On June 22, the Senate passed an energy bill mandating an increase in CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards from the present average of 25 mpg to 35 mpg by 2020, covering both cars and SUVs/light trucks. As obvious a step as this is, it has been very difficult to achieve due not only to prior Republican domination of Congress but to strong and harmful influence from Detroit automakers even on Democratic lawmakers. But at last, it was done... in the Senate. The question was, would the House follow suit?
The NYT predicted [$] at the time that it could be more difficult in the House.
They were right...
In the House, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) proposed basically the same thing the Senate passed. Meanwhile, Detroit backed a softer standard, and had the backing of some Democrats, most importantly, Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), cheriman of the House Energy Committee.
Unable to come together as the Senate did to pass the strong legislation everybody knows we need, the House Dems started to fear that the entire massive energy package they had built a consensus on could fall apart over CAFE-related fights.
And now, Nancy Pelosi has decided that there will be no fuel efficiency standard whatsoever in the House energy bill.
I'm trying to decide exactly how pissed off I am about this.
On the one hand, it's not quite as bad as it sounds. Pelosi supports the strong CAFE standard but felt it couldn't be done right now. So the idea is that since it is in the Senate bill, it will be brought up in conference when the House and Senate bills have to be reconciled. The hope is that the Senate standard will remain in the final bill; Markey has issued a statement saying he hopes and thinks that will happen. I'm no expert on matters Congressional, but it seems likely to me that the standard will get watered down in conference. Since the House couldn't agree on it now, I don't see why they'd go for it in conference.
But mostly I find it completely exasperating that with all the good reasons for improving fuel economy, even Democrats can't agree to do it. Let's review the advantages of increasing fuel economy:
- National security. Using far more oil than we produce, we buy the balance on the global oil market. Much of this goes to states in the Middle East that don't like us. Furthermore, our critical economic dependence on oil causes us to pursue policies in the Middle East to protect our oil supply that can have certain negative consequences, like planes being flown into towers.
- Global warming. The more oil we burn, the more greenhouse gases we release into the air.
- Air pollution. Let's not forget that car emissions have been a problem long before anyone heard of global warming. By increasing efficiency, we release less of the hydrocarbons, NOx, and other pollutants that lead to smog and cancer.
Now, these are all pretty damn good reasons, and there are no doubt others.
The main argument against it, especially from Detroit, is that since Detroit makes huge, inefficient cars, increased mileage standards will give an advantage to the damn Japanese, who make things like the Toyota Prius.
Oh, Jesus does this piss me off. Detroit has been resisting efficiency increases forever, and now finds itself at a market disadvantage as a result. This market disadvantage is now used as an argument against efficiency increases.
We're going to have to improve our fuel economy, and Detroit is going to have to get wise and put some of that much-touted American ingenuity to use and make some cars for the new millennium.
And the House needs to get its act together and pass a strong CAFE hike.