Insofar as his criticisms of the auto industry, and Congress' handling of their request for aid, Moore is right. It's a ridiculous dog and pony show that is not going to do anything but throw away public money.
But Moore's solutions are off base. For example, he says the Big 3 should be required to build only alternate fuel vehicles, buses, trains, etc., which in turn would produce many jobs building the infrastructure needed for increased mass transit. Well, who does he think is going to pay for that infrastructure? Not GM, Ford or Chrysler, that's for sure.
It will be government. And by that I mean LOCAL government -- on the state and, more likely, city level. And where the bailout money Congress is considering would come mostly from loans the federal government is taking out from other nations, those mass transit systems would be built with money right out of the pockets of local residents and businesses. Which means either massive tax hikes, or massive service cuts. I wouldn't be surprised if the total bill nationwide exceeded the bailout tab -- and without anyone to pay it back (as slim as the chances of that happening are, anyway).
Even if Moore's magical mass transit system was built, it still wouldn't solve the main problem: The American people love cars and hate public transportation. Until the gestalt of our car-centric psyche changes, it won't matter how many light rail systems, streetcars, hybrid buses and ox carts are put on the road. There won't be enough people who switch to those modes of transit to make a difference.
Plus, mass transit is only truly sensible in high-density population areas -- i.e., large cities. Bear in mind, about half this nation's population lives in rural areas, where there is no point to installing a high-speed rail line. So his idea, at best, would only be practical in big urban areas, and would leave most of the folks in flyover country filing up their SUVs and Ford F150s just as often as ever.
You want to know what will truly cause the carmakers, and the car drivers, to change? A $5 a gallon fuel. Quicker and more surely than anything else, that would cause the American people to do two things: Abandon their gas-guzzlers in favor of fuel-sippers (as was happening over the summer when oil prices spiked), and prompt the Big 3 to retool and build more fuel-efficient cars that meet the demands of consumers, instead of the anemic subcompact nightmares that are all they seem to be capable of designing these days. This is not farfetched: I've got a 7-year-old VW Golf turbodiesel taht not only gets better gas mileage than anything Detroit makes today, if it was a schoolyard bully it could beat up any "economy" car they've made in the last 10 years.
The federal government could institute a price floor for gas and diesel, and impose a tax to make up the difference (though the oil companies, naturally, would immediately raise prices to get all that difference themselves); revenue generated by that tax could go to public universities for developing alternative energy technology.
Only by breaking the public's addiction to cars will we see an end to the resistance to mass transit and alternate fuels. Moore has the right idea, but the wrong solution.
1 comment:
He's wrong, at least in his solutions.
Insofar as his criticisms of the auto industry, and Congress' handling of their request for aid, Moore is right. It's a ridiculous dog and pony show that is not going to do anything but throw away public money.
But Moore's solutions are off base. For example, he says the Big 3 should be required to build only alternate fuel vehicles, buses, trains, etc., which in turn would produce many jobs building the infrastructure needed for increased mass transit. Well, who does he think is going to pay for that infrastructure? Not GM, Ford or Chrysler, that's for sure.
It will be government. And by that I mean LOCAL government -- on the state and, more likely, city level. And where the bailout money Congress is considering would come mostly from loans the federal government is taking out from other nations, those mass transit systems would be built with money right out of the pockets of local residents and businesses. Which means either massive tax hikes, or massive service cuts. I wouldn't be surprised if the total bill nationwide exceeded the bailout tab -- and without anyone to pay it back (as slim as the chances of that happening are, anyway).
Even if Moore's magical mass transit system was built, it still wouldn't solve the main problem: The American people love cars and hate public transportation. Until the gestalt of our car-centric psyche changes, it won't matter how many light rail systems, streetcars, hybrid buses and ox carts are put on the road. There won't be enough people who switch to those modes of transit to make a difference.
Plus, mass transit is only truly sensible in high-density population areas -- i.e., large cities. Bear in mind, about half this nation's population lives in rural areas, where there is no point to installing a high-speed rail line. So his idea, at best, would only be practical in big urban areas, and would leave most of the folks in flyover country filing up their SUVs and Ford F150s just as often as ever.
You want to know what will truly cause the carmakers, and the car drivers, to change? A $5 a gallon fuel. Quicker and more surely than anything else, that would cause the American people to do two things: Abandon their gas-guzzlers in favor of fuel-sippers (as was happening over the summer when oil prices spiked), and prompt the Big 3 to retool and build more fuel-efficient cars that meet the demands of consumers, instead of the anemic subcompact nightmares that are all they seem to be capable of designing these days. This is not farfetched: I've got a 7-year-old VW Golf turbodiesel taht not only gets better gas mileage than anything Detroit makes today, if it was a schoolyard bully it could beat up any "economy" car they've made in the last 10 years.
The federal government could institute a price floor for gas and diesel, and impose a tax to make up the difference (though the oil companies, naturally, would immediately raise prices to get all that difference themselves); revenue generated by that tax could go to public universities for developing alternative energy technology.
Only by breaking the public's addiction to cars will we see an end to the resistance to mass transit and alternate fuels. Moore has the right idea, but the wrong solution.
Post a Comment