Obama’s Opposition Says CAFE Kills

Yesterday, President Obama announced a new national fuel economy and emissions standard that will significantly raise the MPGs that cars and trucks are required to get by 2016.

Not surprisingly, this move to higher Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards for cars and trucks has prompted some oppositional commentary.

In the realm of pure sophistry, we have anti-green crusader Steve Milloy, who at his Green Hell blog says: “The Obama administration’s proposed mileage standards … may kill more Americans at a faster rate than the Iraq War—his signature issue in the 2008 presidential campaign.”

Nice. And what’s going to bring about this bloody carnage on the nation’s roadways? “[T]he only way for carmakers to meet these standard is to make smaller, lighter and deadlier cars.”

Where to begin? Well, the assertion isn’t supported by the actual cars that are out there. The Volkswagen Jetta TDI finished at the top Consumer Reports' safety testing, gets a combined 36 mpg, and has a curb weight of 3,200 pounds. The NHTSA gave it 4- and 5-star safety ratings. You have a better chance of surviving a crash in a Jetta, which is classified as a small sedan, than you do in a Chrysler 300, a full-size sedan that tips the scales at more than 4,000 pounds in its heaviest configuration.

Small, light cars can be dangerous, but they can also be designed and engineered to be very safe. Conversely, hulking tanklike vehicles can be rolling deathmobiles. The Mini Cooper, at about 2,600 pounds, is one of the safest cars on the road. The 4,300-pound Chevy Trailblazer is not.

At theatlantic.com, Megan McArdle also objects to the impending era of the small, unsafe car, adding that the new CAFE standard will make vehicles more expensive. But the new Honda Insight gets 43 mpg and costs less than $20,000. She also brings up the so-called "rebound effect":

“[The new standard] will reduce our carbon emissions, but not by as much as advertised, because more fuel efficient cars make driving cheaper, so people will do more of it. This 'rebound' effect robs about 25% of gains, and also means more congestion, and more wear-and-tear on roads. …”

Getting more MPGs out of your vehicle doesn’t necessarily translate into more driving. It does translate into fewer fill-ups. People who use their cars as routine commuter transportation aren’t going to drive more—they’re going to drive the same, but they’re going to use less gas to do it. This of course will free up income to spend on other things. It’s the stimulus nestled in the new standard. People do have the option of driving more, but several studies indicate that the rebound effect leads to significantly less than a 25 percent reduction in gains.

Besides, you can always introduce a gas tax to offset the negative effect. In fact, I’ve made the point repeatedly that we need more fuel-efficient cars and more expensive gas to preserve personal mobility worldwide.

So let's have some faith in engineering, people. We don't have to trade safety and savings to extend our oil supply well into the middle of the century and stave off further climate damage. Yes, some patrotic sacrifice may be required. But on balance, not much.