The automakers rolled out their biggest guns on Wednesday, March 14 for a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality on the blandly titled topic of “Climate Change and Energy Security: Perspectives from the Automobile Industry.” The hearing would more honestly have been entitled, “Should We Raise Fuel Economy Standards or Do Something Else? –Anything Else!”
A peculiar tension permeated the room. At the witness table were four of the highest priests in the corporate world and the land of the car, plus the president of the United Auto Workers union (see witness below). Collectively, the “Big Three” plus the interloper Toyota North America estimated that they were responsible for almost 600,000 direct jobs in the U.S.
But climate change has cast another light entirely on the dogma of cars, car culture, and suburban sprawl. Cars are a major source of CO2, and the worship of cars (regardless of the fuel—take that, biofuels) is in turn responsible for land-use practices that in and of themselves contribute to global warming, destruction of farmland, elimination of habitat, and the accelerated extinction of species.
Hanging in the air, never to be mentioned during the hearing, was a heretical challenge:
Might it be time to question whether cars should be the foundation around which we organize our entire lives and the cities we live in?
Well, no.
Not in any hearing room you’re likely to walk into at the U.S. Capitol or the House or Senate office buildings. Given the importance of at least maintaining existing jobs, there was little chance that anyone in the room, at the witness table or at the legislative dais, would directly challenge the supremacy of the car.
On Bended Knees
The car ruled the hearing. The entire discussion (with one teeny exception, see below) focused on technological solutions (better fuel economy, alternative liquid fuels, electric cars, etc.) that would reduce the amount of oil being burned, but which would otherwise leave the world exactly as it is, with its congested rush hours, tangled freeways, and suburban sprawl from coast to coast.
In a strong display of bi-partisanship, representative after representative repeated the auto catechism. Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) in his opening remarks said he wanted to hurry because “I want you [the auto executives] to get back to your offices so we can keep the American economy going as efficiently as possible.” (Rep. Barton must not have been reading the financial pages lately, since efficiency would not be the word that would come to mind looking at the whopping losses at Ford [$5.8 billion for the 4th quarter of 2006, $12.7 billion for 2006, the company’s worst year in 103 years] and General Motors [$2 billion in 2006, but better than $10.4 billion in 2005]).
Rep. Jane Harmon (D-CA) opined that “The auto is more than just a mode of transportation, it’s a cultural symbol and a way of life.”
Rep. Shimkus (R-IL) pined for the open road: “We [America] are a big country that likes to go places and we are going to drive to those places.”
Rep. Rogers did one of the obligatory back flips, excoriating the body of which he is a member, while praising the auto industry:
“Congress doesn’t give enough kudos to the investments you [the auto companies] make to get us to the next generation….I can guarantee you that if it’s designed by Congress, it won’t be that attractive.”
In the sweetest tribute of all, Rep. Pickering (R-MS) bestowed a wet kiss on Toyota, which is building a new auto plant in Mississippi near Tupelo, Mississippi. Turning to Toyota’s North American CEO, Pickering puckered up and said that Toyota was “now our ‘tupelo honey.”
At one point, Rep. Dingell (D-MI), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, put in an appearance and let the witnesses through several rounds of ritual chanting. Were all of the witnesses ready to pledge to work with his committee to “go beyond corporate average fuel economy standards and consider new regulatory regimes?”
“Yes,” five times, not quite in unison.
“Can we get beyond the old-fashioned thinking of CAFÉ and make real environmental progress,” Dingell asked.
“Yes,” five times, more tightly, as the witnesses recognized the pattern.
“Are you willing to work with other sectors of the economy?
“Yes,” this time almost in unison.
“Are you willing then to consider a system that regulates the emissions of CO2 from your vehicles, alone or in context of fuels?”
“Yes.”
The Battle Royale Against CAFÉ
To no one’s surprise, the American car makers presented a united front against raising Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standards. The Congress passed the first CAFÉ standards back in 1975, over the bitter opposition of the auto industry. Few federal regulations have inspired more fearsome verbal combat, and over the years, the nature and application of these standards has been endlessly elaborated and tweaked.
Here’s the definition of CAFÉ from the website of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), one of two federal agencies with jurisdiction over fuel economy standards (the other being the Environmental Protection Administration):
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) is the sales weighted average fuel economy, expressed in miles per gallon (mpg), of a manufacturer’s fleet of passenger cars or light trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 lbs. or less, manufactured for sale in the United States, for any given model year. Fuel economy is defined as the average mileage traveled by an automobile per gallon of gasoline (or equivalent amount of other fuel) consumed as measured in accordance with the testing and evaluation protocol set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice that this standard exempts some of the most fuel-guzzling vehicles on the road: light trucks that weigh more than 8,500 lbs gross vehicle weight rating, a loophole big enough to let through millions of pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles and large vans.
None of the witnesses favored tightening up CAFÉ standards. The subcommittee itself was split on the subject, but Rep. John Sullivan (R-OK) made it clear he wanted no part in tightening these standards. In a reference to TV host Lou Dobbs shows about “the war on the middle class,” Sullivan speculated that “Tailpipe standards may be the new war on the middleclass.
Each executive tried to position his company at the front of the parade for reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil. The president of GM said his company was the “best of all companies.” Ford’s president said his company had been “the first company in the industry to issue a report on the impact of climate change.” And the president of the Chrysler Group of Daimler Chrysler ran through a whole litany of claims, including being having “the only demonstration fleet of plug-in hybrids in service through Dodge,” and being “the world’s leader in fuel cell cars.”
Then there was Jim Press, President and CEO of Toyota North America. Toyota started selling its first hybrid, the Prius, ten years ago. In 2006, the Prius, which now comes in 6 models, was the 3rd best selling passenger car in the United States, with 500,000 cars sold. Toyota’s fleet average was 28.9 mpg, 17% better than the rest of the industry, and Toyota was selling a full line of vehicles, not just hybrids. In the past 10 model years, Press said Toyota’s cars had burned 11 billion fewer gallons of gasoline, and reduced CO2 emissions by 100 million metric tons.
Amidst this blizzard of impressive statistics that overwhelmed the weak offerings of his fellow witnesses, Press made the only heretical remark heard all day, a few words that came and went quickly, words that not a single Representative or witness picked up on. Press suggested that “smarter land use planning, mass transit, and intelligent transportation planning” might be useful tools in reducing oil consumption.
Press had nothing else to say about these alternatives to auto rule. But in his testimony, Press demonstrated over and over how Toyota’s commitment to increased fuel economy put the company on track to surpass GM as the world’s largest car manufacturer. He pointed out that when Toyota brought the first Prius to market, gas was selling for $1 a gallon. (And the development of the car’s design took 7 years, so Toyota’s original commitment to hybrids dates back to at least the late 1980s/early 1990s.) The drive train which Toyota has developed for the Prius hybrid is the drive train the company will use to build its experimental hydrogen fuel cell cars and its electric plug-in cars.
In response to a question, Press said that Toyota had funded the entire development process; the company had received no federal money. Not that the companies would not like more federal funding. The automakers met last year with President Bush, and asked him to spend $100 million a year through 2012 to ramp up R&D and development of better batteries.
Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) pointed out that Bush had asked for the grand sum of $11 million in this year’s budget, an amount which GM’s Wagoner said was “a shame…way less than it should be.”
GM President and CEO Rick Wagoner showed why some auto makers’ stick-in-the-mud attitudes have put them in such grave financial peril. In Wagoner’s view, the original CAFÉ standards had “failed dramatically” to reduce gas consumption or oil imports. Meeting President Bush’s call for a 4% annual increase in CAFÉ would be “very difficult.” Ford’s Mulally warned that “Increasing CAFÉ standards too fast will have a negative impact.”
By contrast, Chrysler’s LaSorda noted that it was certainly not impossible to imagine a 4% annual CAFÉ increase over the next 10 years, which would give you a 50% overall increase in fuel economy. In fact, LaSorda said, his company was already building a fleet of cars that met that 10-year out standards, today:
We already do it; it’s in Europe. The fleet average in Europe is 36mpg, U.S. 24-25 mpg. Why the 50% difference? European approach to policies: highly taxed gas, with incentives on diesel fuels. And the mix of vehicles is radically different. 60% are compact or smaller, compared to 15% in U.S. And 50% of the passenger cars are diesel-powered.
(No one picked up on LaSorda’s clear explanation of the role of government tax policy in Europe in encouraging the market for high-fuel efficiency cars.)
Rep. Barton Continues His Attack on Water Vapor
What hearing of this subcommittee would be complete without Rep. Barton’s (R-TX) ritualized assertion of his disbelief in the need to do anything soon about reducing CO2 emissions?
“I’m a skeptic [on climate change], I don’t think we need to be rushing in. Our earth cycles in thousands of years. It seems silly to rush to judgment in weeks or months.”
Later on, Barton launched into his strange obsession with water vapor and climate change, an obsession which has vexed and flummoxed witnesses throughout these hearings. What was this man talking about?
”Water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse gases, and man-made CO2 is only .01 %. Any activity I have ever had any part in trying to manage, you get a better outcome in managing the majority of the problem.”
Like previous panels, the witnesses stared mutely at Barton, and one finally mumbled, “I don’t understand the question.” Barton seemed to be suggesting that instead of paying attention to man-made CO2, we should be doing something about the water vapor in the atmosphere. But Barton’s inarticulateness has thus far prevented him from explaining what he thinks we should do about all this water vapor, and none of the witnesses have been able to penetrate the mystery. The mind boggles.
Ethanol and Cap-and-Trade
On more mundane policy issues, the auto makers were all in favor of huge increases in the production of ethanol, especially cellulosic ethanol, and suggested that Congress might provide financial incentives to make sure that gas stations could afford to add the extra pumps and equipment required to pump the high-ethanol fuel E85.
And with various hems and haws, they all indicated that they could live with some form of national cap-and-trade system, and that they all supported the regulation of mobile sources of greenhouse gases, like cars. (Subcommittee Chair Boucher (D-VA) reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) had decided that the global warming bill she wants to vote on by the 4th of July would not have to include cap-and-trade.)
This hearing was a long and inconclusive one. There was no discussion of using increased gas taxes as a mechanism to send a clearer market signal to consumers. Most of the Republican members seemed dead-set against a government-mandated increase in fuel economy. The only solution left standing was some ill-defined form of cap-and-trade. Given Pelosi’s backing away from her once tough-sounding July 4th deadline for climate change legislation, I came away from this hearing feeling that that Congress was still far from passing any meaningful legislation.
Note: There is a Climate Crisis rally scheduled on the west front of the Capitol at 11 AM EST on Tuesday, March 20. And on Wednesday, March 21, former vice president Al Gore will be testifying before the House in the morning and before the Senate in the afternoon. With his Oscar in hand, and a Nobel Peace Prize nomination, maybe Gore can provide the spark to get Congress moving. I will be covering both Gore hearings for Global Public Media.
Witnesses:
Rick Wagoner, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of General Motors
Alan Mulally, President and CEO of Ford
Thomas LaSorda, CEO and President, Chrysler Group of DaimlerChrysler
Jim Press, President and CEO of Toyota Motor North America
Ron Gettlefinger, President of the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
