To see this story with its related links on the Guardian Unlimited site, go to http://www.guardian.co.uk

Green campaigners put brake on car lobby in land of the freeway
Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles
Wednesday July 10 2002
The Guardian


The future of car design could be changed by the signing of a bill in Sacramento, California this week. In what its supporters claim is the most significant environmental step in the motor industry in two decades, the new law would regulate the exhaust emissions of greenhouse gases that cause global warming.

The car and oil industries are already mobilising fierce opposition to the bill. They warn that it is a form of "social engineering" that could lead to more deaths on the roads, higher taxes and petrol costs, and the outlawing of the popular four-wheel drive SUV (sport utility vehicle) which has been blamed as one of the worst polluting culprits.

It also presents a major political challenge to Governor Gray Davis, a Democrat who is standing for re-election this November. He has 12 working days to decide whether or not to sign the bill, which was passed last week by both the state Senate and House of Representatives.

He has already come under pressure from the car industry, unions and the business world, but is aware that, if he does not sign the bill, he will lose the vital support of the environment movement and liberal Hollywood. An aide said a decision was likely this week.

California is a natural battleground for the bill. Its 23 million vehicles cause 58% of the greenhouse gas pollution in the state - compared to 31% in the rest of the US.

The bill has the support of a number of political big hitters, including the potential Democrat presidential candidates Joe Lieberman and John Kerry and the Republican senator John McCain. The actor Paul Newman also campaigned for the bill along with much of Hollywood. The American environmental movement sees it as a powerful rebuff to President Bush's reluctance to act on global warming.

America has refused to sign the Kyoto protocol, which commits rich countries to reducing emissions, even though the US is responsible for 24% of the world's manmade carbon emissions.

The bill directs the California air resources board to introduce regulations that would "achieve the maximum feasible reduction of greenhouse gases" by 2005. These new standards would then have to apply to every new model sold in the state from 2009 onwards.

At the heart of the argument is what the word "feasible" actually means in this context: the car industry claims it is so vague that it could be used to impose on them a completely new type of car; the bill's supporters say it means a common sense approach to changes.

Fuel saving


As California has the world's fifth-largest economy and represents 10% of the American car market, it could mean that US motor manufacturers will have to start making environmentally friendly cars within seven years.

While Japanese car manufacturers, in particular Honda, are already anticipating eventual moves to such cars, American makers had assumed that the election of Mr Bush guaranteed that there would be no immediate pressure to deal with car emissions. Now that could all change and with it the shape of cars as designers seek to incorporate fuel-saving engineering. All of which makes this a delicate decision for Governor Davis.

Mr Davis's opponent in this November's election, the Republican Bill Simon, has labelled the bill "social engineering" and a "thinly veiled attempt to regulate the kind of vehicles Californians are allowed to drive". But he has since added that "reviewing global warming, if indeed there is such a thing as global warming, is always a good idea".

The coalition fighting the bill includes the car and oil industries and their related unions. A spokesman for General Motors said last week that the bill was indicative of the power of the environmental movement in California. "Whether it's feasible, reasonable or in the best interests of the citizens often takes a back seat to the environmental agenda," he said.

Another opponent, Kenneth Green, chief scientist at the Reason Foundation, wrote in the LA Times last week that the bill would mean more expensive cars which in turn would mean that people had "less for other needs such as education and healthcare". Mr Green said the bill was "political carjacking at its worst". He argued that California motorists produced less than one quarter of 1% of the world's gas emissions linked to global warming.

"While climate change is still largely theoretical, the damaging effects of regulatory approaches like these are well-established facts," he wrote. "Not to put too fine a point on it, forcing people into smaller cars would kill some of them. The National Academy of Sciences has acknowledged that lighter and smaller cars are inherently more dangerous."

Opponents have also suggested that one of California's favourite vehicles, the SUV, may even be banned, a claim dismissed by the bill's backers.

Ed Begley Jr, the actor and environmental activist who has been campaigning hard for the bill, greeted its passage with enthusiasm. "It's great news," he said. Of the claims made by the car industry, he said: "There has been lots of hyperbole involved, a lot of scaremongering. It's the same chorus we hear every time changes are proposed, whether they're seat belts, air bags or catalytic converters."

Kevin Finney of the Clean Air Coalition said: "This was a battle of national significance. Neither the president nor Congress have shown much initiative, which makes it even more significant."

He predicted that the car industry would now seek to halt the bill through civil actions. It might also try to get the issue onto a state ballot, he said, which would delay the bill's passage and allow for a television advertising campaign urging people to reject it. But, according to a survey by the Public Policy Institute of California, 81% of Californians support the bill. Even 77% of SUV-owners back it.

If, as anticipated, Governor Davis signs it into law, it may finally trigger a major national debate on global warming, greenhouse gases and the car industry. Now, after years of suffering rebuffs on the issue, the environmental movement is in the driving seat.

Future fuels

Hybrid

Combines petrol and other fuels. Toyota Prius, petrol and electric-powered, has half the emissions of average car and still does 99mph

Electric

Often used by public utilities but not for long journeys. Low top speed. Recharging takes up to 8 hours

Hydrogen

Suzuki has developed car that converts hydrogen produced from the gas supply into electricity. Still in early stages

Bio-fuel

Powered by rape seed and other natural fuels. Problem is quantity of rape seed needed and land required

Bi-fuel

Uses petrol and less damaging liquid petroleum gas (LPG). Volvo and Vauxhall among the pioneers

Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited