Wash. Post car columnist falsely claimed "no gasoline" has been "saved" as a result of CAFE standards
SUMMARY: In a Washington Post column, Warren Brown claimed that "there has been no gasoline saved in response to ... the various iterations of federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy [CAFE] rules." However, a 2007 Government Accountability Office report stated: "According to estimates by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and other experts we consulted, the CAFE program has helped save billions of barrels of oil and could continue to do so in the future."
In a February 8 Washington Post column, cars columnist Warren Brown claimed that "there has been no gasoline saved in response to ... the various iterations of federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy [CAFE] rules." However, a 2007 Government Accountability Office report stated: "According to estimates by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and other experts we consulted, the CAFE program has helped save billions of barrels of oil and could continue to do so in the future." Further, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), raising the "fuel economy standards of America's cars, light trucks and sport utility vehicles to an average of at least 35 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2020, a 10-mpg increase over current levels," which is now mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, "will save approximately 1.1 million barrels of oil per day in 2020."
In his column, Brown wrote that "[i]f consumers don't buy what the new political regime says should be produced, there will be no increase in the conservation of motor fuels, just as there has been no gasoline saved in response to what the media is fond of calling the 'strict clean air standards' of the California Air Resources Board, nor any saved in response to the various iterations of federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy rules." However, in the midst of the 2007 debate over proposals to increase fuel economy standards, the GAO issued a report in August of that year stating that "many experts have concluded that CAFE has helped save oil -- for example, a study by NAS estimated that in 2002 CAFE contributed to saving 2.8 million barrels of fuel a day, or 14 percent of consumption in that year -- and that increases to CAFE standards would contribute to future oil savings." The report also stated, "Experts, NHTSA [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration] officials, and representatives from auto manufacturers with whom we spoke cited several strengths of the CAFE program" and added that "[m]ost of these experts said CAFE was somewhat effective in reducing fuel consumption."
Indeed, the NAS concluded in a study published in 2002 that "[f]uel use by passenger cars and light trucks is roughly one-third lower today than it would have been had fuel-economy not improved since 1975," adding that "the CAFE standards were a major reason for the improvement in fuel economy, but other factors, such as fuel prices, also played important roles" (p. 19). The study, done in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Transportation, was authorized by the U.S. Senate during its conference on the fiscal year 2001 appropriations bill, according to the Congressional Research Service.
Further, the UCS stated that implementation of the 35 mpg standard "will save approximately 1.1 million barrels of oil per day in 2020. That is half of what the United States currently imports from the entire Persian Gulf." The report added: "As a result, American consumers will save $22 billion dollars in 2020 -- after paying the cost of the necessary fuel economy technology. In addition, the legislation would prevent the release of more than 190 million metric tons of global warming pollution. That is the equivalent to taking 28 million of today's average cars and trucks off the road in that year."
From Brown's February 8 column:
If consumers don't buy what the new political regime says should be produced, there will be no increase in the conservation of motor fuels, just as there has been no gasoline saved in response to what the media is fond of calling the "strict clean air standards" of the California Air Resources Board, nor any saved in response to the various iterations of federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy rules.
It's the consumer, stupid.
The problem is that it's difficult for people who think they know better -- media and political elites -- to respect the rational economic intelligence, the will and the ultimate power of the consumer.
Earlier this decade, when more than 50 percent of the new vehicles purchased in this country were bought by people buying light trucks (pickup trucks, vans and sport-utility vehicles), media sophisticates and environmental lobbyists complained loudly, appealing to Congress to draft tougher federal fuel-efficiency laws.
When automobile industry lobbyists supposedly worked their magic on Congress to block that effort, environmental lobbyists appealed to the California Air Resources Board -- California being responsible for nearly 12 percent of new-vehicle sales in the United States -- to come up with clean-air regulations that would have the corollary effect of increasing fuel economy.
Why would MMFA question the esteemed fellow, Mr. Warren Brown? Sure, you cynics, try to use the National Academy of Sciences and other experts, well, we will have none of it. You don't seem to realized that Mr. Brown writes a car column. It is well known that Mr. Brown is trying to give "Click and Clack" a run for their money.
P.S. Mr. Brown may be promoted to weather or fashion in the near future.
Nah, the WaPo already has a fashion writer. I just read her most recent piece about this season't longer skirts. What Global Warming.??? LOL !
Global Warming is back...over 50 degrees in Pittsburgh today.
just over 40 in l.a. today. just basking in it. working on my tan
70 degrees in Washington DC yesterday- which means no Global Warming stories for awhile- not until the next blizzard, at least.
