The decline and fall of the SUV empire

With the recent decision by GM to close several of its auto manufacturing plants, including the one in Janesville, there has been much talk about what brought this on and how it might have been avoided.

My thoughts on the matter are that GM should have begun switching over to a heavier focus on more fuel-efficient vehicles a long time ago, but I don't know enough about how the auto industry works to back that up with any solid numbers. However, I think it's fair to point out the success of companies like Toyota and Honda, who've been building hybrids and other efficient cars for awhile now, as evidence that it wasn't impossible to gaze into the future and see what was coming.

Record-high gas prices, increasing concern about climate change, instability in the oil markets, etc.

What's especially interesting about GM's recent announcement, then, is that they seem to finally be pondering the idea of cutting back on the production of SUVs and heavy trucks. They're even thinking that maybe they'll discontinue the Hummer line entirely. But just maybe. Can't quite kick the habit even when it's killing them, I guess.

Of course, some folks don't seem entirely convinced that this shift away from SUVs does or should have anything to do with skyrocketing fuel costs and changing consumer demands. Oh no, it's because we don't have as many children to pack into them. That's Dad29 for you, always good for a chuckle.

The facts speak of a slightly different reality, though:

According to the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics (America's Children in Brief: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2004, Washington, DC, 2004, http://childstats.gov/ac2004/tables [accessed August 24, 2004]), in 2002 72.9 million children younger than the age of eighteen lived in the United States. This number is expected to increase to 80.3 million in 2020. However, because the country's entire population will increase, the percentage of children in the population will actually remain fairly steady, decreasing slightly from 25% in 2002 to 24% by 2020.

So that theory doesn't really pan out. I'll give credit where credit is due, however, and say that Dad29 is right when he notes that "there are many folks who purchased SUVs who simply did not need them, but liked the size, or weight, or the ability to see over the traffic which SUVs provided. But that need was a lot more fragile than the need to buy food rather than fuel."

It's possible, too, to drive a vehicle that fits several passengers and/or goods, that gets decent mileage, and isn't an absolute tank. The options may be slightly more limited, but you can blame manufacturers and regulators for failing to keep up with and enforce CAFE standards, as well as the relative lack of will to research and develop cleaner technologies like hybrid engines. Consumers aren't blame-free either. Our sense of entitlement to anything and everything we think we want or need has and will continue to bite us in the ass on a fairly regular basis.

In the end, it's always the workers paying the heaviest price for a corporation's failure to evolve and adapt. Now the community is left to find ways to employ those put out of work by plant closures, and to continue to push for technologies and policies that actually benefit them, instead of costing $4 a gallon. Relying solely on companies to change their ways of their own accord doesn't seem to do the trick.

Reasons Why

There are many, many reasons why certain state politicians can go frak themselves, but today I'm going to focus on the two that are currently driving me up the wall:

With the current legislative session ending this week, the Senate and Assembly had quite a few pressing issues to deal with; state budget shortfalls, the proposed statewide smoking ban, and ratification of the Great Lakes Compact. While the Assembly found time to vote through a budget measure that cuts $250 million from various services, and a bill (that will thankfully never see the light of day) to make English the official state language, they couldn't be arsed to pass the long suffering Great Lakes Compact. The GLC has already been ratified by three states, and passed through one or both houses in the other four.

Even though they've had years to look over the bill, some Assembly Republicans are crying about how it's moving "too fast" and they haven't had enough time to look over it. They're also kicking and screaming about a provision in the bill that would allow a single governor from one of the states in the compact to veto water diversion requests from communities inside the Great Lakes basin. What these folks don't seem to be able to wrap their heads around, though, is the fact that this provision provides tougher standards for said vetoes, and actually improves the chances of cities like Waukesha for having their requests granted.

Supporters of the bill as it is currently written point to Assembly Speaker Mike Huebsch, R-New Salem, and Rep. Scott Gunderson, R-Waterford, as the main forces holding up the compact.

The lawmakers' two main concerns are the provision that one Great Lakes governor would have the ability to veto any water withdrawals requested by communities in any other Great Lakes state; and that the compact would in some way endanger the state's Public Trust Doctrine with regard to the use of wells.

