Congressman Issa, Please Step Away from the Car Deal
Posted August 2, 2011 in Curbing Pollution, Moving Beyond Oil, Solving Global Warming
Last Friday, President Obama announced another historic clean car agreement, supported by car companies, the auto workers union, environmental organizations, and states, that by 2025 will double new vehicles’ miles per gallon and cut their carbon pollution nearly in half.
Car owners will fill up half as often and save $3,000 over the life of the car. American families will save $80 billion a year at the pump and cut our national oil addiction by 2.2 million barrels per day. And we’ll create up to 150,000 new American jobs.
Rare good news for the planet, according to the New York Times. Everybody wins.
But not good enough for Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. He's a climate skeptic and no friend of EPA or other federal health and safety agencies. And he's not happy.
According to The Hill, Issa’s got “serious concerns.” So, he’s launched an investigation and fired off letters demanding that the automakers preserve all documents pertaining to negotiations with the Obama administration. He’s bothered by “lack of transparency.” And notwithstanding the projected economic, environmental, and national security benefits, he's worried about “the potential for vehicle cost increases on consumers and negative impact on American jobs.”
Congressman Issa made a fortune building a car alarm company – the alarm features his own voice warning: “Please step away from the car.” So he may think he knows the car business better than the car makers.
But maybe not. Maybe he should take a lesson from Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), another anti-EPA House subcommittee chair, who acknowledged last week that the carmakers can take care of themselves: "If these automobile manufacturers want to reach agreements with EPA, that's their business."
Update Aug. 2: Energy and Commerce chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) -- no softie on EPA -- is also ready to let the deal go forward through the regulatory process. He told Politico: “We've not decided to take that [Issa investigation] course ... We've had some discussions with the auto companies. They believe. They signed the letters of intent. And we'll see how it plays out."
Congressman Issa, please step away from the car deal.
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
Alex — Aug 2 2011 02:39 PM
Gearheads are not looking forward to what this brings.
peter dublin — Aug 5 2011 02:45 PM
RE Energy Efficiency Regulations on Cars, principles also applicable to Buildings, Washing machines, Light Bulbs etc
1. Arguably no product-targeting policy is needed:
Any shortage of oil or other fuels/energy sources raises the price and reduces their use anyway.
Emissions can be dealt with directly, as required.
If oil use REALLY is a big worry:
apart from looking for new oil supply,
then put an import duty on it, or tax it
- much simpler than a multitude of car regulations, and much easier to remove or adjust, as required.
2. Products are not banned for being unsafe to use, but simply to
reduce fuel/energy consumption.
If Products must be targeted for that reason, whether GOP or Democrat,
other policies are better:
Democrat - TAX
A big deficit state like California, and Obama's Budget solving Federal Government,
could Tax not Ban popular but energy using types of Cars, Buildings,
White Goods, TV sets, Light Bulbs etc
Gives a big State /Fed Govmt income,
can also help finance price reduction to give cheaper energy saving
alternatives (or electric car subsidies etc).
So markets are equilibrated, people are not just "hit by taxes", and
they know that a ban is the alternative.
GOP - MARKET COMPETITION
Competition rather than Regulation (or Taxation), gives not only greater voluntary energy efficiency by say competing utilities keeping down their energy cost in generation and grids so as to keep profits,
it also gives desirable energy saving products, which people have always bought, and which could be marketed properly (compare with Energizer bunny etc commercials "Expensive to buy but cheap in the long run")
New fuel/energy efficient start-ups can be supported temporarily, also giving local jobs,
local jobs also easier to set up for small co-operatives etc if simple technology is still allowed. A better policy overall - if any policy
is needed.
More on Car Policies
Beyond Market Competition: Regulation versus Taxation, if fuel use or
emissions need a targeted reduction
http://ceolas.net/#cc25x
.