green carjacking- continued

I took the liberty of emailing Mr. Ken Green with my comments, and was fortunate enough to receive a reply. It was short, without much substance, intended simply to pacify my interest:

Steve -

Thank for your note, this is clearly something you're passionate about, and something on which we'll have to agree to disagree. You might read this article in the Washington Post though, and observe that others are making precisely the same points I did in the article you referenced. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/24/AR2008112403211.html?hpid=topnews

Best,

Ken

Grateful to have an open conversation, I continued:

Ken, thank you so much for taking time to reply, and for the link to the article. I truly appreciate the effort. And yes, we will agree to disagree. No doubt analysts and experts will continue to make the same/similar points as you, just as many will see it from my side as well.

But rather than just disagreeing, do you think there is anything here worth discussing? I sure would like to know what exactly it is about your point of view that you are so attached to. And I don't see you proposing any solutions.

For instance, I make the statement that finding the point of "optimization", rather than extreme efficiency or extreme profitability, might be a more prudent approach. See attached .pdf

Honestly, I don't believe hybrids, as they are today, are anywhere near the answer. Heck, the carbon footprint of one Prius alone cannot be offset by it expected useful life. But it is a bridge to new technology and new consumer behavior.

Other AFVs have promise, but widespread adoption is far down the road. Additionally, the biofuel industry is still in its infancy and there is little understanding/consensus/policy yet of the best way to incorporate them.

For instance, with biodiesel, B2, B5 and B20 (the number represents the percent of biodiesel blended with petroleum) all represent a step in the right direction for a number of reasons- lower emissions, higher lubricity, displacing petroleum consumption, etc. But the infrastructure isn't there to support it yet (both producer, distributor and seller).

Same with ethanol. 10% ethanol is in just about all gasoline sold and can run in any gasoline engine with modification, but provides no real benefit in terms of lower emissions or reducing petroleum consumption. E85, on the other hand, is pretty hard to come by- and there are relatively few vehicles that can actually run on the stuff due to materials compatibilities issues. It also has such a dramatically lower energy content that it takes MORE to do the same job. So while it lowers emissions and reduces petroleum consumption, it is wasteful because more fuel is used to accomplish the same work. In my mind, these are extremes that make little sense in terms of optimal solutions.

However, studies reported by ethanol.org (http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/Press_Release_12507-1.pdf) show that 20 to 30% ethanol is a better blend for maximum performance, lower consumption, emission reduction and cost, and it can in most of today's cars without adverse mechanical effects.

Same with biodiesel. B20 to B30 is optimal in terms of infrastructure/equipment compatibility, maximum performance, lower consumption, emission reduction and cost.

These are the real short term fixes that will give us enough time to make the next leap in AFVs.

Rather than embrace these solutions, what are we to do... nothing? Status quo? Just because "the economy" is in the toilet?

One reason the economy is in the toilet is because current thinking and practices just aren't working. It isn't sustainable. And the system broke!

Are you familiar with the idea of predators growing so big, so dominant, that they eventually drive themselves to extinction by consuming everything around it and having nothing left to feed on? It's not a stretch to see that's where Detroit is headed.

Detroit needs to embrace this opportunity to optimize. To educate consumers with truths, not truthiness. To become socially responsible and sustainable. To tell the labor unions that enough is enough, and to stop the bleeding caused by unsustainable contracts (http://wsjclassroom.com/archive/06may/auto2_jobsbank.htm) and pension plans. To invest in retraining workers. To cross-train workers, maybe with other businesses/industries, to be useful/productive across multiple disciplines. The answers are out there!

Oh, and don't forget to implement a "pay for performance" initiative ACROSS THE BOARD- from the CEO to the janitor. Remove all unreasonably insane base pay and bonus structures, remove all golden parachutes, and let everyone know that if you suck at your job, you don't get paid at all.

You know, I'm thinking that all the money saved just by these corrective practices alone would be more than enough to pay for retraining/education, as well as universal health care for all workers- especially if the people were educated in eating healthier, getting more exercise and practiced a philosophy of proactive wellness rather than reactive illness management.

Great to have you as a sounding board, and I welcome any elaboration you might offer to discuss my comments.

Regards,

sg

Literally, less than 30 minutes later, he had gotten back to me with this:

Steve -

You raise many interesting areas of discussion, but I suspect that we come from such a diverse way of seeing the world, we could discuss these things for days, or weeks, without gaining any significant agreement. Still, in the interests of civil discourse, my world-view in a nutshell:

1) People seek to satisfy their basic needs, ala Maslow. They want housing, food, potable water, breathable air, education, healthcare, gainful employment, and so on. (Note that I did not say "pure air or pure water," such purity ranks far below other needs for most people in the world). Environmental protection generally ranks low on this list, and is really only affordable by people who are significantly wealthy, which is why real environmentalists want the world to get rich as quickly as possible, and not slow it down.

2) The best system yet developed to provide more people with more of those needs than any other according to the expressed will of the people is democratic capitalism. Yes, it has some unpleasant side effects, such as disparities of wealth, capacity for abuse, and so on, but to paraphrase Winston Churchill, Democratic Capitalism is the worst system except for all the other systems. Democratic Capitalism has generally swept the world, and the countries that generate the most wealth are invariably capitalist democracies. A few countries that generate wealth comparable to capitalist democracies are usually natural resource exporters, whose societies have far worse inequities.

3) For Americans to compete in environment of democratic capitalism, where many billions of people are willing to work for far less, we must be more efficient in other ways, which includes getting the cheapest energy available to us and using it up before going to any more expensive form of energy. The same is true for transportation (which is how we get goods to market, and how we provide the services people need to let them be more productive than workers in other countries). It's also true of our input goods, the food we eat, and everything else: low-cost makes for greater competitive advantage than high cost.

4) If the US raises its cost of energy, goods, and services compared to other countries we will lose competitive ability, and lose the very economic productivity that has allowed us to control pollution better than the developing world, and to set aside vast areas of parkland and wilderness rather than consume them, harming the many species therein.

So, bringing this home to our starting subject. The only people who know what car is right for them, to let them compete effectively as individuals, and for us as a society, are the individuals themselves, making their choices on a free market. The more the government interferes in that market, the less efficient the decisionmaking will be, and the less well off we will all be as a society. What the government should do in the car market is to get out. Rip out the subsidies to energy, transportation, and everything else, and let markets do what they do best: allocating resources to their most efficient use.

Best,

Ken

To which I replied:

Ken, YOU ROCK! Great conversation. I had a blast reading your world-view. See my comments accordingly, and we'll call it good. Have a wonderful Thanksgiving.

Kenneth Green wrote:

Steve -

You raise many interesting areas of discussion, but I suspect that we come from such a diverse way of seeing the world, we could discuss these things for days, or weeks, without gaining any significant agreement. Still, in the interests of civil discourse, my world-view in a nutshell:

1) People seek to satisfy their basic needs, ala Maslow. They want housing, food, potable water, breathable air, education, healthcare, gainful employment, and so on. (Note that I did not say "pure air or pure water," such purity ranks far below other needs for most people in the world). Environmental protection generally ranks low on this list, and is really only affordable by people who are significantly wealthy, which is why real environmentalists want the world to get rich as quickly as possible, and not slow it down.

Just as the supreme court evaluates our constitution in terms of it's implications on today's society, we must also look critically at all generally accepted theories/areas of study and interpret/analyze them in terms of today's world.

Maslow- physiological, safety love/belonging, esteem, self-actualization.

Just above the basic physiological needs ("air" and "water"), you'll find safety- which includes safety of resources and health. In this sense, I'd argue that environmental protection- "clean air" and "clean water"- actually ranks very high, as it falls within the second level of basic needs.

Additionally, getting "rich" fast is usually done "at any cost". And just like "efficiency" at any cost, these courses of action are simply not sustainable in the long run. In fact, far too many of the "rich" in our society have gotten rich by running businesses that, while they may have followed the letter of the law, they haven't truly protected the environment as much as they could/should have. And many have skirted environmental laws all together and done more harm than good. Some get caught, but some don't. Illegal dumping, water contamination, exposure to workers, etc. are all ways to cut cost, and get rich.

I agree, the market can help weed out these bad seeds, but not before the damage is done. That's the highest cost of all.

Further, these "rich people", when they become rich, tend to live to excess, which in it's very essence, is the antithesis of environmental stewardship. Real environmentalists don't want the world to get rich, they want the world to do the most good what they have, with what's available and more importantly, with what they can do without. A Consumption Conscience, if you will.

