Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported that at the end of public commenting on proposed fuel economy rules stemming from the December 2007 energy bill, the National Transportation Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) is taking fire from all corners. And examining both the criticisms and the motives underlying them sheds some serious light on the increasingly self-evident truths about global warming that the White House has been trying to cover up.

Environmental and consumer advocates (as well as a bi-partisan congressional group led by Rep. Ed Markey) continue to take issue with the initial draft unveiled on Earth Day, which contained Trojan horse language purporting to pre-empt both the EPA and states like California from enacting separate limits on auto emissions. The proposed regulations are also weaker than they could be, minimizing the gains to consumers that a more realistic projection of gas prices might yield– and contrasting with the EPA study that has been deliberately kept under wraps by the White House, which found that $2 trillion of net economic benefits would stem from transitioning to cleaner cars.

The U.S. auto industry isn’t likely complaining about the White House’s actions, though it is complaining about the proposed CAFE rules, which it claims are too aggressive and cannot feasibly be met. The industry is pushing its own skewed study, claiming massive job cuts and economic losses will result from the requiring more efficient cars. Keep in mind that, in light of a November 2007 court decision (Center for Biological Diversity v. NHTSA) invalidating previous CAFE standards that were improperly biased toward the auto industry, NHTSA is required to balance the industry’s fear-mongering against the benefits of acting to ensure cleaner cars and minimize global warming impacts, as well as the costs of failing to do so.

Even more important is realizing why the White House is doing all it can to keep the EPA’s findings– and the national auto emissions standards that would follow, in light of Mass. v. EPA– hidden, and instead placing temporary bets on NHTSA. Quite simply, if the EPA even puts its findings into motion, the resulting auto emissions standards will likely trump the fuel efficiency standards being designed by NHTSA, and will also bolster the many states that wish to go even further. Mass. v. EPA is clear that the two agencies’ responsibilities are not necessarily in conflict and ought to complement one another, and strongly suggests that in the event of differing outcomes in terms of auto efficiency, the EPA’s higher standards (as would be the case here) win out. This legal reality has already been applied in federal court; Judge Anthony Ishii used it to guide his December 2007 ruling against (you guessed it!) the auto industry, finding that because of Mass. v. EPA, state auto emissions rules enacted under the Clean Air Act are clearly not pre-empted by federal fuel-economy law.

Keeping that legal reality in mind,  it’s apparent that this will all work itself out. Eventually. Once the White House and the auto industry are done throwing multiple kitchen sinks at the problem in order to delay the inevitable.