The Folly Of Fuel Economy Legislation

Marlo Lewis gives us a great breakdown of the latest round of fuel efficiency legislation and what its effects would be. If legislation is passed that would require cars and trucks to get 35mpg by 2020, there are several problems.

1. Why stop at 35mpg?
In their typical fashion, Congress isn't basing this number on anything scientific or related to evidence. They're simply picking a number out of the air because it makes them feel good. What's to keep them from shooting for more? Nothing. But, current hybrids are quite a bit more expensive than comparable non-hybrids, so instead of feeling the pain at the pump, we'll feel the pain at the dealership, and the auto industry would be devastated.

2. Even 35mpg will hurt.
The current average fuel economy numbers are 27.5mpg for cars and 22.5mpg for light trucks. Increasing to 35 would be increasing fuel efficiency by 40%! Do you think the increased costs will be eaten by the industry? No, it'll be passed on to you, the consumer.

3. Current programs.
Lewis points out two programs that already exist to try to control emissions:

The Clinton administration’s Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles aimed to build a sedan that could get 80 miles per gallon without sacrificing “the level of performance, utility, and cost of ownership that today’s consumers demand.” Industry contributed $980 million to the PNGV during 1993 to 2001. Various federal agencies also funded the program, spending $234 million on R&D in 2001 alone. Similarly, President Bush has requested more than $850 million since FY 2003 for his Freedom Car and Fuels program to develop fuel-cell vehicles and other advanced technologies.

In Speaker Pelosi’s home state, the California Air Resources Board in 1990 issued a zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate requiring that 10 percent of all new cars sold in the state to be battery-powered by 2003.

For all that money dumped in, you would expect some serious results, right? Out of the 1,153 cars tested by the EPA, how many do you suppose get 35mpg on both highway and city conditions?

Two: the Toyota Prius and the Honda Civic Hybrid.

If you look at either highway or city driving, that number only goes up to nine.

The only way to achieve these fuel standards are to make vehicles smaller and lighter, which means more dangerous. Some vehicles will no longer be made at all. Take a look at this:

In 2002, the National Research Council estimated that, in 1993, vehicle downsizing contributed to an additional 1,300 to 2,600 fatalities; 13,000 to 26,000 incapacitating injuries; and 97,000 to 195,000 total injuries.

Here's why you should care about this.
If this legislation goes through, it will mean more expensive vehicles, fewer vehicles to choose from, and vehicles that are less safe. You may be asking yourself if such sacrifices are necessary to reduce emissions. Take a look (emphasis mine):

Atmospheric scientist John Christy calculates that even if the entire world were to adopt a 43-mpg fuel economy standard over the next decade, "the net effect would reduce projected warming by about 0.05 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, an amount so minuscule as to be undetectable."

This is what global warming hysteria will give us: less choice, more expense, and less safety, all for no return. Don't give in to the hype.

There's my two cents.