Auto Alliance responds to EPA's CO2 warning
Today's EPA's decision to put CO2 on the list of greenhouse gases that endanger human health sets up a totally predictable confrontation with the Auto Alliance. The reason is that if CO2 can be regulated, then there is the potential for individual states (i.e., California) to enact their own greenhouse gas regulations. This, of course, could result in the Alliance's dreaded "patchwork" situation. So, it's no surprise that the Alliance would want to chime in on the decision, and we just got a statement from Dave McCurdy, president and CEO of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. Most of the statement is Allliance boilerplate, but I did notice that there wasn't the same amount of anti-patchwork rhetoric in today's statement as we've heard in the past. McCurdy simply touched on the issue by saying:We are hopeful that the Obama Administration can find ways to bridge state and federal concerns, and move all stakeholders towards an aggressive, national, fuel economy/greenhouse gas emissions program administered by the federal government.The Auto Alliance represents the views of BMW Group, Chrysler LLC, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Jaguar Land Rover, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz USA, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota and Volkswagen. You can read McCurdy's full statement after the jump. The EPA will have a 60-day comment period on their decision, so you can bet there will be more statements to come.
[Source: Auto Alliance]
AUTO ALLIANCE STATEMENT:
Dave McCurdy, president and CEO, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, released this statement in response to EPA's announcement today to seek comments on its proposed endangerment finding:
"Today, the EPA made an endangerment finding on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions that will affect all industries in some way. Automakers are ahead of the curve and have already been taking action, because we understand that being a successful industry means being part of the low carbon economy.
"Autos account for 20 percent of man-made CO2 emissions in the U.S. As automakers, we know that our job is to get cleaner, more fuel-efficient technologies on the road quickly. We already offer customers over 130 models that get more than 30 MPG. There are now over 35 models that are hybrids or clean diesel. This is progress, but we are not stopping with today's accomplishments. We're working on new innovations for the future, including vehicles that don't run on petroleum at all.
"The transition to a new way of using energy and new energy sources requires that we collaborate with government and other industries like never before. For new power trains to be successful, a diverse set of high-quality fuels must be available, whether it is biofuels, clean diesel or the electricity grid. Drivers of electric vehicles, for example, will need someplace to recharge while at work or shopping, and our communities will need an adequate supply of low carbon electricity to power all those vehicles. We all need to be planning for the future today.
"In the end we all share the same goal. Today's administration has the opportunity to reset the debate to address the environment and today's economic realities.
"We are hopeful that the Obama Administration can find ways to bridge state and federal concerns, and move all stakeholders towards an aggressive, national, fuel economy/greenhouse gas emissions program administered by the federal government."
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
GoodCheer 5:19PM (4/17/2009)
Just to remind people, there can never be a patchwork of state regulations. There can be only two: Federal standards, and CARB standards (which other states may adopt).
This is written into law in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, and is that way because CARB set pollution standards before there was federal legislation, and so was grandfathered in.
Reply
AlGore 10:36PM (4/17/2009)
Not to mention the fact that they aren't banning carbon dioxide altogether, those worthless compromisers.
Hey! You! Stop breathing! You're polluting the atmosphere with your evil, greenhouse gas emitting lungs, you scum!
Reply
Tohe 11:10PM (4/17/2009)
OMG, it is you, could you sing me a copy of "Green Hell" pretty please?
AlGore 11:18PM (4/17/2009)
Here in this place lies the genie of death
Touch it, see it
Whoa
Here in this place is a means to your end
Touch it, feel it
Green hell
You've come to this like no one could
I bet you never knew you woke it
And don't you run away from anything
I bet you thought you really could in Hell
We're gonna burn in hell
Green hell
Like every hell but kind of green
In hell, green hell
We're gonna face the mess we're
In hell, green hell
I think I'd rather be up here
In hell, green hell
You know I fucking shake apart
In hell, green hell
Gotta find a way that you will stay
Green hell
Cannot forget about the heat
In hell, green hell
Hell is green, I need a flame
In hell, green hell
Gotta burn in hell
Green hell
You've come to this like no one could
I bet you never knew you woke it
And don't you run from anything
I bet you thought you really could take it
Here in this place is the genie of death
Touch it, see it
Whoa
Here in this place is a means to your end
Touch it, feel it
Green hell
You've come to this like no one could
I bet you never knew you woke it
And don't you run away from anything
I bet you thought you really could
You've come to this like no one could
I bet you never knew you woke it
We're gonna burn in Hell
Green hell
Tohe 11:43PM (4/17/2009)
Grrr I hate it when that happens: "sign". Anyhow thank you for the entertainment.
Tohe 11:07PM (4/17/2009)
Smart Kitty. Mr. McCurdy is downplaying EPA's announcement and looking forward at lobbying Congress, after all, it is easier to get Congressmen on board than it is to shape public opinion. I say watch out for the "Moderate Democrats" the likes of Sen. Evan Bayh.
Jack Gerard the President of the American Petroleum Institute (half as smart) said: “The regulations could impose complex, costly requirements on restaurants, colleges, schools, shopping malls, bakeries, and many other businesses and institutions.” All of this as he share pictures of him smiling along with leaders of the Arab world.
