Posted by "Corinne" in the comments section of a recent post:
The government should realize that being environmentally conscious is the way of the future by giving MUCH LARGER subsidies to people deciding to by alternative energy fueled cars. No American is going to agree to spending 40,000 when a car can be bought for 12,000, especially in this economy. Any lefty illuminati who thinks otherwise needs to take a walk to the middle class area of their town and have a good long look around.
I decided to single this comment out because I imagine it reflects the sentiment of a large segment of the population -- and because it is profoundly wrong.
The most disturbing part of this is Corinne's advocacy of larger subsidies than what are already in place -- to the tune of thousands of dollars. Now, if you can accomplish the same result result for $12,000 (the conventional car) as $40,000 (a car such as the Volt) then you are a fool for choosing the latter. It is essentially a waste of $28,000.
If the government subsidizes the purchase of such vehicles then it is promoting a policy that makes us poorer. Money spent on such subsidies can't be spent elsewhere. And remember, that is money that comes out of our collective pockets as taxpayers.
Now, yes, you can argue that by using such alternative energy vehicles that we realize certain benefits such as cleaner air and perhaps even improved national security by reducing the funds sent to countries such as Saudi Arabia. I accept this. But is the amount benefit really equal to the amount of the subsidy? Is the marginal difference in the air quality or national security really worth thousands of dollars? I think that is a hard case to make.
The proper course here is to identify the problem -- in this case carbon-based energy -- and simply tax it. Figure out how much in environmental and national security each gallon of gas imposes and set a tax at that amount. Then people can pick the choose that is best for them given those fuel costs.
I get the impression that some people aren't really interested in performing cost-benefit analysis, however, they simply want people to change their lifestyles economics be damned. They have decided that environmentally-friendly technoloy is the wave of the future even if it doesn't make any sense. If people want to make us account for the costs of our action to the environment then I have no problem with that, but too many of them simply want to reduce our choice and freedom.
1 comment:
You are absolutely right. The only honest way to limit our use of gasoline is to make it more expensive, which the government can do by taxing it - witness all the conversations around alternative energy when oil was at $125 a barrel.
The problem the government faces is that proponents of "green technology," especially in cars are a relatively small group of (mostly) wealthy people a.k.a. a special interest group. The rest of America is happy to go along with these people as long as it doesn't hit their wallets. However, all you have to do it look at the recent loud demands for domestic oil drilling to see that when Americans face higher costs as a result of this special interests green agenda the American public starts to question the wisdom of political correctness.
If the enviro lobby and its allies in Congress believe they have an honest case that stands up to scrutiny then they should be willing to propose a carbon tax and convince the American public it is worth pursuing. The fact that they do not says volumes about their honesty.
This is not to say that pursuing and non-carbon energy future is not worthwhile. It just means that policies such as CAFE standards, tax subsidies, and bailout dollars for the Big Three contingent on building green cars people won't buy is dishonest in that it attempts to satisfy a wealth left-wing special interest while hiding the true cost from the American public. It is also an extremely inefficient way of doing things.
Post a Comment