CATO Institute writers suggest (no surprise) ditching CAFE standards
While the idea of eliminating CAFE standards may strike you as unusual, the idea that Libertarians are against regulation really shouldn't. This is what Libertarians are know for, no? So, let's just keep that in mind as we check out a new column published today by Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren (of the Cato Institute) in Automotive News (subs req'd). The title of the article: "Don't raise CAFE standards; ditch them."Read the full thing if you have your AN subscription. If you don't, I'll offer up some highlights:
- "Congress has no business dictating automotive fuel efficiency. That's a job for consumers, not vote-hustling politicians. There are no problems for CAFE standards to solve. Hence, they shouldn't be tightened; they should be repealed."
- "Increasing CAFE standards will not reduce the amount of pollution coming from U.S. autos. That's because we regulate emissions per mile traveled, not per gallon of gasoline burned. Improvements in fuel efficiency may reduce the cost of driving and thus increase vehicle miles traveled. Moreover, automakers have an incentive to offset the costs associated with improving fuel efficiency by spending less to comply with federal pollution standards."
I'll admit I'm mostly ignorant about Libertarian ideology. For some reason, I imagine their perfect world is a lawless one where everyone stays holed up in their own home, guarding their food piles from roving bands of marauders (I realize this might be slightly exaggerated). And, as much as I disagree with him on a lot of issues, I assume James Woolsey and his ilk are pretty well-informed about how terrorist groups get their funding. I also think the idea that there should be no regulation of tailpipe emissions or of how much fuel our cars drink is hogwash. But what's your response? With all the talk of increasing CAFE, are Taylor and Van Doren just trying to attract attention by being contrarian or are they right on the money? The floor is yours.
[Source: Automotive News]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
BenW 8:43PM (8/27/2007)
I really, basically agree. The feds don't have any business regulating MPG anymore then they do the GB's of my ipod.
However the costs of motor vehicle use should be true and not subsidized to the ridiculous extent they are now. The effects and consequences of securing oil, along with the pollution and emissions of personal automobile use all need to be accounted for.
CAFE just seems terribly artificial and arbitrary. Tax cars, tax road use, tax the fuels. Make those costs reflect the ACTUAL cost of personal automobile use. Then let the public decide.
Just give me fair warning before this revolution occurs so I can buy stock in Trek, Specialized, Cannondale, etc...
Reply
Mike Z 8:54PM (8/27/2007)
I feel your post was unprofessional and dishonest in bring your personal political opinions into this.
Reply
Bill 8:58PM (8/27/2007)
I agree. CAFE doesn't really work, and puts peoples expectations on the government to increase fuel efficiency. If people want fuel efficient cars, there are plenty available. A 50 MPG SUV cannot be legislated into existence, as some people think.
Reply
mike 9:25PM (8/27/2007)
Looks like Big Money Struck Again:
>> There are no problems for CAFE standards to solve.
- We've jumped right into Denial about Global Warming
- Ignored the inherent danger of another OPEC embargo
>> Increasing CAFE standards will not reduce the amount of pollution coming from U.S. autos.
- I'll drive more with my 50mpg SUV, Econ-Ho's love to Ignore TIME. With my 50mpg car, nobody is giving me a 28 hour day.
>> Moreover, automakers have an incentive to offset the costs associated with improving fuel efficiency by spending less to comply with federal pollution standards.
- Huh? Reduced CO2 output IS reduced Pollution.
Sheesh. These guys got paid for this?
Reply
AMcA 9:38PM (8/27/2007)
If you think we're undervaluing oil, then tax it.
Then let people decide what to do.
Very simple.
Reply
sorrycouldn\\\'thelpmyself 9:45PM (8/27/2007)
If CAFE doesn't work, how about making gasoline illegal. Or private ice vehicles. People don't seem to realize how urgent it is we get over this short sighted energy intensive "life-style". You just have to look at our consumption, the growing consumption in the rest of the world, and how much of this planet killing liquid we can produce in the future. If nothing is done, that future is very short and dark. So, go ahead and whine about the government impinging on your right to pollute the air, some of us are ready for a change in a sustainable direction. Thank you.
