Students of industry will know that carmakers have been famously reluctant to concede the existence of any form of pollution that they might have something to do with, no matter the evidence. But it is the topic of greenhouse gas emissions -- and the whole global warming brouhaha these last several years -- which have forced them into their most memorable contortions and circumlocutions in more than half a century of regulatory combat.
General Motors' emanations on the greenhouse gas issue have historically been the industry's most ornery, but they have also been easily among its most amusing; reminiscent, when considered in sum, of pop star George Michael's undeniably ineffective denial of his alleged homosexuality some years back. When a New York City tabloid called the former Whamsman out on his then only putative dating preferences, following his unexpected appearance on stage at a Madison Square Garden performance by Sir Elton John (he of onetime Watford Trouser Pilots football club fame, if I'm not mistaken) and before his arrest in an L.A. men's room, Michael protested to the effect of: "I'm not gay and it's nobody's business that I am!" In a similar feat of philosophical athleticism, GM has wanted you to know that there is no such thing as global warming. And it's not its fault that there is.
Lately, the world's largest automaker (for now -- Toyota is coming up fast in GM's rear-view mirror,) has adjusted its public posture for easier public consumption. While it still refers to the discussion about global warming as a "debate" - a certain tip-off that it follows in the footsteps of scientific uncertaintists like the tobacco, chemical, nuclear power and genetically-modified food industries, to name a few who would endlessly question its critics' factual bases -- it has for the last few years acknowledged that it must at least act as if it takes the possibility of automobile CO2 emissions seriously; if for no other reason than that green fig leaves like the Prius hybrid allow archrival Toyota to get away with selling a lot of profitable big pickup trucks and SUVs, with little of the public opprobrium that seems to follow GM and its endless streams of gas-swilling Suburbans, Hummers and Tahoes like so many, well, gas-swilling Suburbans, Hummers and Tahoes.
Lately, while leaving the responsibility for outrageous public commentary to politicians, like James Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who calls climate change "a hoax" or the petroleum refiners' best friend, Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, who has predicted dire economic catastrophe should any further regulation come to bear, GM and its industry brethren have moved to present a kinder, gentler face on the subject of global warming, but one which is no more likely to save the planet or, indeed, change anything than its previous head-in-the-sand beligerence. The new tact is admitting the need for action and regulation, but conditioning the possibility of such action and regulation in ways that will make it -- or any change at all -- impossible.
For examples, look first to the machinations last week of Michigan Democrat John Dingell, known for decades as the congressman from General Motors (and Ford and DaimlerChrysler and Toyota and all those who seek to protect their right to sell the biggest, thirstiest trucks they can.) Dingell claims to have seen the light and purports to work now for comprehensive climate change legislation pertaining to the auto industry, with the support (no surprises, here) of the carmakers and the United Auto Workers, which union, alas, has been, with few exceptions, a lockstep supporter of the industry's opposition to environmental regulation, buying the specious claims that clean air laws and improved fuel mileage standards will eliminate American jobs.
- The controls on greenhouse gases must be mandatory and spread across all industry sectors.
- Any bill must not disrupt the economy.
- Any bill must have bipartisan support and it must be capable of passing the House and Senate and being signed by the president.
In other words, don't hold your breath. With these conditions in place, any meaningful bill's passage, in the tart but uncharacteristically accurate view of Texas Rep. Barton, would be "a miracle of biblical proportions."
A similar shake and fake was perpetrated by the CEOs of the big automakers who testified before Congress last week. While readily conceding that improvements in their vehicles' fuel economy would be salubrious in relation to the topics of global warming and world geopolitics, and that government action was urgently required, the men from Detroit, like Chrysler CEO Tom Lasorda (no relation to the ex-Dodger manager,) explained that, in the industry's view, this could only come about through higher taxation of gasoline, rather than by mandating, as many elected representatives have proposed, higher corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards. (Despite world's of technological progress, CAFE standards have not been raised in more than 20 years, such failure being a particular blight on the Clinton administration, which at least paid lip service to curbing global emissions of C02. For those who don't know, every gallon of gasoline a car doesn't burn lowers its C02 emissions.)
The industry's position is, at first blush, intellectually curious. For they are saying to the government, stimulate demand for better fuel economy by raising the cost of gasoline, through taxation, so that people will be encouraged by their own pocketbooks to buy more fuel efficient (read smaller) cars. On the other hand, they're saying, whatever you do, don't get people to drive more fuel-efficient cars by mandating that we build them. Either way, however, the result would be people driving smaller, less polluting cars that the carmakers will have to build. The only difference? The industry's preferred strategy requires Congress to raise gasoline taxes, a complete non-starter of an idea for anyone who wants to get re-elected.
One could point out that CAFE requirements didn't hurt the industry when they were first enacted, even though they fought them bitterly then, with the most dire predictions of economic doom and gloom, none of which came to pass. Ironically, if we'd had stricter fuel economy standards now, the industry wouldn't be in the trouble it is now, with the Japanese, Korean and other competitors who build higher economy cars more readily.
But that's not the point. Nobody tells these guys what to do.
****
STILL COOKING THE BOOKS, AFTER ALL THESE YEARS?
Look for David Stockman, the erstwhile boy wonder and number-crunching face of Ronald Reagan's supply-side, er, revolution, to be indicted this week, in connection with his stewardship of now-bankrupt auto parts maker Collins and Aikman Corp. As a partner in Heartland Equity Group, Stockman became the CEO of Collins & Aikman -- the world's 54th biggest auto parts supplier as recently as 2005 -- five years ago, when Heartland, a private equity firm, bought into the maker of automotive interiors. He remained at the tiller until C&A slid violently into federal bankruptcy court in 2005, broke and without a hint of a plan what to do about it.
Along with other executives at Heartland and C&A, Stockman (a former congressman who worked at Salomon Bros. following his Reagan tenure and also helped found the notably wealthy private equity firm, Blackstone Group, before leaving to found Heartland Partners,) is expected to face charges - brought by the U.S. attorney in New York and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, with the Securities and Exchange Commission thought to be lurking, -- including accounting irregularities and incomplete financial disclosures.
Wait a second, wasn't accounting irregularity and incomplete disclosure more or less the deal with Stockman's tenure at the Office and Management and Budget, when he was chief point man for the policies that led to the largest deficits in American history? Yes, of course, ("No one really understands what's going on with all this money," he famously told William Greider in the pages of the Atlantic Monthly,) but that was government business and the people's money. This is business' business (domestic automakers have reportedly had to fork out hundreds of millions to keep C&A, whom they depend on, afloat) and private investors getting burned. Justice must be served.