And worse yet, when people are "on their way" to becoming rich, they tend to live way outside their means just to give the impression that they have already achieved a level of status. This type of reckless behavior only perpetuates the lack of environmental concern.

2) The best system yet developed to provide more people with more of those needs than any other according to the expressed will of the people is democratic capitalism. Yes, it has some unpleasant side effects, such as disparities of wealth, capacity for abuse, and so on, but to paraphrase Winston Churchill, Democratic Capitalism is the worst system except for all the other systems. Democratic Capitalism has generally swept the world, and the countries that generate the most wealth are invariably capitalist democracies. A few countries that generate wealth comparable to capitalist democracies are usually natural resource exporters, whose societies have far worse inequities.

You have very little argument from me on these points. But free-market capitalism, democratic or not, will always benefit the individual over the society. Heck, just look at all the worthless junk consumers are programmed to consume! Bad for landfills, bad for pollution, bad for health, bad for the economy in the long run and thus bad for society as a whole. But someone is making a buck selling it!

We all want a certain standard of living. But everyone's definition of "standard of living" differs. Wealth generation is not the problem. The problem, or "unpleasant side effect", is the disproportionate wealth generation, led by the elite who tend to protect themselves by either buying protective legislation (tax law and otherwise) or buying lawyers to defend, without conscience or concern for anything other than protecting their own wealth.

People will be people, and human behavior is what it is. But at some point, a proactive effort must be made, led by both the top (our leaders- business AND government), as well as grass-roots efforts (local community organizers, NFPs, NGOs, etc), to promote and foster a real shift in our priorities. We've been programmed to consume (http://www.storyofstuff.com/)... why not reprogram with other areas of focus- such as conservation and optimization.

3) For Americans to compete in environment of democratic capitalism, where many billions of people are willing to work for far less, we must be more efficient in other ways, which includes getting the cheapest energy available to us and using it up before going to any more expensive form of energy. The same is true for transportation (which is how we get goods to market, and how we provide the services people need to let them be more productive than workers in other countries). It's also true of our input goods, the food we eat, and everything else: low-cost makes for greater competitive advantage than high cost.

You use the word "efficient", which is really a misnomer, as it doesn't tell the whole story. Efficiency, in it's essence, sacrifices something. In your example, we are sacrificing cleaner, renewable energy for "quick and dirty" energy just because it's cheaper. But in the end, something always suffers, and thus costs more.

Lets take human health, for instance. It may be "super efficient" in terms of the time it takes for a person to "have a meal" (eat a quick burger, fries and coke- 3 minutes in the drive thru, 5 to 10 minutes down the hatch), but at what human cost? Nutritional value is nearly zero, and counterproductive properties including high levels of fat, LDL cholesterol, bovine growth hormone and high-fructose corn syrup are off the scale. The "intangible" costs are that we suffer from obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and are generally unhealthy just because we've found a way to eat fast.

So, is it really "efficient" to eat like this? Of course not. Not unless we counterbalance the unhealthy effects with acts of healthiness- such as incorporating more nutritional elements into our diets, getting some exercise and eating in moderation. The problem is that not everyone takes the time to counterbalance the effects. It takes too much effort, and we are lazy.

In terms of cheap energy (coal, oil, etc), the "efficiencies" of low cost are more than out paced by the negative toll on the plant and human health. Not only are we not doing enough to counterbalance the effects, because "they cost too much", we aren't even doing the things that inherently cost less, such as simply reducing consumption.

How about this equation... how much acid rain, smog, asthma, autism and death, does it take to add up to, "we just can't do this any more"?

And you say, "use it up" before going to more expensive energy? WOW! Use it up? Since when has being "all-consumptive" ever led to anything good? Hunting/fishing to depletion/extinction, over eating, addictive use of drugs/alcohol, etc?

4) If the US raises its cost of energy, goods, and services compared to other countries we will lose competitive ability, and lose the very economic productivity that has allowed us to control pollution better than the developing world, and to set aside vast areas of parkland and wilderness rather than consume them, harming the many species therein.

