The Washington Post has an article today on the House fuel economy deal that is quite good in doling out cheers and jeers — good except for two sentences. Let’s start with the cheers.
The article quotes NRDC rightly praising Pelosi for being steadfast with the Senate’s 35 mpg target and Dingell too for
The article also has fascinating back story on how Japanese car manufacturer Nissan “struck out on its own to lobby Capitol Hill for fuel standards that were in some ways stricter than what other automakers wanted.” A Nissan Sr. VP “said the company decided early to advocate tough fuel-economy standards as part of a company-wide effort to become more eco-friendly.”
Ungreen GM and Ford worked hard to kill a 35-mpg deal, and so did supposedly green Toyota. Google “Toyota greenwash” to see how people feel about this. [Note to Toyota: Why not have lobbying consistent with your eco-branding?]
So what are the two sentences that get the Post a thumbs down?
The legislation represents a major setback for the auto industry. But without Dingell’s seal of approval, the energy package could have come unraveled, and the automakers’ pain might have been greater.
Shame on the Post for simply buying into auto industry propaganda in the first sentence. Why is mandated higher fuel economy a “major setback”? Many of us have long argued that the US car industry would have benefited from higher fuel economy standards years ago — since it would have forced them to build the kind of cars people want in an era of high gasoline prices and growing concern about global warming. This study by Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute came to the same conclusion: higher fuel economy would boost jobs and market share.
The second sentence is very confusing. The only interpretation consistent with the first sentence is that, absent Dingell, the legislation would have contained some additional provisions the car companies didn’t like — but if the energy package became unraveled, there might have been no CAFE increase at all. In any case, it is tiresome to see the MSM buy into the notion that this all causes the automakers great “pain” — at the risk of showing my age, I am reminded of Dr. Smith’s oft-repeated whine: “Oh, the pain… the pain of it all!”
Know this, car companies, we’ll ultimately need much higher fuel economy standards than 35 mpg to stave off catastrophic global warming.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
One of the important things in evaluating the success of this bill is whether Pelosi’s approach to issues other than CAFE standards dooms the bill in the Senate. If she can’t win 60 Senate votes (and there are serious questions about whether she can given her inclusion of the Renewable Portfolio Standard, which couldn’t make it through the Senate last time ’round), this will end up looking like an empty exercise and we’ll have political talking points going into the coming election season rather than an actual new energy policy.
Totally agree about the Wapo sentences.
One small suggestion:
Try using “traditional/corporate/establishment media” instead
of MSM. Who’s to say Climate progress, realclimate.org, Salon.com, etc are not mainstream? Let’s not by into self-defeating ideas :*)
I was thinking the same thing about MSM when I scrolled down and saw that Roy had already addressed it. Kos settled on “Traditional Media” (his reasoning is here: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/15/1023/64571).
On the issue of word choice I like Lovelock’s “global heating” over “global warming.”
I take your point, and I do like “traditional” media. I don’t use MSM very often…. That said, I don’t think Climate progress will be MSM … until, at least, we’re making real progress on the climate.
I do worry about the 60 votes in the Senate. Ultimately, if they can’t do this in one bill they might go for two.
There is nothing in the current Senate bill which more than remotely adddresses the needs. It might have been a good start in 1987.
Not 20 years later.
The price of gasoline will soon force automakers to adapt to higher mileage quicker than this legislation will. If anything 35 mpg by 2020 is too timid… I am sure Joe agrees with that.
Although the WSJ has long fought the concept of Peak Oil, the 11/17 piece on the front page detailing the admissions of oil executives that a peak/plateau is on the horizon indicates to me that gas will get expensive quickly as demand outstrips supply.
The peak in supply is just part of it though… Our debt, falling dollar, and decreasing leverage in world affairs mixed with the fact that we only have 2% of worlds oil reserves points to a moment of truth coming very soon on oil.
The fact that (most) car companies cannot read the tea leaves on a coming gas crisis is just a further sign of their myopic vision.
That said, the legislation is a step in the right direction.
I’d like to second those who wrote about this bill being to little in 2007 and having reached oil peak, we might get the 35 mpg anyway from higher gasoline prices.
I can remember 1980 when people were actually bragging about their gasoline milage in their cars because of the high prices. A few years of even higher prices will change quite a few peoples perceptions of what the vehicle is they should drive.
This bill is to little to make a difference. For something to really happen we will have to wait a few election cycles.
I think Pelosi and Boxer are right in going for a strong bill. Even if it fails to pass the Senate’s supermajority rules–as it looks like it will–it sends a signal of what is coming after the next election. Businesses are changing their plans based upon what they see as the likely Federal stance on these things. They don’t want to be the only one among their competitors to make changes, but they also don’t want to be the last one.
It takes the automakers years to change their fleets. They may be making some changes to their 2013 plans now, in response to what is happening in the Congress.