The April 3 edition of "The Early Show" reported on the fallout from the Supreme Court decision regarding EPA regulatory policies. Business correspondent Anthony Mason featured auto industry analyst John Casesa who claimed it "will force Detroit auto companies to radically change their business model," but there was no mention of the potential cost to the consumer.
The story also uncritically aired a sound bite from David Hawkins of the left wing Natural Resources Defense Council, but aired nothing from organizations opposed to the ruling. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, for example, issued a press release stating experts are "available to comment" on the decision. CBS must have missed it. The transcript is below.
CHRIS WRAGGE: The Supreme Court ruled Monday that so-called greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide can be considered air pollution. And the federal government has the duty to regulate them. As CBS News business correspondent Anthony Mason reports, it's likely to mean big changes and big problems for the U.S. car industry.
ANTHONY MASON: As workers were setting the stage for the New York auto show, the Supreme Court sent the industry into a tailspin.
JOHN CASESA AUTO INDUSTRY ANALYST: Unless you make nothing but small cars, this is not good news.
MASON: John Casesa, a veteran industry analyst, says if the government moves to toughen emission standards, Detroit will find it difficult to sell the trucks and SUV's that account for most of its profits.
CASESA: This decision will likely be another factor that will force the Detroit auto companies to radically change their business model.
MASON: From the outset, U.S. automakers have resisted tougher emission standards, and the EPA has been on their side. Now suddenly the picture has changed.
DAVID HAWKINS NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL: We think this court ruling by the Supreme Court will help a lot to make it clear that the states do have authority to go ahead and regulate global warming emissions from cars.
MASON: The California law that started this court battle would require all new vehicles beginning in 2009 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 22 percent, by 2012, and 30 percent by 2016. On Capitol Hill, auto executives have claimed they want change.
RICK WAGONER CEO GENERAL MOTORS: We at GM believe now is the time for a new more comprehensive and forward looking national energy strategy.
MASON: But at the same time, the industry has gone to court to block the California law and similar laws in Vermont and Rhode Island.
CASESA: I don't think that Detroit is ready for the potential change that this ruling could bring about.
MASON: It's a ruling that could change the rules of the road. Anthony Mason, CBS News, New York.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The Compteitive Enterprise In
April 3, 2007 - 15:21 ET by ferrarimanf355The Compteitive Enterprise Institute? You mean the guys who take funding from oil companies, right? I don't think this is one-sided if even business are talking about cutting their C02 emissions.
Uzumaki/Ayanami '08. Because a ninja and an Eva pilot can govern the nation better that what we have now...
Maybe not one-sided for CBS
April 3, 2007 - 15:27 ET by sarcasmoMaybe not one-sided for CBS, but for actual journalists?? HA!!!
JMR
I think Anthony Mason does
April 3, 2007 - 15:43 ET by radiofitz34I think Anthony Mason does enough talking out his butt to stir up the "greenhouse gases". It looks like the American public would rather believe CBS,NBC,ABC than to risk being confused about the subject.
Just curious, does anyone h
April 3, 2007 - 15:34 ET by mclarksonJust curious, does anyone here have anything against making car companies produce cleaner, more efficient cars. Putting the global warming debate aside, I think we can all agree that more smog free days would be good. So why all the fuss over the EPA forcing car companies to do something they have proven they won't do without force? If that means you cant afford to drive an armored personnel carrier to pick up your one child from soccer practice and have to settle for a more efficient model, what is the harm?
The free marketplace alread
April 3, 2007 - 15:43 ET by sarcasmoThe free marketplace already does that, quite well (see gas mileage increase over the last 100 years) but big government doesn't (see massive ethanol-subsidy fiasco thread -- especially sarcasmo's posts). And I'm curious, what makes you so against big government leaving car makers alone and getting out of the car business entirely, except courts for safety? Why are you so sure that your own individual action in buying a car (I've owned Asian econoboxes for years, for example) won't affect the marketplace? Do you think the car companies are conspiring to give you an inferior product? (Don't answer that for US/union ones!) And while your rhetoric may target "the rich," your proposal of government force really targets the poor with higher prices due to bigger government. Owners of armored Hummers will not be affected nearly as much, and people like you will then wonder why "the rich get richer & the poor get poorer." Sigh...
JMR
The problem is the market i
April 3, 2007 - 15:52 ET by mclarksonThe problem is the market is filled with idiots who think they need a 7 pasenger SUV to transport their family of 3. I drive a Sentra 1.8S for the sake of disclosure. I also know that more efficient versions of existing vehicles are absolutely possible. I agree that ethanol is a horrible choice for the government to have made and I am generally against government interference in anything. I have been against the ethanol choice from the beginning because once you understand the chemistry you find it is less efficient than an equal amount of gasoline by a large margin.
In this case you have a conglomerate of companies that have had to be pushed into anything that benefits the consumer (seat belts, airbags, the current EPA MPG ratings, etc.) I am not saying the government should take over, just nudge companies in the right direction to keep them innovating.
Well, we've gone from "
April 3, 2007 - 16:04 ET by sarcasmoWell, we've gone from "force" to "nudge," and I guess that's progress, but let's ignore the environment AND big business for a moment: Can you see my point about lefties advocating policies effectively targetting the poorest people the most? A car is pretty much required in the USA these days, and the percentage of car-budget is gonna be low no matter what the EPA does for Donald Trump. These government restrictions increase prices of cars, which causes the poorest of the poor to (rationally) keep 'em longer. Around here, some folks drive around in old clunkers which -- and if you know the chemistry of a poorly running engine, you'll know this, too -- pollute more than 44 Ferraris, and that kind of unintended consequence just abounds whenever you get bureaucrats as involved as they are now, much less even further involved as you propose. Look, if it were up to me, Chrysler and Citibank would have both failed. Government is WAAAAY too involved in both businesses, and they need to stick, for once, to the Constitution they swore to uphold instead.
JMR
The last time I looked we sti
April 3, 2007 - 19:13 ET by msh1973The last time I looked we still had personal freedom in this Country, which I take that to mean, if I want to drive a 7 passenger SUV or Van that is none of your business. Btw, I drive a cheap Kia Spectra (2004), great gas mileage, but if I could afford a SUV I would drive Cadillac Escalade.
Well mclarkson. We could pu
April 3, 2007 - 15:54 ET by radiofitz34Well mclarkson. We could put the GW debate aside, but they won't do that. I'm all for a sensible approach to the smog problem. The political and media forces are making it difficult to deal with the simpler and more immediate problems.