American Auto vs. Climate Change

At this point, any sober analysis of the factual reality of climate change will conclude that human civilization is at risk of destroying itself -- and, indeed, stands an excellent chance of doing so, and soon. The incoming Obama administration has signaled its concern about this issue, and many of us are waiting on the edge of our seats to see how they will address it upon taking office. In the meantime, though, our politics has paid a great deal of attention to an issue that is part and parcel to the issue of global climate change: the sad state of the American automotive industry, which has spent two decades refusing to face several genres of music. But as of now -- and to our direct peril -- this interrelationship has been near-totally ignored.

Now that this lame duck Congress has failed to act on this issue, those of us who are concerned about climate change have a few scant weeks to shine some light on the interconnectedness of these two crises before yet another crucial opportunity passes us by. Automobile and light freight-related emissions in 2006 accounted for more than 1,200 teragrams of the United States' CO2 output, about 1/5th of the total output of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels, the by-and-large source of such emissions¹. Without radical change at the Big 3 car manufacturers, there is little hope of domestically developing a solution for bringing car and truck emissions down at any forseeable point in the future.

Now, what do I mean by the words "radical change"? The easiest part of the answer relates to the product output of these companies. At this point, it goes without saying that these and other car manufacturers are going to have to start marketing transportation options that rely much less, or not at all, on the combustion of fossil fuels. These options do exist or should soon exist, and the best ones for my money involve plug-in vehicles and a renewable energy-based electrical grid. Other options, like fuel cells, may become more viable, but we simply don't have time to keep shopping around. The options are here, and it is now or never.

The other part of this industry that must change radically are its priorities. Labor unions have become the scapegoat for this part of the equation, based on contractual terms that many observers suggest are bleeding the automotive industry dry. But while it is probably the case that automobile workers are going to need to get used to making less money -- as is the case for most of us in the American workforce -- the issue is fundamentally about these corporations' goals and aims. As the clock ticks down on our chances for mitigating an imminent climate disaster, the Big 3, if they want the assistance of the American people, are going to need to stop working for stockholders and instead start working for the survival of the United States of America. The priority list needs to be very short: 1. Settle on a solution. 2. Implement it.

We must make clear to our lawmakers that if the government is going to subsidize the American auto industry, the above list of 2 is the only acceptable program. Once our new automobile infrastructure is in place, the Big 3 can return to their market role, providing goods and services as per usual. Considered from another angle, this is the only approach that does not put our intense national interest in reducing our CO2 emissions into direct conflict with the Big 3's concepts of business as usual. Unless the government threads the needle between our current automobile infrastructure and the new one that we must build if we hope to survive, the Big 3 will almost certainly be destroyed by the change -- or, as is probably even more likely, the change we need will not come to fruition at all, and the consequences for us all will be dire beyond the current limits of our imagination.

1. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html . At some future point we will talk about electricity generation, which is now the largest source of fossil fuel-related CO2 emissions.