The Hidden Costs of Obama's Fuel Efficiency Standards

August 11, 2011 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (6)

Thomas Pyle is the president of the Institute for Energy Research

Within a span of three weeks, President Obama has announced back-to-back new fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles and trucks. New regulations put in place will require a corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) of 54.5 miles per gallon for passenger vehicles by 2025. New standards for trucks will require a 10 to 20 percent increase in fuel efficiency before 2018.

Whether President Obama realizes it or not, fuel efficiency does not come without compromising other aspects of a vehicle. One feature that will undoubtedly be affected by these new rules is vehicle cost.

According to a study conducted by the Center for Automotive Research, the new passenger vehicle standards could eventually cost consumers an additional $5,000-$6,000 for each new vehicle. Even if gas prices rose to $6.00 per gallon, the average American driver may not recoup that huge price increase through fuel savings. Similarly, new rules for trucks are expected to add an additional $1,050 for work trucks and $6,220 for supercab tractors. [See the 10 priciest years in history for gas.]

One of the most efficient ways to increase the amount of miles a vehicle can travel per gallon of gasoline is to reduce the weight of the vehicle. Therefore, auto manufacturers will be forced to make cars that are smaller and lighter in order to meet President Obama’s new CAFE standards. Far from a win for consumers, this type of government-knows-best policy is the exact opposite of how a market economy functions. Instead of making their own demands, car buyers will be forced to comply with a federal mandate that insists on prioritizing fuel efficiency above all else—safety, comfort, size, and performance all take a back seat. Car buyers will be forced to pay more and have fewer vehicle options to choose from.

Given the fact that this is such an important policy goal for President Obama, it is fair to look at his own driving habits. The president is chauffeured in a vehicle known as The Beast, a 10,000-pound limousine that gets 8 miles to the gallon. In order to achieve maximum safety and security for the president, the vehicle must be extremely heavy which, of course, decreases its fuel efficiency. [See a slide show of the 10 states that use the most energy per capita.]

Nobody expects the president to trade in his Beast for a Smart Car, but he should extend that same courtesy to all American motorists and let them choose the vehicle that makes the most sense for them and their families. Americans are smart enough to weigh the costs and benefits of safety, fuel efficiency, comfort, and all other factors when purchasing a vehicle.

The Obama administration’s latest fuel economy mandates are an aggressive step away from consumer choice and towards government control. Every day, Americans are seeing the negative consequences of the administration’s increasingly aggressive meddling in the economy—more government control and less consumer choice.

Tags:
fuel efficiency,
car manufacturers,
politics,
energy,
gas prices,
Obama administration,
energy policy and climate change,
cars

Reader Comments Read all comments (6)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

This "article" is a slanted smudge of dog poo.

Pegasus of NJ 2:09PM October 17, 2011

In this article, Thomas Pyle asserts that "Americans are smart enough to weigh the costs and benefits of safety, fuel efficiency, comfort, and all other factors when purchasing a vehicle." Quite simply, the implication is that costs are purely economic in nature.

Unfortunately, as Pyle has neglected to mention, many costs are not incorporated into the decision to buy a car. I can but name a few, knowing that there are far more "costs" than meets the eye. First, I'm quite confident that individuals who buy cars do not take into account the costs of registration, insurance, maintenance costs over the life of the car, among a variety of other long-term and less direct costs. Second, like the smokers who never think about the costs associated with healthcare later in life, buying a car is not purely about what one writes on a check. The environmental costs are never put into the cost of the car, those costs that are only realized down the road when the effects become too obvious to ignore.

While Pyle would like to think that the "free market" should dictate what Americans buy, I believe Pyle conflates personal decision-making with what is best for the economy and long-term benefit. As the market has already shown, buying houses was not a very good investment or purchase for a significnat portion of the population. Should we sincerely believe in the thoughtfulness of Americans when it comes to making significant financial decisions?

Now, I am certainly not advocating a system wherein government dictates what people can specifically buy or not. However, this is an entirely separate issue than the optimism of Pyle in the ability of citizens to make wise decisions regarding their finances. Boiled down, the fact is that the government has a role to play in the affairs of society and should invest in long-term strategies for the general welfare of its citizens. The free-market, contrary to the assumptions of Mr. Pyle, is a convenient myth.

Besides, who is stopping someone from purchasing an SUV? Contrary to the remarks of Mitchell of TN, I do not see car police dictating what people buy and not buy; I do not see the government telling people to not buy cars of a particular class or type. Besides, for all the talk about free market, I'm confident Mr. Pyle was not the first in line to tell the government to stop subsidizing purchases of SUV's during the 1990s and early 2000s (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Hybrid/story?id=97505&page=1). At least be consistent and avoid promoting what is clearly biased, ill-informed, and distortive of what is going on in the world. Most importantly, stop relying on provocative talking-heads for your information.

Gabriel of MI 9:25PM August 15, 2011

1. Firstly Arab countries would like to thank United States for its continual financial support through the purchase of Arab oil at extremely high price.

2. USA is not independent until it is dependent on foreign oil that comes from the countries that do not share USA human rights values.

3. Mid size Hybrid like Hyundai Sonata is roomy enough for 90% of Americans and twice more fuel efficient that average car sold today. It costs $25,800 today. But most of the people do not need so much room Toyota Prius is enough - it costs $23,500 today. Both cars will returns much more than the price premium over the life of the cars in fuel savings and cost of brakes replacement.

4. An average consumer have no idea what is the real cost of oil - the cost of policing the oil supply countries, the number of people that get diseases from oil pollution and the amount of money that goes into health care to treat those diseases. If you try to explained all of this to regular Joe with numbers he will switch to a fuel efficient cars.

5. Lastly do not worry: the new CAFE is just a smoke screen to calm down voices - it is full of loopholes to drive gas guzzler through - OPEC money at work.

George 11:58PM August 12, 2011

On Energy

Perspectives from all sides of the burning energy issues of the day. Follow it on Twitter @USNewsOnEnergy

advertisement

Economic Intelligence

A Farm Bill Bait and Switch

Congress wants you to think it's cutting agriculture subsidies, but don't be fooled.

Latest Videos

advertisement