Mileage Standards: Not the Way to Energy Independence
After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, then-President George W. Bush enjoyed sky-high approval ratings. A short time later, his popularity began to slip when he rallied the country to invade first Afghanistan then Iraq. At the end of his two-term reign, Iraq was relatively stable with a functioning government and there was talk of planning to bring most of our troops home. And Bush’s ratings were at historic lows.
I won’t list all the circumstances, from biased reporting to poor policy decisions, which caused Bush’s popularity to plummet. Most PJ Media visitors have their own complete list and all of us can rewrite history. But there is one opportunity that the Bush administration let slip through its fingers: an intelligent energy policy.
Consider this scenario. What if President Bush had explained that along with trying to get control of terrorism, the free flow of oil in the Middle East was important to world security. What’s more, our country’s dependence on imported oil was putting our own security at risk. To correct the problem, Bush could have asked the American people to do their part to conserve as much energy as possible. And if that included a modest tax on gasoline to encourage better habits, using all the revenue for transportation, I would be fine with that.
Today, we still don’t have an energy policy that makes sense. T. Boone Pickens wants us to convert our vehicles to natural gas and fill up at his CNG stations while he builds wind farms to generate electricity. Midwest agribusiness would grow corn and other food stocks to make ethanol. People in coal country insist that their black energy source can be as green as Kermit, and residents of Nevada want nothing to do with storing nuclear waste.
Although we haven’t had a coherent energy policy for decades, more than a few of us worry that the policies of the Obama administration will only please ardent environmentalists. If you’re not in that camp, fasten your seatbelt. President Obama has set the tone by appointing Lisa Jackson to head EPA. Jackson is a proponent of allowing states to set their own carbon standards, an idea that would treat every automaker to compliance chaos. After sure confirmation by the Boxer-chaired Environment and Public Works Committee, Jackson will report to Ray LaHood, the newly appointed transportation secretary and retiring Republican congressman from Peoria who supports public transportation.
A Democratic controlled Congress has already replaced the moderate John Dingel with activist Henry Waxman to head the powerful House Energy Committee. And should anyone doubt President Obama’s support for his choices, he’s picked Clinton’s activist and ex-EPA chief Carol Browner as assistant to the president for Energy and Climate Change. Will these new bureaucrats commute to work in Suburbans? Just wondering.
During a briefing to reporters before the Los Angeles Auto Show, experts gathered by the Foundation for American Communications opined that the Obama administration might urge a 50-MPG EPA standard, a major escalation from the looming 35-MPG rule. Just to put things in perspective, 35-MPG is slightly higher than Europe’s current fleet average. That means that cars like Honda’s Accord would be giants and full-size SUVs would be history.
The energy law that was enacted in December 2007, requires standards for 2009 vehicles of 27.5 mpg for cars and 23.1 mpg for trucks. Then the standards would move upward to the goal of 35 mpg in 2020, a number that is 40 percent higher than today’s specification. And the Bush administration’s Department of Transportation had proposed a rule to push fuel economy up 25 percent by 2011 to 2015 model years, a goal that would cost the industry $47 billion according to a report in Automotive News. Although a final rule was promised by the end of 2008, the Bush administration had punted that decision to the Obama team and a date of April 1, 2009 (appropriately Fools Day), became the new target.
That gives Team Obama enough time to: a) scale back the standards to help the same industry to which we just lent money or b) increase the standards even higher to save our planet that much faster. For context, a new vehicle and/or entirely new powertrain takes at least three years or more to develop. Federal law requires the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) to give automakers at least 18 months to comply with new economy standards. In the meantime, the car companies face not only impractical deadlines but also uncertain standards.
When you talk to most ordinary people who don’t have a pooch in this fight, they are puzzled about why the automakers don’t quickly embrace high fuel economy standards. After all, Toyota’s Prius is considered mid-size by the EPA and the 2009 model delivers 48-city and 45-highway fuel economy according to the current published guide. And Toyota’s 2010 model that was unveiled at the North American International Auto Show this month promises 50 mpg. What’s more, there are “plug-in” Prius sedans running around with graphics plastered on the doors that boast 100 mpg + economy. So what’s the big deal?
The problem is simply that hybrid sedans aren’t the solution for every need. From soccer mom duties to towing to that all-American virtue “personal choice”, small, fuel-stingy cars aren’t for everyone. And as far as those 100 mpg + claims plastered on the sides of a plug-in-modified Prius, that’s no more than hyperbole. No one has offered a standard EPA test to verify the claim. Consumer Reports is the most forthright, publishing a review of its plug-in Prius, after spending $10,875 for the conversion. The result was 56 mpg in their city cycle and 75 mpg on the highway after a full charge. Apparently, a long downhill drive or creeping around town is required for a plug-in Prius to attain triple-digit fuel economy.
Regulating fuel consumption through mileage standards has also created an uneven playing field for automakers. High volume producers, including Detroit’s three, have to be cautious about exceeding the limits to avoid fines, while competitors that import only their premium vehicles simply pay the levy since there’s plenty of profit to absorb it.
That’s what’s wrong about the whole idea of regulating fuel economy. It’s a lot like fighting obesity by requiring clothing manufacturers to make only slender sizes. If consuming less petroleum is a worthy goal, make the price of that product high enough to discourage vivacious consumption. Look at what happened when oil prices recently spiked to above $4 per gallon. Guess what would happen if they remained higher than even $2.
Meanwhile, the politicians who are busy designing EPA economy standards have their drivers keeping their big black SUVs warm or cool so they don’t have to suffer too much discomfort. Apparently, distress is a phenomenon for you and I and the world’s automakers to endure.
We need to utilize everything in out power to reduce our dependence on foreign oil including using our own natural resources.OPEC will continue to cut production until they achieve their desired 80-100. per barrel. The high cost of fuel this past year seriously damaged our economy and society. Oil is finite. We are using oil globally at the rate of 2X faster than new oil is being discovered. We need to take some of these billions in bail out bucks and bail ourselves out of our dependence on foreign oil. Jeff Wilson has a really good new book out called The Manhattan Project of 2009 Energy Independence Now. He explores our uses of oil besides gasoline, our depletion, out reserves and stores as well as viable options to replace oil.Oil is finite, it will run out in the not too distant future. WE need to take some of these billions in bail out bucks and bail America out of it’s dependence on foreign oil. The historic high price of gas this past year did serious damage to our economy and society.If all gasoline cars, trucks, and SUV’s instead had plug-in electric drive trains, the amount of electricity needed to replace gasoline is about equal to the estimated wind energy potential of the state of North Dakota. WE should never allow others to have that much power over our economy again. Every member of congress needs to read this book.
The main thesis “Mileage Standards: Not the Way to Energy Independence” is itself misleading. “Independence” from importation, if one means continued use of petroleum only, is not possible, and even if the broader implication was intended (i.e., all energy sources not just petroleum) every specialist in the field I have read admits that it would take the US many years to replace imported oil with in-country alternatives.
So in a sense the main thesis starts with a false implication, that is, that someone (who?) is claiming that mileage standards are proposed as *the* means towards true independence. The US just imports too much oil for modest mileage improvements to solve that. Most of the reasoned (and educated) opinions I have read would rather say that increased mileage requirements are just part of an overall strategy of getting the US off of imported oil.
While the author may pooh-pooh mileage standards, the alternative proposed – that of increasing gasoline costs enough to cause sufficient demand destruction, suffers because the existing stock of automobiles in the US turns over very slowly, and if gasoline prices were to rise enough *today* to make a significant dent in oil importation (and the price would have to rise considerably as gasoline demand in the US is rather inelastic) the current owners of automobiles would like find themselves in financial difficulties. Furthermore, oil prices fluctuate (at times rather dramatically) as supply and demand seek an equilibrium and this tends to negate the advantages of the negative feedback of high prices since when low prices come the negative pressure (on demand) alleviates.
So, unless the author is proposing that the government implements a rather onerously large national gasoline tax (say $5/gallon… is that enough?), the option left is to ramp up the mileage of the US transportation stock, which itself will take time.
Scary the stupidity alive and breathing in America. Say goodbye to all your auto union brethren who will soon be on welfare 2. Oh.. but that’s what the Dems want…total govt. dependency. How ’bout nuclear even the French lefties get that.?
the second coming of Jimmy Carter. Too many olovers are too young to remember the oil embargo, and lines for gas you could only buy every other day. a plethora of people siphoning gas (re:*stealing*) from someone else’s car, resulting in gas tank locks (I notice manufacturers haven’t done that for some time). implementation of lowered speed limits, milage standards on cars, etc. Last summer, the ‘o’ did make a comment about how gas prices weren’t high enough for him.
Fuel economy mandates to save gas? That’s like fighting obesity by requiring clothing manufacturers to make only slender sizes.
Hardly. The drive to effeciency pervades industry and society – as long as incentive exists to have such effeciencies.
That incentive has to exist in perceived benefit to society as a whole or to individual consumers.
When we have the true cost of goods and services masked by hidden subsidies, inefficiencies persist. In the case of oil, we “hide”, as the Left has accurately stated, all the military costs of keeping secure access to overseas oil which we spend in peacetime and war. We fail, in our free trade regime, to relate the cost of cheap overseas oil to terrorism expenses the US has that should also be added to each barrel we consume rather than put into China debt or on taxpayers as a whole.
We also fail to do an adequate assessment of the cost-benefit of free trade in commodities that may be cheaper on the surface price, but cost us more in terms of GNP growth, prosperity, and the economic multiplier of each dollar spent than getting oil or making oil synthetically from domestic feedstocks. True in oil and many economists now in great doubt about global free trade in materials, capital, labor, and native expertise being anything but a race to the bottom for the US citizen.
In short, paying 70 dollars a barrel for domestic oil or oil substitute will create far more GNP growth, create more jobs..than going with foreign oil with all the hidden subsidies priced on the surface, say at 50 bucks a barrel.
********************
To the extent that imposed efficiencies reduce net consumption and reduce foreign oil consumption and give consumers dollars they hopefully will not spend on ChinaMart stuff, that is a good thing.
They were very successful in reducing net oil demand per consumer in the USA in the 70s (our net use per person is still lower than in 1972). And even more successful in Europe and Asia where they kept going getting new effociencies rather than take the US political theory up that the quintessence of Freedom Lovers!! enjoying their God-given Freedoms!! was SUVs and a range of new debt-financed gas swilling consumer items like new boats, ATVs, snowmobiles and frequent air travel with cheap, subsidized gas.
But US net demand went up because of Open Borders and high-breeding poor people adding new consumers, and consumers that preferred even auto ride in cities vs walk or take mass transit. 160 million in 1952 became 220 in 1972 after immigration was opened up. Then 300 million in 2005, will be 340 million in 2030 and 420 million in 2050.
Improved efficiency is only part of the solution.
****************
melissa K – Oh.. but that’s what the Dems want…total govt. dependency. How ’bout nuclear even the French lefties get that.?
Actually the French lefties and greenies are about as bad or worse than the ones in NYC, San Francisco or the rest of Europe.
What the French do is recognize that the masses are stupid and some decisions are best left to professionals in the Ministries. And the masses are best denied pursuing their stupidities in courts that paralyze decisions for decades. China and Japan and Singapore do the same thing. They decide nuke plants must be built, they get built. They decide that lines of rail and broadband and new roads constructed – environmentalists and private property worshipping libertarians are out of luck – for the good of society as a whole – the necessary stuff is built with a minimum of delay.
Something the US may have to bite the bullet on and decide that we cannot afford “Kelo-type” lawsuits blocking needed energy, transportation development anymore. Or environmental lawsuits that have tied up energy production or even finishing highways or electric grid projects started and then lawyer-stopped since the late 70s.
********************
Sherry – If all gasoline cars, trucks, and SUV’s instead had plug-in electric drive trains, the amount of electricity needed to replace gasoline is about equal to the estimated wind energy potential of the state of North Dakota.
