Keith Crain sounds sad. The editor-in-chief of Automotive News predicts that governments will “do their best to try to ban any vehicles that have even the slightest hint of performance using conventional fuels such as gasoline” (Crain, 2018).
The problem is that, “whether governments like it or not, customers still have an obsession with performance and are willing to wait in line to have a chance to plunk down their dollars to own one of these high-performance beauties, whether it is a Mustang, Camaro or Ferrari,” according to Crain. Automakers will “soon be caught between a rock and a hard place” trying to meet consumer demand while following “odious rules.”
For example, only Tesla “will win” if automakers are required to meet quotas to sell a certain number of zero-emission vehicles for every gas-powered vehicle, Crain stated.
Interestingly, he does not call on readers to man the barricades. Instead, Crain suggests that those who enjoy high-performance vehicles should do so “while you can.”
Perhaps Crain’s fatalistic attitude is grounded in his view that “we are seeing more of a dichotomy between high performance and saving the planet.” If so, it is heartening that he acknowledges the danger of climate change. However, Crain implies that high performance can only be achieved with the internal-combustion engine.
But is it true?
Commentator Dan_Arildson (2018) points out the painfully obvious flaw in Crain’s logic: “Performance doesn’t require IC engines. The performance of electric cars is staggering. . . . The only thing you lose with electric cars is noise and refueling time.”
Surely Crain knows this. Presumably he is also savvy about the political winds of Washington, D.C., where there is zero chance of his nightmare scenario playing out any time soon.
What then is the real motivation for this column? Perhaps it was to throw some red meat to readers such as Spencer (2018), who commented: “More and more the government is out to tell us what we like and don’t like . . . crazy!”
How will Keith Crain be remembered?
In a mini-review of Automotive News, I wondered whether the publication contributed to the decline of the U.S.’s domestic automakers (go here). A similar question may someday be asked about climate change.
Forty years from now will Crain’s grandchildren point with pride to columns like this one as an example of how he played a crucial leadership role in steering the American auto industry toward a more environmentally sustainable future? So far, I wouldn’t bet on it.
If Crain’s perspective is dominated by fear of “odious rules,” perhaps Brock Yates might offer a friendly reminder:
“All of the government interference could have been avoided if the industry had demonstrated some social responsibility during the 1960s. . . . Bad automobiles came before bad laws. To be sure, federal bureaucrats have since swung the regulation pendulum too far, but that too was an inevitable response to Detroit’s witless excesses” (1983, p. 254).
If Automotive News doesn’t want more “bad laws,” then how much political capital is it willing to spend advocating for better self-policing by the auto industry?
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Crain, Keith; 2018. “Enjoy the performance, while you can.” Automotive News. Posted June 18; accessed June 21.
- Dan_Arildson; 2018. Commentator in “Enjoy the performance, while you can.” Automotive News. Posted June 18; accessed June 21.
- Spencer; 2018. Commentator in “Enjoy the performance, while you can.” Automotive News. Posted June 18; accessed June 21.
- Yates, Brock; 1983. The Decline and Fall of the American Automobile Industry. Empire Books, New York, NY.
Be the first to comment