Very interesting argument. However, I say we will lose competitive ability AND our standard of living (parkland and wilderness), regardless of costs compared to other countries abroad, if we don't reinvest in infrastructure, reduce our consumption, become more "frugal" in terms of energy usage, and demand cleaner, renewable energy. Basically, we need to accept responsibility for our presence on this planet.

We, as a people, are to a point in our evolution that we can no longer simply rely on financial profitability to drive our development. We must start doing things because they just need to be done. That doesn't lower anyone's standards, it raises everyone's.

Have you considered the amount of money spent on the cost of waging war, let alone the loss in human capital?

If the amount of $$$ spent on Iraq and Afghanistan (including wasted, lost, and over-billed by war profiteers such as Haliburton) would have been used as reinvestment on infrastructure at home, or even constructive foreign aid (rather than destructive), we would be able to help raise the bar across the board. I'm not talking about spreading-the-wealth, I'm talking about reinvesting in infrastructure and people in terms of education and standard of living.

So, bringing this home to our starting subject. The only people who know what car is right for them, to let them compete effectively as individuals, and for us as a society, are the individuals themselves, making their choices on a free market.

But... when things are a bad idea, we as a society have generally accepted principles, guidelines and standards of conduct, as well as laws, intended to keep individuals from harming themselves as well as others. Example: Even though we have an individual constitutional right to free speech, we can't/shouldn't yell "fire" in a crowded theater if there's really no fire, right?

Even though we have the right to drive whatever we want (as long as the vehicle is "legal" and road worthy), it is now generally accepted that 7mpg is a bad idea. Thing is, 7mpg was ALWAYS a bad idea. As individuals, we've told Detroit to give us better MPG vehicles. But they have refused to do it because they know we are so dependent on our cars and trucks, that we will buy whatever they make.

We may not drive them as much with high fuel prices, but we will still buy them. They know it. The bank on it.

So at some point, we need to have our elected officials speak for us, and demand accountability from industry. Anti-trust laws, labor laws, whatever. If tacking on environmental criteria to a financial bail-out is part of that, then good! Tax dollars being used responsibly for once. By mandating environmental guidelines, we as people are simply now telling Detroit, through our representative government, that we want them to stay on task and not buckle under the pressure of maximizing profit. Be innovative. Find a way to do it better. Representation by the people, for the people!

Just curious, were SUVs always so profitable, or is there a cost curve showing that they were in the red once upon a time. Or maybe the Big Three relied on "creative financing" to perpetuate the gorging, http://blogs.ft.com/gapperblog/2008/07/were-suvs-such-profitable-products-after-all/

And did we ever really need SUVs? Just because gas was cheap, did we need to guzzle as much as possible? The current condition/state of the auto industry is the best argument proving that this course of action, though profitable in the short run, was in fact a REALLY BAD IDEA over all.

The more the government interferes in that market, the less efficient the decisionmaking will be, and the less well off we will all be as a society. What the government should do in the car market is to get out. Rip out the subsidies to energy, transportation, and everything else, and let markets do what they do best: allocating resources to their most efficient use.

Finally, something we completely agree on! Government interference in any market can be counterproductive, especially if bureaucratic red-tape and unnecessary complications get in the way. But since we know government won't get out, we as individuals within this representative capitalistic democracy, need to demand accountability and push our leaders to mandate our interests in terms of policy and enforcement.

And again, "more efficient" or "less efficient"is relative to what is given up in the process. Do you really believe we're much better off as a society guzzling fuel, spewing emissions, and consuming everything in sight just for the financial profitability of it?

APATHY AND INDIFFERENCE IS THE REAL ENEMY. I THINK YOU AND I CAN AGREE THAT IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY, AS CITIZENS AND PEOPLES OF THIS LAND, TO SIMPLY HOLD ACCOUNTABLE ALL OF OUR LEADERS- BUSINESS, GOVERNMENT, SPIRITUAL AND OTHERWISE.

THAT'S THE REAL MARKET!

PEACE.

SG

And there you have it. I'm guess we didn't solve any of the worlds problems... yet, but at least a conversation like this is "out there" now, and hopefully causing other to pause for a moment, take stock in the BIG PICTURE, and decide for themselves just what kind of world they want to live in. sg

Detroit going Green

I recently read a short paper by Ken Green in the American regarding the "green movement" forcing it's way into Detroit. Below is my letter to Ken, including complete text of his paper, and my own comments in green:

Kenneth, you're a smart guy. Your resume and credentials are impressive. By all accounts, you are are an accomplished individual and it should stand to reason that you would be an insightful and reasonable person.

