Read other letters about this article

• Friday, December 12, 2008 09:11 AM

  What's best for the environment?

  There are a lot of ironies here. American car companies that for years have tried to substitute jingoism for quality products are sold out by the uberpatriotic GOP. The UAW being blamed for refusing to spontaneously cut wages to some arbitrarily, politically set level. The GOP confederacy being driven by the contributions of international firms.

  I was all for the bailout--and still basically am--but then a thought occurred to me, a heartless thought perhaps, but still a thought. What's better for the environment? If the Big 3 go bankrupt, the working class loses its cash and ability to be automotive (that it got from Detroit in the first place) and hence to burn carbon, if the global economy goes into deep recession / depression and oil consumption drops: is that better than trying to prop up the automotive age?

  I realize the recession is stifling green energy / recycling markets, too; but if we're honest, which is more important: curbing the levels of human exploitation or somehow 'greening' that consumption? We've go to do both, but I wonder if a civilization-ending depression isn't what we need now.

  Easy for me to say, I know, given I have a job that for now seems secure. Heartless on a personal level, and no doubt screwed up reasoning to enact any policy. But just as an abstract proposition, would the end of the Big 3 be good for the environment?

  —jwr_12 Read jwr_12's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel