Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

March 5 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew

Close

New on NRO . . .

Planet Gore

The hot blog.


Print   |  Text
 

Obama Central Planning

Conservative watchdogs have been barking that automakers like GM — in order to grab eye-popping $19,300-per-car incentives to sell Chevy Volts in China — “must share their technology with Chinese counterparts and produce the vehicles over there” (my respected colleague Paul Chesser, National Legal and Policy Center).

I admire their doggedness, but they are missing the real scandal. To quote the classic Hollywood line: “Forget it, Jake, it’s Chinatown.”

The Volt deal is business. It’s how deals are done in the fastest-growing market in the world. If GM is to continue growing in its most profitable market (GM is #1 in China), it must do 50-50 business with a Chinese partner just as every other American company does.

No, the real scandal here is how much U.S. industrial policy under Obama now mirrors Communist China central planning.

After all, China’s $19-grand subsidized slap at market capitalism is, incredibly, envied by a U.S. president who hands his own $7,500 electric-car subsidy to America’s upper class and wastes national resources to buy expensive electrics for his government minions. This is the stuff of despots, not democrats.

The offense here is government picking industries over consumers. Consider the Obama Energy Department’s extraordinary, ChiComm-like announcement this week that it is pushing ahead with its green five-year plan despite the Solyndra scandal:

“There’s one energy challenge that outweighs all the others in terms of economic, military and ecological importance. We’ve got to kick our reliance on oil. And to do this we’ve got to build a lot of electric cars,” writes the administration.

What’s next? Government plans to build TVs? IPads? Washing machines?

“As a result of this Review, we find that DOE is underinvested in the transportation sector relative to the stationary sector (energy efficiency, grid, and electric power),” continues the directive. “Yet, reliance on oil is the greatest immediate threat to U.S. economic and national security, and also contributes to the long-term threat of climate change. Barack Obama’s energy goals include reducing oil imports by one third by 2025 and putting one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. The most important role of the DOE is investing in research to develop hybrids, plug-in hybrids, battery-electric, and fuel cell vehicles.”

This Gosplan drivel is also a straw man.

Contrary to Obama’s planners, oil is not a national security threat. Our ally Canada, after all, is America’s largest oil exporter. Where countries pose a security threat — Iran, for example — we simply outlaw trade. In fact, if the administration believed its own con, it would be helping develop — rather than hindering — America’s own bountiful domestic reserves of cheap, efficient, job-producing oil in the West and offshore.

But like China, Obama’s central planners are driven by ideological ends. The problem isn’t GM. Take away the governments of China and Obama, and GM would be producing unsubsidized cars that consumers want.

New on Planet Gore. . .


COMMENTS   5

EXPAND  

   09/29/11 21:45

"reliance on oil is the greatest immediate threat to U.S. economic and national security, "

No, government regulation of "big hunks" of our economy is a much greater threat. Millions died in USSR and China proving it in the last century.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   09/30/11 13:51

Yes, all we readers of NR know that government subsidies do the opposite of what is intended...but, millions of American's believe the opposite...so, where perception is reality, what else is there to do?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
vince2517
   09/30/11 14:39

What is always missing from the other side in this debate is the explanation of where the power will come from to run electric cars. When I've had this discussion and asked where the energy would come from, you'd be surprised,, maybe not, how many times the answer comes back, "from the plug". The present administration is also doing their darnedest to shut down huge swaths of the current generating capacity, and stand firmly in the way of new capacity coming on line.

I am sure someone has figured out by now how many acres of solar panels it would take to generate enough power to run a normal car for a day, I haven't, but know it is not a pretty answer aesthetically or economically.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/03/11 21:13

Everyone should drive an electric car at the same time that we drive the coal and nuclear industries out of business. Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant those lefties are!

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/04/11 10:22

a 3,000 sq foot home in the Southwest (think 'air conditioning') would likely require about 150 square meters of solar panels to supply most of its power (think about how big a footprint that is - and won't it look lovely on your roof). That would require about a $200,000 cost for the solar panel system to be installed (along with batteries and inverter, etc). Then, you have to keep dust and snow and leaves off the panels, so that's constant ongoing maintenance (on your roof - is every home owner going to get on their roof 3 times a week?). You can't have trees casting shade on the panels, so bye bye trees that are close to the house. When the batteries start to lose efficiency and effectiveness (as all rechargeable batteries do), guess what? - you have to fork over big bucks to have those batteries replaced by a technician. And of course, your home owners insurance is going to go up, because of the risk of damage to the solar panels by hail, etc. And don't forget the ordeal required to replace the shingling on your roof - first you'll have to hire solar panel technicians to remove the solar panels so the roofers can get to the roof ... I'm sure that won't be expensive or create lots of potential risk for damage to the panels, the circuitry, etc.

But, hey, you'll save enough in electricity costs to pay for the entire exercise in only about 50 years!

Other than that, it sounds like a fabulous idea.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact