To some extent it may be motivated by the greenish fad. But the rise of the cost of energy derived from oil relative to other sources is beginning to create a space in which a $40,000 car you plug-in can be a money-maker. Demand for gasoline is not going down, and so its completely realistic to assume we will be paying more per mile to travel each successive year. This makes room where current and near-current batteries can function in the marketplace. We're beginning to see that at $4+ a gallon, Americans are altering their behavior. This is a valuable benchmark because we did not see such trends at $2 a gallon or even at $3 a gallon.
Bailout aside (which I agree is pretty terrible), I think GM at least should be commended for the moving forward so aggressively on the project. Even if the Volt doesn't happen to be the first electric (or nearly electric) car we own, surely it will be the direct ancestor of such a vehicle.
Obviously, there's a lot of other factors swirling around here. Emissions laws, mileage laws, etc, are all thorny things which, when built into profitability models, can make an electric car look great on paper, say, as early as 2010. But then the laws change, or are altered, and we have an EV1 situation all over again. The "green" fad has its limits, and my guess is those limits for most people don't extend much past what kind of lightbulbs they purchase. Though GM may be sleazy enough to market (and apply for gov't subsidies) the Volt as some green-wondercar, the truth is it that the move from oil to electricity opens up a range of energy options (such as nuclear) which would be a significant breakthrough all around. If Toyota gets there first, great. But I don't think GM should be thrown under the bus for trying to get ahead of the Japanese for once in their lives.
