By James Riswick
Assistant Opinions Editor
With the full backing of the auto industry and no doubt oil companies as well, the 62 U.S. senators last Wednesday shot down a proposal that would have increased the average fuel economy of all automobiles to 35 miles per gallon by 2015.
Opponents to the bill essentially said that by raising the nation’s average fuel economy on all vehicles, Americans would soon be out of work and all driving mini-cars.
This is a joke, and these senators were just wrong.
By raising the fuel economy to 35 miles per gallon, opponents have argued that thousands would lose their jobs, consumers would not be able to purchase the vehicles they want and safety would be compromised by forcing consumers to buy smaller, lighter compact cars. This is all entirely untrue.
To begin with, a study done by Honda Motor Co. said that smaller, lighter cars are actually slightly more safe than larger ones.
But besides, if the government were to put the new fuel economy standard into effect today, then we would probably have to drive Honda Civics. But there was a reason why 2015 was the target time.
According to Paul Portney of the think tank Resources for the Future, “There are technologies out there that would make it possible if given enough time, like 10-15 years, for (manufacturers) to meet these standards without decreasing the size of the cars or increasing the price too much.”
Thirty-five miles per gallon is entirely possible, but because the auto manufacturers don’t want to invest the time and money to make these fuel economy adjustments, the Senate chose not to support the bill. That’s the only reason. The auto industry and now the Senate are perfectly happy to continue needlessly harming the environment and maintaining America’s dependence on Middle Eastern oil. And forget about drilling into the Alaska Arctic refuge. That’s just ridiculous.
In the April issue of Car and Driver, a test of four full-size pickups observed that the trucks’ average fuel economy was only 15 miles per gallon. That would require an increase of 20 miles per gallon to meet the 35 miles per gallon standard. But according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, this is entirely possible with performance suffering only slightly.
Now, I’m not saying that farmers should start hauling hay in the back of a Kia Rio, but the truth is, car makers can make both pickups and SUVs more fuel efficient.
Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., was one of the most vocal opponents of the bill. Lott held up a large picture of a purple Smart MCC, a tiny city car that is only sold in Europe.
“I don’t want every American to have to drive this car,” Lott said. Well neither do I Trent, but if you actually believe that we’ll have to, you have another thing coming.
The idea that Americans would have to drive around in a bubble car in order to reach 35 miles per gallon is absurd. But this is the sort of hyperbole Lott and others were using to scare Americans into thinking they’ll have to strap their three kids, camping gear and a German Shepherd onto the roof and hood of a Smart.
“Imagine climbing an icy mountain, towing your snowmobile,” said one opposing advertisement. “But instead of driving a pickup or an SUV, you’re driving a compact car.” What a load of bull manure (which according to the opponents of the bill, you’d have to haul around in your hatchback).
If they actually think that most people use their pickups and SUVs to haul snowmobiles up icy mountains, or carry hay, or lug around six kids, they are totally delusional. Most SUVs are used to haul a frappuccino, two kids and a Shih Tzu to the supermarket.
Adding to the idiocy, Lott said that the 35 miles per gallon fuel economy measure would take away the SUV he spends “quality” time in with his grandkids and is useful because it allows “them to be able to ride in the same vehicle as me,” Lott said.
This is a complete fallacy because Lott himself drives a Honda CR-V.
This compact Honda Civic-based SUV seats only five, is very fuel efficient, and Lott would have a better chance of hauling a snowmobile up that icy mountain with an ox than with the CR-V’s puny four-cylinder engine. Honda would have no problem bumping the CR-Vs fuel economy from its current 25 miles per gallon up to 35.
The truth is, the bill would have saved Americans hundreds of dollars in gas money and it would have taken millions away from Middle Eastern gazillionaires who just might use that money to fuel terrorists.
The bill would not have limited the automotive choice of Americans and force them into subcompacts. It wouldn’t have cost thousands of Americans their jobs and we certainly wouldn’t all be driving a fleet of purple Smarts.
Submitted March 21, 2002