Frank O’Donnell is president of Clean Air Watch , a 501(c)3 nonpartisan, nonprofit organization aimed at educating the public about clean air and the need for an effective Clean Air Act.
Earlier this week, I found myself driving in a rented Chrysler Sebring along Michigan highways to an Environmental Protection Agency meeting in Ann Arbor.
The Sebring got less than half the gas mileage—and emitted more than double the greenhouse gas emissions—than the Toyota Prius I normally drive. Perhaps more startling, the Sebring was much more sluggish, clumsy and uncomfortable than the Prius. Not to mention that it started to rattle at higher speeds.
I had to wonder: why the heck can’t the so-called “Big Three†(maybe a misnomer, since Toyota has begun outselling Chrysler) make vehicles that not only appeal to consumers, but have a more positive impact both on our national security and the environment?
It’s a question that congressional leaders should be asking today as executives of the “Big Three†meet with them in a series of discussions on energy policy.
According to The Washington Post, the meetings will likely focus on ways to minimize the high cost of gasoline and the subsequent effect it has had on domestic automakers.
The executives will likely discuss means the government can provide to encourage ethanol use, including expansion of ethanol fueling stations. Ford, the only Detroit-based hybrid maker, may seek greater tax breaks for hybrid owners and more research for hybrid technologies.
It’s time our elected leaders demanded more from these companies. Rather than bog down with parochial concerns, they should insist that the car companies agree to make vehicles with significantly better fuel economy. That would help reduce our dependence on foreign oil and have the side benefit of helping with the global warming problem.
The industry’s track record in these matters is nothing short of pitiful. For years the companies have lobbied against any attempt to make significant improvements in fuel economy.
For years they have gamed the fuel economy rules to get “credit†for making cars that could use ethanol—even when they know full well ethanol wasn’t available or being used.
And rather than acknowledge that global warming is a problem that could jeopardize our planet’s future, they’ve spent a fortune suing California and other states that are trying to set better global warming pollution standards for vehicles. (To add insult to injury, the Bush administration, with industry support, is lobbying Congress to declare that state greenhouse gas standards for cars are illegal.)
And they wonder why they are losing market share to such auto makers as Toyota and Honda.
I’ve got news for them: they are going to keep losing ground unless they start making vehicles that consumers want, and that the nation needs.
They should probably take a moment to read yesterday’s news from Honda, which announced it would be building a new $400 million car factory at a still-to-be determined location in the Midwest.
The company’s plans include producing a new gasoline-electric hybrid car model and new clean diesel vehicles. (Many environmentalists have been wary of diesel vehicles because earlier models couldn’t meet all clean-air standards. There is reason, however, to believe newer vehicles, equipped with modern pollution controls, could be much cleaner, while emitting fewer greenhouse gases than gasoline models.)
Will these auto industry meetings with Congress lead to progress—or will we keep getting the same old clunkers like the one that rattled this week along the Michigan highways?
There probably isn’t much immediate reason for optimism. One reason Congress has been so unwilling to demand more of America’s automakers is not only the political power of the companies themselves, but of their union workers.
The United Auto Workers is a strong force within Democratic political circles and it has historically flexed when Democratic leaders have promoted better fuel economy standards. Staunch Democrats such as Representative John Dingell. D.-Mich., and Senator Debbie Stabenow, D.-Mich., are always prepared to oppose new fuel economy requirements, and Democratic presidential contenders generally shy away from offending union voters in such key states as Michigan and Ohio.
Unfortunately, in a short-sighted political calculation, the labor movement has been bullied by the car companies to equate better standards with job insecurity.
Even the otherwise laudable “Clean Edge Act†announced yesterday by Senate Democrats—and supported by unions including the auto workers—would not require improved fuel economy standards.
There is more than a little irony, of course, in the fact that a Japanese-based company is planning to bring more jobs (and advanced-technology vehicles) to the American heartland while American-based companies look for help from Washington.
Could it be that outside the Beltway, people really do know better?
