ThinkProgress Logo

Climate Progress

Clean-Car Battle Shows How To Fight For Emissions Reduction

By Dan Becker and James Gerstenzang via Truth-out

President Obama signaled in his State of the Union address that global warming holds a top spot on his second-term agenda. To rescue a climate under assault, the lessons of the fight that has delivered tough new auto pollution standards can guide us as we tackle the next climate challenges: slashing power plant emissions and oil use.

Those clean-car rules will cut gasoline use in half, create 500,000 jobs, and boost energy independence. The safeguards will deliver new cars in 2025 that average an impressive 54.5 mpg. Most important, compared with 2010 models, these cars will halve their emissions of carbon dioxide, the major heat-trapping pollutant.

The program represents the biggest single step of any nation against global warming. The take-away from the president’s action is unmistakable: We can cut fossil fuel emissions.

But scientists say the United States must make far deeper cuts in carbon dioxide emissions than those of the auto program to avoid the disruption of ever more severe climate change – think Superstorm Sandy, the continuing drought, rising sea levels and the inexorable spread of tropical insects and disease.

We will accomplish this next, critical step by using electricity and oil more efficiently, ultimately lowering demand until we can meet our needs with wind and solar power. As renewable energy is phased in, natural gas may help replace heavily polluting coal, but only if developed and transported cleanly and safely.

The waves of extreme weather gripping the nation align disturbingly with scientists’ warnings that this is what global warming will look like. The auto campaign provides three key lessons on how to take the next steps to fight it.

Lesson 1: Choose the right goal and stick to it.

The clean-car campaign set an ambitious goal in 1989: Cut deeply into global warming pollution by wringing oil from the economy. In 2002, President George W. Bush inched up standards for SUVs and other light trucks by 2.4 miles per gallon, to 24 mpg. He left the car standards unchanged. But science showed us that a safe climate demanded much more.

Not settling for negligible progress, environmentalists pressed for improvements that would genuinely reduce emissions. The stringent new 54.5 mpg standard shows it was worth fighting on.

Next step: Cut oil use in half over the next 20 years and slash emissions from power plants.

Greater efficiency and new technologies will be central to achieving these goals. Utilities must switch from highly polluting coal to renewable energy – wind and solar. Communities can reduce demand for electricity with efficient lighting, and cooling and heating technology. Everything that uses oil must be made more efficient – whether trucks and airplanes or furnaces and factories.

Lesson 2: Fight the fight you can win.

In the auto campaign, circumventing Washington was crucial.

For years, the auto industry lobbied successfully against strong national fuel economy rules. After car mileage standards reached 27.5 mpg in 1989, Congress and three presidents refused to increase them. So, environmentalists moved the campaign to politically receptive California, figuring that stronger pollution rules in the nation’s largest auto market – and eventually in other states – would force car makers to relent.

The campaign found an advocate in then-Assemblywoman Fran Pavley, a Democrat representing a Los Angeles suburb, who shepherded to enactment the first statewide auto emissions cuts.

With environmentalists’ encouragement, 12 other states signed on. Automakers sued. The Supreme Court ruled against the companies, clearing the way for tough federal as well as state standards.

Next step: Shift the focus to the Obama administration and urge the president to adopt tough EPA standards controlling power plant pollution.

This is a fight we can win. At a minimum, power plant standards should cut emissions by at least one-quarter by 2020 – a course we explored in an op-ed in The New York Times The New York Times. The Natural Resources Defense Council says this would cost $4 billion, but save $25 billion to $60 billion in 2020. The president can establish these safeguards under the Clean Air Act authority he used to set car standards.

The environmental victory in California was critical to the auto industry’s decision to drop its opposition to national emissions and mileage standards. Facing stricter standards in California that could get tougher over time, automakers eventually agreed to negotiate with the Obama administration. The result? A strong program that car makers came to see as a step toward a thriving future.

Similarly, strong measures that force the country’s coal-burning power plants to improve their efficiency and switch to cleaner fuels should lead utilities to realize that broad, strong standards that fight global warming may help them modernize – and achieve long-term economic health.

Lesson 3: Hold polluters accountable.

While automakers fought the states in court, environmentalists chastised the industry for selling guzzlers that raised consumers’ costs and subsidized oil oligarchs. They pilloried Ford for producing vehicles that averaged worse mileage than the Model T and General Motors for its Hummer. Image-conscious automakers cringed.

But the clean-car campaign also applauded technology leaders, turning the hybrid Prius into a rolling advertisement for good corporate citizenship. The message: If Toyota could build a clean car, why couldn’t Chrysler?

With auto manufacturers’ reputations corroding and the Supreme Court ruling against the companies, Nissan broke ranks, supporting improved standards.

Next step: Help Americans understand how much the oil, utility and coal industries jeopardize our security, harm our health and raid our wallets – as well as damage our atmosphere.

Federal subsidies to the oil industry only encourage further reliance on gasoline. By ending them, the federal government will help end our oil addiction – and save taxpayers at least $4 billion a year.

Global warming is already wreaking havoc with the planet and threatening far greater destruction than we have already seen. But the clean-car campaign proves that the United States can successfully tackle this environmental crisis. It provides a road map that we can use to pressure the polluting industries to change – just as the car makers say they are overhauling their operations to compete in the 21st century.

In 2010, the auto industry was struggling. Facing stringent state rules, attacks on its performance and integrity, and internal divisions, it accepted strong standards it had claimed for two decades it could not meet. Today, the oil and utility industries insist they can’t stop poisoning the atmosphere. They, too, are wrong.

