Is selling HUMMER the morally correct thing to do? [w/POLL]
GM's potential sale of HUMMER to Tengzhong is probably good news for those interested in seeing the company return to independent and profitable status as quickly as possible (and also Rush Limbaugh). GM can shed the negative political association of the land monsters and get some money in return. There is actually a better option, says the New York Times' Ethicist.
The Ethicist frames the issue as figuring out which is more important: GM's emloyees and shareholders (i.e., the American public) or the environment. HUMMER vehicles are too heavy and use too much gas and, the Ethicist says, hazardous products should be regulated by the government. Now that the government basically owns HUMMER, there is "an opportunity to reconsider transportation policy, including from a moral perspective. Such an analysis urges not merely discontinuing the Hummer but also significantly reducing our reliance on the private car." Here's more:
Shutting down Hummer could even turn out to be cost-effective. The sale price, perhaps as much as $500 million, may well be dwarfed by the long-term costs - in environmental damage, in public health - to us taxpayers, G.M.'s majority owners, of keeping those three tons of steel on the road. [...] The restructuring of G.M. gives us a chance to avert the fate of being laid low by our own automobiles, the grand manifestation of America's industrial might. The first thing we do, let's kill all the Hummers.So, what's the right thing to do here?
Gallery: Detroit 2008: HUMMER HX Concept
[Source: The Ethicist]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
GoodCheer 1:47PM (6/09/2009)
Sell it, we need the cash, AND
1) As an independent company, if Hummer wants to sell vehicles in America, they'll have to meet a fleet average fuel economy. (well, at least the H3 will)
2) Also, with the price of gas at $2.60 and rising (again) I doubt sales of Hummers are going to be all that significant. http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/
3) I suspect much of the potential market for Hummers will be put off by buying from a Chinese-owned car company.
Reply
jake 1:58PM (6/09/2009)
I say sell for cash too. Sure they aren't the most environmentally friendly car, but it looks like Hummers are going to be niche vehicles at the way things are going, and as you mentioned they have to meet CAFE, so the environmental impact will be greatly diminished.
Throwback 1:58PM (6/09/2009)
I would like to see the writer of this drivel go and tell autoworkers and their families why kicking them to the curb is a good thing. The government has a moral obligation to repay their debts, it's not like we took some cash out of a sfatey deposit box to give to GM.
Reply
spence 2:15PM (6/09/2009)
Well, I'm a contributor to fuh2.com, so you can guess how I feel about Hummer. That said, the ethics would depend entirely on what the Chinese are going to do with the brand. Keep producing useless slab-sided bling-mobiles for the penilly challenged? Screw em. Build some amazing lightweight off road high mileage vehicle, a replacement for the sadly bloated Jeep? Bless em.
Reply
Tohe 2:22PM (6/09/2009)
Selling it would be moving the problem to another corner of the world, it is not like we live in a bubble. The EV1 was killed, now its time for the Hummer to go. As the Chinese noted, the HUMMER brand is simply unsustainable.
Reply
Vince 2:36PM (6/09/2009)
I am still puzzeled that the genius MBA's can't figure out that they could have the engineers put the Hybrid Tahoe powertrain into the Hummer, make the body panels out of lightweight materials and make them Eco-friendly...Why squander the brand equity when they could easily turn it into a green machine...Come on, how many batteries could they fit into that thing. Let the engineers loose on it and I bet they could put enough batteries into it to make it all electric...
Reply
DasBoese 6:46PM (6/09/2009)
Seeing as they're basically the same platform, yes, they could've done it, theoretically. They didn't do it because it wouldn't have made sense with the target demographic. There are two main groups of people who buy Hummers: Those buying one as a status symbol, and those buying one for its supreme offroad prowess. A hybrid drivetrain would make sense for neither of them, the first group doesn't care and the second doesn't need it.
Making it an EV is just not feasible. Hummers are large, heavy vehicles with the aerodynamic properties of a house. To get any decent range out of them would require batteries that cost more than the entire vehicle, not to speak of the weight and performance issues.
Bip-D-Bo 3:09PM (6/09/2009)
I would never buy a Hummer, but that is my preferential and moral decision. It is a sad day when the government that was founded on liberty now buys out companies and runs them. Our president is definately delivering on his promise of bringing change. Let's look at the other countries that have taken the road of Marxism before we decide if we want this change.
Reply
DasBoese 4:24PM (6/09/2009)
What a ridiculous load of bullshit.
I could never understand those people who are offended by the mere existence of a company, but aside from that...
