By G.R. Whale
During the president's State of the Union address back in January, he opened a can of worms by calling for a 20 percent reduction in gasoline consumption. That a few diesels (which will consume 20 percent less fuel than gas-powered vehicles) were introduced down the street (at the Washington, D.C. auto show) at the same time apparently escaped the administration's attention. Likewise, it also escaped the attention of the Sport Utility Owners of America, which put out a press release cautioning against increasing fuel-economy standards. Whatever the motivation or opinion, will increased CAFE standards work?
Let's examine the rules. Congress sets CAFE standards to a "maximum feasible level." However, another agency determines what a maximum feasible level is, based on technological feasibility, economic practicality, effect of other standards on fuel economy, and the nation's need to conserve energy. That's where the problems start. Can you think of a broader, more abstract, or vague term? Also, since authority and responsibility have been split among government entities, they're absolved from getting results.
Another problem: GM boss Rick Wagoner figures it would cost more than $40 billion to raise fuel-efficiency standards by four percent per year over the next 10 years, noting that CAFE has "failed dramatically" and hasn't reduced U.S. oil consumption. Ford and Chrysler management probably agree with him, as they do on the concept of regulating carbon at the refinery level. I believe the technology and resources already exist to make autos meet these new standards, but efficient vehicles are harder to market and offer a smaller profit margin.
Now add loopholes and rule manipulation to the mix. CAFE regulations were originally were imposed on cars, and the unintended result was that it created an impetus to sell more trucks. In addition, credits and other offsetting devices only led to complacency. Look at the PT Cruiser or Honda CR V--car-based "trucks" that improve light-truck economy averages. Also consider that when a government agency only requires automakers to build to a specific fuel mileage, they have no incentive to go beyond that level.
Another way to get around the rules is with money. Just as you pay a gas-guzzler tax to drive a powerful car but pay nothing to drive an even less-economical SUV (another loophole), the manufacturers simply pay penalties for not meeting CAFE. A million or two a year, or $100 million, is still cheaper than $40 billion over 10 years.
Politics naturally play a part here, too. Representative Edward Markey (D-Mass.) characterizes CAFE as a "tremendous success" based on fuel consumption in the U.S. between 1975 and 1985. He never mentioned that the price of gas skyrocketed around that time. When those renegade blue states began threatening to set their own CO2 standards--which are closely tied to fuel economy--the White House proposed a mild increase overall. Since that increase would be tied to legislation keeping individual states from setting their own limits, the token increase claimed likely will delay any real improvement in emissions or fuel economy.
Another issue: CAFE doesn't address consumption--it merely identifies relative vehicle efficiency. If CAFE were tossed and fuel itself taxed, those heavy consumers would pay for it, eliminating many vehicle-bashing economy issues because all vehicles would be equal. This would limit fuel consumption more than any government standard.
For example, my "fleet" consists of a 25 mpg sports car, a 28-mpg station wagon, and a 13/20-mpg full-size 4WD pickup. The pickup travels one-tenth the miles the wagon does, and I've used 4WD within the last three months, so I don't feel all that bad about the consumption.
The primary reason CAFE won't work is societal: The United States is a "me" country. Americans' centric view of the world frequently ends at the mirror or edge of the hood. When California was working on the CO2 initiative, a backer's phrase was to "give consumers a choice." But when more than one engine is offered in a car, truck, or SUV, the majority of consumers choose the largest available.
Since there are more cars and miles being driven, fuel consumption won't go down without a serious increase in vehicle economy. And even though vehicles are now more efficient, they weigh more and have more horsepower per pound.
The most effective way to improve fuel efficiency is by changing driving habits, but American driving styles are all about "me." Cell-phones waste lots of fuel while everyone waits for Mr. Yakyak to discover the light's green or pull off near a dead zone and leave it running. Parents at the local school idle for a half hour even when it's a comfortable 65 degrees outside, and my neighbor leaves her QX56 idling that long if the baby's asleep. How much fuel could be saved if we didn't have to wait for people too lazy to use a turn signal or who block an entire road by making a left turn from the right side of the lane, or vice versa? How much could we save by moving off smartly on a green light instead of having four car lengths between vehicles going 15 mph?
Until Americans see the greater good and look a bit further down the road, CAFE won't make any difference at all. By the time we eventually do, it probably won't be needed.