Financial bailout of the American auto industry, greater MPG and higher emissions standards
I recently received a press release from the Civil Society Institute (CSI) stating that they are urging Congress to mandate any Detroit automaker loan guarantee bailout be conditional on the auto industry dropping ongoing litigation against four states requiring stronger emissions standards.
40MPG.org and TheCLEAN.org are both organizations under CSI who lobby against global warming by encouraging cleaner emissions standards. The states with legislation that the auto industry is battling are California, Vermont, Rhode Island and New Mexico.
Pam Solo, 40MPG.org founder and CSI president says, “Just because Detroit is pleading once again for another bailout is no reason for Washington to give these companies a ‘free ride.’ If taxpayers are going to be put at risk by guaranteeing new loans, then any such new help should be conditioned on the U.S. car companies ending their campaign to frustrate state-level efforts to clean up car and light-truck emissions that cause global warming. Further, Congress should insist that every penny of the $25 billion in new loan guarantees that Detroit is seeking be targeted to building the cars of tomorrow, not the gas-guzzling dinosaurs of yesterday. Business as usual for Detroit is a bad investment without the incentives for Detroit to do what it seems it cannot do for itself.”
According to CSI, since the election, President-elect Obama plans to move swiftly to overturn a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) denial of a waiver being sought by California that would allow the state to move ahead with its tougher vehicle emission standards.
A total of 15 states have adopted regulations requiring automobile manufacturers to reduce significantly the greenhouse gas emissions of their cars and light trucks. Under the uniform set of regulations adopted by these states, automobile manufacturers must reduce new vehicle greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent over 2002 levels. The reductions are phased in on model years 2009 through 2016.
The U.S. automobile industry has been waging a four-year legal battle against state emission standards. They prevailed upon the Bush EPA to deny California a Clean Air Act waiver in a decision that was contradicted by the analysis of EPA’s own staff. CSI says this denial will be reversed one way or another: California has sued EPA to obtain the waiver and, like other states, is faring well in court. President-Elect Obama also has promised to reverse the EPA waiver denial according to CSI.
My question for readers is, “Is this the time to put conditions on automakers to save their companies?” When one of our largest industries in the nation is over a barrel, do we stipulate any financial help they may get based major shifts in the products they produce just to accommodate a few states regulations? On the other side, are the current emission standards detrimental to our long term nation’s health and this is the perfect time for change? What would happen if the auto industry stood up to this type of regulation and said, ‘Hey, if you don’t want to drive our cars and trucks then we wont sell them in your state.” How do you think consumers would feel if they couldn’t buy a Ford 150, Dodge RAM or Chevy Silverado.
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:33 am
Rather than take either view which history will determine one or both to have been rediculous, look to what can be achieved. It is clear to the auto makers will make what sells, as any business does. We have seen an attempt at making hybrid vehicles for those that want them, and they continue to make suv’s and trucks for those of us that want or need them as well. Money has already been set aside for helping the auto makers to produce more fuel efficient cars. Examine instead why some so called foreign auto makers have had better sales. Why do we persist in calling the big three “American” when they in fact are global and have interests in so called “foreign” car companies. Isn’t Daimler Chrysler a “foreign” company by the same standard? Can not the oil companies which have been the paramours of the auto industry for so long share their billions in profits for past favors. Granted it is a tough time for all of us, but keep in mind you and I are the ones doing the bailing out, with only the hope of the benefits trickling down to us over an extended period of time, while we both may be out of work and home before the trickle gets here. Cars already are sitting waiting for someone to buy them at record special pricing. If the money were in the hands of the people instead of the businesses, the people would pay their bills and begin buying again, which would be the greatest stimulus. 700 billion dollars divided by a few hundred million households? Wouldn’t that have been a better bailout.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:59 pm
So here’s the deal Joni. You always have the opportunity to dictate what is built by your control of your purse strings. You also have the right to believe in all of this green house, global warming bs if you want to. In that case be sure you only buy cars, foods, clothing etc that meet your standards. Just don’t impose those standards on those opposed to your views. That leaves the door wide open for someone to start a new company aimed at pleasing people with your beliefs. It you are correct the company will be a huge success, if not it will fail miserably. That’s the beauty of a capitalistic economy. As to GM and the others I say let them fail. We have no business shoring up a losing business model. Let them build the cars we want at the price we want to pay whether they are green cars or not. The market will reward the companies that make the right decisions and punish those that don’t.
November 17th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
let GM fail or let them all go BK just like any other business that cannot run itself above board. they have been spending money not making it, like crazy over the last 5 years let them feel it now.
November 14th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
I really hope that this negative, close-minded mentality doesn’t represent the majority of the RV industry. New and better innovation will only come with more and stricter regulations. Until they are forced to do so, many companies will just stick to current business practices, even when better technologies may bring them lower costs and higher profits. Lets not be scared of change, it is an opportunity to make the RV industry and the auto industry better. Those who are first to change will succeed, those who fight it will lose.
November 12th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Mike Martinkus is on the money about government interference . If the government does not back off on business regulation and control from the local , state and federal level this country will not make it . The government does not keep this country going. Industry and small and large business pay the bills .
November 12th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
The auto industry is in trouble BECAUSE of government interference. Interference on behalf of unions, OSHA, EPA,SBA, affirmative action and on and on. The gov needs to help our big three out of the mess that the last 10 administrations and congress got them into and then get the heck out of their way and let free enterprise, American ingenuity and capitalism propel them back to profitability and witness a quantim leap back to the forefront of worldwide automobile production.
The same holds true for the Housing industry, steel production, railroads,oil exploration, banking, farming,
mining, airlines and –well you get the idea.
Will Rogers was dead on the mark when he said “Just be thankfull you’re not getting all the government you’re paying for”
November 12th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
This is not the time to be dictating exactly how that money is used. This is the time to try to save the millions of American jobs that will be lost if these giants go belly up.
These tree huggers needed to be in New England last winter when we received over 12′ of snow…..Global what???
November 11th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
[…] their campaign to frustrate state-level efforts to clean up car and light-truck emissions … View post Add your […]