Opinion: Of Pickups and Politics
Tester, Baucus and Fuel Economy
By Jonathan Weber , 6-21-07
 | |
|
Update: Baucus and Tester both backed a compromise amendment which retained the 35mpg-by-2020 mandate - including light trucks - but eliminated the requirement for subsequent improvements. That amendment passed by voice vote late today.
On my way to work this morning I heard a radio ad from Missoula’s Karl Tyler Chevrolet touting itself as a “green” auto dealer and highlighting the various energy-efficient vehicles on offer. Evidently, fuel economy is a selling point these days, both for economic reasons (expensive gas) and social responsibility reasons (global warming). I’m pretty confident Karl Tyler has no agenda except selling the cars and SUVs and pickup trucks that Montanans want.
In Washington, though, Montana’s two Democratic Senators may actually vote to weaken a critical portion of the proposed energy bill that would force automakers to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles. The so-called CAFE standards that require auto manufacturers’ fleets to have a certain level of overall fuel economy, initially put in place in response to the Arab oil embargo of the 1970s, have not been updated in more than two decades, and stricter standards are long overdue. Negotiations on possible amendments to the fuel economy provisions of the big Senate energy bill - which currently call for overall fleet economy of 35 miles-per-gallon by 2020 and steady improvements after that - are ongoing and a vote could come as early as today.
The auto companies are trotting out the same nonsense they always trot out when they are pushed to improve their technology. Impossible, they say. It will put us out of business! Leaving aside the fact that Ford, Chrysler and GM are doing a good job of putting themselves out of businesss without any help from the government, these claims are clearly bogus. The automakers said the same thing when the CAFE standards were first imposed, and when they were required to offer airbags and other safety features. They have lost market share to Asian automakers for many years because Honda, Toyota and others have invested in technology instead of whining about the rules. There are many, many means of improving fuel economy without degrading vehicle performance, and it is hard to believe that vehicles cost increases will ultimately be very substantial. The rules don’t even kick in until 2020, but the automakers want to push back that date and ease the required improvements for light trucks in particular, among other things.
Now it’s understandable that auto-state lawmakers would be going to bat for their companies, however wrongheaded the policy. But Senators Baucus and Tester, if they vote to weaken the rules, will be going to bat for...SUV and pickup truck drivers. They seem to think that preventing any increase, no matter how small, in the cost of Montanan’s beloved trucks is more important than fuel economy rules that should have been put in place a long time ago. Spokesmen for both Senators reiterated to me today that their bosses support stricter fuel economy standards to reduce emissions. But their votes on the amendments will show what they really mean by that.
I believe our good Senators would not only be abandoning common sense if they vote to weaken the rules, they’d be seriously misreading the political dynamics. People want more fuel efficient cars and trucks, and they’re even willing to pay a little more for them, but they have precious few options. I know from my recent shopping experience that if you want a four-wheel-drive vehicle with reasonable fuel economy that can carry a family of five you basically have two choices: Honda and Subaru. Even if I could afford the Ford Hybrid SUV (which I can’t), they are not available; among used cars, the big bargain is the Chevrolet Suburban, because nobody wants to drive something that gets nine miles a gallon anymore.
For the sake of national security and the health of the planet, most Montana voters, I’d wager, are more than willing to take the chance that that big shiny new pickup - already an investment of 25K or more - might be a couple of percent more expensive than it otherwise would have been fifteen years from now. Our Senators need to show a little leadership on this one.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Specifically, the amendment mandates that cars achieve at least a 36 mpg standard in 2022 and that light trucks achieve at least a 30 mpg standard by 2025. The amendment also increases R&D;funding for advanced batteries, plug-in hybrids, clean diesel, diesel hybrids and flex fuel hybrids, as well as hydrogen storage and fuel cell technology. Not to mention R&D;funding for cellulosic ethanol and biofuels and breaks down anti-competitive barriers that limit the ability of service stations to sell biofuels.
You can get more information at, http://www.drivecongress.com/ Thanks.
If we expect our politicians to hold an honest discussion about energy trade offs, we are like those entering a fourth marriage—hopes triumph over experience.
Instead, expect our politicians to offer “solutions” that are both complex and ineffective. One commenter observed “S. 1419 [the current energy bill] is so counterproductive it would need substantial improvements just to be ineffective.”
The latest Gallup Poll, which finds only 14 percent of the American people have "a great deal of" confidence in Congress or "quite a lot," compared to 19 percent a year ago. That is lowest confidence rating Gallup has ever recorded for Congress since the survey firm began measuring public confidence in major American institutions in 1973.
American car manufacturers have consistently fought progressive/health/safety/consumer steps such as seat belts, airbags, roll-over protection, side collisions, higher CAFE standards, pollution controls, etc. for many decades. Nevertheless, Detroit's bagmen have greased enough palms, intimidated or hornswoggled Congress so that labor, safety, the environment and consumers can be ignored or patted on the head.
Oddly enough, while Motor City largely gets its way in Congress, it continues to lose market share to foreign firms who don't moan and groan about meeting the needs and desires of consumers -- safer, more affordable, cleaner and higher mileage cars and trucks.
Meanwhile, Detroit continues to be convinced that some hot ad campaigns and cosmetic changes will turn consumers into drooling, mindless hordes who can't wait to buy a new Excess SUV.
The Detroit auto manufacturers are going down the tubes because they're dinosaurs, just like their apologists and enablers.
It simply will never work to demand an outcome and insist someone else get us there. Too many of the feel good ideas being promoted are way too costly. I wanted a Prius so bad I could taste it, but I simply could not justify the 50% increase in price over the little Ford Focus that I ultimately bought. I routinely get just over 35 mpg as long as I keep the speed at 60 or below.
The fact remains those little cars are not the hot sellers, people want the bigger fancier vehicles. It is as much the responsibility of we the people to take some responsibility in our choices. We can drive smaller vehicles, drive slower, drive less, it doesn't take congress mandating, nor environmental lawsuits to accomplish that.