by Eric J. Lakits

October  2002

In the July 2002 issue of Automotive Industries, a publication of The Society of Automotive Engineering (SAE), two opening articles, appearing back-to-back, offered a grim and explicit look at how the automotive industry has accepted the philosophy of environmentalism and its handmaiden, pragmatism.  Further, it shows how readily the entire industry is willing to commit suicide by adopting the political philosophies that logically follow—socialism and fascism.

Automotive companies have unequivocally embraced the philosophy of environmentalism, without questioning it—a philosophy that is certain death for an industry founded on and dependent on technology and material resources.

In the “Editorial” section, the article “CAFE vs. Fuel Taxation” analyzes and compares the U.S and European approaches to regulating vehicle emissions, and in the “Focus” section, the article “Sustainable Development: the Time is Now” sends out the call for sacrifice in the name of future generations.

The first article is a review of a fuel economy “white paper” by the Martec Group, titled Fuel Economy: A Critical Assessment of Public Policy in the U.S. vs. the EU.  While the article discusses the two most prominent means for curbing vehicle emissions for the cause of cleaner air, the one item noticeably absent throughout this editorial is any discussion of the basis for doing so.  There is no evidence cited establishing a scientific reason for such actions (such as defining what constitutes “clean air” or evidence of any demonstrable harm from vehicle emission) , no profound political exhortations on the nature and proper function of government, nor any question concerning the morality of intervention in the economy and the infringement on the rights of the citizens.  The article takes the answers to such questions as a given not to be questioned and picks up in the middle, tackling only the pragmatic issue of how to best achieve the “stated objective.”  The rationality of this “stated objective” is never once called into question.

As the editor, Kevin Jost, explains; the only significant difference between CAFE and the standard of fuel taxation in Europe is one of supply-side intervention versus demand-side.  CAFE requires manufactures to supply a certain mix of fuel efficient vehicles, and the EU system forces consumers to think about fuel economy as a factor when making their buying decisions.  While this is a very bold and profound revelation, he never questions the appropriateness of intervention itself, nor does he ever use the word ‘intervention’ in his editorial.  Kevin Jost prefers such innocuous phrases as ‘compelling consumers’ and having their demands ‘aligned’ with ‘stated objectives.’  Consider the following statement:  “The EU system aligns consumer demands of vehicle choice and use patterns with the public policy objective.”  Notice how government encroachment is merely a “system”; the actual violating of rights is referred to as an “[alignment of] consumer demands”; individual freedom is replaced with “consumer demands of vehicle choice and use patterns”; and the manifesto justifying all of this is merely a stated “public policy objective.”

This manipulation of the English language would impress even George Orwell, but is nothing compared to the words of  Sen. John Kerry when he criticizes the CAFE standards by explaining “the U.S. consumer would still be ‘incentivized’ to consume more fuel per year if pump prices remain stable.”  How clever he is to coin a new word, ‘incentivized,’ to replace the word ‘freedom!’  Notice too how unhindered pump prices (i.e., free from taxation) are merely passively remaining stable.  And it should not take a political genius to realize the implications of the phrase “if the pump prices remain stable.”  This is an obvious threat to breach our ‘incentivization’ by taking an active role to increase these prices in the form of fuel taxes.

This is not merely a failure to understand the implications of embracing an irrational philosophy.  Mr. Jost and the Martec Group, whose paper he is reviewing, know quite well what the consequences will be.  In fact they advocate these consequences while attempting to hide what it is they actually endorse—socialism. 

This becomes clear in the white paper’s discussion of “winners and losers” and the corresponding conclusion regarding the same.  In Jost’s and the Martec Group’s view, under the CAFÉ system, winners are U.S. drivers who “enjoy greater mobility and can apply operating savings to higher-utility vehicles” and losers are the U.S. government which “loses out on fuel tax revenues.”   But Jost also recognizes that U.S. consumers are also losers in another respect because they are “paying for unwanted CAFÉ technologies in the price of their vehicles without enjoying corresponding benefits.”  What these corresponding benefits are, or should be, are never mentioned.  I have to believe that the alleged benefits he is referring to are the environmental benefits that he is desperately trying to achieve.  But if these are benefits that consumers would like to enjoy (assuming they are even real), shouldn’t consumers be allowed to take such into account of their own free will when making a vehicle purchase?  Obviously the wants and the priorities of consumers are not aligned with the public policy objective and something must be done about it.

What I find even worse than the absence of facts to support such policies and objectives, is the rare instances where misinformation—i.e., falsehoods—is provided to bolster the case.  For instance, when Jost explains that other EU winners are governments who “receive a large fuel tax revenue windfall, with public transportation and its users enjoying increased funding a  result” and “motorists, due to reduced road congestion” [emphasis added].  Aside from assuming that he is in a position to declare what these citizens do or do not enjoy, Mr. Jost is dead wrong about reduced congestion.  As an expatriate currently living in Germany, I can say first hand that congestion here is just as bad as the average US town.  The exceptions would be large cities, such as Los Angeles, where congestion is a result of government mismanagement.  But even large cities in Europe and Asia have such congestion.  I have also seen the sorry spectacle of public transportation.  The buses in southern Germany are rarely ever full.  How much fuel per person does the average large bus consume while driving all day every day with only a handful of occupants?  Hardly an efficient use of fuel.

But let us take a look at the idea of reducing congestion for just a moment.  To the extent that people find it too expensive to travel in Europe, congestion has been reduced (which makes one wonder how much worse it would be otherwise).  But when one looks at this from a different perspective, we see that those who enjoy reduced congestion are doing so at the expense of those who choose to stay home.  If the choice is heavy traffic vs. staying home, how has one benefited?  It amounts to going somewhere slowly vs. not going at all.  And when a government takes it upon itself to choose the latter, then a fundamental right of the people has been violated—the right to travel freely.

This is no exaggeration either.  Again, as an expatriate living in Germany, I am privy to such first-hand information.  The people I meet do not travel as much or as far as we do in America, and they marvel at how easy it is for us to do so.  The idea of packing up on the spur of the moment and going on a “road trip” is something completely alien to them.  They are always consciences of and complain about the high price of fuel—which is not only a restriction on their freedom of travel, but on how well they can heat their houses.

Policies such as these are a violation of the rights and a restriction on the freedom of individuals.  But what about the corporations whose livelihood depends on building automobiles?  One would think thay are the ones who should be leading the resistance.  Think again.  Without exception, every one of the automobile manufacturers has accepted it as their hidden guilt that they are somehow responsible for destroying the planet and must now work with the governments of the world to make a change.

DaimlerChrysler, for instance, issues an award to its employees for “environmental excellence” known as CHEER (Continuously Honoring Environmental Excellence through Recognition).  The back drop for this program is a poster depicting a landscape consisting of mountains, a river, and various examples of flora and fauna living in harmony in a setting untouched by man—and therefore not a place compatible with the very product that keeps them in business (i.e., the automobile).  If such a pristine environment, untouched by man, where ever realized, there would be no need for automobiles or factories and man would live in small communities, never venturing beyond the local borders—or worse, would live in caves.

Ford Motor Company spends hundreds of millions of dollars on environmental technologies, with very little to show for it, in an attempt to portray itself and its employees as “good corporate citizens.”  The spend millions more in public relations campaigns for the same.  Playing to the men in Washington and the irrational environmental zealots, Ford has taken it upon itself to lead the environmental crusade on behalf of the automotive industry.

And if one doubts that large automotive companies have anything to fear from Washington, one need only refer to the latter article, “Sustainable Development: the Time is Now.”  The article mostly focuses on the efforts of the SAE in this role, but it offers glimpse of what must come.  Sustainable development can only be deployed through political means.  These are words that have been uttered by environmental zealots and politicians alike, but until now only instilled fear in Corporate America.  Now, in a spirit of cooperation and “good citizenship,” the automotive industry is clamoring to show how they are onboard with the idea.

However, as Ray Morris, author of this article points out, there are five phases of vehicle life.  They are “design, manufacture, operations, maintenance, and disposal/recycling.”  All of these are functions of industry.  To institute a political policy like sustainable development, the government would have to be involved in one or more of these phases.  This means government control over the means of production.  Just as socialism is the means by which politicians and environmental zealots wish to control men, fascism is the means by which they want to control production.  With sustainable development as sole justification, government would control the means of production allowing only the illusion of private ownership.

And so, an entire industry commits suicide by embracing environmentalism in place of sound science, pragmatism in place of reason, and ushers in the political systems of socialism and fascism in place of the only proper political system—the one that made their existence possible—Capitalism.  We are now witnessing the slow death of the automotive industry