Thumbs up for Pelosi, Dingell, Nissan

Thumbs down for Toyota, GM, Ford, Washington Post

Posted by Joseph Romm (Guest Contributor) at 5:17 PM on 07 Dec 2007

The Washington Post had an article yesterday 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:

... telling the automakers a year ago that they were going to have to accept a mileage improvement. He bargained hard for trying to make it less, but he deserves credit for coming around and agreeing.

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 U.S. 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.

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

For story: Thumbs up for Pelosi, Dingell, Nissan
5 Comments | Post a Comment

Another Lame Stab

By Pelosi and company to make eco-inroads. Thanks, Joseph, for pointing out that making meager mpg gains is going to do little.

Mostly, this bill (though it won't pass) only pushes billions of dollars from oil to farmers... it's not well-thought, nor comprehensive.

The awesome news? Not one Repub or Dem candidate who is likely to be elected has a viable plan in place. Even more awesome? Green-minded voters will hand their votes to the Dem, just because they think they have to.

Damned sheep.

by todbrilliant at 5:39 PM on 07 Dec 2007

So what action?

Know this, car companies: we'll ultimately need much higher fuel-economy standards than 35 mpg to stave off catastrophic global warming

Which begs the question.

Should we be trying to anemically increase mileage standards?

Or aggresively try to get off liquids by moving towards electricity.

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 8:14 PM on 07 Dec 2007

What About MPG-PP?

MPG is not the ne plus ultra of efficiency.

What about MPG-PP (no, it's not a rating for DVDs your kids can watch). Miles per gallon...per person.

For example, an SUV or minivan may be a 20mpg gas guzzler, but if its transporting a family of four, then that's like 80 mpg for each soul.

Whereas a smug, childless, urban professional "green", tooling along in his 38 mpg KIA, is getting just that 38 mpg-pp. He's also using up more space per person on the roadway than the SUV.

In terms of "Work" he's getting much less done than the SUV family.

by jabailo at 11:15 AM on 08 Dec 2007

Dripping with passive aggression

Wow, I wouldn't want to be riding in anything with you, Mr. Stewing in My Own Rage At Those Know-It-All Liberals.

Why are the only options in Angry World carpooling in an SUV or driving alone in an efficient vehicle? Doesn't a Kia hold four people?

I wonder how parents transported their children before SUVs came along. Did they just have to leave them at home? Surely small children could never fit in a regular car.

Join the discussion on global warming, recycling, and organic beer at The Green Miles!

by TheGreenMiles at 2:43 PM on 08 Dec 2007
[ Parent ]

Smug Alert

Yeah, well, the "smug-38mph-driving single" has not populated the Earth with 3 additional carbon-generating, resource-sucking humans.

I would think that the Earth would be better off with 1/4 the population...driving whatever the heck they want.

The arguments are all so tricky, aren't they.

NoPunProductions.com ~ AmericaTheGreen.org

by Greta at 3:40 PM on 08 Dec 2007
[ Parent ]

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.