How Automakers Threaten and Mislead Consumers:

		in clean vehicles California Global Warming Vehicle Law  Vehicle Safety and Pavley     Consumer Benefits of Pavley   in publications Catalyst: Dirty Secrets of Astroturf Lobbying (PDF)

Despite the widespread public support for Pavley, the auto industry has not brought its engineers to the table to help find cost-effective methods to successfully enforce the regulations.  Instead, it has spent its time rehashing the same old, failed arguments and again "keeping their options open" for litigation.

The following piece takes direct quotes from the automobile industry and their allies to detail and debunk the "spin" coming from their PR departments. In the end, several truths about global warming and this regulation cannot be discounted:

• Global warming is real. Heat-trapping gases (e.g. CO2) are accumulating in the atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing global average surface temperatures to rise. Average surface temperature has increased by 1°F over the 20th Century. There is international scientific consensus that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activity." (IPCC 2001). Even the current administration has acknowledged that this is the case.
   
• Global warming threatens California. A study recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences projected that if we continue on a path of high heat-trapping gas emissions, the state could expect warming between 9-18°F by century's end, as well as increases in extreme heat and heat-related mortality and significant reductions in Sierra snow pack.
   
• Passenger vehicles are the largest single source of heat trapping gas emissions in California.
   
• California's vehicle global warming law prohibits any ban on the sale of a class of vehicle or requirement for vehicle weight reduction.
   
• Cost-effective technologies are available today to reduce heat trapping gas emissions from the vehicles that we drive today.
   
• California's leadership in controlling vehicle emissions has set a worldwide example and is responsible for the spread of clean cars to 25 percent of the national new vehicle market.
   
• If automakers brought its engineers rather than its PR people and lawyers to the table, they could be part of a solution, rather than an obstruction, that would benefit both industry and the environment.

So, what are the auto industry and its allies saying about global warming and California's vehicle global warming regulations?

ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING…

DENIAL…

“CO2 is a fundamental building block for life on earth. Life on earth is carbon based. Plants—the anchor of our planet’s food chain—rely on carbon dioxide for life itself. CO2 is no more a pollutant than water is a poison.” (1)
--From the 2002 “We Decide What We Drive” anti-Pavley campaign designed by Sacramento lobbying firm Kahl/Pownall Companies for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM).  AAM  recently hired Eloy Garcia from Kahl/Pownall to be its director of California state affairs.

“First, C02 is not a pollutant. Repeat, NOT a pollutant. It is a naturally occurring part of the air we breathe—we humans exhale it and plants need it.” (2)
--From a 2004 press release, SUV Owners of America (SUVOA), an auto industry front group run by Strat@comm, a Washington, D.C., public relations firm whose clients have included General Motors, DaimlerChrysler and Ford, as well as the auto industry's two major trade groups.

The Facts: To make industry’s analogy accurate, carbon dioxide is to global warming what water is to a flood.  CO2 is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas that at natural concentrations helps to sustain a habitable climate on Earth. However, elevated  concentrations of atmospheric CO2, arising from additional emissions from human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels, trap excess heat, increasing global average surface temperatures. In California, global warming is projected to result in an increase in heat-related illness and death, higher incidence of conditions conducive to the formation of smog, and disruptions to the state’s water supply. State and federal regulators have long recognized compounds that are beneficial at appropriate levels, but detrimental at high concentrations, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, as pollutants.

IT’S NOT A CALIFORNIA ISSUE…

"California should get (its) nose out of this. One state trying to control global warming is ridiculous."(3)
--Gregory Dana, a vice president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, during the height of the legislative battle over the Pavley Regulations in 2002.

"This is a global climate issue—not California, and not U.S. It's clearly not going to have a great effect.” (4)-- John M. Cabaniss Jr., director of environment and energy at the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, July 2004.

The Facts: In fact, California can have a large impact on global warming. California's new vehicle fleet is the largest in the country, accounting for approximately 12% of new vehicle sales. This in and of itself is an important component of national emissions. 

But perhaps even more important is the effect that California's regulatory decisions have on the rest of the nation. California has long led by example. Right now, close to 25 percent of new vehicles sold in the country meet California emission standards. 

Simply because the federal government has chosen not to take action to limit the emissions that lead to climate change does not mean that California is acting alone. California is part of a global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emission reductions of similar magnitude are being pursued by countries in the European Union. California's new vehicle market is close in size to that of several European countries, including France and the United Kingdom. 

ABOUT CALIFORNIA’S REGULATION…

NO FREEDOM OF “CHOICE”…

“[Pavley] is an open-ended blank check that would empower the Air Resources Board to decide what vehicle products we can offer our customers.”(5)--Avery Greene, a Honda/Buick/GMC Truck dealer from Vallejo and President of the 1,400-member California Motor Car Dealers Association, 2002.

[Pavley regulations] “will reduce the freedom of choice” by pricing sport utility vehicles, minivans and other models out of some consumers' range. (6)
-- A 2002 statement from the American Highway Users Alliance, a Washington-based, industry-dominated organization.  Its membership includes Ford, General Motors, Goodyear, and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

 “…a sneaky effort by State bureaucrats to squeeze Californians out of their SUVs and light trucks without any regard for family, work and lifestyle needs.”(7)
– SUV Owners of America Press Release, 2004

“The implementation approach suggested by ARB would dramatically raise consumer costs and limit consumer choice.”(8)
--Press Release, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, July 2004

The Facts: CARB modeling, as well that completed by UCS, demonstrates that emission reductions are possible in all classes of vehicles. In fact, these studies show that emission reductions are possible while maintaining and even increasing vehicle power, size, and weight.

