Gregg Easterbrook Is Contributing To Global Warming By Spouting His Own CO2. Long Live the CTS-V.

by Gunnar Heinrich ::: Gregg Easterbrook on the Cadillac CTS-V and the Gulf oil spill

GREGG Easterbrook is being a bit of an ass.

Mr. Easterbrook writes for Reuters. His recent column is, “We cry over spilled oil, yet subsidize the production of ultra-polluting cars.”

Therein, Mr. Easterbrook has taken a rather misguided stab at the auto industry by linking the US Government’s stake in General Motors, the oil spill in the Gulf, and the monstrously powerful Cadillac CTS-V as all being part of the same ecological challenge. Why are we subsidizing our own pollution, he writes.

What’s his recourse? Stop producing the CTS-V, he suggests. Oh, and outlaw production of any car with balls. You know – there oughta be a law and government has the power, etc.

And in a vacuum, Mr. Easterbrook is absolutely right. Grandiose machines with grandiose power surely have no place on the road – do they?

Let’s pop this hot-air fueled bubble of righteous indignation here and now: it’s right that Cadillac makes the CTS-V. Among cool aspects, it makes Cadillac competitive -  surely us tax payers would hate for GM to lose more money, right?

And it’s right that we have cars with increased horsepower that can go so much faster than cars ever could thirty and forty years ago.

Why is it right? Because that’s what some customers want. We still have liberty and choice. But that’s bad, apparently.

Mr. Easterbrook hyperventalates:

“At the very time we are reminded of the fragility and environmental consequences of U.S. petroleum consumption, at the very time President Barack Obama and many in Congress want regulation of greenhouse gases, federally subsidized General Motors is using taxpayer funds to build an extremely wasteful, ultra-polluting car.”

From this, we can only surmise one of two things:

1) That Mr. Easterbrook got cut off recently by some jerk driving a CTS-V – he makes many mentions of “road rage” in his soap-box column.

or

2) Mr. Easterbrook’s superior – be it in business or in social circles – drives one. And Mr. Easterbrook is silently seething with envy.

My bet’s on the former, though the latter is certainly probable.

The beauty of the marketplace is that we have the luxury of choice. For those who wish to profess an eco-friendly attitude – there is the much-hyped Toyota Prius as an example. Too bad that those Lithum Ion hybrid batteries are so toxic to the environment.

But, hey, Prius drivers can attain good gas mileage and that’s what counts for appearing environmentally conscientious at present. That said, I’ve been cut-off by a Prius driver. By a few actually -  and each time driven by some jerk filled with his own special kind of road rage.

But back to the luxury of choice.

Yes, people can buy the government subsidized CTS-V for north of $62K. Those 556 horses are intoxicating – I can happily confirm that. But following green (il)logic, Mr. Easterbrook is right – the CTS-V  emits 13.3 tons per year of CO2 – though that figure probably rivals Mr. Easterbrook’s own personal emissions.

And the saintly Prius emits – 3.2 tons per year of CO2 if driven 20,000 miles. On its face – that’s much more moderate than the glutenous CTS-V. Quite true, Mr. Easterbrook.

But here’s the catch that reminds us how we live in the real world and not in the vacuum of liberal hyperbole:

Toyota sold 139,682 Priuses in 2009. Cadillac sold fewer than 5,000 CTS-Vs.

That means, in real world terms, the Prius contributed to so-called man-made Global Warming far more than the CTS-V.  By rough calculation, those new Priuses driven 20,000 miles probably emitted 446,982 tons of CO2 to the Caddy’s 66,500.

Chances are my math’s off.  The Caddy’s carbon stats are probably high – given that the average CTS-V owner drives several cars and not all at the same time- and that the Prius emissions figures are low considering that hybrid drivers are generally a smug lot who like to travel.

Oops, I generalized. But didn’t he?

“Being behind the wheel has become stressful in part because so many cars are now overpowered; the slightest blip of the throttle allows aggressive driving. Reduce the horsepower, and road-rage behavior should diminish.”

Silly, Mr. Easterbrook.

Friends, cars = personal freedom.

Some are more powerful than others. But let’s not allow some misguided columnist’s delusions of “social responsibility” mix with the high octane of science and engineering.

It scares the horses.