Tom Laskawy -- whose blog Beyond Green is my favorite new blog that does not feature regular recipes -- makes an impassioned argument in favor of the GM bailout here. "We just elected the most progressive president since LBJ and now we want him to preside over the mass layoffs of up to three million workers at a cost to the government of, according to Bloomberg, up to $200 billion?" He asks. beyond the politics, he makes two points worth taking seriously:1) The GM Might Save The World Argument: "The Chevy Volt...is a huge deal. Not only will it be the world's first commercially-produced plug-in hybrid, but it will use a lithium-ion battery. Today's hybrid's use nickel batteries. Nickel mining is highly competitive with coal as the worst, most environmentally devastating, carbon-intensive industry. As a result, every hybrid drives off the lot carrying a 'carbon debt' which, according to Wired Magazine, takes over 45,000 of driving to 'drive off.' Lithium ion is the acknowledged future of battery technology, and GM would be first out of the gate. But better to spite our faces, right?" Just to add to that point, new technologies have long lead times. The Volt has been in development for a decade. Let GM liquidate and that work -- and any potential renaissance that could have emerged from it -- is trashed. Cohn and others swear that Detroit has been pumping money into next-generation technologies, and these cars needs a few more years to make it to the road. That may or may not be true, but it's not implausible.2) The Green Opportunity Argument: "Has anyone been paying attention? Mileage standards have been stuck at around 27mpg for 20 years and will only need to go up another 8mpg over the next 12 years. In one fell swoop we could revolutionize those standards, thus breaking a decades long political logjam...And let's not forget Democrat John Dingell, congressman from Michigan, who has 'protected' the auto industry from reform since long before most readers of this blog were born, and would jump on any bailout bandwagon, no matter what the industry was forced to do. Heck, he'd probably eat his Energy and Commerce Committee chairman's gavel if an amendment that so required was attached to bailout legislation, rather than oversee the destruction of the industry." Much like Democrats have begun arguing that the stimulus bill is more than crisis management -- it's a generational investment opportunity, it could be argued that the GM bailout is more than a hedge against job losses, it's a way to upend the political economy of climate change and force the auto industry into a constructive posture. If we're going to basically buy them, they can't be spending money to lobby against national priorities.Similarly, Yglesias clarifies his earlier post to say that "if you want to actually get these conditions, you need to position yourself as much more skeptical of the overall merits of this idea. Once we accept the notion that letting these firms go bankrupt is unacceptable, then we guarantee that no conditions will actually be met." I think that's half right. An auto bailout isn't such an inescapably obvious policy that you can simply assume its passage and begin gaming its politics. It's entirely possible that Congress passes nothing here, and Detroit collapses. That said, you do have to be very clear, however, what you mean by "bailout." Indeed, "bailout" is probably the wrong word. GM doesn't deserve a bailout. But it's possible that liberals could conceive of a deal that furthers both their interests and ours. And that's probably how it should be presented.Photo used under a CC license from Eric Castro. A DEAL, NOT A BAILOUT.
Tom Laskawy -- whose blog Beyond Green is my favorite new blog that does not feature regular recipes -- makes an impassioned argument in favor of the GM bailout here. "We just elected the most progressive president since LBJ and now we want him to preside over the mass layoffs of up to three million workers at a cost to the government of, according to Bloomberg, up to $200 billion?" He asks. beyond the politics, he makes two points worth taking seriously:1) The GM Might Save The World Argument: "The Chevy Volt...is a huge deal. Not only will it be the world's first commercially-produced plug-in hybrid, but it will use a lithium-ion battery. Today's hybrid's use nickel batteries. Nickel mining is highly competitive with coal as the worst, most environmentally devastating, carbon-intensive industry. As a result, every hybrid drives off the lot carrying a 'carbon debt' which, according to Wired Magazine, takes over 45,000 of driving to 'drive off.' Lithium ion is the acknowledged future of battery technology, and GM would be first out of the gate. But better to spite our faces, right?" Just to add to that point, new technologies have long lead times. The Volt has been in development for a decade. Let GM liquidate and that work -- and any potential renaissance that could have emerged from it -- is trashed. Cohn and others swear that Detroit has been pumping money into next-generation technologies, and these cars needs a few more years to make it to the road. That may or may not be true, but it's not implausible.2) The Green Opportunity Argument: "Has anyone been paying attention? Mileage standards have been stuck at around 27mpg for 20 years and will only need to go up another 8mpg over the next 12 years. In one fell swoop we could revolutionize those standards, thus breaking a decades long political logjam...And let's not forget Democrat John Dingell, congressman from Michigan, who has 'protected' the auto industry from reform since long before most readers of this blog were born, and would jump on any bailout bandwagon, no matter what the industry was forced to do. Heck, he'd probably eat his Energy and Commerce Committee chairman's gavel if an amendment that so required was attached to bailout legislation, rather than oversee the destruction of the industry." Much like Democrats have begun arguing that the stimulus bill is more than crisis management -- it's a generational investment opportunity, it could be argued that the GM bailout is more than a hedge against job losses, it's a way to upend the political economy of climate change and force the auto industry into a constructive posture. If we're going to basically buy them, they can't be spending money to lobby against national priorities.Similarly, Yglesias clarifies his earlier post to say that "if you want to actually get these conditions, you need to position yourself as much more skeptical of the overall merits of this idea. Once we accept the notion that letting these firms go bankrupt is unacceptable, then we guarantee that no conditions will actually be met." I think that's half right. An auto bailout isn't such an inescapably obvious policy that you can simply assume its passage and begin gaming its politics. It's entirely possible that Congress passes nothing here, and Detroit collapses. That said, you do have to be very clear, however, what you mean by "bailout." Indeed, "bailout" is probably the wrong word. GM doesn't deserve a bailout. But it's possible that liberals could conceive of a deal that furthers both their interests and ours. And that's probably how it should be presented.Photo used under a CC license from Eric Castro. 
