|
I'm a believer in the market economy, but in this case I agree with Lutz and I think the market should be manipulated a little. Actually I think the tax should be higher than that so it can have a real impact.
"dont' mess with the natural market forces" is a good argument; but unfortunately it is nowhere near real right now; there are already so many "un-natural" forces in the market that we're kidding ourselves to think differently.
Yes I know this is not a popular position in this community!
We need an incentive to move toward more efficient vehicles. If we were paying $10/gallon like they do in Europe, we'd probably be driving less and driving smaller cars like they do in Europe. If you want an expensive extravagent toy that burns a lot of gas, fine, but it's going to cost you. (no I don't think we should go to $10/gallon!)
One important caveat -- the tax revenues should be directed specifically toward energy projects, not go into the slush fund to pay for entitlement programs-- to reduce our dependency on foreign energy, develop new energy technologies (can you say nucular? ;-) ) improve air quality, etc. etc. etc.
Actually I think Lutz is being very forward-sighted when he says this; it might not be in GM's short term interests, but long term it should be a move in the right direction. This is usually said to be a trait of Japanese managers, rare for US executives who are usually accused of being interested only in short-term profits.
I'm not sure I even believe in human-caused global warming; I think it's about 50/50 that it has nothing to do with human activity; but that 50% risk is high enough that we should try to do someting about it regardless.
Also I have my doubts that electric cars are actually more energy efficient or better for the environment when you add it all up.
but we still need a reason to look for other solutions besides burning more gas
|