A few days ago, Jonathan Golob made the case that the US should bail out General Motors—arguing, essentially, that the loss of GM would reverberate throughout the US economy. Moreover, Jonathan wrote, GM pays well and has come up with technological innovations—like the Chevy Volt—that rival those of Japanese automakers. "If we allow GM and the auto industry to fail, it’s unclear what, if anything, would replace the key role it played in our economy. I cannot fathom how to renew an industrial middle class without the auto companies—and the vast manufacturing networks supported by them," Jonathan wrote.

A couple of folks far more familiar with auto industry than I am have argued compellingly that any bailout should come with tough conditions. GM, after all, can't blame its failure entirely on outside forces. To the contrary, it has persistently refused to change, innovate, and adapt. The auto giant spent millions fighting against higher fuel-economy standards (including right here in Washington State), gleefully amped up production of low-mileage SUVs the second gas prices rebounded, and wasted the opportunity provided by the Clinton-era Partnership for New Generation Vehicles to create new generation of clean vehicles. This is a company, as KC Golden of Climate Solutions noted in yesterday's PI, whose CEO once callled global warming "a total crock of shit."

Because GM has refused to change on its own, Golden argues, the only way to save it is to force it to change.

The market wants efficient cars; the engineers can produce them; the law requires them. But GM's lawyers and executives fight on for their right to commit commercial suicide and planetary ecocide, even as they descend on Congress, cup in hand.

Bullitt Foundation President Denis Hayes nailed it: "In World War II ... Detroit was ordered to stop making cars and start making tanks. Today, Detroit needs to be ordered to stop making civilian tanks and start making cars."

Hayes proposes that manufacturers be required to deliver cars that average 50 miles per gallon by 2020, and 100 mpg by 2030. That should be a minimum condition of any bailout. Little tweaks won't do it. We need — and to survive, the company needs — an automotive revolution.

We can't revitalize the economy by resuscitating a gasping Hummosaurus. We have to build a new, more durable economy by investing in the infrastructure and industries that can sustain prosperity and save the planet.

At Grist, Joseph Romm argues that GM's management brought the company's failure on themselves, and worries that if the government does the company a multi-billion-dollar taxpayer handout, they'll just spend the money the way they always have: lobbying against higher fuel economy standards and limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

The overarching question, he writes,

is not whether many more jobs are going to be lost in the term. They are. The question is will we end up with a well-managed domestic auto industry that can prevent far larger job loss in the medium term and thrive in the long term? Will we end up with an industry that understands its only hope for the future is being part of the solution to peak oil and global warming — and that means changing its core drivetrain.