Did You Know AAA Is Bad for the Environment? But You Can Get Green Roadside Assistance
Also in Environment
Copenhagen, U.S.A.: Don't Miss the Dec. 7 Showdown Over Climate Change Here in America
Jeff Biggers
The Most Urgent Threat to World Peace is … Canada
George Monbiot
With the Copenhagen Summit Approaching, a Global Climate Movement Emerges
Bryan Farrell
Activists Protest Natural Resources Defense Council for Collaborating With Polluters
Joseph Huff-Hannon
Bill Moyers & Jane Goodall: What Chimps Reveal About Human Brutality, Violence, Compassion and Hope
Bill Moyers
Our Lives Are Filled With Worthless Crap That's Destroying the Earth: Here's What You Can Do
Sharon Bloyd-Peshkin
When it comes to roadside assistance, most Americans don't even think twice before making a decision. AAA has been around since 1902 and is the leading auto club in the country. But AAA, who did well to focus on roadway safety reform through the 1940s, is isolating many consumers due to its stance on a more current safety issue: the environment. Now one company, with a business strategy built around being environmentally conscious, is hoping to entice American car owners by offering a greener form of roadside assistance.
Daniel Becker, Sierra Club's director of global warming and energy program, is worried that most AAA members don't know that the organization "is a lobbyist for more roads, more pollution, and more gas guzzling." AAA is a member of the auto-industry backed American Highway Users Alliance, a group known for its love of laying new pavement. AAA's work with the AHUA isn't something it advertises with its members. Nor was the fact that AAA came out against the Clean Air Act back in 1990.
In fact most members don't know that AAA is involved in lobbying at all; but the group has a history of siding against everything from open-space measures, to public transportation funding, to the regulation of auto emissions.
In 2006 AAA's largest club, the Automobile Club of Southern California, worked against Prop. 87. The proposition would have established a "$4 billion program to reduce petroleum consumption (in California) by 25 percent, with research and production incentives for alternative energy, alternative energy vehicles, energy efficient technologies, and for education and training." The funding for the program would have been a gas tax, not on consumers at the pump, but on the "producers of oil extracted in California." Prop. 87 went on to specifically say that any additional costs would "not be passed on to consumers through higher prices for oil, gasoline or diesel fuel." Thomas McKernan, president and CEO of the Automobile Club of Southern California (AAA), knew that but still did his best to scare voters by stating:
Gasoline prices in California are high enough already. Proposition 87 would just add insult to injury. This $4 billion oil tax would result in even higher gas prices at the pump. We recommend drivers vote: NO on 87.Prop. 87 failed by a slim margin. And you can bet a lot of people that voted to pass it were card-carrying members of AAA who had no idea that their auto-club was campaigning against the proposition with their own membership dues.
See more stories tagged with: aaa, better world club, eco-conscious consuming
Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »
You've chosen to turn comments off for the entire site. Would you like to turn them back on?
Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.