No Rest for the Ridiculous

Yesterday, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta announced what should have been welcome news to most Americans. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ratcheted up fuel efficiency standards for SUV's, minivans and light-trucks. The announcement, apparently the most aggressive in the program's 27 year history, should theoretically be greeted favorably by those who advocate reduced reliance on fossil fuels both in terms of energy independence and greenhouse emissions.

"But nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo," as Steve Martin used to say.

Environmental groups derided yesterday's announcement, saying the rules are too modest for an administration that has called on the nation to kick its oil addiction...“The biggest single step that the president could take to cut our oil addiction, curb global warming and save consumers money at the gas pump is raising (fuel economy) standards substantially, and that's not what they're doing,” said Dan Becker, director of the global warming program at the Sierra Club. “They are tinkering around the edges rather than using the most powerful tool they've got.”

Now admittedly, SUV's aren't really our problem. They are a drop in the bucket in terms of overall petroleum usage and pollution. They are more fuel efficient and economically friendly than some of the 1972 Caddies you still see on the road. Nonetheless, SUVs have become a convenient target for those continually indicting America's bloated consumer society. Fine. But you can't have it both ways. You can't on the one hand complain about SUVs for years and years and then when someone steps up to the plate to address the issue, no matter how incrementally, simply dismiss it out of hand. (Kind of reminds me of those people who told us for two decades that Social Security was in trouble and then when someone stepped up and tried to address the problem, reversed field and told us Social Security was safe.) Besides, increasing fuel economy standards for this class of vehicles by 11% doesn't sound like mere tinkering around the edges to me. And the article also points out that the the feds are moving aggressively to address fuel economy for all cars.

I am very concerned about the environmental and national security implications of our addiction to foreign oil. I'm a heavy proponent of R&D surrounding alternative, renewable energy sources. I'm a heavy proponent of major efforts on the conservation front. These steps are good for our environment, good for our national security, and actually, good for our economy. So I philosophically stand shoulder-to-shoulder with groups like The Sierra Club. But these groups continually shoot themselves in the foot and turn off broad swaths of the electorate by poo-poohing any step which possibly conflicts with environmental preservation and by dismissing any incremental improvement out of hand. How do they think you effect real change? This is ivory tower stuff.

There's just no pleasing some people.