Where's the Camaro muscle in fighting climate change?

JEFFREY SIMPSON
Globe and Mail
26 August 2006

General Motors of Canada Ltd. made quite an announcement this week -- the Camaro is coming back and will be built in Oshawa, Ont.

GM will spend $740-million for a new, flexible assembly plant. The Canadian Auto Workers union gets to save many of the 3,900 jobs slated for elimination. Oshawa and Durham Region gain. So, of course, do parts suppliers and the Ontario government, whose Premier was on hand for the announcement.

But what's wrong with this picture of corporate, political, union and community happiness?

The Camaro, the modern version of the one that went out of production some years ago, is what designers call a "muscle car." It's likely to have something like a five-litre engine and be both a gas guzzler and a large emitter.

At the very moment when governments and industry should be acting to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, along comes GM to launch a gas-guzzling, high-emitting vehicle. Similarly, with all signs pointing to a future with permanently higher gasoline prices in real terms -- that is, after inflation -- GM (with taxpayers' help) will be putting on the market in 2008 a vehicle quite wrong for the times.
The Camaro decision perfectly illustrates the two-facedness of the Ontario government. From one side of its mouth, the McGuinty government speaks of combatting climate change; from the other side, it funnels money into projects such as building the Camaro. Jobs, it would seem, will trump the environment. There is a way, of course, of not pitting jobs against the environment -- by imposing throughout North America vehicle emissions standards (VES) much tougher than those that now prevail across the continent.

The VES leader has been California. The car companies predictably fought a pitched battle against VES, won a few minor concessions, but essentially lost. California's VES has been picked up by 12 other U.S. states.

The California VES initially mandated companies to develop a zero-emission vehicle as part of their fleets. When technological developments did not unfold as quickly as California regulators had hoped, they eased requirements, focusing, instead, on lowering emissions rather than mandating particular kinds of technology.

The result pushed manufacturers into researching and developing more low-emission vehicles, notably hybrids, since their whole fleet mileage had to come down to meet California's VES. The beauty of the VES is twofold: It's mandatory, but gives manufacturers flexibility in deciding how to meet the standards within their entire fleet.

The car companies in Canada -- again, quite predictably -- have fought fiercely against VES. They say, not without reason, that VES will be increase vehicle prices, although a range of actors influence the end price of any vehicle. And, of course, they point to all the U.S. states that don't have VES.

The Liberal government had danced around VES, sending ministers to negotiate with the manufacturers in the U.S. and Canada. A string of ministers pronounced themselves eager to implement VES -- just as some Liberal leadership candidates are now doing -- only to retreat.

Instead, they settled for "voluntary" emission reductions from the manufacturers. In a 2005 memorandum of understanding with Ottawa, the automotive industry promised a 5.3 megatonne reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2010, or a 25-per-cent improvement in new vehicle fuel efficiency.

It's hard to see how the gas-guzzling Camaro fits into this strategy, unless we remember that the whole deal is voluntary. And voluntary plans usually miss targets, as such programs in Europe revealed. Would a Harper government impose California-type standards? Such a move would be environmentally sound and politically brilliant -- dashing at a stroke the Conservatives' burgeoning reputation for being environmental clots. But don't hold your breath.

North American automotive companies don't like the climate-change challenge. Such money as they have made in recent years has come from pushing out light trucks and SUVs, both environment destroyers.

Bringing back the Camaro reflects the kind of thinking that still prevails in Detroit. Yes, the Camaro is destined to be a niche car, with a production run much smaller than many other GM models.

That the Camaro is back at all reflects both the head-in-the-sand thinking about climate change, and a market response to similar models marketed by GM's competitors. That Ontario is helping to fund the Camaro's return speaks volumes about its mixed commitment to combatting greenhouse-gas emissions.

jsimpson@globeandmail.com