Rep. Gary Sherman, D-Port Wing, pointed out that Wisconsin is different from the four Great Lakes states to ratify the compact so far, because Wisconsin has also included language on how it would be implemented.

The single-governor veto was included in the language of the original compact, signed by the eight Great Lakes governors in December 2005, and attempting to change any of the original language would mean all of the states — including the three that have already ratified the compact — to start all over again, Sherman said.

"Attempting to change the language of the actual compact itself through our ratification document ... it's not a non-starter because we're being politically stubborn; it's a non-starter because it's not an option," he said.

...

Jauch said those attempting to change the single-governor veto provision — whom he has dubbed the "flat earth society" — don't realize that the compact actually improves the chances of cities like Waukesha, New Berlin and Kenosha to be granted withdrawal requests.

Diversion requests are currently handled through the federal Water Resources Development Act. Through that law, Great Lakes governors can veto any diversion request for any reason, whether it's based on sound science or not.

Where the compact differs, Jauch said, is that it establishes science-based standards for withdrawals and conservation principles by which communities can defend their requests — putting the burden of proof on other states that may claim a request would be harmful.

Even the mayor of Waukesha supports the compact, as do a whole slew of business and community organizations around the state. For some bizarre reason, it seems that only the Assembly Republicans have a problem with the bill. There's absolutely no sense to their opposition, but there it is, causing problems for us all. "So what's new?" we ask.

As for the Senate, the always delightful Russ Decker (D-Weston) has succeeded in blocking the Breath Free Wisconsin Act from even receiving a vote during the current session. Even Decker's hometown chamber of commerce voted not to back his compromised version of the bill, so maybe he was feeling too stung by the rejection to allow for anything like an actual vote to happen.

Short-sighted douchebaggery apparently knows no bounds in terms of party affiliation.

Now we'll have to wait several months before helpful, necessary and healthy legislation like the compact and the smoking ban will even see a vote, and then yet more time before they go into effect. I think the message these obstructionist legislators are sending us all is loud and clear: it's time to issue some pink slips.

The air up there

The governor of our fine state, Jim Doyle, is pulling some interesting tricks in regards to air quality standards. He sent a letter to the EPA asking them to declare all Wisconsin counties to be in compliance with federal clean air standards, despite the fact that several counties were found to be in violation of those laws.

We wouldn't have known about this bit of chicanery, however, were it not for the open records request put in by the Sierra Club. It was this same sort of request that forced the issue on the Charter Street coal power plant here in Madison. The lesson I'm taking away from all of this? Contrary to the claims of some laissez-faire adherents, it often takes government regulation to force industries and businesses into cleaning up their act, and that it takes a great deal of oversight by the public-at-large to keep the government in line.

I can see why folks might be put off by the process. It's a lot of work, but it's important for all of us to put in the time and the effort.

Doyle's latest maneuvers are especially irksome considering, among other things, the many air quality alerts issued so far this winter.

Dane County has been hit with numerous air quality alerts for particle pollution by the state Department of Natural Resources this winter. And the American Lung Association last year gave the county a "D " on its annual air quality report because of the increasing levels of particle pollution. Numbers from the association show the county is home to 33,264 adults with asthma, 8,731 youths with pediatric asthma, and 14,323 people with chronic bronchitis.

I don't know about you, but I'm not super psyched about all of that. Doyle's excuse is that federal guidelines create too much red tape and would take longer than laws either currently or soon-to-be on the books in the state. On the one hand, I absolutely applaud the efforts by the administration to implement stricter pollution controls (like reducing mercury emissions, etc.), but the level of secrecy involved in Doyle's letter and a conflicting recommendation from DNR staff certainly raises suspicions over whether or not they're working on behalf of the public good or for industry interests.

It's important to help foster development and growth for businesses in the state, but bypassing important and necessary environmental regulations to do so is downright shameful. All of the foot dragging and back room deal-making in the world won't amount to a hill of beans if no one can breathe the air outside without risking major health problems.

(h/t The Political Environment)