This just in: Lawmakers in Washington, the city
that gave us low-flow toilets, a mandatory drinking age and a
national speed limit for our highways, want to mandate even
higher fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks.Now,
such a proposal may sound good. After all, anything that can
save a few bucks at the gas pump should be encouraged, right?
And if it helps us pollute less and cut our dependence on
foreign oil, so much the better. What’s not to like?
Plenty. Take a look under the hood, and
you’ll see why the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)
program -- which mandates that cars average 27.5 miles per
gallon and light trucks (pick-ups, minivans, SUVs) average
20.7 mpg -- should be abolished.
Start with the fact that it has done nothing to
curb our reliance on foreign oil. The program was launched in
1975 as attempted to grapple with the 1973 oil embargo imposed
by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Since
then, we’ve gone from importing 30 percent of our oil in 1973
to importing 52 percent today.
Why? Primarily because
the move to more fuel-efficient vehicles has encouraged
Americans to drive more than they used to. In fact, we
drive twice as many miles today as we did 30 years ago, more
than offsetting any gains realized through improved mpg
ratings.
It’s an old phenomenon:
Make something more efficient, and people use it more. For
example, in 19th century
England
, coal consumption fell by a third in the first few months
after James Watt’s new, efficient steam engine began to
replace older, more energy-hungry machines. But over the next
30 years, coal use increased tenfold as consumers discovered
Watt’s engine was cheaper and easier to run.
The CAFE program doesn’t score any better
on the environment. For one thing, fuel efficient cars don’t
necessarily produce fewer harmful emissions. Under CAFE, a
3-cylinder Chevy Metro can emit as much exhaust as a Lincoln
Town Car. For another, manufacturing the plastics and other
compounds used in place of steel to make cars lighter creates
its own set of pollution headaches. And even if the fuel
economy standards went up 40 percent, it would cut emissions
of greenhouse gases by less than half of 1 percent.
Then there’s the matter of money. To avoid
stiff penalties for violating the CAFE standards, auto makers
have resorted to promoting smaller cars and increasing the
price of larger cars. The standards, in effect, act as a tax
on larger, safer cars that is used to subsidize sales of
smaller, less safe cars that get more miles to the gallon.
In fact, the entire CAFE regime -- the
technological advances required to meet the fuel economy
standards, the fines and other costs -- significantly raises
the cost of new vehicles. This encourages drivers to hold on
to their older, less-efficient, more-polluting cars, rather
than buy new ones -- hardly a goal of the policy.
It’s also not a
goal of the policy to make vehicles more dangerous, but it has
done precisely that. To meet the CAFE requirements, auto
makers have cut the weight of vehicles by nearly 25 percent
since 1975. This despite research that shows
lighter SUVs roll over more easily than heavier ones and that
heavier cars fare better than light cars in guardrail
crashes.
A study done by
USA Today, using data from the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration and the Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety, found that through 1998, weight and size reductions
undertaken by auto makers to meet CAFE standards had resulted
in 46,000 deaths. That’s the population of
Pocatello,
Idaho, wiped out by
misguided government regulations.
So what have we
learned in a quarter-century of CAFE standards? That they
don’t conserve fuel or reduce pollution, they cost consumers
money, and they leave us with more dangerous cars. And now
Congress wants to make the standards more
rigorous?
What lawmakers
ought to be doing is listening to American drivers. In
a survey conducted last year by Maritz Inc., a St. Louis,
Mo.-based marketing research firm, consumers were asked to
rank what they look for in a new car. Fuel economy came in
25th out of 26 attributes (below “interior styling”
at 22nd).
What finished
near the top? Cost and
safety.
Charli Coon
is an energy policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/index.cfm),
a Washington-based public policy
institute.