To meet the new auto rules, manufacturers will use advanced internal combustion engines and transmissions, and strong, lightweight materials. They will build more hybrids and some electric vehicles. The electric power business must follow suit.

To protect the climate, we must match the steep cuts in auto emissions with equally dramatic improvements wherever we burn oil and generate electricity. The auto fight teaches us that tinkering around the edges won’t work. We must set bold goals and fight to meet them as if the whole world is at stake. Because it is.

– Dan Becker is director of the Safe Climate Campaign, and James Gerstenzang is the campaign’s editorial director. Reprinted from Truth-out with permission of the authors.

11 Responses to Clean-Car Battle Shows How To Fight For Emissions Reduction

  1. SecularAnimist says:

    I strongly disagree that the new standards are “tough” or that an average of 54 MPG — TWELVE YEARS from now — is “impressive”.

    I drive a 1991 Ford Festiva that gets over 50 MPG on the highway, and at least 35 MPG in worst-case, stop-and-go congested urban driving — with 22 YEAR OLD TECHNOLOGY.

    And the major US automakers already produce cars that get over 60 MPG, but they are not sold in the US market — only in Europe and Asia.

    In other words, the US automakers have been able to build cars that meet these future standards for a generation — they have simply chosen not to do so, because huge gas-guzzling SUVs were more profitable.

    So, what exactly is “tough” about requiring them to achieve TWELVE YEARS FROM NOW what they have already been able to do for over TWENTY YEARS?

    Neither are these future standards “impressive” when compared to what we know is needed if we are to have any hope of avoiding catastrophic warming.

    What would truly be “tough” and “impressive” would be to announce that in 10 years, the sale of new fossil-fueled internal combustion engines will be illegal, and ALL new cars will be required to have ZERO emissions.

  2. Mike Roddy says:

    “This program represents the biggest single step of any nation against global warming”. Not. US per capita emissions are still double those of Europeans, since they built public transit and heavily tax gasoline. Better mileage by 2025 still leaves a lot of guzzlers on the road and possibly a lot more cars in general, making the net emissions reduction less than 100 mt annually, according to EIA.

    The biggest share of our emissions comes from coal and gas fired power plants. Obama supports coal and gas, especially through fire sale public land pricing mining and drilling permits. He does nothing to reduce their use, and won’t even discuss a carbon tax. Who is he afraid of? John Boehner or Rex Tillerson?

    We need good news, Dan, and higher auto mileage is better than nothing, but there is still no real recognition by Obama of what is required to avoid climate catastrophe. Either that, or he does know, and won’t offend his buddies from the fossil fuel industries. I’m not sure which is worse.

    • Sasparilla says:

      So well said Mike.

      I’m constantly thinking much the same thing, especially that last paragraph, about our Nobel Peace Prize winner.

      I’m not sure which is worse either and long for a chance to talk to the man and figure what it is, just to know.

      • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

        The list of Nobel ‘Peace’ Prize is, in my opinion, with a few exceptions a veritable rogues’ gallery. Obama is in good company. In fact, his early award was a sure sign of his behaviour to come.

  3. I think that this is a good and well-reasoned article. That said, it certainly wouldn’t hurt to redouble our efforts. 54 mpg should only be a start now. How about an all electric standard for new light vehicles by 2030? California??

    • Sasparilla says:

      It’s a very good idea Robert, however even if we don’t get further requirements we’ll probably get where you want to go.

      The cost of Li battery tech is declining at about 4% a year (and is expected to continue to do this through the next decade & that is without any breakthroughs and there’s a lot of commercial money looking for those now…which is different than it was 10 years ago) – by 2020 just with the incremental improvements a plug-in option on most cars above $20k will be no brainer option because of how little it’ll cost and how much it’ll save the buyer in gas costs (and that will just get better and better as time goes on).

      Wind and Solar power generation is in much the same situation of consistently falling costs with everything coming together by around 2020 (Wind earlier) and then the market will just make them “the choice” without subsidies.

  4. Ken Barrows says:

    Great, but for me there are larger issues. If we are sticking with the current automobile paradigm (but electric and hybrid), what’s the impact? How many lane-miles of road are there in the USA? What’s it take to keep it well maintained?

    This car debate says the current infrastructure may be okay. It may very well NOT be okay.

  5. Dave S. Nottear says:

    Sounds like another piece of techno-evangelism.

    “… the clean-car campaign proves that the United States can successfully tackle this environmental crisis.

    That is silly. You are talking about a proposal that might have some effects by 2025 if it any part of it actually is passed and implemented.

    “Better mileage” was a nice idea 40 years ago. Now, “better mileage” is just Lipstick.

    O% Down, 0% interest, 0% payments(1)
    Those clean-car rules:
    * cut gasoline use in half,
    * create 500,000 jobs,
    * deliver new cars in 2025

    Sign Up Now !

    (1 = payments begin with your first born)

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

      Yes, indeed. More cornutopian balderdash. The USA needs public transport and radically reduced private car use, and radical advances in efficiency. But, I suppose that goes against ‘The American Way of Life’, may it R.I.P.

  6. I agree with the critiques of this article. To meet necessary greenhouse gas emissions reductions in the automobile segment, we need serious, sustained VMT reductions in addition to the now-programmed vehicle efficiency improvements:

    On ‘Travel and the Built Environment’
    http://www.architectureweek.com/2010/0818/index.html

ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up