Automaker v. the People: Oregon Response
 

Automaker Lobbyists Seek to Keep Oregon Autos Polluting
Auto Alliance descends on Oregon with deceptive spin to scuttle important emissions regulations

Just who are these automaker lobbyists?
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (a.k.a. the Auto Alliance) is a lobbyist group representing most of the major automobile manufacturers (Ford, GM, Toyota, BMW, Porsche, Volkswagen, DaimlerChrysler, Mazda, and Mitsubishi), excluding Honda and Nissan.  They have a long legacy of lobbying at the state and federal level to prevent any significant movement forward on auto emissions, fuel economy, and safety improvements.  Lately, they have spent a tremendous amount of money first attempting to defeat, then suing to stop California's landmark regulations on global warming pollution from autos.  They led unsuccessful efforts in Washington State to block its adoption of higher auto emission standards, and have now descended upon Oregon in an attempt to derail an auto emissions strategy that would encompass the entire West Coast.

What is the Auto Alliance saying that's deceptive?
Unfortunately, the automakers have decided to continue their tradition of using their lawyers to stymie any significant progress on health, safety, and environmental issues.  As outlined in our report Life in the Slow Lane the automakers have for decades been making "sky is falling" economic claims about such things as mandatory seat belts and improved fuel economy.

The Auto Alliance took their misleading arguments a significant step further this year when it comes to emissions.  In an advertising campaign targeting federal legislators, supplemented by a press campaign at auto shows in cities around the country (including Portland), they have been promoting "virtually emission-free" Autos.  This, an attempt to completely recast the pollution debate away from automobiles, is simply false.  They pretend that harmful heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions from new autos do not exist.  It is a fact that there are more CO2 emissions coming from the average new car today than there were 20 years ago.  Only 4 nations in the world emit more total heat-trapping carbon dioxide pollution from burning fossil fuels than U.S. autos release alone.

Global warming pollution is expected to lead to worse smog, an increase in asthma-triggering pollen and molds, and a substantial rise in the number of heat-related illnesses and deaths.  It is bad enough that the Auto Alliance is engaged in a lawsuit to block breakthrough regulations on global warming emissions from autos.  To compound that anti-consumer action with this blatantly false and misleading claim is irresponsible.  

So what is the Auto Alliance doing in Oregon?
With Washington State's decision to make its adoption of improved auto emission standards contingent on Oregon's agreement, the Beaver State has now become the lynchpin for a clean air region that would stretch from San Diego to Seattle (for global warming pollution, this would also include Canada, which, unlike the U.S. federal government, has made a deal with automakers on decreasing heat-trapping emissions from autos sold in that nation).  The Auto Alliance has therefore started working furiously in Oregon to try and mislead and frighten citizens and legislators alike into opposing this public health initiative.

So what are they saying in Oregon that's deceptive?
In a "fact" sheet sent to Oregon legislators and titled "Higher Costs, NO Environmental Benefits: Senate Bill 344 Harms Consumers and the Oregon Economy," the Auto Alliance makes a number of openly misleading claims against improved emission standards.  Here are a number of quotes from their document and the actual facts:

Auto Alliance Claim: "Automakers are already making vehicles today that are 99 percent cleaner than vehicles from the 1970s.  These vehicles are available in showrooms today!"

Fact: This is yet another spin off of their "virtually emission-free" deception.  First, this statistic completely ignores the fact that there is more heat-trapping CO2 coming from an average new car today than there was 20 years ago.  It is true that federal and state government regulations have forced automakers to cut smog-forming pollution from cars and trucks, but with twice as many autos on the road over the last 30 years traveling farther each day, smog-forming pollution from cars and trucks continues to be a problem.  So, while we have worked with legislators and some automakers over the years on tighter emissions standards, even if every car and truck on the road in 2009 met the federal Tier 2 emissions standards, it would still result in 500,000 tons of smog-forming emissions every year.

The only case where their claim is even remotely true is if you compare the average smog-forming emissions required in 2009 to those of 1965, before government even regulated them.  The Auto Alliance is clearly trying to leave the impression that smog-forming emissions from cars and trucks are not a problem. That is akin to a waiter bringing you a plate of pasta with a cockroach on it and saying, "this plate is 99% cockroach free."    While we look forward to continuing progress and partnership with forward-thinking automakers and decision-makers on smog-forming, toxic, and global warming pollution reductions, casting vehicle pollution as a "problem solved" is simply disingenuous.

Auto Alliance Claim: "This legislation would have no impact on air quality because a California program offers no improvement above and beyond current federal standards."

Fact: This is simply untrue. A study by Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, an interstate association of air quality control divisions in the Northeast states, clearly shows that the California standards will create a 16% improvement in smog-forming pollutant reduction, and more significantly, a 25% improvement in toxic pollutants over federal standards.  The breakthrough regulations on global warming pollution would also lead to a 30% reduction in heat-trapping emissions.

That is a significant improvement given, for example, the fact that that residents of Multnomah County face an estimated average added cancer risk from hazardous air pollutants that is 1,000 times the goal set by the federal government according to a 2002 report by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

Auto Alliance Claim: "Adopting California standards would be costly to Oregon consumers, driving up the cost of a typical vehicle by $3,000 or more!"

Fact: Trusting the Auto Alliance's future cost claims is akin to believing Enron's profit projections. Automakers have a long history of making outrageous, hyperbolic cost claims in an attempt to scare people when it comes to health and safety regulations.  They did so with seat belts, and they did so with air bags.  Indeed, back in 1966, Henry Ford II famously argued that implementation of federal safety requirements for automobiles (including lap and shoulder seat belts) would be so cost-prohibitive that it would force his company to "close down."

In the near term, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) estimates that the vehicle global warming regulations will increase the price of the average car in California by just over $325.  At $2.00 a gallon, you'd be able to recoup your entire investment in a cleaner car in just over a year.  At today's gasoline prices, this payback time will be even shorter. 
 
Auto Alliance Claim: "Adopting California standards would result in the possible elimination of several popular pickup and SUV models—models available in nearby states."

Fact: It hasn't happened in California, why would it happen in Oregon?  This is all fear, note the "WOULD" result in "POSSIBLE" elimination.  The improved emission standards are about encouraging the use of technology currently employed in many vehicle models in a larger portion of the vehicle fleet.  Oregon's consumers and dealers are at a disadvantage as dozens of cleaner vehicle models currently available in California are not available in Oregon because automakers only deliver the cleaner models to states adopting the improved emission standards.

Auto Alliance Claims: "Consumers who rely on the towing and hauling capacity of work vehicles, such as farmers, ranchers, and tradespeople, could lose the horsepower and storage capacity necessary to earn their livelihoods."

"Tourism could suffer, as fewer vehicles would be available to tow boats, camping trailers, and recreational vehicles."

Fact:  California's standards include an exemption specifically for the sale of work vehicles such as large trucks and vans.  A portion of a manufacturer's sales can be certified to less stringent criteria pollutant standards.  In addition, these vehicles are exempt from the greenhouse gas emission standards.  Furthermore, California's emission standards only apply to passenger vehicles – these are vehicles less than 10,000 lbs that meet the definition of a passenger vehicle.

More importantly, clean, high-efficiency engines do not have to be low-power engines. In fact, light truck horsepower has increased by more than 40% over the past decade, while greenhouse gas emission levels have remained relatively constant.  Light truck models in California have been able to meet improved smog-forming emission standards as well.  The key to reducing emissions while maintaining good performance is the introduction of advanced technologies, many of which have already been developed and are just waiting to be used more broadly.  For example, the use of variable valve timing & lift produces engines that are both more efficient and more powerful than most engines in trucks today. Also, using cylinder shut-off means you can have a powerful 8-cylinder engine when you need high torque and power, and an efficient 4-cylinder engine with half of the cylinders shut off at low power to operate more efficiently.  The Auto Alliance's claim is yet another "sky is falling" argument that ignores the very technologies its members have available.

Auto Alliance Claim: "Oregon farmers see a bright future in the emerging biodiesel industry.  Adobping California standards would prohibit Oregonians from buying diesel cars, virtually quashing this emerging Oregon industry."

Fact: There does not have to be and there must not be a tradeoff between air quality and controlling climate change.  Together, biodiesel and the CA LEV program can help ensure progress on both.  Automakers talk themselves about their diesel cars being able to meet pollution standards equivalent to California LEV II this decade.  So these cleaner diesel cars could not only support the biodiesel industry, but could also have emissions comparable to cleaner gasoline cars at the same time.

Auto Alliance Claim: "Adopting California standards would create an unnecessary and costly bureaucratic infrastructure, which taxpayers would ultimately have to pay for through new taxes."

Fact: This policy achieves big reductions in air pollution with little to no public expenditure. The New Jersey fiscal note was zero for adopting the standards.  Massachusetts added a total of only one staff person to implement the standards.

In fact, these regulations will save Oregon drivers substantially over the lifetime of their vehicles.  As the table below shows, Oregonians who purchase vehicles compliant with the greenhouse gas emission standards, will save between $2,300 and $3,200 over the lifetime of their vehicles.  And, the additional up-front cost of the vehicles will be made up in just over a year in the case of the 2012 standards and three years in the case of the 2016 standard.  All told, the purchasers of vehicles that comply with the greenhouse gas emission standards will save approximately $1.2 billion over the lifetime of their vehicles.  

Source; UCS calculations based on: AAA average fuel cost for Oregon, $2.31/gallon (6/28/2005), 5% real discount rate, CARB cost and VMT data.  AEO and Wards sales data.  All values in 2002 dollars.

Auto Alliance Claim: "Oregon could cede authority to California if the state imports California standards.  Shouldn't decisions affecting Oregonians be made in Salem rather than in Sacramento?"

Fact:  Salem  is making the decision here.  Oregonians have the option to adopt California standards if they so choose.  Under federal law, Oregon has the choice to go with weaker federal emission standards, or choose the improved standards of California.  The Automakers fought to keep it so that Oregon CANNOT legally make these significant improvements to public health policy entirely on their own, now they want Oregon to have no choice at all.  However, Oregon holds significant power at this time to be key in a regional solution. By joining Washington and California, Oregon would create the critical mass needed to realize a regional vehicle emissions solution stretching from San Diego to Seattle with far more effective benefits for everyone on the West Coast. 

Auto Alliance Claim: "Federal law specifically prohibits states from setting fuel economy standards.  California's fuel economy program is an attempt to sidestep federal law and is now the subject of litigation."

Fact: This is about air pollution.  While automakers are hoping that repeating the above false claim over and over will make it true, the fact is that California's global warming emission regulations are about reducing the amount of heat-trapping emissions that are changing our climate and will lead to increased smog and respiratory illness.  This can be achieved by making vehicles more efficient, switching to alternative fuels and improving vehicle air conditioning systems.  The fuel economy of some vehicles may be affected, but this is similar to smog standards that can also affect fuel economy. California has the authority to regulate auto pollution even if it impacts fuel economy, and the litigation the Alliance refers to is being led by none other than the Auto Alliance itself.  There is no need for Oregon to allow a lawsuit led by the Auto Alliance to delay the positive impacts of improved emission standards on smog-forming, toxics, and global warming pollution.

Auto Alliance Claims: "Mandates force all automakers to focus their efforts on specific vehicles and technologies that may not gain market acceptance, while diverting resources away from research and development on other approaches for producing cleaner, more fuel-efficient vehicles."

"Consumer tax incentives can help spur sales of [advanced technology] vehicles."

Fact: This is akin to opposing seatbelts and air bags on the hopes that something better will come along some day.  Of course, the auto industry DID oppose seat belts and airbags claiming people did not want them, and yet today they gladly tout these safety features to help improve the market acceptance of their products. Advanced technology will help in the future, but people are getting asthma and lung disease today—and every day we do not address climate change is another day when millions of tons of heat trapping gasses are emitted into the atmosphere along side the hot air from the auto industry. 

We cannot afford to wait for a silver bullet some time in the future when the technology exists today to help clean up cars and trucks.  Whether it is fuel economy, safety, or pollution reduction, the auto industry has only made significant strides forward when mandated to do so.  While we at UCS support vehicle tax credits such as those in the Senate's CLEAR Act and the concept of both consumer and automaker incentives, they need to work in tandem with the basic, effective standards needed to protect public health and the environment.

Okay, the Auto Alliance has put forth some serious misrepresentations, but why did you choose a child holding a cigarette?

The Auto Alliance began their deceptive ad campaign with the picture of an adorable child in a car seat, implying their products are clean and healthy for our children.  Automakers have not lived up to their responsibility to clean up their products and reduce risks for our children's health and environment.  Further, with this dubious choice in ad strategy, the Auto Alliance is trying to hide harmful contents of their products much like cigarette makers did. Their blatantly false claims deserve a powerful response.   To see the Auto Alliance's original ad and our response, please click here.

So what does this mean for Oregonians?
Oregonians stand to gain a greater choice in cleaner vehicles, enjoy savings at the gas pump, and serve as the decisive link in a major regional initiative to clean up air pollution on the West Coast.  This is a major public health decision that should be made on public health and welfare grounds.  By casting such an outrageous net of unsubstantiated, misleading, and fear-inducing rhetoric, the Auto Alliance has forfeited its credibility and set itself against progress on  vital public health issues.