Support Grist
Support nonprofit, independent environmental journalism.
Donate to Grist.
Muckraker

The Gas Menagerie

Obama leads bipartisan effort to raise fuel-economy standards

By Amanda Griscom Little
26 Jul 2006
Tools: print | email | discuss | write to the editor | subscribe | RSS
Is the sting of $75-a-barrel oil and the threat of World War III exploding in the Middle East enough to convince Congress to finally boost auto fuel economy? Probably not, but a bipartisan coalition of senators led by Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is launching an admirable new effort anyway -- the Fuel Economy Reform Act.

Barack Obama.
Barack Obama.
Photo: Arnold Turner/WireImage.
"It is possibly the best shot we've had of improving fuel economy since the Carter administration, after decades of inaction," said Roland Hwang, vehicles policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Together with seven other senators -- Joe Biden (D-Del.), Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), and Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) -- Obama introduced legislation last week that would raise fuel-economy standards for cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. by 4 percent, or about one mile per gallon, each year. Its sponsors say the bill would reduce America's oil consumption by 1.3 million barrels daily within a decade; that amounts to 16 percent of the current consumption of America's passenger-vehicle fleet of 8 million barrels per day.

The legislation would significantly revamp the structure of CAFE -- corporate average fuel economy -- standards, which have changed little since they were enacted in 1975. Instead of setting one target that each automaker has to meet for its average fleet-wide fuel economy, the bill would allow manufacturers to meet different efficiency targets based on their fleet mix of different-sized cars and light trucks. It would create a range of weight classes for these vehicles, with different efficiency standards for each classification.

If this sounds familiar, that's because it's essentially the same strategy the Bush administration took when updating standards for light trucks this spring. Detroit loved the plan -- particularly since the Bushies set low efficiency standards within each weight class. Enviros widely criticized the plan, arguing that it would incentivize automakers to produce heavier vehicles that could qualify for classes with looser efficiency restrictions.

But in this newly proposed form, Beltway enviros support the size-based approach. Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's global-warming program and a staunch defender of CAFE, said the bill could be effective: "Automakers would have to design cars today knowing that the standard will be steadily marching upwards year after year. That will discourage, not encourage, them to up-weight the vehicles." On the whole, said Becker, the legislation is "an impressive compromise. We're very intrigued."

There is one hitch, however. Becker cautions that the bill includes an "escape hatch" -- language that says the Department of Transportation won't have to impose the 4-percent-a-year fuel-economy increases if it determines that the target is not technologically or economically viable, or poses a threat to the national economy. Said NRDC's Hwang, "The bill basically says, 'You have to increase fuel economy unless you can prove you have a good reason not to do it.'" Becker and Hwang fear this provision could pave the way for financially strapped U.S. automakers to barrage the DOT with lawsuits.

The industry's trade group, the Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers, is even now indicating that it doesn't think the bill's aims are achievable. "We already have a process in place where the government crushes all the data and comes up with a maximum feasible fuel-economy standard," alliance spokesperson Gloria Bergquist told the Detroit Free Press last week. If the bill's increases "were feasible today, they'd be set today." Bergquist did not reply to Muckraker's request for further comment.

Hwang counters that there are mountains of data showing the bill's targets are reachable with available technology. Moreover, they could be the very economic catalysts needed to make Detroit competitive with automakers like Toyota that are producing far more efficient -- and popular -- cars.

Last week, the U.S. EPA released a report revealing that 2006 model-year vehicles in the U.S. got an average of 21 mpg -- the same figure as last year, and lower than in 1982. General Motors sank below that number with an average of 20.5 mpg, and Ford even lower, with an average of 19.7. Meanwhile, Honda managed to pull off an average of 24.2, and Toyota came in at 23.8.

Foreign Objective


Not surprisingly, the sponsors of the Fuel Economy Reform Act are citing foreign-policy motivations for the bill rather than economic or environmental ones. "It is clear that the Achilles' heel of the most powerful country on earth is the oil we import and cannot live without," said Obama, who claims the legislation will "save America from a dependence on the world's most unstable, undemocratic regimes."

Said Biden, "Domestic energy policy is at the center of our foreign policy. For our national security, we have to begin the transition to alternative fuels. We can't do that without making progress on fuel economy."

Indeed, half of the act's sponsors are on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "Possibly the biggest accomplishment of the bill is that it picks up votes from the hawks -- Lugar, Smith, and Biden," said Becker.

Obama said he hopes to attach the bill to GOP-backed energy legislation that is expected to be debated in the Senate this week, which would open up millions of new acres in the Gulf of Mexico to oil and gas drilling. "The only way to achieve energy security is to promote a balanced approach that addresses both production and efficiency," Obama told The New York Times.

But while Hwang says he thinks the bill has a "50-50 chance" of passing in the Senate, Becker is not so optimistic. "I'd be lying to you if I said this had a decent chance of passing in this Congress," he said. "The automakers' stranglehold on Washington is too tight."

This was evident in 2005, the last time a Senate fuel-economy measure was proposed, when a whopping 67 senators -- including John Kerry and Hillary Clinton -- voted against it. And though fuel-economy advocates led by Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) have recently been building steady support for a CAFE reform bill in the House, the Republican leadership has refused to allow a vote on it, fearing it might come too close to passing.

Unless there's a dramatic shift in the congressional makeup after this November's midterm election, contends Becker, the only hope of passing fuel-economy increases in the near future would be "a major supply disruption that sends gas prices through the roof, double or triple where they are today." Sadly, such a disruption -- which could be triggered by a terrorist attack on pipelines or refineries due to escalating conflict in the Middle East -- looks more conceivable than ever.

Tools: print | email | discuss | write to the editor | subscribe | RSS

Muck it up: We welcome rumors, whistleblowing, classified documents, or other useful tips on environmental policies, Beltway shenanigans, and the people behind them. Please send 'em to muckraker@grist.org.
Amanda Griscom Little writes Grist's Muckraker column on environmental politics and policy and interviews green luminaries for the magazine. Her articles on energy and the environment have also appeared in publications ranging from Rolling Stone to The New York Times Magazine.
< Previous | Next >
Comments: (4 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Username: Password:

Forgot your password? Enter your username and click:

The silence is deafening.

We have a government totally out of touch with reality, really brain dead.

The whole planet is about to be destroyed from global warming, and they just talk minor gas-car improvements.

Do we even have a government?


Go Obama!

On the one hand, a bunch of young folks with a website can really rock Wal-Mart, a company with billions in profits/year and employees (i.e. voters) in virtually every congressional district, pressing it successfully in a number of policy areas including the environment.

On the other hand, after all these years, with even national security arguments on their sides, mainstream national enviro groups can't seem to exert any political leverage on three auto companies that are virtually bankrupt financially and whose leadership is devoid of imagination.

Hats off to Obama and company for pushing the fuel economy issue. Thumbs down to the "we can't win" attitude of Becker, so typical of Beltway enviros. This posture is why this week's Nation article on grassroots environmentalism strikes a cord.

Tom Belford TheAgitator.net

Bought out

"Do we even have a government?"

Is a government bought out by corporate bribery really a government?  Or is it a conglomeration of corporations?

Lobbyists write proposed US laws and legislators do not even read them before voting.  Consultants total up the cash available for each vote and then advise legislators of their position on that issue.

It's a mess o' bushmania!  Burn baby burn, burn the planet down you all, neeehaaawww!  

Heaven awaits the arrival of the faithbased where 72 hummers are lined up for the true believers.  Gas is 14 cents per gallon and there is no global climate disaster.  Vroom!

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Goverment

Why would we even expect that the goverment can offer any real help with such an important problem?

Every goverment agency or project that I have observed is plagued with inefficiency and wasted time and money.  A goverment mandate on fuel economy will mainly cause car manufactures to hire lawyers to try to find and exploit loop holes such as the one major loop hole mentioned above.  What then will help us to improve fuel economy?  High oil prices.  The higher oil prices are the more customers will demand greater fuel economy.  Also the higher oil prices are the more attractive alternatives become, economically speaking from a capatilistic point of view.  Car manufactures and energy companies like any other for profit companies must respond to customer demand or they will be replaced by companies that do.  

I do think that the goverment has role to play but rather than produce laws that encourage lawyers to look for loop holes they should supply funding to researchers and entrepeneurs (sorry for the spelling) who are working to develop more fuel efficient engines and alternative sources of energy.  The Bush administration has done some notable things to fund this initiative but it is not nearly enough.  But where will the extra funds come from?  How about this.  A one dollar per barrel of oil tax in which the proceeds will be funnelled directly to alternative energy research.  Or better yet a one dollar per gallon of gasoline tax now that would improve fuel economy all over the country.  But they won't do that because it is too simple and what would the lawyers do all day.

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Username: Password:

Forgot your password? Enter your username and click:

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?


Also in Grist

The Week's Most Popular
From the Archives
The Writing on the Wal-Mart, by Amanda Griscom Little. Al Gore takes his green message to Wal-Mart headquarters.
Chem Again?, by Amanda Griscom Little. Chemical-safety bill moving oh-so-slowly through Congress.
Ag Reflex, by Amanda Griscom Little. Factory farms let off the hook for water pollution, activists say.

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Jobs Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcasts
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra® | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2007. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks