Not exactly earth-shattering news, but that's the consensus that came out of the Green Car Conference held in Detroit.
It's been reported that President-elect Barack Obama is seeking a "point person" for his administration on auto industry issues (Obama considering an 'Auto Czar'), "somebody who would have the authority to bring about reforms that would lead to an economically viable auto industry."
The key question that was asked was what does the auto industry need to make sustainability a workable business model? Here are some (rather predictable) responses from several attendees:
> A "Manhattan-project"-type initiative to drive auto-industry research for fuel efficiency solutions, develop new technologies and create corresponding jobs. --Dave Vieau, president and chief executive of lithium-ion battery developer A123Systems (lithium-ion battery developer)
> A focused and strong national energy policy. --Sue Cischke, Ford Motor Co. group vice president-sustainability, environment and safety engineering
> Invest in research and use incentives to build customer demand for high-efficiency vehicles. --Jaycie Chitwood, senior strategic planner-advanced technologies department, Toyota Motor Sales USA.
> Use the auto-industry crisis as a springboard for fundamental industry change and institute a fuel-economy based CO2-tax modeled on those used in many European countries. --Patrick Oliva, corporate vice president-prospective and sustainable development, Michelin Group
> Develop a "cohesive" energy policy - a complete, broad, universal energy policy from A to Z. And institute a "floor" price for gasoline and diesel fuel to guard against what may be happening right at this moment: plunging fuel prices marginalizing the business case for developing alternative fuels, more-efficient powertrains and alternatives to the internal combustion engine. --Tim Manganello, chairman and CEO, BorgWarner Inc. (presently most famous for innovating the dual-clutch automated manual transmission)
Here's Green Car Advisor's take: Green Car Conference: 'We Need a National Energy Policy'
cwc1 says:
06:37 PM, 11/14/08
Such grandiose suggestions show that those eggheads don't know what they're talking about. They don't know what they think they know and aren't the smartest people in the room.
One size does not fit all. Leave the decisions in the hands of consumers, where they can choose and be responsible for the outcome, whether good or bad. It has worked for us for 230 years, unleashing creativity and prosperity for our country. It is government intervention which causes so many of the problems, such as the ones the industry are having now.
If you build it, they will come...when it's something that people want to buy.
estreka says:
12:03 AM, 11/15/08
Yes yes, these are all fine solutions. But how do they propose to fund them?
The gas tax is the ultimate solution, but no politicians are willing to stick their necks out. Gas prices are so low right now that a consumer backlash would be marginal at most. If we implemented a 3 cent gas tax, we would return $11.7M/day.* That comes out to $4.27B/year. This isn't even including diesel which should not be taxed.
A gas tax would not only push consumers toward more fuel efficient vehicles, but the shift in the demand curve would sap OPEC profits, reducing our energy dependence. It would also reduce the aggregious profits oil companies have been returning each quarter. Would you be willing to give $2 each month to do all this**? I sure would.
* - Numbers based off Energy Information Administration's (EIA) figure of 390M gallons/day.
** - Assumes 17 gallons/week.
cwc1 says:
12:37 PM, 11/15/08
An increased gas tax would add to the already egregious profits that Washington makes from fuel taxes - each quarter, each year, and each decade from consumers. Their profit per gallon is already much higher than the oil companies'. Why shouldn't oil companies profit from their business, especially considering the huge costs and hurdles that are involved to get oil out of the ground, refined into motor fuel, and delivered all over the country to stations right in our neighborhoods? If the profit is punished, the incentive to make it is reduced, and thus that is less product available for everyone, no matter what the product or service.
Would our government use the increased fuel tax revenues wisely? Do Washington politicians ever spend other peoples' money wisely? Why would we expect different behavior and results by having them confiscate even more of our earnings? Because different supposed "experts" promise us that they're going to do a better job than past generations of bureaucrats?
This is why our Constitution limits the power of government, which works much better when we're willing to actually abide by it and elect leaders who believe in those principles and have the courage to follow them. Perhaps we could give our Constitution to some emerging republic in the world, since we're not using it anymore.
What have the high fuel taxes done for the Europeans? They're still dependent on oil, even at 7 - 8 dollars per gallon of fuel. It has resulted in more fuel efficient vehicles being sold there than here, but I am not willing to give up more of our hard fought freedom to an elite group of officials who think they know what's better for everyone than individual people and families do. If we want more fuel efficient vehicles, we will buy them, when market conditions warrant it. And that is happening now -- so why do we need government to step in and try cattle prodding us along so they can muck it up further?
(Yes, this may sound like a rant, but these are crucial points that don't get much discussion. I don't accept the premise that our government needs to do more. It needs to do less; much less. We will never get these freedoms back once we give them up. People never give up power willingly once they have it - thus, neither do governments.)
ateixeira says:
11:21 AM, 11/18/08
I like the idea of a floor price for gas. Set it at around $2 per gallon. Better yet, use the funds collected to fund auto-industry R&D.
The key here is to keep the money in the transportation segment, not pork.