68 today in the mountains of NC. Not normal...
40 in Michigan. All the snow is melting! Where with the polar bears [club] swim?
It's 78 here, in Febuary!! Wait, I live in Miami, never mind.
That's why the longer skirts (global warming).
That's not global warming, it's the republicans whining about the stimulus bill!
Years ago, someone correlated skirt lengths to the Stock Market. Can't remember the details, hopefully it was hemlines down, stocks up.
sign him up for remedial math. 30 miles driven at 30 mpg = 1 gallon used. 30 miles driven at 15 mpg = 2 gallons used. 30 mpg = 1 gallon saved.
but then again, that is only for wimpy liberals who don't want you buying that manly all american gas hog truck or suv. or so says rush, and the oil companies are very glad he's saying it.
Thanks for making this point first. I am a high school math teacher and, upon reading this comment, said "W H A T ? ? ? ?" Warren didn't get too high up the math ladder in school, methinks.
all i know is i get 12 mpg on my tbird.
the one that came with your barbie dream house?
The motives of any person that refers to a duly elected government as 'regime' should be suspect to the boot.
True enough. I heard some guy on Glen Beck's radio show today talking about the economy, and he managed in a 2 minute tirade to take a swipe at Krugman (as if a Nobel Prize means, you know, nothing), Gore, Obama, and a bunch of other liberals whom he apparently disagrees with, and I heard Beck mention something about Nazis in there as well.
I have seen these types of articles before, and will probably see them again. I see them all of the time in automotive trade magazines that I get at work, and normally they're all the same. Tighter mileage standards don't save gas, and let us buy what we want to buy for a vehicle (which is what it really all boils down to). Thing is, nobody is telling anyone that they can't buy "X" vehicle. I say, let's make gas 5 or 6 bucks per gallon, and then we'll see what happens. All of those people buying those pick up trucks, and large cars and SUVs, don't "need" them, they WANT them, and there is the difference. Go to Europe. The only people driving pick up trucks, or trucks in general, or SUVs, are people that actually NEED them, and don't just want them (OK, there are some that want them, but there are far fewer than over here that's for sure). Being someone that used to make parts for SUVs and light trucks, I can say that when the gas prices went up, my business took a dive, big time, and it's stayed there. I have vendors that are going under because their main customers are the big 3 pick up trucks, and SUVs, and they are shut down 2 out of 4 weeks most of the time, and many are going bankrupt, or getting closer to bankrupt.
Nobody is telling you what to buy, but when gas prices go back up, don't complain to me that gas is 4 or 5 dollars per gallon. I'll be riding my bike to work, like I do now, and loving it.
I'm tired of people lying to me and American's in general. These reports should be put in the rack and left out in the public square for a day when they lie.
If there is no consequence for lying then they will just keep on doing it.
It's only a matter of time before Michael Steele proclaims that no car has ever been moved one inch powered by gasoline.
Wouldn't this follow the same logic as Ben Franklin's famous "a penny saved is a penny earned"? Any gas you don't use is there for the future. Their failure to grasp that might also explain the economic collapse.
Another idiotic 'let the market decide' diatribe. Isn't that how we got in to this mess in the first place?
Besides shilling, what good comes out of articles like this? Do you look at this as a writer and say "I made a good point" or "I got another paycheck".
You have got to be kidding! This guy writes for The Washington Post? I have Googled some of his past work and learned that he favors raising taxes so that we have $4.00 per gallon gas. This, he argues, is what Japan and Europe have done, and this is what is needed to give U.S. consumers an incentive to buy fuel-efficient vehicles. And that is an argument worth considering. But to suggest that CAFE standards have not reduced gasoline consumption, -- or that the Clean Air Act has not reduced pollution, which he also does -- is just very silly nonsense.
The question is not whether gasoline consumption has increased -- assuming it has increased per vehicle mile driven, or per the number of new drivers on the road due to population growth. The question is how much more consumption would have increased without CAFE. And the question is how much more efficient vehicles could have been made if greater fuel efficiency had been mandated. Instead, efficiency gains due to better design and lighter materials were lost to increased horsepower and increased size.
Finally, the question, as others here have pointed out, is what would consumers do if given the choice of buying a more fuel-efficient SUV -- as opposed to a bigger one with more horsepower? Have consumers rejected more fuel-efficient vehicles, or have they not really been given that option? As in other instances of government regulation, CAFE standards, while not perfect (there may be ways to improve the measurement formulas), can help broaden the choices available to consumers in the marketplace.