Indeed, it is the automobile manufacturers who are significantly limiting consumer choice, by fighting tooth and nail against efforts to reduce the global impact of passenger vehicles.  Drivers seeking vehicles that make use of current emission-reducing technologies and designs are limited to a scant few models. Automakers could help significantly—and cost-effectively—expand consumer choice by offering current "off-the-shelf" technologies that cut greenhouse gas pollution as standard features in their vehicle fleets.

And, as mentioned earlier, California's vehicle global warming law prohibits any ban on the sale of a class of vehicle or requirement for vehicle weight reduction.

IT’S IMPOSSIBLE…

“There is a huge gap between what can feasibly be accomplished today and what the [CARB] staff draft has proposed.”(9)              --Dave Barthmuss, spokesman for General Motors, July 2004

“Any scientist, physicist or auto engineer will tell you there is no way to control carbon dioxide at the tailpipe. The only way to combust less fuel is to make cars lighter, smaller and less powerful, stripping them of features that consumers demand.”(10)                                                                                                      --Eron Shosteck, director of communications for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, July 2004

"I suspect the [Pavley] changes would have to be implemented on a much broader scale to make [economic] sense.  It goes to the heart of not just the engine or transmission, but the complete design of the vehicle and the materials used. It could eventually touch essentially everything about the design of a motor vehicle."(11) 
--John M. Cabaniss Jr., director of environment and energy at the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, July 2004

The Facts: This is the most ironic point the automakers make, as Eron Shosteck himself says that, "Eighty percent of the technology [CARB has] identified is currently available on cars and light trucks…"(12) CARB is basing the regulations on those proven technologies, many of which are available in vehicles on the road today. The table below lists some of the technologies that CARB is including in its regulatory analysis and vehicles available today that use these technologies.

Further, engine and transmission improvements have no effect on vehicle size or weight—they simply enable

		in UCS Hybrid Center   Learn more about Hybrid Cars & SUVs

SHIFTING THE BLAME…

“To combat this climate menace, the legislature has mandated a reduction of CO2 from new cars and trucks sold and operated in California. This is a brilliant strategy because few autos are made in California—so cars, trucks and SUVs are an easy, painless target. We note, however, the legislature did not crack down on factories, power plants, grills and other CO2 emitters because too many Californians might complain.” (13)--SUV Owners of America Press Release, July 2004

The Facts: Passenger vehicles are the largest single source of heat trapping emissions in the state. The love affair between Californians and their automobiles has long been a topic romanticized by Hollywood and derided by people outside the state. 

California Heat-Trapping Emissions by Source (1999) (Source: CEC, 2002)

Californians own over 25 million passenger vehicles, more than any other state in the nation. Transportation accounts for almost 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the state, while electricity generation accounts for 30% of emissions (including electricity imported from other states). Industrial and commercial sources account for just over 15 percent of California's greenhouse gas emission inventory.

IT’S TOO EXPENSIVE…

“Measure Gives Broad Authority to Air Board; Possible Huge New Vehicle Fees, Tax on Driving, 50-cent Gas Tax Hike” (14)--We Decide What We Drive Press Release on Pavley, 2002

“We would certainly consider it one of the most, if not the most, comprehensive and costly environmental programs that's ever been adopted—not just by California, but by anyone.” (15)
--John M. Cabaniss Jr., director of environment and energy at the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, July 2004

“It would essentially mandate that multiple technologies be put on every California vehicle, which would dramatically increase cost and we believe dramatically reduce choice.” (16) 
--Dave Barthmuss, spokesman for General Motors, July 2004

The Facts: First and foremost, the law prohibits the state from imposing any additional taxes or fees on passenger vehicles. The regulations will set a performance standard for all manufacturers to meet, but do not place a technology mandate on vehicles sold in the state.

California’s regulation is comprehensive. The regulations draw on the myriad technologies available to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Rather than allowing these technologies to languish on automakers' shelves, the CARB regulation will result in them being used in more vehicles on the road. 

The vehicle improvements resulting from these regulations will provide a net savings to California drivers. Employing these technologies will add to the cost of new vehicles, but the additional cost will be more than made up over the lifetime of the vehicle as a result of reduced fuel usage. At today's average gasoline price of approximately $2.00/gallon, the near term technology improvements will pay for themselves in less than a year and a half of driving. The mid-term technology improvements will pay for themselves in less than three and a half years of driving. The fleet of vehicles that meet the 2012 standard will save California drivers almost $400 million in the first year of driving alone.

WHAT IT’S REALLY ALL ABOUT…

"We still hope that we can work constructively with the Air Resources Board,''(17)
--Eron Shosteck, director of communications, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, 2004

"we're examining all our options,"(18)
--Eron Shosteck, director of communications, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, July 2004

“We expect to challenge successfully the implementation of this law in federal court.”(19)                                                              --Statement by Josephine S. Cooper, President & CEO of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, regarding the Governor of California signing AB 1493 into law, July 2002

The Facts: Despite their claims of wanting to "work constructively" with CARB, the industry has participated very little in discussions regarding the formation and implementation of the Pavley regulations. The Public Policy Institute of California found in July of 2004 that 81 percent of Californians believe it is important for the state to take a leading role in enforcing laws to reduce car emissions that lead to global warming. Instead of using the considerable engineering expertise contained within the industry to find "win-win" solutions, the auto industry seems determined once again to thwart the desires of the citizens in their largest U.S. market and use expensive legal proceedings to try halt any progress, much like they did with the California ZEV law. This penchant of automakers to send lawyers rather than engineers leads merely to more expensive problems rather than the climate and clean vehicle solutions that Californians, and all Americans, need for their health, economic, and environmental wellbeing.  

Quote Citations