Copyright 1999 The Atlanta Constitution
The Atlanta
Journal and Constitution
May 20, 1999, Thursday, Home Edition
SECTION: Editorial; Pg. 16A
LENGTH: 791 words
HEADLINE:
Editorial: Clean Commute Day;
More cars, exhaust require tighter rules;
Ford Motor Co. leads the way in making vehicles more fuel-efficient.
BYLINE: Staff
SOURCE:
Constitution
BODY:
Americans have put a third more
vehicles on the road today than there were in 1980. We drive 60 percent more
miles each day, and each day we burn 30 percent more gasoline
than we did in 1980. And judging from the numbers, none of those trends shows
any sign of slowing.
Today is Clean Commute Day, and metro Atlanta
residents are being asked to use alternatives to the single-passenger
automobile, in the hope that a day's experiment with a car pool, mass transit, a
bicycle or telecommuting might persuade commuters to use those options more
often. That campaign is important, particularly with the summer ozone season
upon us. Last summer was one of the worst on record in Atlanta. Realistically,
however, the role of alternatives to the automobile is likely to remain limited.
Mass transit, for example, is useful for commuting from one point to another,
but it's less convenient for trips to the grocery store or transporting kids to
and from soccer practice. Because of the flexibility and freedom it offers and
because of the massive infrastructure already in place to support it, the
gasoline-burning internal-combustion engine is certain to
remain the most important mode of transportation for decades to come.
That creates a challenge: If we are going to burn more and more
gasoline every year, how do we prevent the air we breathe from
becoming more and more polluted?
The answer is obvious. In addition to
providing alternatives where feasible, we have to require the oil companies to
supply gasoline that burns cleaner, and we have to require the
auto industry to build vehicles that pollute less and operate more efficiently.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed
regulations to accomplish both of those goals, including rules
to force sport-utility vehicles and light trucks to meet the same emission
standards as automobiles. That's critical, because SUVs now account for roughly
half of the sales of new cars in this country. However, under rules that take
effect next year, SUVs will be allowed to emit five times as much pollution as
regular cars.
As always, the auto and petroleum industries involved are
fighting in Congress and elsewhere to have the EPA's tighter proposed rules
overturned. They argue, as always, that meeting the requirements is not
technologically feasible. They argue, as always, that the rules will raise costs
significantly. And as always, their track record in such predictions will be
abysmal.
Look at the numbers cited earlier. Americans are driving 60
percent more miles than in 1980, but consuming 30 percent more
gasoline. Furthermore, the average car today has 60 percent
more horsepower than in 1980. How is that possible? Because government
regulations forced automakers to produce more fuel-efficient
vehicles. Industry officials opposed those rules bitterly, warning that those
fuel-efficiency standards would force all Americans to drive tiny Pintos.
Anybody seen a Pinto lately?
The requirement that oil companies
remove more pollutants in the refining process, instead of leaving them in
gasoline to be burned off by cars and trucks, has also stirred
industry opposition. The rules would limit the sulfur content
in gasoline to 30 parts per million, compared with the current
average of more than 300 parts per million. The companies say the
regulations would raise the price of gasoline
by six cents a gallon, although other experts set the additional cost at one or
two cents per gallon.
The real issue isn't the cost, but who pays it. By
selling gasoline that burns dirtier than necessary, the oil
industry "externalizes" some of its refining costs; the price is paid by those
who have to breathe that exhaust. On the other hand, the sulfur
requirement puts the burden where it belongs. In economic terms, it
"internalizes" the cost, forcing those who create the problem to solve it.
There is one notable exception to the automobile industry's general
opposition to environmental improvements. The Ford Motor Co. has announced that
its 2000 line of light trucks and SUVs --- including its monstrous 3.5- ton
Excursion --- will emit no more pollutants than the standard car. The cost of
additional emission controls --- estimated at $ 100 per vehicle --- will be
absorbed by Ford, which is easy given the extremely high profit margins for
SUVs. The industry's profit on some SUVs ranges as high as $ 12, 000 per unit.
Ford officials say the move is motivated in part by the belief that it's
the right thing to do, bolstered by faith that consumers, if given a choice,
will buy the more environmentally responsible vehicle. Meanwhile, Ford
competitors are still sputtering that it's impossible to achieve what Ford has
already accomplished.
GRAPHIC: Graphic
AMERICA'S
LOVE AFFAIR WITH THE AUTOMOBILE
Our roads are busier. ..
Traffic volume
is measured in passenger-miles, the movement of one passenger over one mile.
Passenger-miles for private automobiles, in trillions:
1980: 1.2
1990:
1.6
1995: 1.9
...we're consuming more fuel
Billions of gallons of
fuel used for domestic motor vehicles:
1980: 115.0
1990: 130.8
1996:
146.7
...and registering more vehicles
Motor vehicle registrations, in
millions, including automobiles, trucks and buses:
1980: 155.8
1990:
188.8
1996: 206.4
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
/ Staff
LOAD-DATE: May 20, 1999 