Reply
floorman56 10:31AM (4/20/2009)
Smart Kitty. Mr. McCurdy is downplaying EPA's announcement and looking forward at lobbying Congress
The entire cap and trade plan is a " Full Employment" plan for K street
Carbon's Power Brokers
By George F. Will
Sunday, June 1, 2008; B07
An unprecedentedly radical government grab for control of the American economy will be debated this week when the Senate considers saving the planet by means of a cap-and-trade system to ration carbon emissions. The plan is co-authored (with John Warner) by Joe Lieberman, an ardent supporter of John McCain, who supports Lieberman's legislation and recently spoke about "the central facts of rising temperatures, rising waters and all the endless troubles that global warming will bring."
Speaking of endless troubles, "cap-and-trade" comes cloaked in reassuring rhetoric about the government merely creating a market, but government actually would create a scarcity so that government could sell what it had made scarce. The Wall Street Journal underestimates cap-and-trade's perniciousness when it says the scheme would create a new right ("allowances") to produce carbon dioxide and would put a price on the right. Actually, because freedom is the silence of the law, that right has always existed in the absence of prohibitions. With cap-and-trade, government would create a right for itself-- an extraordinarily lucrative right to ration Americans' exercise of their traditional rights.
Businesses with unused emission allowances could sell their surpluses to businesses that exceed their allowances. The more expensive and constraining the allowances, the more money government would gain.
If carbon emissions are the planetary menace that the political class suddenly says they are, why not a straightforward tax on fossil fuels based on each fuel's carbon content? This would have none of the enormous administrative costs of the baroque cap-and-trade regime. And a carbon tax would avoid the uncertainties inseparable from cap-and-trade's government allocation of emission permits sector by sector, industry by industry. So a carbon tax would be a clear and candid incentive to adopt energy-saving and carbon-minimizing technologies. That is the problem.
A carbon tax would be too clear and candid for political comfort. It would clearly be what cap-and-trade deviously is, a tax, but one with a known cost. Therefore, taxpayers would demand a commensurate reduction of other taxes. Cap-and-trade -- government auctioning permits for businesses to continue to do business -- is a huge tax hidden in a bureaucratic labyrinth of opaque permit transactions.
The proper price of permits for carbon emissions should reflect the future warming costs of current emissions. That is bound to be a guess based on computer models built on guesses. Lieberman guesses that the market value of all permits would be "about $7 trillion by 2050." Will that staggering sum pay for a $7 trillion reduction of other taxes? Not exactly.
It would go to a Climate Change Credit Corporation, which Lieberman calls "a private-public entity" that, operating outside the budget process, would invest "in many things." This would be industrial policy, a.k.a. socialism, on a grand scale -- government picking winners and losers, all of whom will have powerful incentives to invest in lobbyists to influence government's thousands of new wealth-allocating decisions.
Lieberman's legislation also would create a Carbon Market Efficiency Board empowered to "provide allowances and alter demands" in response to "an impact that is much more onerous" than expected. And Lieberman says that if a foreign company selling a product in America "enjoys a price advantage over an American competitor" because the American firm has had to comply with the cap-and-trade regime, "we will impose a fee" on the foreign company "to equalize the price." Protectionism-masquerading-as-environmentalism will thicken the unsavory entanglement of commercial life and political life.
McCain, who supports Lieberman's unprecedented expansion of government's regulatory reach, is the scourge of all lobbyists (other than those employed by his campaign). But cap-and-trade would be a bonanza for K Street, the lobbyists' habitat, because it would vastly deepen and broaden the upside benefits and downside risks that the government's choices mean for businesses.
McCain, the political hygienist, is eager to reduce the amount of money in politics. But cap-and-trade, by hugely increasing the amount of politics in the allocation of money, would guarantee a surge of money into politics.
Regarding McCain's "central facts," the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, which helped establish the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- co-winner, with Al Gore, of the Nobel Peace Prize -- says global temperatures have not risen in a decade. So Congress might be arriving late at the save-the-planet party. Better late than never? No. When government, ever eager to expand its grip on the governed and their wealth, manufactures hysteria as an excuse for doing so, then: better never.
Sasparilla 2:57PM (4/24/2009)
I feel sorry for these poor auto manufacturers - so confused about possibly having one slightly tougher standard for about 1/2 the US market...which they have been living with for decades already. I mean how should they know what to do?
The US government should take pity on them and just adopt the California standards so its all simple for them - then they'll be happy since their won't be any "confusion" about standards (like over the last 20 years) that would be so hard to deal with.
Just a couple of other tidbits relevant to this discussion, the California standards they wine about are still significantly below the standards in place for Europe, Japan and China (and they already make cars for those markets).
Reply
mike!!ekiM 5:21PM (4/18/2009)
Let's not forget that many of these same companies are spending BIG money on the Hydrogen PIPE DREAM. Or, the oil industry is subsidizing Hydrogen development, with a back-room deal.
So, they've got money for the oil-monopoly to continue, but, no money to help the planet from climate Destruction.
Reply
Lad 8:04PM (4/18/2009)
If you look at the list of auto manufacturers in the AAM, you can understand why there is no such thing as a free auto market with a level field of play; the AAM coordinates their activities and is the lobbying group for these manufacturers. Why do you think all these companies will be coming out with their electric drive cars at about the same time?
And, why do you think these same companies are pushing ICEs as hard as they can to reduce their inventory? Over the years, the AAM with their tie-ins to the oil industry, has probably done more damage to their clients than good. And, they certainly have done little good for the American drivers! Makes one want to by a car made by a company not associated with the AAM; Tesla, Nissan, Renault, Fisker, anyone?
Reply