Fuel Economy, Emissions: New Approach Needed
By Michelle Krebs March 15, 2007âWe need a new approach.â
Thatâs what U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, told reporters after yesterdayâs hearings on stricter fuel economy standards, which included top executives from the Big Three and Toyota as well as UAW leadership.
Amen.
Every time the issue of improved fuel economy comes up we fall back on the same old fuel economy standards, developed decades ago and with debatable results. And the same old arguments ensue: automakers say itâll cost too much; government leaders say automakers arenât doing enough while they do nothing; and environmentalists argue they donât go far enough.
Canât we come up with something more creative? Can't we compromise on solution that may not be the ultimate, perfect one but moves us in the right direction?
One of the reasons Europe has made such significant progress in lowering vehicle emissions is that the auto industry, government and environmentalists came together and declared in unison that lowering CO2 emissions and raising fuel economy were the goals.
Automakers sent their best engineers and researchers into their laboratories to reinvent diesel engines. Diesels arenât perfect, but they do get at the CO2 issue and increase fuel economy.
As a result, the progress in diesel technology in the past decade has been stunning. Government- instituted tax incentives and pricing structures for diesel vs. gasoline that made buying diesels favorable. Consumers got on board because it benefited not only the environment but also their wallets. Diesels now account for about 50 percent of all sales across Europe, and, in some markets, like France, as much as 90 percent. Everyone did his or her part.
Sweden and Brazil have done the same with ethanol.
Indeed, top auto industry executives told Dingell's committee yesterday that the government must take steps to boost consumer demand for fuel-efficient vehicles. Simply raising fuel economy standards is not the answer to the threat of global warming or the nation's energy supply concerns, they argued.
In Europe, automakers achieve fuel economy levels that some members of Congress want to require in the United States. But much higher gasoline prices in Europe create consumer demand.
Chrysler Group CEO Tom LaSorda said that "a new and unique formula" for the United States should include "harnessing of market forces." Some interpreted that mean higher gasoline taxes.
Toyota President Jim Press called for more consumer incentives. He said the government should lift the ceiling on tax credits for buyers of vehicles with fuel-saving advanced technology.
Ford CEO Alan Mulally said: "For too long, each sector has wanted someone else to be the solution in order to pass the buck. This piecemeal approach will not work if we are serious about change."
Global warming or not, human beings clearly impact the environment â- the water they drink and the air they breathe. All one has to do is visit Beijing, Mexico City or New Delhi and take a whiff. The source of the nearly unbreathable air comes from autos, manufacturing, power generation -â people, in other words.
It doesnât take a rocket scientist to figure that out.
LEAVE A COMMENT