treaty which gives the world's worst polluters - China and India - a free pass because they are still 'developing.' Does it make sense to ignore the prospect of billions of people ready to abandon their bicycles for motorized transport? Hardly.
All these considerations aside, the rational minds running Motown's automakers are left facing a dilemma. On the one hand they know that the modern automobile is actually responsible for a relatively small part of the emissions 'load' that mankind's activities impose on the earth. At the same time they recognize that cars - versus coal-fired power plants, heavy industry or even the hundreds of jets streaking across our skies daily - are far more visible to the general public. Unjust though it is, the automobile's exhaust pipe has become the poster child for air pollution and, by extension, global warming.
As a consequence, environmentalists repeatedly attack the auto industry as if it is single handedly to blame for the planet's climatic problems, real or imagined. The so-called 'greens' argue that the carmakers must sell vehicles that they think people should buy, rather than the vehicles people want to buy, thus ignoring the most basic tenet of a market driven economy.
These same activists point to General Motors' withdrawal of the plug-in electric car, the EV1, during the 1990s, as proof that the auto industry is not serious about producing environmentally sensitive vehicles. The absurdity of this argument is self-evident. Does anyone truly believe that GM chose to waste billions of dollars on a vehicle that would not succeed? The fact that only a few people bought the EV1 (or any other electric vehicle of the time) was because they were impractical. Consumers in a free market economy buy what they wish to buy; be it a Hummer, Toyota Prius or anything in between.
What influences the vehicle buyer's decision is a subtle combination of desire, practical considerations and dollars and cents. And it is this last factor that should be given the biggest weight as we debate the relationship between the automobile and the world's environment. It is not the job of the automobile industry to tell buyers what to purchase, any more than it is the job of house builders to promote smaller homes. This role is best played by the government, not by direct edict, but by exerting financial pressure on a vehicle purchaser's decision.
The most obvious example of this process in action is Europe's vehicular tax strategy. For example, European governments tax fuel in a manner that encourages diesel, which is much more energy efficient and therefore lower in CO2 emissions than gasoline. They also tax higher displacement engines, leading consumers and therefore automakers to concentrate on smaller, more efficient vehicles. This policy does not prevent consumers from buying larger cars and trucks; it simply makes the choice more expensive.
If a US administration, now or in the future, is ever to make a serious effort to curb this country's appetite for the world's energy resources and corresponding imbalance in overall emissions, then attacking the auto industry with legislation is not the answer. Nor is the misguided focus on grossly inefficient corn-based E85 production. It's wiser to concentrate on producing cellulosic-based ethanol, or much better still, to give major financial assistance to the development of advanced batteries for a new generation of electric cars.
But in the short term, the answer, as tough and unpalatable as it may be in some quarters, is to use taxes, not half baked rhetoric, to persuade consumers to modify their vehicle choices.