How to Improve Motor Vehicle Fuel Economy and Reduce CO2 Emissions

Indrease Gasoline Taxes Significantly

Economists say that increasing gasoline taxes would be the most effective way to reduce fuel consumption by non-commercial motor vehicles which are the second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. (Coal-fired electric power plants are the only larger source.) Motor vehicle fuel economy is significantly better in Europe where gasoline taxes are higher and pump prices are more than double in the U.S. Gasoline taxes in the United States could be gradually increased to European levels over five or ten years. This would give car buyers and producers time to adjust to the higher prices. Economists also recognize that fuel taxes are regressive, bearing most heavily on lower income citizens. Moreover, higher gasoline taxes appear to be a non-starter, politically. Congress shows no enthusiasm for raising the gasoline tax, and Obama has ruled that approach out as well.

Increase CAFE Standards and Eliminate Current Loopholes

The CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy)regulations resulted in improved fuel economy for a period in the 1970s until the truck/SUV loophole resulted in the production and sale of many more heavy, high horse-power vehicles for private use, culminating in the Hummer and similar gas hogs. This brought a halt to improvement in fuel economy of non-commercial vehicles in the U.S. Closing the truck loophole and imposing higher CAFE standards would be one way to improve fuel economy. But it may not be the best way.

Levy a Weight Tax on Non-commercial Motor Vehicles

Another approach would be to apply the laws of elementary physics by imposing a non-commercial vehicle weight tax. This tax could be tapered in over a 5 to 10 year period with the effect of roughly equalizing the cost per mile in the U.S. with that of Europe. It appears to me that a gross weight tax would not be regressive as would a fuel tax. And it would leave car makers free to produce whatever vehicles they wished--small, medium, large, gasoline, diesel, hybrid,CNG, etc., and it would leave car buyers free to buy whatever car or truck or SUV best fitted their preference and purse. However, the overall result would mean that more small, fuel efficient vehicles would be produced, and CO2 emissions would decline. The government would not be involved in the design, engineering or production of cars. Heavier cars would not be prohibited, but they would be taxed sufficiently to compensate for the "external" costs of pollution and contribution to our country's dependence on foreign oil. [It should be noted that if a weight tax were adopted the regulation should include a weight credit for hybrid or battery powered vehicles which are fuel efficient although the batteries are quite heavy.]

Levy a Tax on Engine Displacement and or Horsepower

Regulating or taxing engine displacement would be another possibility for achieving better fuel economy and reduced CO2 emissions. This would mean that SUVs and trucks would be more fuel efficient but would not accelerate like sports cars. Higher displacement cars would not have to be made illegal, but they would be required to pay for the cost of higher greenhouse gas emissions and lower fuel economy which perpetuates our country's dependence on foreign oil.

Perspective on the Small Car Safety Issue

Some commentators question the safety of smaller cars which are subject to greater damage in collisions than are heavier SUVs, large trucks and sedans. To this others point out that is the large vehicles that pose the danger of injury to occupants of small cars. That is a matter of one's viewpoint. [The issue is analogous to gun safety--who should be blamed for the danger of gun violence--the shooter or the shootee? To solve this disparity some advocate arming everyone for their self-protection. Others support disarmament.] The passenger safety issue is not the weight of the vehicles but rather the disparity between the vehilces in collisions. This means that the hazard to the occupants of small cars will be reduced as the numbers of heavy vehicles diminishes, reducing the size disparity in non-commercial vehicles. Moreover, it is possible to design small cars that provide quite good crash protection for occupants.

A fuel economy deal worthy of every new car buyers' support

May 20, 2009 Detroit Free Press

There is always an inclination to raise an eyebrow and guard your wallet when government announces that something is "good for everybody."

But the sweeping deal announced Tuesday on auto emission and mileage standards does indeed appear to be good for just about everybody -- assuming the vehicles it spawns are appealing to consumers.

In brief, the plan would eliminate state-level regulation of motor vehicles and mandate that, by 2016, exhaust emissions be cut by about a third and mileage increased to 39 m.p.g. for cars and 30 m.p.g. for light trucks. The requirements will add an estimated $1,300 to the cost of vehicles, but the government says that will be offset by savings in gasoline.

Indicating the industry's support, no fewer than 10 auto manufacturers plus the UAW were represented at the White House as President Barack Obama announced the deal. The advantages for the industry are twofold: uniformity and certainty. There will be no regulations peculiar to a state or region, and the industry now has a fixed set of relatively long-term goals with enough lead time to meet them.

The upside for the nation is cleaner air, which could lead to lower health care costs, and less dependence on oil. At a time when this country is using 20 million barrels of oil a day, Obama said that the plan will yield a savings of 1.8 billion barrels by 2016, or about what America imported last year from Saudi Arabia, Libya, Venezuela and Nigeria combined.

And there is also an intangible value in having this annual political donnybrook settled in a comprehensive way.

The downside? Detroit automakers have yet to build a high-mileage vehicle that Americans embrace in huge numbers. And with these standards looming, wary U.S. consumers may be inclined to hang on to the ride they've got rather than buy something that may be smaller, less powerful and more expensive. With federal hooks now deep into the domestic industry, Obama may have to become car salesman-in-chief to get U.S. consumers to share his vision.