No doubt, I would be crazy to challenge you.

But after reading your commentary regarding the "green movement" shoving their agenda on Detroit... all I can say is that YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME! It's points of view like yours that will perpetuate ignorance and bad decisions.

Please see my comments in green below following each section of your article from the American:

Always eager to shove their agenda into a seemingly unrelated policy discussion, the green movement has joined the debate over bailing out the Big Three automakers.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to tie federal assistance to a requirement that Detroit make more fuel-efficient, eco-friendly cars. “Any car company that gets taxpayer money must demonstrate a plan for transforming every vehicle in its fleet to a hybrid-electric engine with flex-fuel capability, so its entire fleet can also run on next generation cellulosic ethanol,” demands New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. Writing in The Washington Post, Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs calls for a “major industry restructuring to position the United States to lead the world in producing cars that get 100 miles or more per gallon.” (Sachs is pinning his hopes on plug-in hybrid vehicles, “fuel-cell cars,” and the much-ballyhooed—but not yet seen or priced—Chevy Volt.)

In other words, at a time when the top Detroit automakers are desperate for financial aid, the federal government should force them to sell more expensive cars that are less profitable. Make sense to you? Me neither.

The auto industry has proven that left on it's own, it will make decisions ONLY in the best interest of the bottom line, with no regard for long term sustainable, good or even smart strategies. This has been, and will continue to be, at the expense of the auto worker, the environment, the consumer and the new global economy.

Now, you can argue that a corporation's only purpose is to post a profit for it's shareholders, and you would be right... in the old economy. In today's world, more than ever, business, government and society are increasingly interwoven and all are more demanding of accountability.

Specifically, the green movement- which I would argue is more of a revolution (as in, revolving, coming around again), is a new force in truly measuring the economy on a global scale. No longer is the simple (or complex depending on what type of bookkeeping and accounting loopholes are employed!) profitability of a corporation of primary concern.

Example: How can producing a $55,000 SUV that financially profits 30% in terms of cash, but macro economically (environmental, social and other such "costs") drives a stake into the heart of our being, be a good practice? Pollution, toxins, waste, landfill, fuel consumption and emissions- not just in the manufacturing level, but in terms of the entire useful life of the vehicle- are all costs that affect the economy. The true cost of that vehicle is nearly immeasurable. In looking at the big picture, it's easy to see that long-term sustainability is not present in this example.

It’s hard to see how greening Detroit will help car companies, car drivers, or American taxpayers. Greener vehicles are more expensive to make and bring in less profit than other cars. They cost more to finance, more to repair, and more to insure. Their sales depend heavily on tax incentives—which means that selling more of them will require more taxpayer dollars. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) estimates that plug-in hybrid vehicles cost $3,000 to $7,000 more than regular hybrids, even though the performance differences between the two models are slight, and the really fuel-efficient hybrids cost $12,000 to $18,000 more than the conventional brand.

As my grandfather, a life-long railroad engineer, father of 8, and die-hard republican- yet master of common sense, would say, "The horse shit is knee deep in there." Come on. Development of ANYTHING new (vehicle or otherwise) is ALWAYS more expensive until economies of scale can come into play. Common sense dictates that as technologies improve, costs drop and profitability increases. THAT'S WHAT DRIVES COMPANIES TO INNOVATE AND DO BETTER!

Additionally, I must remind you that the petroleum industry is- always has been- heavily subsidized with TAX breaks! Who pays for that??? The American tax payer!

So, just off the bat, greening Detroit will help the American tax payer by reducing our dependency on petroleum, and eventually driving the oil companies the way of the dinosaurs. Ironic, isn't it!

And if it takes tax incentives to cause a huge shift in our consumer behavior, then so be it. I seem to remember there was a HUGE tax incentive for buying SUVs over 6000lbs, which led to Detroit making BIGGER and BIGGER vehicles, and buyers buying MORE and MORE of them. The government made it easy for the consumer to buy gas guzzling, emission spewing, expensive to insure, monsters of the road. Why not for greener vehicles as well!

