June 20, 2005
CAFE OLE!:
Energy: Ignoring the Obvious Fix: Industry lobbying against higher fuel economy standards is fierce. Yet that remains the best way to cut U.S. dependence on foreign oil (Thane Peterson, 6/20/05, Business Week)
The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program -- requiring manufacturers to steadily increase the average fuel economy of new cars and trucks they sold -- was first introduced during the mid-1970s energy crisis. "An energy crisis is going to slap us in the face again if we don't do something," predicts John Heywood, director of MIT's Sloan Automotive Laboratory and Center of 21st Century Energy.Granted, CAFE standards haven't worked as well as they might have. But that's largely because special interest groups succeeded in twisting the rules. For instance, foreign and domestically produced vehicles were treated differently to avoid excessive job losses. The standards were looser for trucks than cars, helping foster the boom in gas-guzzling SUVs. And regulators' ability to update tests and standards was severely limited, which is one reason official mileage estimates are up to 25% higher than what vehicles achieve in real use.
Worse, lawmakers didn't keep the pressure on. Federal mileage standards -- 20.7 mpg for light trucks and 27.5 mpg for cars last year -- are little changed since 1985 (though the light-truck standard is slated to rise to 22.2 mpg by 2008). As a result, the average mileage of U.S. passenger vehicles peaked in 1988 and has fallen slightly since. And because gasoline prices remained low until recently, some of the potential energy savings were eaten up because drivers simply drove more as vehicles got more efficient.
A broad consensus is developing in Washington that the nation must move faster. Indeed, prominent security hawks and neoconservatives such as former National Security Council Director Robert McFarland, former Assistant Secretary of Defense Frank Gaffney, and ex-CIA director R. James Woolsey have joined together with conservative Christian leader Gary Bauer and the environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) to form a new coalition called Set America Free (www.setamericafree.org) to lobby for greater national energy independence.
SIMPLE SYSTEM. Unfortunately, the group plans to remain neutral on revising federal mileage standards. "It's a political hot potato. We need to get beyond the CAFE debate," says Anne Korin, Set America Free's co-chairperson. Instead the coalition is backing incentives to promote alternative, hybrid, and flexible-fuel vehicles that would be powered by everything from ethanol and methanol to biomass and electricity. The version of the energy bill passed by the House includes some similar provisions, such as consumer tax credits of up to $4,000 to promote sales of alternative-energy vehicles.
Raising federal mileage standards would be a far more effective -- and free-market-oriented -- approach. Conservative critics may deride CAFE standards as command-and-control big government. But the truth is that as long as the same mileage standard applies to every company, competition will flourish, and executives will have enormous latitude in deciding how to meet the goal. By contrast, using tax credits to favor certain alternative fuels smacks of the government trying to pick winners and losers among the technologies available.
It's ideal--just set a high standard but leave it up to the market how they meet it and start surcharging owners of older cars that stay on the road that don't meet it. Posted by Orrin Judd at June 20, 2005 3:52 PM
Jacking up the gas tax is a better , market-focused, neutral way to achieve the result than mandating fuel economy standards.
Posted by: JAB at June 20, 2005 4:08 PMdo both
Posted by: oj at June 20, 2005 4:16 PMNo, don't do both. CAFE is stupid, costly, economically inefficient, and has no benefits that can't be achieved cheaper and better with a gas tax. Why do both?
Posted by: John Thacker at June 20, 2005 4:26 PMCAFE is perverse. Consider the Ford Focus - nice little car, fuel-efficient, a great deal. Ford's gas-guzzlers are actually being used to subsidize Focus sales because that's cheaper than increasing their fuel economy. The way I figure it, the main effect of CAFE has been luxury-car drivers subsidizing subcompacts, helping to ensure that mass transit will never be viable (because low-end new cars are extra-cheap).
Posted by: Mike Earl at June 20, 2005 4:37 PMyes, the standard needs to be uniform.
Posted by: oj at June 20, 2005 4:40 PMWouldn't The Wife just rather you burned her paychecks in the backyard grill? I know I would.
Posted by: joe shropshire at June 20, 2005 5:48 PMShe never leaves town either.
Posted by: oj at June 20, 2005 6:06 PMThat's why she uses direct deposit. Into an account outside the Eastern Time Zone where he'd have to appear in person to make a withdrawal.
And can anyone name the year that the phrase "ending our dependence on foreign oil" became an all-purpose excuse for anything the user wants the government to do, if not phrase intended to shut down debate? One to rival "doing it for the children" for sheer vacuousness.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at June 20, 2005 6:11 PMWhy is that liberals always think the answer to failed policies is to write more regulations and try harder?
CAFE's effects are totally perverse. It acts as a sales tax on new cars and slows down fleet turnover. Furthermore, it has no effect on the biggest source of potential economies, which is changing consumer behavior.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at June 21, 2005 12:03 AMRobert,
The problem is that consumer behavior when it comes to fuel usage can't really be changed except at the margins. Most Americans have to drive to work, whether gasoline is 50 cents or $50 a gallon. The settlement patterns of Americans won't change and can't change except over decades. It is not as if Coca-Cola prices went through the ceiling and we could switch to ready substitutes in the market.
CAFE standards and increasing fuel taxes are part of the solution. Alternate sources of energy like ethanol and perhaps fuel cells are other parts. We should be innovating ourselves out of the problem as we did with agricultural production over the last 2 centuries. Increasing the price of gas-guzzling to obscene amounts that even a Rockefeller would notice will do a lot to foster such innovation.
Posted by: bart at June 21, 2005 8:51 AMYou can raise it high enough to change their behavior.
Posted by: oj at June 21, 2005 8:56 AM
In Germany they incentivized increased diesel vehicle usage through taxes and it succeeded significantly. Most of the technical/enviromental problems with diesels have been worked out and improvement continues. I'm not saying diesels are the answer, but that habits can be changed using tax policy and market forces.
