Sure thing John, I had written the Congressman because of an ad playing on a local radio station telling us to thank him for saving lives by voting against CAFE increases.
The Congressman begins his response by saying something must be done about light truck fuel efficiency as average fuel economy for passenger vehicles is now at a 20 year low.
He said the Energy and Commerce Committee (or as phrased in the letter "Committee on Energy and Commerce Committee") passed the SAFE act, which "would order the Secretary of Transportation to require vehicles in the light truck category to save a minimum of 5 billion gallons of gasoline from 2004-2010." He said no mechanisms for achieving this goal were included or excluded in the act.
In the full House, Representatives Boehlert and Markey wanted to mandate an increase in light truck fuel efficiency from the current standard of 20.7 mpg to 27.5.
He said he had safety concerns over this mandate. He quoted the NAS report of last summer which said "any reduction in vehicle size and weight would have safety implications." and "the downweighting and downsizing that occurred in the late 1970's and early 1980's, some of which was due to CAFE standards, probably resulted in an additional 1,300 to 2,600 traffic fatalities in 1993."
So Boehlert-Markey was defeated 269-160. SAFE passed 240-189.
MY comments:
I had a concern with the use of the word "gasoline", so if they switch to another fuel are they saving gasoline?
I agree with the proposed Boehlert-Markey mandate in principle, but I want the elimination of the category "light truck" so that car gains in efficiency and changes in marketing strategy can help meet the mandate. This would encourage across the board innovation (one of which we are all highly in favor of!)
The weight issue is just a non-issue, especially when you consider what can be gained by increasing powertrain efficiency without affecting the vehicle structure. We don't all drive armored vehicles to improve our safety, and I don't imagine the government would require it, though it might save 5000 lives a year (or more), nor do we all drive 25 mph.
On the NAS report, the weasel words "some" and "probably." jumped out at me. "Some" was used as opposed to "most" or even "many". Downsizing in the late '70s was a cultural change and a reaction to fear of persistent oil crises, not very much of it due to CAFE, but due to consumer demand. I think Iacocca said something like "Americans want higher gas mileage, and will pay anything to get it." Lastly, given all the uncertainties in causes of death, I am sure I could write a study showing 1,300 to 2,600 additional fatalities in 2001 due to obstructed vision of cars by SUVs, increased stopping distance of SUVs, increased emissions from gas hogging SUVs, and the feeling of invincibility of SUV drivers.
To me it's obvious the whole SAFE Act is an evasion of responsibility. It's also obvious the only rationale they can possibly come up with for not increasing CAFE is the prevaricated concern over saving lives, thus the name "SAFE" for the evasive action. |
