Tulsa World, Okla., On The Money Column
Jul. 10–ENERGY BILL ON EMPTY IF EFFICIENCY LEFT OUT: Imagine the New England Patriots benching All-Pro quarterback Tom Brady in Super Bowl XXXIX earlier this year. What an absurd move that would have been.
The Patriots would have certainly lost to Philadelphia, and their fans might have tossed the head coach into Boston Harbor for sidelining New England’s most valuable player.
That’s what Congress has essentially done in drafting a comprehensive energy bill. The best player has been left out of the game, sidelined in a battle against rising energy prices and growing dependence on foreign oil.
A government-mandated increase in the fuel efficiency of new cars and light trucks, including SUVs, would have the greatest effect in lowering gasoline prices and reducing oil imports.
The House and Senate have passed their own versions of an energy bill, but neither requires improvements in auto fuel efficiency. And it appears the final bill won’t include the one policy initiative that can best help Americans cope with the soaring cost of fuel.
The fuel economy standard for cars — 27.5 miles per gallon — hasn’t been upgraded in 20 years. The standard for light trucks and SUVs has hardly moved, rising less than 1 mpg over the same period to 21 mpg.
Motorists across the nation have stopped filling up. With pump prices averaging $2.23 a gallon nationwide, they can’t afford to.
Not raising fuel-efficiency standards is senseless, especially when the technology exists to make cars that get between 60 and 75 mpg.
It’s a crime against common sense and a major flaw in any national energy plan.
Last month, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., offered an amendment that would have raised the minimum mileage standard for U.S. vehicles to 40 mpg over 10 years. The amendment was soundly rejected in a 67-28 vote.
You could argue that a mandate is not needed and that the market will force automakers to provide consumers with more fuel-efficient vehicles. SUV sales have plummeted, due largely to higher gasoline prices, and automakers have recognized consumers’ demands for better mileage with marketing campaigns that feature fuel-efficient cars.
But let’s be real. Without a mandate by the government, the industry’s response will be reluctant and slow. They’re in no rush to pay the higher costs that come with greater fuel efficiency.
And let’s face it. This is a battle against time.
The world’s thirst for oil and refined products is growing faster than anyone expected. To avoid a crisis, meaningful standards must be put into place now.
The most inciting aspect about this debate is that automakers have employed the Grim Reaper in their campaign against stricter mileage standards. They say the risk of death or serious injury will be greater if fuel economy standards are raised.
Their theory is this: To achieve greater fuel efficiency, you have to build smaller, lighter cars, which wouldn’t offer much protection in a collision with a heavier vehicle.
Conclusion: Driving a more efficient car will kill you.
Horsefeathers.
Talk about scare tactics.
Show me a study that says higher fuel efficiency will lead to more deaths and injuries on America’s roads and highways and I’ll show you a study that says it won’t.
Better fuel efficiency doesn’t necessarily mean you have to build a lighter, smaller car. Improvements in technology bear that out. Today’s SUV is substantially larger than your 1974 station wagon, and twice as efficient.
Opponents of increased mileage standards are missing the point. This is about progress. This is about national security. And for many Oklahomans, it’s about financial freedom.
russell.ray@tulsaworld.com
—–
To see more of the Tulsa World, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.tulsaworld.com.
Copyright (c) 2005, Tulsa World, Okla.
Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News.
For information on republishing this content, contact us at (800) 661-2511 (U.S.), (213) 237-4914 (worldwide), fax (213) 237-6515, or e-mail reprints@krtinfo.com.