Time for a U-Turn

The report documents a 70-year history of 'intransigence' by US automakers, who repeatedly claimed that environmental and safety mandates were technically impossible or economically ruinous, only to implement the technologies once mandated. It details specific battles over the Clean Air Act, CAFE standards, and vehicle safety features like airbags, concluding that regulation has historically acted as a catalyst for innovation rather than a destroyer of the industry.

• Automakers have historically employed a consistent set of 'scare tactics' to oppose new regulations, including claims that the technology 'cannot be done,' that costs will be excessive, that the industry will collapse with mass layoffs, that consumers do not want the features, that the science is unclear, and that voluntary action is sufficient.
• In the 1950s and 60s, automakers collaborated to delay the adoption of smog-reducing technologies through a 'cross-licensing' agreement that eliminated competition and stifled innovation, leading to a US Department of Justice complaint alleging a conspiracy to delay pollution-control equipment.
• During the implementation of the Clean Air Act of 1970, automakers claimed the legislation would be catastrophic for the economy and technically impossible to meet by 1975, yet companies like Honda and Mazda quickly demonstrated that the standards were achievable.
• Following the 1973 oil crisis, automakers used a false 'fuel penalty' argument to claim that pollution control devices reduced fuel economy, using this to secure delays in emissions standards despite evidence that technologies like catalytic converters actually improved fuel economy.
• The auto industry fought against mandated safety features for decades, specifically questioning the science of seat belts in the 1950s and waging what the US Supreme Court described as the 'regulatory equivalent of war' against airbags until they were finally mandated in 1988.
• Automakers exploited the 'light truck loophole' by using an outdated definition of passenger vehicles to sell high-profit SUVs and trucks under much lower fuel economy standards, while lobbying against any increase in these standards through political riders.
• Throughout the 1990s, automakers actively questioned climate science and the reliability of computer models to delay international treaties like the Kyoto Protocol and domestic fuel economy increases.
• The industry has a history of using 'defeat devices' and fraudulent data to bypass emissions laws, with significant recalls and fines issued to Ford, General Motors, Honda, and Volkswagen for disabling pollution controls in real-world driving.
• The 'One National Program' developed under the Obama administration, which set size-dependent efficiency and emissions standards through 2025, was initially supported by automakers but is now being challenged by industry trade groups seeking to weaken the standards via a midterm review.

APA

Cooke, D. (2017). Time for a U-Turn. Union of Concerned Scientists. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/attach/2017/12/cv-fuel-efficiency-intransigience-full_0.pdf

Chicago

Cooke, Dave. Time for a U-Turn. Union of Concerned Scientists, 2017. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/attach/2017/12/cv-fuel-efficiency-intransigience-full_0.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Cooke |first1=Dave |title=Time for a U-Turn |publisher=Union of Concerned Scientists |date=December 2017 |url=https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/attach/2017/12/cv-fuel-efficiency-intransigience-full_0.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{cooke2017time, author = {Cooke, Dave}, title = {{Time for a U-Turn}}, institution = {Union of Concerned Scientists}, year = {2017}, month = dec, url = {https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/attach/2017/12/cv-fuel-efficiency-intransigience-full_0.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }