Thomas L. Freidman is at it again. After earning the American auto industry's ire by portraying Detroit automakers as lazy, greedy, foot-dragging Luddites, the New York Times columnist has some advice for aspiring Indian motorists: don't do it. Spooked by the potential environmental impact of a new (if still theoretical) $2500 car, Friedman's urging India to look at wasteful western ways and "leapfrog us, not copy us." Apparently, it's common sense calling. "Just as India went from no phones to 250 million cell phones — skipping costly land lines and ending up with, in many ways, a better and cheaper phone system than we have — it should try the same with mass transit." To that end, Friedman's championing the ideas of Sunita Narain, the "dynamo" who directs New Delhi's Center for Science and Environment: "India can't ban a $2,500 car, but it can tax it like crazy until it has a mass transit system that can give people another cheap mobility option." Friedman tries to recruit our support for his Indian anti-car stance by suggesting that it's one of those win-win deals. "An India that makes itself the leader in both cheap cars and clean mass mobility is an India that will be healthier and wealthier. It will also be an India that gives us cheap answers to big problems." I'm confused. While it's easy (enough) to imagine an Indian mass transit utopia, how exactly would that help us?
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
“We have no right to tell Indians what cars to make or drive”
Exatly. So kindly shut up. Instead of telling “third world” india to take the lead in developing green solutions, why dont u try and tell your own politicans and public to develop green technology. The whole mess in which the earth is in has been primarily contributed by the industrialized and developed countries. So they should be at the fore front of change and spend the money needed for research.
Apparently he lives in a 11,400 square foot house; I assume its heated/cooled by solar panels and windmills…………….
In one respect, it doesn’t matter. There simply aren’t enough roads in India to support a big increase in the number of cars. I live in Manhattan and having recently experienced the traffic in New Delhi (which is even worse), I can’t see how even a modest increase in the number of cars could be sustained.
But to answer the question, all those $2500 cars are going to burn one hell of a lot of gasoline. With supply being somewhat inelastic, we Americans might soon find ourselves waxing nostalgic about $3/gallon gas.
It isn’t the worst idea, in theory. Seriously, the next 30 years or so are going to be like an environmental A-bomb went off, with China and India taking all of America’s money and buying cars with it. If they can build a $2500 car, which I doubt, it’ll be a rattletrap deathmobile hardly warranting the protection of passionate pistonheads. Public transit rules, especially when you have a billion people smashed together.
“Apparently he lives in a 11,400 square foot house; I assume its heated/cooled by solar panels and windmills…………….”
Yeah, but like John Edwards, he has worked hard to get that house. And if it’s okay for Al Gore, then dammit, I say he should move into a bigger one.
The NY times distribution center in Edison, NJ (NJTP Exit 10) has a brand new sign: “AVAILABLE”.
Walter Duranty, Jason Blair, a rich tradition of lies.
Friedman’s right. They don’t have the space or the money to pay for the infrastructure they’d need to put even a fraction of their population into private vehicles. And of course, the pollution resulting from it would be horrendous, particularly if they avoid the costly emissions controls that you find in western countries.
Perhaps worst of all, put all of India on the road, and you’ll have more than three United States’ worth of people competing for the world’s supply of oil. (Let’s remember that India has more than one billion people.) Does anyone who has given this any thought honestly want that to happen?
It’s a poor article but the size of Friedman’s house is relevant how?
The size of his house is relavant if he doesn’t practice what he preaches. You can’t tell everyone to cut back on your lifestyle to “save the planet/children/snail darters/whatever” if you don’t alter you own lifestyle. Soup Nazi says “No more private jets for you!”.
Why make the assumption this about “saving the planet”? Friedman is an economist. The inevitable result of a doubling of the number of cars in India in the next few years would be a breakdown of the infrastructure upon which so many people depend. As it is now, overloaded buses compete for scant road space with an endless stream of Tatas, Honda Hero motorbikes, bicycles, rickshaw cabs, lorries and livestock. Adding more buses won’t cure the problem. Building more roads is a monumental task given the demand for land and the over-dependence on manual labor. As the infrastructure become disfunctional, India will lose some of its competetiveness and most regular Indians will suffer the consequences.
I spent six weeks in New Delhi this past year and, believe me, they have some very serious problems. Taxing the lower-cost cars to slow their proliferation while providing money to expand the infrastructure seems like a good idea.
In the end, there are two kinds of taxes. The first is actively imposed. In a democracy, the purpose, duration and form thereof can be adjusted by the people being taxed. The other kind of tax comes from market forces. As unfettered demand increases, commodity prices rise. Either way, the price goes up. The difference lies in where the money goes. Don’t tax these cars? Gas prices will have a moderating effect. Tax these cars? At least some of the revenue could go to building infrastructure in India instead of artificial islands and indoor desert ski resorts in the oil producing states.
@bunkie
the author in the article clearly makes this an issue about “saving the planet”. Hence the rant.
@Pch101
First of all India follows Euro emission standards for automobiles so it is not accurate to say that we dont have the western standards. Secondly, more people competing for oil supply ? Yes. So what ? Isnt it better to reduce US demand of oil rather than try and force other countries to reduce their oil supply while US itself despite having a much higher income level is unwilling to drive a small car rather than a heavy gas guzzling SUV ? Is that honestly justified ?