BTW, history has proven (not estimated) that big-ass SUV's cost $10K to $30K MORE than regular station wagons or trucks. So don't tell me price is an issue! American's will always pony up for whatever the want.

What about general maintenance? Service on a hybrid is understandably different than traditional combustion engine vehicles, so it's not an apples-to-apples comparison for sure. But lets take tires for instance- a set of rubber for an SUV can cost as much as $1600 or more. A Prius can be put back on the road for more than $1000 less! That's $1000 of disposable consumer income that is able to be REDIRECTED to another focus such savings, or other costs of living.

Consider the Chevy Volt. When it was first announced, the price estimate from General Motors (GM) was $30,000. That soon jumped to $35,000. Now GM’s president says that the actual price could be closer to $40,000, and that GM will still lose money on the sale. As for fuel cells, GM’s prototype fuel-cell car runs on hydrogen and emits nothing but water vapor. It’s hard to get greener than that—but it’s also hard to find a more expensive car: the prototypes cost $1.5 million to produce.

Consider the source... GM is the creator AND killer of the EV-1 electric vehicle. It is also the suppressor of battery technology development. GM once owned the patent rights to NiMH batteries, which showed great success and promise in terms of rechargeable technology, and then sold that to Texaco. Hummmm?

Additionally, I think your financial/monetary arguments are lame, especially in terms of R&D. R&D dollars are there for a reason- for innovation. PROTOTYPES ALWAYS COST MORE. And, you obviously haven't considered the R&D tax credits so heavily relied upon by corporations- especially the auto industry, yes?

But for the sake of arguments, have you bothered to compare green R&D spending with pharma, aerospace or IT R&D? I'm guessing it's all about the same, proportionally, in terms of the cost of prototype development and bringing safe, reliable products to market. (Oh, and I'm taking serious liberty in assuming that corporations are intent upon bringing safe, reliable products to market! Truly, history has shown that profit driven corporations will find ways to cut costs/corners- usually in terms of consumer safety- all the while paying lawyers obscene amounts of money to defend their decisions, and lobbyists even more to get congress to ease consumer protection laws.)

Hybrids are also more expensive to insure. Online insurance broker Insure.com shows that it costs $1,374 to insure a Honda Civic but $1,427 to insure a Honda Civic Hybrid. Similarly, it costs $1,304 to insure a Toyota Camry but $1,628 to insure a Toyota Camry Hybrid.

Oh, LAME again! Lets see, a $53 annual difference for the Civic? Are you serious? Less than one cup of coffee per week! And $324 per year additional for the Camry? Less than a dollar per day! The savings in fuel alone will make up the difference. I know people who spend more on dry cleaning and nail salon visits!

What explains the higher rates? According to State Farm, hybrids cost more to insure because their parts are more expensive and repairing them requires specialized labor, thus boosting the after-accident payout.

OK, let's forget for a minute that economies of scale will eventually come into play, and parts will become less expensive over time. You want us to assume that having smart, well trained, specialized labor is a bad thing? Green-tech jobs are the future! These will be the in-demand jobs that propel our labor force into a higher paid, higher standard of living.

Even conventional small cars are more expensive to insure than larger vehicles, because the former are involved in more accidents that produce extensive injuries. According to a recent article in The Wall Street Journal, the same driver would pay $412 more to insure a Honda Civic compact that gets 36 mpg on the highway than he would to insure a Honda CR-V (Honda’s mini-SUV) that gets 27 mpg.

You're right, after-accident payouts don't just include the costs of parts, materials and labor... they are really about bodily damage to the human being. But more people are smashed up by, and in, SUVs because of the perceived sense of invulnerability leading to higher risk taking and unsafe driving practices. Talk about high risk!

FYI, both Travelers and Allstate offer discounts for Hybrids. Shop around! According to Allstate's website, http://www.allstate.com/insurance-made-simple/hybrid-cars-cheaper-to-insure.aspx, "Hybrid cars aren't just cheaper to drive. Research shows that hybrid car owners tend to fall into the lower-risk category, which gives insurance companies the chance to offer them a lower insurance premium. This depends on the insurer, though, so be sure to ask when you get your quote."

I guess it all really depends on your point of view, and your spin. But at some point, we all need to make a decision of what we want, and what we are willing to live with. What are you willing to "sacrifice" to ensure a more balanced planet?