Be very, very wary of extravagent claims by wind and solar advocates of “the solar energy falling on Arizona would drive the Saudis to their knees” or “the wind in N Dakota if made into electricity would replace all gas use and save the polar bear.”
No they won’t. These are claims made by non-engineer. non-scientists or by people claiming to be “techologically trained” but way out of the mainstream. And crank advocates for projects that have been out there for 50 years but somehow never adequate to pass cost-benefit analysis by venture capitalists and firms that would be delighted to have billions come their way from “MIRACLE CHEAP ABUNDANT NON-POLLUTING SOLAR AND WIND SNAKE OIL ELIXIR!!”
Or people unfamiliar with technological or medical breakthroughs convinced that anything from aging to cheap solar to anti-gravity machines to miracle fuel cells to easy cancer cures is possible simply by throwing “government people and money” at them.
The wind of N Dakota? Mainly available in the spring and fall – with summer and winter being light or dead calm. Peaking only in certain hours. Faced with an electric grid that does not reach the sites proposed, nor with any practical, cost effective battery or other storage system (H2 gen and giant caverns carved out to store compressed air have been mentioned and laughed off). And transmission lines still have I2R losses and expensive voltage and AC/DC, frequency conversion equipment real 24/7 power plants and substations currently do cheaply and well with far less.
To use, it would have to be with full capacity backup power gen infrastructure for the months that the wind really isn’t blowing hard anywhere in the USA.
Also the advocates are EXCEPTIONALLY quiet about the cost of plug-ins using present “Earth-saving Miracle Wind and Solar Energy Solutions”. Which without taxpayer subsidies are in a range of 16 dollars (for cheapest wind power rates) to almost 60 dollars (for solar power electric) for a gallon of gasoline equivalent.
That is, when the sun is shining or when the wind is blowing..
What do you mean you would approve deliberately raising gas prices to limit gas use? That is outrageous. Each of us knows his personal transportation needs best not the government.
I have a stupid idea: Let’s use the oil we have in this country. Funny thing the more we use and the more our oil technology improves the more proven reserves we find!
The premise that the Bush Administration had no energy plan is a falsehood promulgated by the media and the DNC. Bush did have an energy plan developed by Vice President Cheney before 9-11. It was an all-of-the-above” plan. The Democratic leadership shot it down because it “helped” the oil industry. The most important could-have-been in Bush years was the adaption of his energy plan. There would have been no energy price spike to set off the subprime collapse of 2008. Our energy dilemma is another bi-product of the Democrat’s rule or ruin philosophy of power.
. rr:
What do you mean you would approve deliberately raising gas prices to limit gas use? That is outrageous. Each of us knows his personal transportation needs best not the government.
I have a stupid idea: Let’s use the oil we have in this country. Funny thing the more we use and the more our oil technology improves the more proven reserves we find!
Sorry, but that is just right wing/libertarian garbage.
It is not true at all the more we use the more miracle technology is created to find even more domestic or overseas sources…
Folks, I just realized now that Cedarford is a LaRouchite. He is all over the place.
If we paid the true cost of gasoline, you would all be begging for a more efficient vehicle.
I find it disturbing that my 15 year old vehicle is more spacious and gets better mileage than most current models in the same class.
Efficiency is a major plus for our economy, our environment, and our domestic automakers. It is not enough, without other efforts, to gain energy independence, but along with hybrid and electric powertrains and more solar, wind and geothermal energy, we can wean our country off of the Saudi teat.
The arguments against mileage standards all ignore the real tangible benefits gained under the current regime, and the plain benefits of improving our fleet efficiency.
Better to conserve as much as possible as soon as possible.
Peace.
DS
Interesting article and on the right track, but Mr. Douglas, you need to write a follow-up after looking into Bush’s May 2001 “National Energy Policy” [ http://www.wtrg.com/EnergyReport/National-Energy-Policy.pdf ] and the methodology (and politics) of the EPA’s mileage calculation. Then ask yourself why the government should keep track of mileage let alone regulate it.
When Bush focused all his energies on the War on Terror, there was no time or political capital left for his pre 9/11 agenda. The sort of energy policy you call for was jettisoned along with his “Ownership Society” agenda (which, by the way, would have done for Americans’ investiture in free markets what Pres. Obama’s “stimulus” will do for our dependence on socialism). Time will tell if Bush deserves credit for sacrificing everything else in his effort to prevent another attack or if he deserves scorn for giving up on opportunities to promote policies that he was interested in before 9/11.
Regarding EPA mileage rules: I can get 37 mpg from my 2001 Oldsmobile Intrigue if I set the cruise to 55 mph – why shouldn’t Detroit be credited with meeting 2020 requirements today”; GM is already trying to influence the mpg rating of the Chevy Volt to favor their total CAFE – why shouldn’t it be set at 400 mpg if 75% of all drivers go less than 40 miles in a day will burn no gas? (Presumably the proportion willing to pay twice the going rate for a compact car to get 40 miles of gas-free battery-powered driving each day will be higher.)
By the way, human CO2 emissions are irrelevant to the climate and the supply of fossil fuel is essentially limitless (especially if we allow for the equivalent of $75/barrel and use nuclear power.)
More drilling, more pipelines, more refineries, more nuclear power plants equals a safer more secure nation, more jobs, a stronger economy and energy independence.
What a ludicrous article. If fuel efficiency standards had gradually increased during the last 8 years the price of gasoline wouldn’t have mattered. We still would have saved millions of barrels in oil and helped reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
This is from the same crowd who thought Obama’s only energy plan was to make sure tires were properly inflated. Ignoring the common sense of keeping that tires inflated, saves gas mileage and saves money in the process.
After 30 yrs of CAFE stds , the avg fuel efficiency in the US has grown from 20.5 mpg to20.6.Because no one wants to drive the small, light cars that the manufg have to make to meet the cafe std.So the little car stays in the garage unless absolutely necessary, and the other car gets bigger and heavier because it is needed to get all the kids in the car pool,the camping trips,the trip to the lakes.So all this effort($100 billion R&D in 2008) spent on building lighter cars does not effect the amt of fuel used at all.
Which was the original objective, and now appears to be forgotten.
You can mandate higher cafe levels and the poor devils trying to run an auto company have to comply, and if you force the auto companies to sell them at huge losses, you can eventually induce people to buy them, but to get them to drive them whenever possible, you can t do. Yet.The proclamation is coming from our Masters.
johnmorrissey – Your CAFE stats are wrong, your claim that more efficient cars and trucks do not significantly affect fuel usage is both profoundly ignorant and a manifestation that you are so deep into fringe ideology that you reject obvious facts.
Matthew M – By the way, human CO2 emissions are irrelevant to the climate and the supply of fossil fuel is essentially limitless (especially if we allow for the equivalent of $75/barrel and use nuclear power.)
1. You don’t know if man-caused CO2 emissions are irrelevant to the climate. You are making such a statement as an expression of your personal theology – not as someone examining the evidence objectively – which scientists and leaders involved in the question of AGW have different opinions and judgements on.
A. Evidence strongly points to AGW, and in their judgment it is a catastrophic problem.
B. Evidence shows a strong rise in CO2 directly attributable to mankinds activities and population explosion…which their models show a slight to moderate effect on climate.
C. Evidence is not conclusive one way or the other. It is too early to know…
D. Evidence shows a very slight role of man-made CO2 on climate, given other variables…but we should begin implimenting strategies to reduce both population and CO2 generating activities to equilibrium values.
2. the supply of fossil fuel is essentially limitless.
Sorry, but that is just a stupid assertion. The supply of anything on Earth is by definition, finite. In the case of scarce, valuable non-renewable resources like fossil fuels, rare minerals being depleted faster than reserves have been found despite quadrupling of prices – we can put a date on when supply becomes so limited that price rises high enough (or warfare replaces market forces) so that demand has to be driven down to meet dwindling supply.
My 1983 Mazda GLC by my measurement averaged 38 mpg. For what I used the car to do (commuting to work in CA) it was adequate. We know how to build fuel efficient cars.
One problem seems to be one of price vs intended use. If it costs you $20k in today’s money to buy the Maxda or you can get a more comfy vehicle with half the mpg for the same price, the higher mpg may not buy much. If you live in Topeka and need to look at certain things you may have to drive to KC to do it. This is pretty standard in much of the country.
The 38 mpg Mazda that is OK in CA is driving down a 2 lane hwy in Iowa in winter. Ice here and there. Truck comes at you and you have a crosswind. You’re doing 50 mph, safe enough for the road condition. Truck passes, air pressure etc changes and bingo, your light little Mazda is now getting blown about like a rag doll. Be unlucky enough to find a small icy spot that is OK at 50 mph and perfectly straight approach and no wind and now thanks to the truck you’re in serious danger of putting it in a ditch, possibly even killing yourself.
Nobody would choose this on purpose. In places like IA or KS people buy heavier vehicles that stay on the road and because they’re heavier they don’t get 38 mpg. They get less.
The 50 mpg target would mandate light vehicles. Reasonable for commuting in urban environments. Worthless for the rest of the country (i.e. most of it a.k.a. flyover states.)
As I said it’s price oriented. If I can get great mpg or I can have a car with worse mpg that stays on the road where I live and they cost the same, high mpg loses every time.
By the way, any of you ever driven a Prius in a 25 knot crosswind on an icy road in the middle of the countryside? I have. It doesn’t get the great mpg. And it wants to wander a bit on the road. After 100 miles you feel like you’ve been 10 rounds with Muhammed Ali. Like the Mazda it’s great for the intended use — commuting to Whole Foods in places like CA — but it’s nowhere within shouting distance of a good choice outside that environment.
What this tells me is that high mpg advocates live in places like the coasts where weather isn’t extreme and they’re too “geographically challenged” to understand it and too confident in their intellectual superiority to care.
to cedarford:Sorry if I have not made my position clear. My point was not that increasing auto mileage would not help save fuel, but that producing cars which had high mpg does not necessariiy save fuel when the entire mix of cars, SUVs etc that people actually drive is taken into account.A car that gets 40 mpg is not necessarily going to save fuel for a family if the car is so small it only carries two comfortably,and most of the familys trips are with say four or more people.They then either have to drive two cars everywhere or have a second car, perhaps a much larger SUV getting e g, 15 mpg.If the second cars size is a handicap forcing so that they choose an inefficient large car for most of their mileage, then a larger second car carrying ,e g, four comfortably and five at a pinch ,but getting say 22 mpg will actually result in the family using less fuel annually.The mix of vehicles is important as are the families needs.Just raising CAFE is not necessariy a good solution,and actually results in much higher costs and lower fuel mpg than would a system that lets the free market decide.
@16. G Alston:
My 1994 Honda Civic is in the same category for size and mpg. I disagree with you about the range of uses it is fit for. Unless you are hauling a trailer or have a larger-than-average family, it is adequate for most uses.
Driving too fast for the conditions is always dangerous, but a roll-over – and fatality – is more likely in the SUV type of vehicle. Driver education might need some improvement…
I’ve driven my little Civic in blizzards and through ice storms and high winds through all kinds of terrain. It still gets great mpg. If you are planning on driving on ice at 50mph without appropriate tires, please stay off public highways. You are obviously exaggerating your difficulties, because as we all know you would not go 1 round with Ali, much less 10.
I will grant that there are occasions where more ground clearance would be nice – certainly the Prius is not for everyone – but there is no reason to shelve efficiency improvements.
You also ignore that most of these low-efficiency vehicles are being used for the same tasks as your Mazda. Commuting on the coasts.
Peace.
DS
What if I dont want a small car?
to sgt Ted:They know where you live.Joe Biden told us it was “patriotic to pay more taxes”(Geichner and Daschle didn t get the memo).Soon it will be “unpatriotic” to drive any car except those that “Big Brother” approves for you.
@19. SGT Ted:
That’s fine. Me and a lot of other folks will be happy to buy some 100mpg vehicles to offset your 3mpg truck.
Peace.
DS