“Tired of High Gas Prices? Tough!” A Message from Your Friends at the Auto Alliance

We hoped that the somewhat softer tone the automakers have taken lately on fuel economy would translate into a more genuine dialogue from their main lobbyist and PR group—the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (a.k.a. the Auto Alliance). Indeed, you might remember that we asked you to get in touch with the new head of this group, Dave McCurdy, and ask that they stop their “spinning and suing” campaign against global warming standards on autos.

Well, not only is the lawsuit continuing on automotive global warming pollution, but the Auto Alliance has decided to go back to their tired old disinformation campaign in an attempt to scuttle the Senate effort to improve fuel economy standards. Yes, the same people who brought you the infamous “virtually emission-free” advertisement are now attempting to scare people into thinking that a 35 mile per gallon standard would force everyone into small, unsafe cars. You can read about it and hear their radio spots here. UCS is, of course, countering their misleading ads by clearly showing the utter and complete distortion of this campaign.

Given that the Senate fuel economy bill is currently far weaker than it should be—containing out clauses that could allow the automakers to do nothing to improve fuel economy—this ad campaign is truly reactionary.  This is especially true in the face of current gas prices, and heavy consumer sentiment in favor of higher fuel economy standards in one of the very segments of the driving public they are targeting.

Posted by: ScottN

Comments

[GoodToGreen]

I actually do some work with the AAM, and from what I understand the Senate is trying to make the standard 52mpg by 2030 which isn't weak at all. Additionally, I don't think they are trying to "scuttle" the Senate effort, but are looking for a better solution. My problem is Congress that often puts together a bill just so they can say they have done something without actually making a positive difference. It would be a lot more progressive if we were encouraging the growth of alternative energy and fuels rather than creating new regulations on top of old ones. Car companies listen to consumers - when they want more fuel efficient cars the industry will build them, and government should not be getting in the way of consumer choice. The impact of Washington will make by this is very likely to cost consumers more than help by forcing the industry to implement technology that isn't even invented yet and is just the wrong approach.

[ScottN]

GTG, not trying to be cheeky, but perhaps you could funnel some good information back to the folks you work for at the Auto Alliance. First, the 52mpg by 2030 is absolutely false. That would happen only if the increases in CAFE in the Senate bill were to continue without cessation, and there is nothing in the bill that does that. Once it meets the 35mpg standard, it's up to NHTSA to determine whether the standard can go up again. So please stop propagating something that is just untrue.

And, as we've said over and over here, alternative energies and fuels ONLY have a positive role to play if it's done in combination with an increase in fuel efficiency. Thinking that an "ethanol rush" is somehow going to replace a needed, and very technically feasible increase in the efficiency of our cars is nothing but a "pass the buck" mentality that will only lead to more oil addiction and pollution.

I've already given the link to our debunking of the Alliance's ad campaign, but here is one on biofuels vs. fuel efficiency:

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/fuel_economy/fuel-economy-the-single-most-effective-step-for-cutting-oil-depedence.html

and here is David Friedman's excellent Senate testimony on the feasibility, practicality, and advantages of a firm 35mpg CAFE standard.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/fuel_economy/fuel-economy-senate-testimony.html

Sorry to rant, but we hoped to engage in a meaningful exchange with the Auto Alliance when McCurdy came on, but instead it's more excuses rather than cleaner cars.

Enough is enough.

[GoodToGreen]

Scott, I absolutely agree that alternative energies and fuels in conjunction with increased fuel efficiency are essential to our future. I also agree that ethanol is not some silver bullet and that a “pass the buck” mentality is completely the wrong way to go on this issue.

But I still have to believe that much more will get done when consumer demand cleaner, more fuel efficient cars and vote with their pocket books so to speak – like they did with dolphin-free tuna, like they are starting to do with energy saving light bulbs. Living in an area where recycling is legally required I can tell you that making something a new law doesn’t make average Americans want to do it even if its for their own good.

Its only when it hits their own pocket books that people will change their car buying and driving habits and we’ll get some positive change on this issue – not by pushing Washington to make more laws. How does that get people to not want to drive the cars and trucks they already have? And what happens if we push car companies to build cars don’t want to buy?

I agree that it is the time for immediate action, and we can’t waste the opportunity we have in the next couple weeks in Washington. But I’m not worried about McCurdy – I’m worried about average American consumers who still buy more trucks than cars.

[Pankaj]

I think we're going to see some changes in the way people think and behave. It's inevitable! With gas prices over $4/gallon and showing no signs of retreat, real estate and Wall Street in retreat and people suffering economically, they're finally going to realize that they cannot continue to drive huge SUVs and take their car for short trips. The right direction for Americans would be increased usage of scooters to navigate in and about town.