As you're probably all too aware by now, both proposals in the new energy bill that would have raised fuel economy requirements, have been withdrawn.
Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., sponsor of a proposal to boost vehicle mileage to 35 miles per gallon by 2019, said he decided not to pursue the matter after consulting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Pelosi in a statement said she supported requiring automakers to make more fuel efficient vehicles but that the issue was deferred "in the interest of promoting passage of a consensus energy bill."
I'm not a great fan of the CAFE standards, as they offer far too much room for jiggery pokery that disguises what's really happening. I'd much prefer a plan like that recently introduced in Ottawa, in which vehicles above a certain mileage plateau earn an immediate rebate, while those below a baseline are faced with a penalty. The system is revenue neutral, with money collected on penalties covering that offered in rebates, and provides both positive and negative incentives directly to the consumer.
However, pulling all mileage requirements from the energy bill in the name of compromise makes us look, well, like schmucks, that's what. It makes Democrats look as if they're all talk, no action. Are the other aspects of the energy bill important? Absolutely. But with this highly visible fold on the aspect of the bill most talked about in the media, will the public believe the bill worthwhile? Absolutely not.
Dropping the mileage requirements turns this from a chance to make a principled stand, into fodder for late night comedy and fuel for those who want to paint Democrats as ineffective.
It's been voiced on many occasions that the American auto industry had to move to selling large, expensive SUVs, as those were the only vehicles on which they could make a substantial profit. Talk about taking any measure that will affect the sale of parade-floats as daily drives is viewed as a threat to thousands of union workers.
The truth is, the industry chose to make that move. Despite more than adequate evidence that the supply of oil was limited, and the source of that supply outside our control, the industry spent billions of dollars over two decades to convince Americans that they really needed monstrous trucks as their everyday family car. Not that long ago, SUVs existed only for what they were meant to do -- hauling loads of people and equipment into locations where the road was barely a suggestion. They didn't serve to take Betty and Bobby to soccer practice. They certainly didn't serve to haul dad to work at a cost of more than six thousand pounds of moving metal per one fat ass delivered.
In other countries, auto companies made different decisions. They produced small cars of many different varieties and characters, including luxury small cars. Ironically, some of the best examples are even sold in Europe by the same companies that claim there is no market for such a product here. They may even be right -- most people have lived so long with the idea that small cars = cheap, and luxury is sold by the cubic yard, that it will be hard to adjust that mindset.
But that was a choice. A choice. Not a necessity.
They've sold the idea that larger is safer. It's not. They've sold the idea that large is cooler -- a glorification of squander and excess that may be unmatched in any industry.
Decades of protection from higher mileage and environmental requirements has turned our auto industry into hothouse roses, unable to cope with even the slightest change in regulations. We criticize the Bush administration for its failures to change policy in Iraq. But capitulating to the idea that we dare not touch auto regulations is tantamount to approval and support for the same policies that have driven the industry to an ugly dead end.
Do American auto manufacturers face challenges related to an aging workforce and skyrocketing health care costs? They do. But promoting the production and consumption of vehicles that will consume more resources at every stage does nothing to address those concerns.
You want to do something about those health care costs? Then address the health care costs. Hiding poor energy, environmental, and security policy behind the threat to workers isn't just wrong, it deserves to be derided.
Comments are closed on this story.