SUVWhile President Bush was in Germany undermining a European plan for mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases, Democrats were meeting with automakers seeking to strip states like California of the authority to impose carbon emission reduction standards on autos sold in their states. And the auto moguls were even more interested in weakening proposed increases in mandatory gasoline mileage standards for autos, light trucks and SUVs. From Wednesday's NYT:

The chief executives of General Motors, Ford and Chrysler had lunch with Senate Democrats on Wednesday, less than a week before the Democratic leaders hope to bring a sprawling energy bill to the Senate floor.

The executives argued that the bill’s proposal to increase mileage requirements for cars and light trucks would be impossible to meet and would gravely damage the automobile industry.

It would increase the average mileage requirement for passenger cars to 35 miles a gallon by 2020, up from 27.5 miles a gallon now, and would apply to light trucks and sport utility vehicles as well.

But leading House and Senate Democrats from Michigan are pushing a softer approach, and they have a good chance of getting some of what they want.

Senators Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow, both of Michigan, are drafting a bill that would raise mileage requirements but would be more lenient for light trucks and would give car companies the possibility of an escape hatch by demonstrating that the rules would be too costly to meet.

The auto executives have fought for years to strip California of the right to set its own, more stringent auto emission standards, but the large California Congressional delegation and the State's governors of both parties have beaten back attempts to impose federal preemption. Because the Bush/Cheney regime has thwarted attempts to improve mileage and emission standards, except when forced by lawsuits, other states are now proposing to follow California's lead. This week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made clear she would oppose the industry/Administration's preemption attempts. With strong backing from Governor Schwartzenegger, California proposes to set auto emission standards aimed at greenhouse gases, not merely pollutants associated with smog.

Democratic leaders and even some Republicans have been promising to tackle global warming and reduce reliance on "foreign oil." They tell the American people these are matters affecting our national security, and they are right. But that's been true for decades, and yet there is still no serious effort to face the challenges and convince the public to make the necessary sacrifices.

It's been 30 years since the first Middle East oil embargo doubled oil prices, and the second embargo following Iran's seizure of US hostages quadrupled them again in the late 1970s. Since then, America has fought wars in the Gulf over oil; we've maintained large armies in the Middle East and a huge navy off its coasts. It is a very expensive energy policy whose real costs are not reflected at the pump, even when prices go over $3.00 a gallon.

Given this connection, it is ludicrous and dangerous to tell the American people we are becoming safer, as Hillary Clinton claims. Our increasingly belligerent military presence abroad has become the principal recruiting tool for people who think they're justified in flying planes into our buildings. When we invade and occupy their countries against their will, or bomb their cities, we create opponents willing to blow up our soldiers with IEDs. Now we're hearing that we may occupy a resentful Iraq for the next 50 years, and it's not because they want us there or anyone thinks Prime Minister al Maliki or Moktada al Sadr are swell democrats or because any thinking person believes that propping up a Shia coalition in Iraq is the best way to keep the Shia theocracy in Iran in check.

No, whatever excuses we use to fool ourselves, we're there primarily because the Bush/Cheney regime and those who think they're the real grownups believe that we have no choice but to do this as long as our economy runs on oil. These are the same grownups who think we don't have any economic choice but to accept, or at most deal slowly, with the unproven risks of global climate change, and they have plenty of shills and followers who believe this. In their grownup world, having 100 or more American soldiers killed every month in the Middle East is the only realistic energy policy we have. The thousands of local deaths simply don't matter.

The reason they believe this is because they think that we -- you and I -- will not accept higher energy prices, or smaller cars, or give up our SUVs. They think we won't pay a stiff tax to discourage gasoline consumption and support alternatives, or a tax on carbon emissions -- on coal -- to discourage emissions that cause climate change, or a cap and trade program to allocate capital to more efficient alternatives. They think conservation is just Jimmy Carter silliness, while better fuel efficiency would disrupt business as usual and isn't nearly enough anyway. And they think America is not willing or able to build a transportation system that doesn't require we behave as a militaristic empire.

And the worst thing about this? Too many of the people running for President in either party probably share those beliefs. I've watched the campaigns and debates, and there are some decent folks running, but frankly, none of these people seems to have much faith in us. They may talk about "energy independence" or the equivalent of Apollo projects to develop alternatives, but none of them is really telling us what needs to be done or asking for sacrifices or dramatic changes that would affect our lives. They don't believe you and I will elect them if they advocate that, and our media keep telling us that's true. Are they right?

I hope they're all wrong. I keep thinking that when America was really concerned about its security during WWII, American industries stopped building cars and appliances for consumers and built thousands of tanks, trucks, planes and ships; and when we were done with the War, industry switched back. Those were gargantuan industrial transitions, but America did them and did them quickly.

You'd think we could build a hybrid car that gets 100 mpg and doesn't require 100 KIA every month. And if the industry required that we remove the burden of paying for health plans in the price of every car, and solved universal health care some other way, well, I'll bet we could do that too. I think this country would surprise these wannabe Presidents; Americans are ready to be challenged. All they need is the right leadership.

Photo of best selling Ford Explorer, from Wikipedia.