Conspiracy of Polluters

How the Big Three automakers have spent decades dodging lawmakers’ efforts to make them develop clean alternatives to the internal-combustion engine.

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.


Given the spectacular advances in clean automobile technology over the century, there is no good reason why there is still no alternative to gas-guzzling, polluting automobiles. That point is well made in Jack Doyle’s new book, “Taken for a Ride: Detroit’s Big Three and the Politics of Pollution” (Four Walls Eight Windows Press, 2000).

The history of the auto industry’s war against cleaner-burning engines, alternative fuels, and mass transportation goes back more than 50 years.

In the late 1940s, General Motors and a number of oil, chemical, and tire companies were convicted for going around to the major cities and replacing clean, efficient inner-city electric trolley systems with polluting diesel buses.

This was among the most egregious corporate crimes in history. More egregious was the penalty: General Motors and the other convicted companies were fined $5,000. The executives were fined $1 each.

In 1957, Paul Schenck, R-Ohio, introduced a bill that would have prohibited the sale of vehicles discharging hydrocarbons in levels found dangerous by the surgeon general.

“Here is a Republican from the Midwest introducing a bill that calls the surgeon general to play a public-health role,” Doyle told us recently. “If this technology was found to be a threat to public health, then the surgeon general would be empowered to prohibit the sale of the internal combustion engine.”

The bill never made it through Congress, at least not in that form. Still, it was a powerful statement at the time about the growing national concern over auto pollution. In 1959, President Eisenhower signed a modified Schenck Act. That law directed the surgeon general to study the relationship between auto pollution and public health.

Other attemps to change the Big Three’s polluting ways were not even that successful.

In the late 1960s, federal prosecutors in Los Angeles opened a grand jury investigation into the automobile industry for conspiring to defeat clean automobile technology.

Rising out of the smog capital of the world, Justice Department attorneys wanted to indict the auto companies and their executives, for conspiring to ensure that the internal combustion engine would reign supreme over cleaner technology.

The auto industry knew that the case would be won in Washington, D.C., not Los Angeles, and hired Lloyd Cutler, who then was an aspiring corporate fix-it man.

With Cutler’s help, the grand jurors were dismissed, replaced by a spineless civil consent decree encouraging auto companies to research and produce cleaner cars. That had little impact, as anyone can see, on pollution and global-warming problems.

Clean air advocates, including Los Angeles City Attorney Kenneth Hahn, protested, to no avail.

“The presidents of General Motors, Ford ,and Chrysler should be brought to trial right here in Los Angeles,” Hahn wrote in 1968. “The big manufacturers all conspired. If one wouldn’t put the devices on, the others wouldn’t either. This case is the most important legal battle in the history of the air pollution fight.”

The foreman of the grand jury, Martin Walsbren, was furious over the Justice Department’s sell-out to Cutler’s gang. He told the Los Angeles Times that there was much more to the case than the consent decree suggested, but there wasn’t much he could say “unless I wish to risk going to jail.”

Then California Congressman Phil Burton got hold of the original Justice Department criminal memo in the case. The memo shows an auto industry conspiring to defeat pollution-control equipment even while lying to public officials about how they were going all out to develop those technologies.

There also have been attempts to outlaw the internal combustion engine altogether — again to no avail, showing once again how corporate criminals have the ability to define the laws under which they live.

Take the case of Nicholas Petris. Petris was a California state Senator. In 1969, Petris introduced legislation, SB 778, a bill that would prohibit the sale of all diesel- and gasoline-powered internal combustion engines in California by January 1, 1975.

The auto industry thought Petris’ bill was a joke. They all laughed at it. But the laughter stopped in July 1969, when the California Senate approved Petris’ bill by a vote of 26 to 5 and sent it to the California Assembly.

“People are demanding that we move rapidly to reverse this trend of polluting our air and water in the whole environment,” said Petris upon passage of the bill.

The auto industry straightened up and got serious. Future President and then state Gov. Ronald Reagan threatened to veto the bill if it made it out of the Assembly. The industry put the screw to lawmakers, and the bill died in committee.

Doyle argues in his book that for 50 years the companies have had the business opportunity to produce a clean car and they’ve blown it.

“The automakers’ own internal cost-accounting, recall record and warranty repairs will show that they squandered billions while trying to convince Congress that clean air and better fuel economy were too expensive,” Doyle says.

Even Bill Ford, who has espoused an environmental vision for his family’s auto company, was seen recently in Washington, D.C. lobbying against repeal of the loophole in fuel-economy standards that lets Ford make millions on his line of gas-guzzing sports utility vehicles, despite the company’s efforts to seem “green.”

IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE SCREWED WITHOUT TRUMP:

"It's that we're screwed with or without him if we can't show the public that what we do matters for the long term," writes Mother Jones CEO Monika Bauerlein as she kicks off our drive to raise $350,000 in donations from readers by July 17.

This is a big one for us. It's our first time asking for an outpouring of support since screams of FAKE NEWS and so much of what Trump stood for made everything we do so visceral. Like most newsrooms, we face incredibly hard budget realities, and it's unnerving needing to raise big money when traffic is down.

So, as we ask you to consider supporting our team's journalism, we thought we'd slow down and check in about where Mother Jones is and where we're going after the chaotic last several years. This comparatively slow moment is also an urgent one for Mother Jones: You can read more in "Slow News Is Good News," and if you're able to, please support our team's hard-hitting journalism and help us reach our big $350,000 goal with a donation today.

payment methods

IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE SCREWED WITHOUT TRUMP:

"It's that we're screwed with or without him if we can't show the public that what we do matters for the long term," writes Mother Jones CEO Monika Bauerlein as she kicks off our drive to raise $350,000 in donations from readers by July 17.

This is a big one for us. So, as we ask you to consider supporting our team's journalism, we thought we'd slow down and check in about where Mother Jones is and where we're going after the chaotic last several years. This comparatively slow moment is also an urgent one for Mother Jones: You can read more in "Slow News Is Good News," and if you're able to, please support our team's hard-hitting journalism and help us reach our big $350,000 goal with a donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate