I'll let Keith Hennessey count the ways, in this tour de force of blogging. I've blogged about CAFE standards each time they've been the subject of policy discussion over the past few years. Here is some essential reading:
- Fuel Efficiency or Fuel Consumption?
- New CAFE Standards
- Fuel Economy and Safety
- Cleaning Up the CAFE
Earlier this week, as my family was driving through town, we stopped to let an enormous SUV back out of its parking spot on Main Street. I thought that the driver must be happy to have heard about the CAFE standards -- that behemoth she was driving just got more valuable, since the new, tighter standards only apply to new vehicles.
Another Column to read
Bob Grady had a good op-ed in the WSJ today too on the unitended consequences of greenhouse rules and CAFE standards on car size and safety. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124294901851445311.html
Another Column on Cars
Bob Grady had a good op-ed in the WSJ today on the unintended consequences of environmental rules and CAFE on hoarding of older cars and reduced safety for new ones.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124294901851445311.html
Political viability
I agree that CAFE standards are a very expensive way to reduce fuel usage (even worse if the target is reduced greenhouse gases), and Obama and many in Congress may agree. Unfortunately the idea of a gas tax is absolutely toxic, and is probably impossible to achieve. CAFE standards give the electorate the illusion that they can get something for nothing (much as cap and trade does), and so is much more politically viable.
Because of this and the durability of the vehicle fleet (they will be burning fuel for many years after they are sold), I reluctantly support CAFE standards.
If I could choose between CAFE and a gas tax, I would choose a gas tax. But if it is CAFE or nothing... Well CAFE is probably better than nothing.
Hybrid cars
Just for the record, last year while gas prices were peaking I wrote an op-ed for the Atlanta Journal Constitution about the tax credit for hybrid cars that made some of the same points, not uninspired by you.
If Obama and the powers-who-be want consumers to consume less gas, then they should increase the price of gas -- tax it.
Simple as that.
If voters reject that, then trying to accomplish the same thing in spite of them by working behind their backs through such left-handed regulatory and tax schemes both is anti-democratic and produces all kinds of costly examples of the law of unintended consequences in action.