I highlighted a few columns from the papers last Sunday that seemed to me to indicate a “tipping point.” That’s not the best term to use. It’s merely trendy and, perhaps, a bit optimistic.
Today I want to comment on How High Gas Prices Can Save the Car Industry, by Daniel Sperling and Deborah Gordon. The authors argue for a bailout of the auto industry. I have no opinion on that largely because I have no idea what the best course of action is. But I do agree with their suggestion for how to pay for the bailout: Use a fuel tax to create a price floor of $3.50 per gallon. Bailout or no, I think this is a good idea. Their reasoning:
Scarce American dollars, however, must be invested in the larger public interest. The best bailout is one that weans us off oil and sets us on a path to reduced carbon emissions. Congress and President-elect Barack Obama are not qualified to protect shareholders’ interests, nor can they build a better car. But they can ensure that society benefits from our investment in the automobile industry.
So the authors suggest a bailout with strings attached: 1. Produce affordable, fuel-efficient cars, 2. Stop fighting pollutions standards, and 3. Offer a certain fleet percentage of plug-ins and other “near-zero emission” cars.
Such a tax could also begin to pay for creating a 21st century public transportation infrastructure.
A painfully obvious assertion: Abstracting a bit from the authors’ contention, society should benefit from our investment of tax dollars (in anything). Certainly we stand to lose jobs and economic power if the American automobile industry fails. Preventing that from happening, however, should not be the only benefit we get.