Cross-posted at Democratic Courage blog.

Barack Obama got huge coverageyesterday for "standing up" to the auto industry by calling on them to accept tighter fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks - and doing it in their own backyard in Detroit. Although it's encouraging anytime a candidate calls for increasing fuel economy, we have to ask:  is Obama's proposal really anything to coo about?

The core of Obama's plan is raising fuel efficiency standards to 40 miles per gallon by 2022 - and paying off American auto companies for doing this by funneling $3 billion in taxpayer subsidies to the big auto companies in exchange, primarily to alleviate their high health care costs.

Two problems: first, Obama's plan doesn't move anywhere near fast enough to address the twin challenges of global climate deterioration and reliance on oil. His plan is about the same as that proposed by the Bush administration (although the administration's plan includes huge loopholes that Obama's doesn't). The 2022 deadline is at least ten years behind what is technically feasible and at least that many years behind what is climatologically essential. The latest international climate report concludes that urgent action is needed to avoid mass extinction, melting ice caps, famine and disease. "We don't have the luxury of time," said Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  What's more, research by the Union of Concerned Scientists shows that currently available technology could raise fuel efficiency standards to 40 miles per gallon by 2012, while still producing net savings for consumers.

Indeed, that savings points to the second gap in Obama's plan: he focuses on the costs to the auto companies without focusing on the costs of their inaction to the consumer: according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, raising fuel efficiency standards to 40 miles per gallon would save each driver between $3500 and $6500 over the life of the vehicle - way more than the $500-$2000 a car might cost with improved technology. If gas prices continue at their current high levels, savings would be even greater, especially for farmers, Westerners, and people who use their vehicles for business - or anyone else who drives long distances. (In fairness, Obama did propose to help consumers with some tax incentives for efficient vehicles).  

A third gap is Obama's continuing obsession with promoting ethanol as a substitute for gasoline. Not only are ethanol's cost savings non-existent, it's dubious that ethanol -cellulosic or otherwise - has any real environmental benefit. A recent  study in the Environmental Science and Technology journal found that ethanol produces more deadly pollutants than regular old dirty gasoline.  And it's benefits for the climate are tiny,  and maybe non-existent. Finally, it could have devastating impact on Nature by causing farmers to expand agriculture into formerly pristine wilderness, both here in America and in the world's diminishing tropical forests (which also serve as the planet's lungs).

Worst of all, parts of Obama's approach are proven failures. Bill Clinton and Al Gore tried it in the 1990's with their Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles. The program gave the auto companies more than $1 billion to spend on research into fuel efficient cars - but after eight years, fuel efficiency had actually declined slightly, causing a bipartisan effort in the House of Representatives to slash funding for the program to succeed (though funding was later restored in negotiations with the White House and the Senate). The Bush administration then recycled the subsidies-for-efficiency plan with its Freedom Car proposal to funnel another $1 billion in taxpayer subsidies to the auto companies to create a more efficient car, but this program had similar results: more money in auto execs pockets, no improvements in efficiency.

Should U.S. taxpayers should really have to pick up the bill for the auto industry's inefficient health care schemes?" As Malcolm Gladwell discussed in a brilliant August 28, 2006 New Yorker piece, the auto companies are mainly to blame for their high health care costs: they chose a single company-by-company health insurance package instead of economy-wide health care because they were afraid that collective health care - though it might be more efficient - would put too much power into the hands of workers.  

Nevertheless, Obama may be justified in trying to bribe the auto companies - after all, their opposition (along with the United Auto Workers' union) has been the main factor preventing Congress from passing significantly higher fuel efficiency standards, despite overwhelming public support. But it's doubtful that it will work. All Obama got from the automakers for his trouble was criticism. "We think it should be based on objective criteria and not politically attractive numbers," Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Vice President Gloria Berquist told The Chicago Tribune. "It's not attainable."

All in all, Obama's "new" proposals is a great example of what's likely to happen with all his other attempts to forge some kind of new center. He'll do lots of reaching out, propose some grand bargains, and find that Republicans and corporations throw them back in his face - all he will have achieved is to move the starting point for negotiations closer to their direction, which opens a broader question: do we want such a terrible negotiator as president?

Meanwhile, both Hillary Clinton and especially John Edwards have supported more aggressive means to  reduce global warming and our dangerous reliance on oil. Edwards was on record in favor of 40 mpg standards during his 2003 campaign and has proposed achieving 40 mpg by 2016 (although  his plan is more ambitious than Obama's, it includes many of the same weaknesses like support for ethanol and taxpayer subsidies for the auto industry) ; Clinton has generally supported higher fuel efficiency standards as well (usually without the subsidies Obama is asking to go along with them). If past is prologue, the auto industry will fight any and all of these proposals no matter how many sops they're offered until the very last minute. It's what they did with seatbelts, airbags, and catalytic converters.

If we're to truly tackle these problems, we're going to need someone who can organize and beat the auto companies not repeat the failures of coddling them - hopefully, all the candidates will learn this.

Toyota announced today their 5-year plan for helping the environment. And there are some good things in there, including:

- achievement of best-in-class fuel efficiency performance,

- reduction of total energy usage of manufacturing facilities and operations in North America by 27% per vehicle produced, using FY 2002 as a base year,

- promotion of basic environmental research aimed at CO2 emissions reductions, and

- reduction of waste in sales and logistics facilities, including a 90% recycling rate at vehicle distribution centers by FY 2011, reduction of non-hazardous waste to landfill from parts operations by 33% by FY 2011 (FY2006 baseline), diversion of 95% waste from Toyota Canada facilities from landfill by FY 2010 and reduction of Canadian facility paper consumption per person by 25% by FY 2010.

This is all well and good, and all of us greens have been big fans of Toyota and they're so great, blah, blah, blah.

But, notice in the first goal, an important sentence, "achievement of best-in-class fuel efficiency performance" This is important. According to FuelEconomy.gov the 2007 Toyota Sequoia 4WD model gets 16 miles to the gallon.

This means that Toyota will work to get the best fuel economy in the class, based partly on what that class is legally required to get. They're not saying, 'our fleet will get 30mpg, or 40mpg. They're saying, they'll do the minimum they have to, plus a little to put them on top.

Until we close the SUV loophole, and legally mandate a higher mpg for all vehicles automakers, every one of them, will take advantage of these loopholes.

First of all, thank you to Dan and the rest of the Environmental Action team for inviting me to blog here while Dan is on vacation. I hope you all enjoy my posts as much as Dan's.

As you've probably seen or heard already, the "father of the hybrid car," David Hermance, died in a plane crash on Saturday. The condolences of the entire Environmental Action team go out to his friends and family. Dave was the Executive Engineer for Advanced Technology Vehicles for Toyota, and oversaw the development and launch of the Prius.

But let's talk about David's legacy, and what hybrid cars are doing for our country (besides reducing pollution and using less gas).

In an interview with Alan Alda (yes, that Alan Alda) for the PBS program "Scientific American Frontiers" in 2004, David Hermance was asked, "If [the Prius] is so good, why don't you just say to them, here's the car for you, and this is the one you're going to get because this gets the best mileage, it performs just like the car you've been driving, only this is better. Costs about the same and so now that's the car that you can buy. Why offer them others that are not as good?"

Dave's response shows just how far we've come since 2004: "Well, in the US, sad to say, folks don't largely value fuel economy. Most of the population of the US is not convinced that global warming is real or that cars have anything to do with it."

You can read the rest of this transcript here, if you're interested.

Since this interview, sales of hybrid cars in the US (lead by the Prius) have skyrocketed (Jan. 2006 report, Top Ten Hybrids of 2006), and global warming has taken center stage as the environmental issue facing our country and our world in the minds of a growing number of Americans.

This sea change shows no sign of slowing, and it is the result of countless hours of work by scientists, activists like you and me, and even an ex-Vice President to spread the word about global warming and the dangers it poses to our planet.

The fact that hybrid cars were introduced and marketed as green alternatives over six years ago is also an important reason why global warming, energy independence, and fuel efficiency loom larger on the radar screens of many Americans today. Dave's legacy is one not only of technological innovation, but also one of raising awareness of probably the biggest challenge to ever confront us as a species.

Thanks to innovators like David Hermance, we are in a better position today to stop global warming before we feel its worst effects. Dave understood that sometimes you have to introduce the change before the "market researchers" say we're ready for it. He didn't wait until global warming was making headlines to do something about it, and we need more leaders like him in both our government and energy and transportation industries. The time to create real change is now. Hybrid cars were the beginning, but we need to go much further.

Dave's sudden death is tragic. He was 59, and the engine in his small plane apparently just stopped running while he was flying off the coast of California. It is comforting, however, to know that he lived long enough to see the early success of his work.

Dave, we'll miss you, but we promise to pick up where you left off. Thanks.

Apparently, it isn't that easy being green. Ford is now backing away from their promise to produce 250,000 hybrid vehicles by the end of the decade.

Not surprisingly, they are jumping on board the flex-fuel bandwagon along with GM and Chrysler. Of course, hybrid vehicles would actually reduce oil consumption, whereas flex-fuel vehicles only have the potential to reduce consumption if ethanol (which isn't readily available) is actually used in the vehicles.

I wonder what Kermit thinks of this backpedaling.

NPR has a series of stories on fuel efficiency. Here's one, another, and an interview with Chrysler CEO.

NPR's site also has a bunch of great information on the issue, including why window sticker mileage doesn't tell the real story.

If there was any doubt left that GM was the last great holdout from a different era, this should end it. The company is offering to cap gas payments at $1.99 for one year for some of their most fuel efficient SUVs.

Now hopefully the average consumer won't get duped into this—recognizing that the payoff only lasts a year, after which point they would be stuck with an inefficient and expensive car. The other hope of course is that gas prices continue to shoot through the roof this summer, sticking GM with another big fat bill.

(Hat Tip to TP)

GM has decided to discontinue the Hummer H1, which gets 10 mpg. Apparently there were 374 people (fill in appropriate expletive) enough to buy the $130,000 tank-of-a-car in 2005.

One Hummer down two to go.

With Bush scrambling for fast and easy solutions to gas prices - opening the SPR, suspending clean air rules to cut refineries a break - John Sununu took a little bit of a shot at the President yesterday.

Sununu (by the way, recently named the smartest U.S. senator by John McCain) told the Concord Monitor:

"It was a mistake to suggest that the bloated energy bill that passed last year was a solution to this problem, and it's a mistake to suggest that a few quick changes make today a solution to the problem."

Good for him, right? Sununu was, after all, one of the few senators to oppose the energy bill, sticking to his guns about the outrageous cost of the measure.

He goes on to say that nuclear power is the biggest and best way to cut our enormous appetite for oil. Which is puzzling, because such a big - and growing - percentage of the oil we use goes to transportation.

As for others in the NH delegation quizzed about the issue:

Jeb Bradley: Worried about gas prices becoming an election issue? Didn't want to say. Called for bipartisan solutions. Loves his new hybrid.

Charlie Bass: Says he's left the family Suburban in the garage of six weeks and counting. Now he's driving the Volvo. Oh, and the market is the best way to set fuel efficiency standards.

Uggh...if only they had waited a couple of more days...April 1st is just around the corner. Instead, the Bush administration opted to release their "do nothing-say everything" fuel efficiency rule today.

"The new standards represent the most ambitious fuel economy goals for light trucks ever developed in the program's twenty-seven year history," Secretary Mineta said. "And more importantly, they close loopholes that have long plagued the current system".

Umm..these policies actually used to save us oil once upon a time. I'm assuming that Mineta is discounting the years between 1977-85 when fuel efficiency caused U.S. oil consumption to drop 17%.

The Bush proposal is a 1.8% increase over four years. While it is certainly a positive step to require the largest SUVs to meet a standard, the exemption of pick-up trucks and the small increase in the standard makes this rule more of a dog and pony show, then a real racehorse.

Despite the catchy slogan, "Go Yellow, Live Green", GM is proposing to increase production of full-size SUVs by 1,000 cars. The brief story in the Detroit Free Press is yet another indication of why this company is no longer the King of the Hill—but is rather fast approaching the bottom of the barrel. While the public definitely ate up GM's large trucks and SUVs in the 90s, the industry still isn't able to demonstrate any foresight. And to be honest, given all of the news stories about the public increasingly turning away from SUVs, we can't exactly call it foresight.

As gas prices continue to rise, SUVs will likely continue to shrink. Perhaps there will always be a market for gas-guzzlers, and apparently GM is staking its future on dominating that dwindling demographic.

A story in the Wall Street Journal today reports that the Bush administration is considering applying fuel efficiency standards to the largest SUVs, which are currently exempt from meeting any standard at all.

As the chart shows, GM would be hardest hit.

The one concern the story raises is that the Administration is also proposing to change fuel efficiency rules in a way that would allow companies to sell more inefficient vehicles by calculating their fleet average differently.

Despite this, I was tempted to break open the champagne on my first read of the story. But after a closer review, I think we'll have to keep it on ice for a little while longer. First off, the story states:

People familiar with the discussions cautioned that no decisions have yet been made, and the final regulation may continue to exempt large vehicles.

So who knows what the final rule will look like. But more importantly, the math (if I'm doing it right) just doesn't amount to much.

The proposed rule would continue to exempt pick-up trucks, which constitute the largest portion of heavy vehicles. Overall, the administration estimates that the rule would result in oil savings of a half billion gallons in 2011 (when it would take effect).

Initially I thought this was impressive. But I was thinking barrels--not gallons

Currently the U.S. consumes 7.3 billion barrels of oil annually. Each barrel produces roughly 19 gallons. We therefore consume about 138 billion gallons.

So if you're already ahead of me, you've figured out that the rule would save roughly 0.4% of our total oil consumption. Also it isn't clear whether this is a net savings that takes into account the new loophole. As I said, this isn't a champagne moment, but it may call for a non-diet soda...

UPDATE: My bad on the math. While every barrel of oil produces approximately 19 gallons of gasoline, the remaining oil is used for other things, so in actuality, every barrel produces 42 gallons. What does that mean? I was being generous. The administration's proposal would save approximately 0.16%--not a whopping 0.4%. Forget the non-diet soda, there's no time to celebrate.

In a survey of the Greenest Cars only GM's Pontiac Vibe could crack the top 10. The top nine spots were claimed by the likes of Toyota, Honda, Hyundai and Kia. In fact, GM had to share the 10th spot with Toyota. Oh, yeah, and that all popular Pontiac Vibe--it has a Toyota engine.

The survey was conducted by ACEEE