Isnt it better to reduce US demand of oil rather than try and force other countries to reduce their oil supply while US itself despite having a much higher income level is unwilling to drive a small car rather than a heavy gas guzzling SUV ?
You want an honest answer? No, it isn’t.
And there you have it. The planet cannot afford to have three more United States (or for that matter, 2 EU’s) worth of oil consumers added to the roster. And that doesn’t include the 1.2 billion Chinese and everyone else who wants in on the festivities.
The United States cannot possibly reduce its consumption enough to give India and everybody else what it would need to live a western lifestyle. Even if everyone who had a Suburban or F-150 swapped it for a Fit or a Yaris, it still wouldn’t be enough, because the entire lifestyle is based upon petroleum consumption.
It may not be fair, but that’s reality. Barring some alt-energy breakthroughs (that I wouldn’t count on), if nations such as India start driving and burning too much, then it’s just a matter of time before the world finds itself at war (again) to control whatever is left of the oil that all of us need. Even if you don’t care one whit about the environment, we should all want to reduce our consumption just so we don’t accelerate the process of this not-exactly-unlikely occurrence.
The United States cannot possibly reduce its consumption enough to give India and everybody else what it would need to live a western lifestyle. Even if everyone who had a Suburban or F-150 swapped it for a Fit or a Yaris, it still wouldn’t be enough, because the entire lifestyle is based upon petroleum consumption.
Maybe its true. But as an Indian, if i see US/Americans telling other countries to reduce oil consumption by putting prohibitive taxes while US itself continues to buy SUVs and is unwilling to put any kind of measurable goals for its own industries, fat chance i will even pay a second look. As they say, charity begins at home.
I wonder if Freidman’s even been to India.
You’re not gonna get India’s growing middle class to share an enclosed space with the masses of poor people who roam India’s urban jungle. Hell, it took decades for Indians to buy cars and not hire a driver to go with.
This reminds me of Detroit and their downtown bum transport. It doesn’t work, at least when I was there in 1999. You can’t stop a certain class of people from riding mass transit, and the middle class knows it. They’ll line up around the block for that $2500 car.
I agree with Friedman. Everyone outside of the United States should not be allowed to have cars at all. That’s OUR oil they’re using.
Friedman is an economist.
Ack!! For the record bunkie, Thomas Friedman is NOT an economist, he’s a journalist. Just spouting ill-conceived opinions about economic subjects in a newspaper column does not make you an economist, any more than cussing at the TV on Sunday afternoon makes you an NFL head coach.
You may be confusing him with fellow annoying pundit Paul Krugman — who used to be an economist once upon a time before he had a stroke and became retarded.
Freedom means freedom of mobility. One of the prime reasons I will not give up driving.
But if one were commuting to a job with regular hours, then mass transit could work, as say, it does for NYC.
Instead of the Indian govt imposing prohibitive taxation on inexpensively priced cars, it might consider introducing (I cannot believe I’m typing this) toll/congestion charges for entry into downtown areas. This charging must be considered only after a capable, dependable alternative (mass) transit system is operational… necessarily privately managed.
Privately? One should recall how efficiently the Bombay bus system ran, when operated by the Tatas. Most other metros in India have absysmal government run bus services — with humans packed like sardines riding within deathtraps.
On taxation: the Indian car industry was, for the longest time, encumbered by onerous excise duties on cars; this made almost any car quite the inaccesible luxury for most Indians, well into the ’80s. I do not want India to retrogress into that pit of shared human misery that Nehru’s socialism rended it into.
Let Indians have their efficient, inexpensive cars. Let them have the freedom to travel their vast country on their own schedules; allow them to commute to work on well-managed transit systems… while retaining their freedom to ingress transit-serviced metro areas, on occasions that might demand it, with a moderate congestion charge that discourages frequency to the point of regularity (no hi-fibre jokes, please).
Friedman… and you other limousine liberals and the rest of the New Duranty Times luminaries… hands off India, please. Utopia never was and never will be.
“….who used to be an economist once upon a time before he had a stroke and became retarded.”
A stroke would make a Keynesian Economist smarter.
Ethan has a great point. Friedman is an ass (I know several people that know him. I have seen the signs watching him talk. I have read his stuff. We all agree, he is an ass).
How do we solve the problem fairly? He who pays wins. As the price goes up for gas, everyone will use less and pay more. Pretty much to the point that developing countries won’t be able to play. It’s a shame, but NO OTHER WAY WORKS BETTER.
So maybe in addition to being an ass, Friedman has a point. India, and all countries, might want to consider that domestic supplies of energy are the only reliable ones.
Burn it if you got it, but realize the price is going up, way up. Is that a big deal. Really, no, but people will make it one. Shall we discuss all the stupid liquids that we have that are much more expensive – bottled water, coke, beer, wine, moisturizer…
I will start worrying about gas when it gets more expensive than automobile depreciation. The solution likely won’t get here until the problem gets worse.
All the schemes to tax gas and spend money on research are just that, schemes. Schemes to get the money from the many and consolidate power in the few.
Indians and Chinese have as much desire and right to live a modern middle class lifestyle as anyone else. Higher gas prices worldwide is the price we all have been and will continue to pay