How to kill the auto industry

We all can agree the Detroit automakers have cried wolf at least one too many times in response to safety and environmental requirements. If their most dire warnings had come true, the seat-belt mandate of the mid-1960s, the conversion to unleaded fuel in the 1970s, and the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards that have troubled the minds of auto executives since 1975 would have wiped out the industry decades ago.

Still, today's automakers aren't the same flush, ebullient group that once invited us to see the USA in a Chevrolet, asked if we'd driven a Ford lately, and dared to suggest the nation's economic health and that of the largest automaker were inextricably linked. By any measure, their survival is in doubt. There is broad disagreement over how much the federal government should give or lend to General Motors and Chrysler, but making it harder for them to sell cars and trucks by imposing tougher environmental rules seems contradictory.

That's precisely what the Environmental Protection Agency is proposing. Administrator Lisa P. Jackson promises "to lay out a road map" of regulatory changes covering carbon-dioxide emissions. All car and trucks emit carbon dioxide, even electric ones because they are recharged with electricity generated by power plants that produce CO2 by burning fossil fuels. Indeed, the prospects for electric vehicles such as the Chevrolet Volt will grow dim if new CO2 regulations increase electricity prices, as expected.

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., predicts a "glorious mess" because CO2 is ubiquitous, and therefore exceedingly difficult to manage in a meaningful way.

The difference between this and past federal impositions on automakers is government scientists actually were able to quantify the benefits of adding seat belts or removing lead from gasoline. The advantage of reducing CO2 emissions is at best ambiguous. CO2 emissions caused by human activity supposedly cause global warming, but it isn't clear the planet is warming — it actually has cooled since 1998 — and historically, humankind has tended to fare better in warm times than cold.

Democrats are heavily invested in global-warming dogma because it's at the heart of their dreams of controlling their subjects' behavior. Science may yet build a case for curbing CO2 emissions (or producing more of it) to promote optimum climatic conditions, but risking entire industries on the basis of what EPA policymakers know and understand today is sheer madness.

Good article. As always, it is very concise and sound.

The story of government intrusion in the economy is not good. Intrusions in housing, banking, accounting (Sarbanes-Oxley's "mark to market") are ruining the country.

My scorecard is only one in eight for federal regulation in the auto industry. ... Fifty five years ago America’s richest city was Detroit. If it weren’t for government regulation, it would probably still be America’s richest city, with the American auto industry leading riding high.

Cases of Federal meddling in the auto industry are worth examining. My scorecard is only one in eight for federal regulation in the auto industry. The eight cases are seat belts, air bags, lead in gasoline, import quotas, fuel economy, union power, bail outs, and carbon dioxide emissions.

I agree that seat belts are good. Was a mandate, that reduces our freedom, really necessary? How about airbags? If auto makers and Americans were free, what would we do? I would buy seat belts, but I might pass on the airbags. Is that so bad that my freedom should be limited? As far as I know, the conversion to unleaded fuel was a good idea. In ignorance, I will chalk one up to regulation.

We had import quotas on the number of cars from Japan. At the time, I chose to buy American, because I thought it was the neighborly thing to do. But I don’t think it was right for the government to restrict the freedom of Americans to buy as they choose.

Liberals imposed the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. And the left hates sport utility vehicles (SUVs). But CAFE is main cause of the SUV phenomenon. I have a PT cruiser. As a “light truck” it does not put Chrysler in violation of CAFE. The same legalisms apply to sport utility vehicles. Without CAFE, there would be fewer SUVs, and more large cars and station wagons. If Americans were free to buy large cars and station wagons as they wish, the automakers would be in violation of the CAFE law. SUVs allow us to legally sidestep CAFE.

The current bail outs have the scent of corruption. Union chiefs give money, that they took from union members, and gives them to Democratic party politicians. The Democrats then give our money to companies that are heavily unionized.

Many point to unions as the principle problem with the auto companies. The united auto workers and other unions have too much power. They have that power because the government interfered in the labor market and gave them that much power.

Anthropogenic global warming is junk science that will be used to restrict our freedom. CO2 emissions is part of the process.

Fifty five years ago America’s richest city was Detroit. If it weren’t for government regulation, it would probably still be America’s richest city, with the American auto industry leading riding high.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.