I've noted the fuss and bother over the official launch of the Tata Motors Nano in India a few days ago. The car, reputed to be the cheapest in the world, will also be on sale in Europe and the US in due course, once a model is developed that conforms to local safety and emissions regulations.
However, as soon as the Nano was announced, officials with the United Nations and other world bodies began to make noises about how it 'wasn't the answer' to Third World traffic problems. Witness, for example, the reaction of Dr. R. K. Pachauri, head of the UN committee on climate change, and winner (with Al Gore) of the Nobel Peace Prize:
“This is not the transport option for the country of a billion people many of whom cannot afford to buy even a bus ticket,’’ said Dr Pachauri.
"This car was not going to drive away two wheelers from the road, as has not happened in case of Maruti 800 too," he said. He, however, sought to clarify that he had nothing personally against the car but against its usage and demanded more user charges and taxation on cars.
At the launch of the Nano earlier in the day, Ratan Tata had said Pachauri need not worry as the car would meet strict pollution control norms.
“I am not blaming the manufacturer for it, but would certainly say that they should better concentrate on investing in public transport,’’ Dr Pachauri said.
To a question, he said it would be wrong to think that the Tata car would be a substitute for two wheelers. It would be just an add-on to the chaotic traffic conditions.
Dr Pachauri blamed the policy makers for the increasing road congestion in Indian cities and towns, and said users of cars should be made to pay for the road space they were using. Giving the example of central London, he said the imposition of heavy user charge on those entering that part of the city had yielded results, so there was no reason that similar measures in Delhi should fail.
Note the institutional socialism, even racism, inherent in his attitudes. The individual commuter doesn't matter to him at all. The fact that there isn't, never has been, and (probably) never will be an adequate public transport service, so that the commuter has to use his own transport or get nowhere, is lost on him. Further, the 'right' of the authorities to impose 'user charges' on those who have no public transport alternative is completely unquestioned. Oh - and the current accident rate, deaths and injuries to those on two wheels rather than four, is also unmentioned. The Nano has the potential to significantly reduce this toll, by making commuter transport more affordable and safer: but you won't hear the bureaucrats and One-Worlders acknowledge that. All they want is a system that promotes central government authority at the expense of individual freedoms and individual choice. Heaven forbid that you should have any more freedom than they're willing to (reluctantly) grant you!
Peter
The typical politician who can't see a constituent problem that can't be turned into a revenue enhancement, without actually solving the problem.
ReplyDeleteI think the Tata is a great affordable car for lower-income folks to get around in. Unfortunately, I think it's too stripped down to really be a success in America (and I hope I'm wrong). Too many people want to appear wealthier than they truly are, and would likely snub the little car for its lack of luxuries and status. Go to the hood some time and see who's on gov'mint assistance and driving around in a shiny Escalade.
ReplyDeleteSometimes I get so tired of listening to beauraucracies bilk the public to maintain their existence. This must be one of these days, as I can only sadly nod in agreement.
ReplyDeleteI will predict that the Nano never hits American shores. We have a system made very specifically to keep new players out of the game. Our emissions requirements make significant engine modifications necessary, causing drastic sacrifices in fuel efficiency (check out mileage comparisons between US-market Smart Cars and those sold in the rest of the world as an example), and ultimately make it too expensive to be marketable at large.
I still don't understand how it is beneficial to cut a car's fuel efficiency (still talking about the Smart Car here) nearly in half to make it more "environmentally friendly". What it DOES do, is hobble the car's marketability by effectively removing one of the biggest customer purchase incentives. That benefits our domestic union-plagued obese car manufacturers, who can't be bothered to innovate or y'know... run a profitable business in the free market.
If the nano somehow does make it into the US market, no one will buy it - because no one is going to pay for what it takes to make the car "legal" here. You'll end up with a $2000 car with a $9000 price tag. And you can bet the 47mpg it gets right now is going to be more like 30 by the time the EPA gets finished with it - and a 3 gallon tank simply won't last you all that long. Then you have to add airbags (which it does not have) and all the other safety enhancements that have become mandatory over the past few decades.
Imagine what a $2000 car could do for low-income folks trying to make something better of their lives. Imagine being able to open up these people's career possibilities because they didn't have to rely on where a bus could or could not take them and when it ran.
But that empowers the masses, and the rulers cannot have that! No, they must use transportation that is provided. They must be told what to do and where to do it!
Damn, I said I didn't have the energy for that. I guess I did after all.
Sorry to have a rant in the middle of your blog party. ;)