Those, like Vermont Yankee, who invest in American democracy expect and get a return for their money. Eight days after our vote on nuclear power, the U.S. Senate voted on a bill, introduced by John Kerry (D-MA) and John McCain (R-AZ), to raise the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard to 36 miles-per-gallon (mpg) for cars, SUVs and pick-up trucks. (The current average is 20.4 mpg with some SUVs getting as low as 13 mpg). The auto industry would have thirteen years, until 2015, to make the technological transition.

A no-brainer, one would think. The higher CAFE standard would lessen pollution and help moderate global warming. It would diminish our dependence on foreign oil and, hence, increase national security. Making cars more energy-efficient would also save consumers money at the gas pump. The Kerry-McCain bill certainly had merit on its side; what it lacked was money. So the Senate voted against it, 62 to 38.

Just as the nuclear industry bought the Town Meeting vote in Vermont, the auto industry bought the Kerry-McCain CAFE vote in the Senate. Over the years, auto manufacturers have given millions of dollars in campaign contributions to members of Congress. For this vote, they spent additional millions in a bogus grassroots campaign to frighten the public into putting pressure on their Senators. The bill will compromise safety, industry advertisements charged, neglecting the fact that it is the polluting SUVs that are prone to rolling-over. And those poor “soccer moms”: how will they take their kids to soccer practice without gas-guzzling SUVS, opponents of the bill wondered. One TV ad, shown in Midwestern farm states, conveyed the message that the new law, if passed, would make pick-up trucks so expensive that farmers would have to haul hay in subcompact cars.

Advocates of nuclear powers are, at this point, gleeful. They’re environmentalists who, unlike the auto manufacturers and their fossil fuel allies, are concerned with global warming. And it’s true, nuclear power doesn’t contribute to global warming; but it has other lethal problems stemming from uranium fuel and the toxicity of radiation. Trying to lessen global warming with nuclear power is like using arsenic to treat a common cold. Dead people don’t sneeze. But I digress.

The meaning of the CAFE defeat, much like our local Vermont Yankee vote, is that on environmental issues money talks. And the free speech of big business drowns out everyone else. I went to the web site of The Center for Responsive Politics and found this: In the two-year cycle ending with the election of 2000, the auto industry gave $2.8 million to federal candidates. The oil and gas industry, which also has a stake in low fuel efficiency, gave $33.9 million. Environmental groups, which have issues with many industrial sectors, not just auto and nuclear power, gave $2 million. As with the Vermont vote, the spending isn’t close. With regard to CAFE, the 62 Senators who voted with the industry for low CAFE standards received on average $18,600 from the auto manufacturers. The 38 Senators who voted for the Kerry-McCain standard averaged just $5,900. Some of the Senators voted with the industry because they represent states like Michigan where the industry is strong. But that doesn’t explain the number of oppositional votes. A few Senators are simply dim bulbs. But for the majority, money seems to have talked. Politicians need money to win elections. In virtually every election, the most successful fund-raiser gets the most votes. It pays to vote with the special interests against the environment.

As with Vermont Yankee, the auto industry enlisted its unionized work force in its “buy-a-Senator” campaign. I am ashamed of my union, the United Auto Workers, for falling for the industry malarkey that higher CAFE standards will cost autoworkers their jobs. What will cost them jobs is competition from the more fuel-efficient cars that the Japanese, Swedes, and Germans already have in production. The Big Three American automakers lost money during the 1970s when gas-efficient foreign imports flooded the country. American carmakers eventually caught up with the technology, but seem to have learned nothing about marketing cars in a more environmentally-conscious world.

Intertwined with the misdirection of environmental priorities is the problem of our corrupted democracy, and the cynicism it breeds. Wednesday’s passage of McCain-Feingold is a hopeful sign. While it’s a flawed bill that won’t stop the corrupting influence of campaign contributions (it will merely alter the way they are given), it does prove that campaign finance reform can win. A few days ago an ice-shelf the size of Rhode Island broke off from Antarctica, an environmental event unprecedented in modern times and a result, scientists say, of global warming. Can we hear the crackling of ice over the din of political noise and the jingling of money? As long as campaign contributions shape our political agenda, the ice will melt, the oceans will warm and rise with disastrous consequences, and we’ll continue to delude ourselves into thinking that nuclear energy is an ecologically-viable alternative to fossil fuels like coal and oil.

Marty Jezer writes from Brattleboro, Vermont and welcomes comments at mjez@sover.net. He is a member of the National Writers Union, Local 1981 of the UAW.

Copyright © 2002 by Marty Jezer

###