CAFE Standards Archives

US PIRG released a report claiming that higher automobile fuel economy (aka "CAFE") standards would have saved American consumers billions of dollars, but the reality is such standards would leave consumers much worse off. Consumers are already fully capable of buying more fuel efficient vehicles if they so choose. Many don't because other features -- price, safety, performance, utility -- are more important. Mandating higher fuel economy would cause consumers to spend less on gasoline, but they would be forced to make other sacrifices -- sacrifices a large number of consumers clearly do not want to make as shown by their car purchase habits. It's a curious definition of consumer interest that believes consumers are better off if they are less able to purchase what they want.

The major automakers have filed suit to challenge California's aggressive new carbon dioxide emission rules for new automobiles. Joining the suit are BMW, Daimler Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Porsche, Toyota, and Volkswagen -- all nine automakers represented by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. Nissan and Honda reportedly oppose the regulations as well, but have not yet elected to join the suit, accordin to thisNYT' report. The Sierra Club's response is here.

The automakers' central claim is that California's rules constitute a de facto regulation of automotive fuel efficiency, and such state regulations are explicitly preempted by federal law. California's defense is that the regulations are focused on air pollution, in this case concerns about climate change, and are therefore permissible under the Clean Air Act, even if the regulations will, in effect, require increased fuel economy. Given current legal precedent on preemption, the automakers have a strong case -- a case that will be even stronger if (as expected) the Bush Administration files on their behalf.

Apparently that's one of the new ideas that Resources for the Future suggests in this new book. Dave Greene blogs about it at BaySense. I'll admit I'm not sold on the idea. CAFE standards have been a bad idea from the start, for many of the reasons articulated here.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has been known to make exaggerated claims -- utterly ridiculous, completely laughable statements -- about environmental issues.

This quote from him may explain why:

I have so much mercury in my body right now, having tested it recently, that if I were a woman of childbearing years, my child, according to Dr. David Carpenter, the national authority on mercury contamination, would have cognitive impairment -- permanent IQ loss.

Hmmm....

In the same interview, from Grist magazine, the following exchange occurs:

Grist: So if you were to tell our readers the single most important environmental action they should take, what would it be?

Kennedy: If your choice is to buy a Prius or go work for a politician who is going to implement the CAFE standards, you better work for the politician. The most important thing you can do is participate in the political process. Support the environmental groups that wage legal action and lobby for these bills. Get rid of the politicians who are whoring for industry. It's more important than recycling. It's more important than anything you can do.

So rather than drive a small, fuel-efficient car, Kennedy advises, it is better for you to vote for a politician who will force you to drive a small, fuel-efficient car.

Why not eliminate the middleman?

That is, if you want to take your life in your hands. In 2002, the U.S. government's National Academy of Sciences released a report (Effectiveness and Impact of CAFE Standards 2002) saying that since CAFE standards were imposed in 1975, an additional 2,000 deaths per year can be attributed to the down-sizing of cars required to meet these fuel efficiency standards.

The National Center has a webpage devoted to fuel economy standards, our Fuel Economy Information Center. Stop by and take our quick poll: Should CAFE standards be raised, lowered or left where they are?