Discontinuing the hummer brand wouldn't help the environment in any way. People who would have bought a Hummer aren't suddenly going to say "Oh, we should buy a Prius then", they're just going to buy some other SUV.
The only thing that shutting down Hummer would accomplish is giving people who hate hummer a warm fuzzy feeling in their pants.
Neither GM nor the American government have a moral obligation to take a multi-million dollar loss to make people feel good.
Reply
win39 5:16PM (6/09/2009)
Maybe they could not sell and just patent every variation of the Hummer. Then they could sue for patent infringement. They might make more in the long run. :-)
Reply
fnc 8:01PM (6/09/2009)
Sell it. Rappers and insecure yuppies who can't buy a Hummer will just get into something else equally as unaesthetic and ghastly. And as pointed out there's no reason the brand can't be slowly turned more towards an image of offroading through nature without destroying it, but that would mean needing to associate the brand with offroading to begin with...
Reply
Sean 11:05PM (6/09/2009)
Rappers (at least their avid fans around here) drive blinged-out Tahoes anyway. I only see yuppies in Hummers.
David 6:49PM (6/10/2009)
Jonathan Goodwin has stated here on Autogreenblog that he is capable of making a H3 get over 60 MPG on diesel. What would you drive a 60 MPG car that is comfortable and capable of transporting a family or drive a tiny little Prius?
Reply
Dustin 6:50PM (6/18/2009)
It takes a serious lack of ethics to suggest that a Brand Name is bad for the environment.
Is it not the EPA which is preventing the use of the much cleaner Diesel Engine, simply due to 'particulate emissions' (a.k.a. scam) and the fact that it has an odor? The EPA has been deliberately stifling small diesel engines for half a century, in spite of the fact that they emit next to zero toxic gasses compared to a gas burner... The reason Hummers suck down so much gasoline, is that a torque-making reliable engine able to use a variety of unprocessed bio-fuels with emissions so low they are almost immeasurable, is ILLEGAL: Diesel.
This just as the HX Concept is set to come to market? And NOT with a ~2L 4/5cyl turbo diesel? Research what happened with the EPA's dirty business with VW over their's...
Why is it that those who talk of ethics are usually the ones who haven't any?
Reply
Chris M 7:24PM (6/18/2009)
Dustin, you were misinformed. Diesels have a big problem with producing high levels of unburned hydrocarbons, soot, and NOx. NOx production in gasoline engines is lower to begin with, and they've long used catalytic converters to bring unburned hydrocarbon and NOx emissions down to acceptable levels. Only recently, with the development of special soot filters, has it been possible to equip diesels with NOx reducing catalytic converters and bring diesel emissions down to the minimal acceptable level. But even these "clean diesels" produce more pollutants than the equivalent hybrid or gas engine ULEV car.
Diesel was never banned, up until recently Diesel simply couldn't meet clean air emission standards. Now "Clean Diesels" meet the standards and can be sold, but the additional diesel pollution control equipment raises the cost, making hybrids much more attractive.
Dustin 7:48PM (6/18/2009)
None of the things you mentioned come out of the exhaust pipe of a diesel engine when run on the fuel it is intended to use; not fossil fuel. At least not in any volume a rational person could care about.
So-called 'diesel' fossil fuel was originally just a by-product of cracking gasoline, hell, it still is. But now, they sell this waste by-product instead of dumping it. And, the EPA requires any compression-detonation engine be tested only with this waste by-product as fuel. No compression-detonation engine can be tested for emissions compliance with its intended and proper fuel, or any alternative to waste fractions of gasoline at all.
Lets burn that too!? Failing the obvious "two wrongs don't make a right" perspective. No, lets FORCE it to run on junk, then ban it for not passing. Garbage in, garbage out...
My engine was designed and manufactured in the late 70s, has no electronics 'emissions technology,' moves a mid-sized SUV at highway speeds, gets 40mpg, and has emissions cleaner than a Prius (except for the pure carbon soot called 'particulate emissions' to make it sound like something bad when it isn't). It's also illegal, and I had to put the various parts together myself. Why can't Detroit build something like that? I just told you. It's illegal because of 'particulate emissions' which do no harm.
Science says it's a lie. I'm sorry you fell for it and think I'm the one who is misinformed.
Take a read through the EPA's regs sometimes. Even a high-school mechanical and chemical understanding will show you these people are total idiots just trying to dump as many flies in the ointment as they can. They bankrupted the auto industry so they could buy it and own/control that too.