President-elect Barack Obama wants to give a $7,000 tax credit to Americans who buy a plug-in hybrid vehicle. He says that such a tax credit will help carmakers sell a million plug-in hybrids over the next seven years. If Obama is right, that means the government will spend around $7 billion in taxpayer money to promote the sale of plug-in hybrids. Replacing all American cars with plug-in hybrids would require tax incentives worth roughly $1.8 trillion dollars (assuming each car would cost the government $7,000).

I defer to my argument on the SUV tax break. THAT "INCENTIVE" WAS UP TO $75,000! How much did that cost the American tax payer!

If the green movement succeeds in carjacking the Detroit bailout, automakers will be forced to sell costlier and less profitable vehicles. Before allowing that to happen, policymakers should consider the consequences of higher car prices, namely, reduced sales, slower fleet turnover, and longer operation of aging vehicles that emit more pollution and break down more frequently than newer automobiles.

You really want people to believe that we should continue to produce status-quo, gas guzzling vehicles because the alternative will lead to reduced sales, slower fleet turnover, and longer operation of aging vehicles, etc? GET REAL! People still drive old cars today, and always will- both out of desire and necessity.

Other's buy new cars every year or two. Shouldn't they have reasonably priced, readily available alternative fuel vehicles to choose from? Then after a few years, they trade in, and thus starts a NEW supply of USED cars, AFV's this time, now available for buyers in the pre-owned market. WHAT A CONCEPT. It all has to start somewhere.

In fact, I'd argue that selling less and having slower fleet turn over (reduction in consumption?) is not necessarily a bad thing, especially if it means we have a chance to replenish resources, restore damage to the environment and renew/replace the infrastructure necessary to foster a more sustainable planet AND global economy.

Additionally, it will also FORCE Detroit to "get real" in terms of reorganizing into organizations that will survive and thrive in the coming decades.

They should also consider how higher car prices will affect Americans in the midst of a nasty—and possible long—recession. Finally, they should ask themselves: Is this really the way to make U.S. automakers more financially secure and globally competitive?

Arguing that we shouldn't enable a green agenda in Detroit because of your perceived short-term "pain", is absurd. The recession pain we are all feeling now, due to fast-and-loose financial business practices/greed, is just one example of why big corporations will never act in the best interest of society without a little encouragement.

If you are so worried about how higher car prices might affect Americans during this nasty, possibly lengthy recession, I say NOW is the best time ever to feel the pain- in the midst of ALL THE OTHER PAIN!

Ask yourself this... if you had to have a broken arm, leg, concussion, cuts and a coma, would you prefer being inflicted with multiple events (get beat up, fall down stairs, trip, wreck your car, etc) or just get it all over with in one big, bad trauma? The pain will be there no matter when each thing happens. But if it all happens at once, then the sting of one will help the sting of another not feel as intense. It will also give the WHOLE SYSTEM a chance to reset, regroup, make a full recovery and become stronger/better than before.

Don't you know, love shared is doubled, while pain shared is halved?

Now, I'm not arguing that the "green way" is the only way, or that radical tree-huggers have all the answers. But I will argue until I'm blue in the face that the status-quo cannot be the answer either.

And though I'm an idealist, I also realize that until we, as peoples of the earth, are evolved to the point where we ALWAYS act in the best interest of existence rather than self-interest, we will have to cope with greed vs. good. As a bridge to that more evolved, enlightened level of humanity, a more reasonable approach is to find ways to "optimize" our efforts in order to balance efficiency vs profit.

Attached is my "optimization curve" theory that shows the relationship of maximum benefit to the population in relation to extreme efficiency and extreme profitability. Basically, somewhere between each extreme is an optimized level of "enough" of each.

So, before ANYONE makes ANY decisions, we need to consider ALL of the consequences of continuing down the path we've been traveling. In my opinion, the "negatives" you present are nothing more than circumstances of transition.

I know you probably mean well, but I think you are truly misguided in your analysis. So, please, rethink your archaic, backwards, and generally "bad" ideas such that your readers might actually get through tomorrow with a better understanding of the things we really need to be doing in order to build a stronger future.

Sincerely yours,

sg

Steve Greene is a renewable energy activist, and biodiesel industry refugee

Kenneth P. Green is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.