No Accord After Automakers Meet With Enviros, Regulators on GHG Standards
By John O'Dell January 30, 2009
By John O'Dell, Senior Editor
While they've been publicly sniping at one another over California's controversial greenhouse gas reduction rules for automobiles, a group of automakers, environmentalists and regulators have been privately meeting to see if there's any common grounds for agreement.
We're not getting our hopes up.
The series of meetings, conducted at the invitation of the private, nonprofit Aspen Institute, took place over the past few months but have ended with no agreement and no plans for further meetings, according to a source with insider knowledge of the sessions.
The meetings were attended by representatives of Ford Motor Co., General Motors Corp., Toyota Motor Corp., Honda Motor Co., the California Air Resources Board, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and the Union of Concerned Scientists.
All of the participants signed an agreement to keep the content of the greenhouse gas meetings confidential.
Green Car Advisor is told that while the sessions did promote "greater understanding of the issues" by all parties, there were no changes of mind and no agreements to compromise.
The environmental groups and the state regulators want to see California's tough greenhouse gas standards enforced and don't believe that the auto industry can't achieve the goals - a 30 percent cut in tailpipe emissions of carbon gases in new cars and tucks sold in the state after 2016.
The automakers still insist they can't do it, at least not that quickly, and maintain that letting California set its own GHG rules will result in a "patchwork" of regulation that will be killingly expensive for them to comply with and likely would result in a sharp curtailment of the kinds of vehicles they could sell in California and the 13 other states that have adopted California's greenhouse gas rules.
All of the parties, we're told, would love to see a single, nationwide standard.
But there remains a big gulf between what the environmentalists and state regulators see as a reasonable standard - one that pretty much copies California's - and what the automakers consider reasonable.
We think it is moot anyhow, with the Obama Administration having signaled intent to have a national greenhouse gas reduction standard and the President himself having held out California's efforts to regulate its air quality over the years as a model for the country.
For the official record, the meeting participants issued a statement this week on the Aspen Institute's website that acknowledged that the sessions were held and explored "ways to achieve national and state goals for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy improvements."
Participants "succeeded in developing an enhanced understanding of each others' perspectives and concerns...[and] anticipate that these discussions can inform future regulatory deliberations," the statement said.
LEAVE A COMMENT
Well, it was a good try. But why would the environmental groups give in? They don't make anything that competes in the marketplace. Their work product is only legislation, lawsuits and lobbying.
The environmental groups should not "give in". They are already making a huge compromise by promoting changes that have already been proven technically and economically possible, despite the fact that much more needs to be done much faster to mitigate the effects of climate change. They know there is no point lobbying for changes that cannot be accomplished. The auto industry, on the other hand, has no interest in mitigating climate change, and it's near impossible for them to have any, because the majority of their shareholders don't either. Businesses make money for their shareholders and in as short a term as possible. They aren't responsible for the progress of society as a whole. This is why governments exist. Governments set the rules of the game that everyone must play by, based on what is best for society, and governments are allowed to think long term. The big 3 simply don't want to change, as no business ever does, unless there is immediate benefit. They have opposed every safety measure ever proposed, so why would this be any different? The government needs to force whatever standard will protect the long term viability of humanity. If the rules are the same for everyone, there will always be an opportunity to make money. People will still buy the best product available, and will live with the compromises that come with increased efficiency because they simply won't have a choice not to.
ADD A COMMENT