THE AUTO COMPANIES
Whose Money are they Using to Oppose Environmental Controls?

As a lifelong Detroiter, the auto companies are like my family. Maybe the grouchy old uncles who you never agree with kind of family, but kin nonetheless. Around here everyone -- factory workers, health care providers, accountants, restaurant owners, dry cleaners -- everyone is part of the "auto industry." And whether you drive American or not, you know that the ongoing survival of the domestic car companies in this country is crucial to our ability to survive--as a state, a community, professionally, individually.

The reports are more than grim -- they're take-your-breath-away scary: Michigan's jobless rate is a whopping 9.6%, tied for the highest in the country(with Rhode Island). And in a country where one in 10 U.S. homeowners was at least one month behind in mortgage payments, Michigan is ranked fifth in the country in home foreclosures. The experts all agree: if the auto companies go under, an economic tsunami is predicted here in Michigan.

What should we do? It seems clear from here that we need to extend a hand to help the auto companies hang on until the national economic credit crisis is successfully resolved --Michigan simply won't survive otherwise.

But in exchange for receiving billions of dollars of federal money, given or loaned, it is fair to expect a quid pro quo: the recipients of federal aid should be required to abandon their entrenched opposition to environmental protections. An industry that opposed the Clean Air Act, and has repeatedly fought increased emission standards, must now agree, at least, not to spend these funds to further these anti-environmental positions.

In particular, it means that if we give or lend money to the auto companies, they must withdraw from their participation in the lengthy, expensive, multi-state litigation brought by the auto industry targeting global warming/emissions laws in California, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The auto companies, along with an extensive list of suppliers, and others in the auto industry, are paying some of the most expensive counsel in the U.S. to pursue their attempts to derail individual states' attempts to beef up emissions standards. Significantly, the EPA under the Obama administration is expected to revise its standards to meet these stricter levels shortly, largely mooting the litigation. Understandably, taxpayers in the states embroiled in the litigation are not happy about subsidizing the auto companies' attempts to subvert their environmental laws. Withdrawing from this litigation will go a long way to showing that the Big 3 are genuine in their commitment to a cleaner environment.

So far, the automakers have refused to consider dropping the litigation. Their refusal, together with certain of their new models, such as the 2009 gas guzzling Jeep Grand Cherokee, which gets 11 mpg in city driving, calls into question the commitment of the auto companies. This defiance of gas mileage goals flouts what should be the bare minimum expectations of the new, not yet introduced, car models. Instead, some of the reviewer's comments (as illustrated by the Detoit News' Scott Burgess) are celebrating the in-your-face defiance signified by the new Jeep:

Gloriously fast, this SUV sucks down more gas than even the EPA thinks: 11 miles per gallon city and 14 mpg highway. Those are under the best conditions. During my test drive of this SRT8, I probably used a gallon just to start it and listen to the specially tuned 6.1-liter Hemi roar at the touch of my toe.
I don't know its carbon footprint, but it's destined to be outlawed in all of the nambypamby states following California's barely legal tailpipe emission laws crafted by people who think their '77 Rabbit diesel is "fun."
No doubt Congress, at the behest of high priced eco-lobbyists, will require Chrysler to retool the SRT8 program into some sort of polar bear rescue team. After all, their magnificent contributions to the automotive world have melted polar ice caps, etc., etc., etc.
...And let's get one thing straight: SUVs did not cause global warming. Fiction writers did.


The state and the country needs the auto companies to survive. But the management needs to recognize that they need us, too, and they owe us the commitment to our environment that reality, and the public, is demanding.