Reply
evan 10:12PM (8/27/2007)
Hahaha, "There are no problems for CAFE standards to solve." That's a good one.
Reply
shmuupy 12:08AM (8/28/2007)
I don't understand how we are better off with CAFE standards when more efficient vehicles are available in other countries yet they are not coming to the US.
Why are Europeans producing and buying more efficient cars than the US? Seems to be the higher cost of fuel there. I'd much rather see tax on fuel to promote efficiency than CAFE standards, which don't really seem to work.
We should simply put the tax for the war in Iraq on petroleum. Then let the market motivate more efficient vehicles - and maybe more consideration before we launch another war.
Reply
Der Alte 1:27AM (8/28/2007)
Libertarians do range the gamut from cooks to intelligent people with some interesting ideas. I don't think they yet have the solution for all the world's problems in their philosophy, but they do make some compelling arguments that can't be ignored from time to time. I think humanity in general has a lot of growing up to do before we could live the libertarian dream without blowing ourselves up or polluting the earth beyond repair. That said, if we had a world full of more caring, compassionate, intelligent and responsible humans, the libertarian way would be the way to go. Trouble is that humanity just isn't there yet...and it may be some time yet before we do get there (likely with a lot more human and environmental grief to teach us lessons along the way).
I agree in principle with the first comment in response to this article. Let's have a true accounting for what the real costs of autombile use is on our society and charge accordingly by the mile, canning all the subsidies. Then let the consumer decide what vehicle suits them best. In theory it is the best way. We must deal with reality however. Would such an accounting and cost recovery structure be feasible to implement in any of our lifetimes? Not under democratic rule it is not. Unfortunately the environment can't wait for ther perfect solution to be implemented. We need to start doing something now. Hence we are left with imperfect solutions such as CAFE that attempt to get the job done given the reality of what it takes to accomplish the task.
While its true the Europeans have a much better legislative structure that allows autos to be taxed more based on their effect on society, that structure has been there for awhile. Implementing that sort of structure in the US would require changes from the ground up on how vehicles are legislated and taxed. Americans have grown too used to cheap automotive travel for too long to allow any sort of legislative change to go through smoothly. Hence we're back to imperfect solutions, and even those are being fought left right and centre.
Reply
Chris M 4:24AM (8/28/2007)
I must point out that these same libertarians are also opposed to most taxes as well. If they were in power, there would only be just enough fuel tax to maintain the roads, and subsidized public transit would vanish.
Like so many other fringe political groups, Libertarians have a few good ideas, but they get so obsessed with their philosophy that they go to irrational extremes. The Cato Institute has had a strong influence on the "neocons", and we now know how badly that worked out in Iraq.
Reply
Peter 7:56AM (8/28/2007)
Libertarians are like Communists in that the ideology may sound enticing on paper, But when put into practice it would be an unmitigated disaster.
If you didn't legislate, we would have the air quality of Calcutta India. We also wouldn't now have clean low sulfur diesel fuel. Heck we would probably still have leaded gas.
I agree with some above, that fuel taxes would be better than Cafe. But how many of the outright Cafe haters want more fuel taxes? I figure near Zero. Also updating Cafe is is the answer for politicians that don't have the balls to even suggest a fuel tax. A fuel tax is the reason euro cars get much better gas mileage, because the consumer really demands it because of expensive fuel.
Bottom line is that Cafe is boneheaded compared to fuel taxes, but joe sixpack doesn't want fuel taxes, and no politician has the stones to implement it.
Reply
scatter 8:00AM (8/28/2007)
An interesting piece on neolibralism in the Guardian today:
http://business.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2157199,00.html
Reply
scappy 8:26AM (8/28/2007)
@ mike, I'm sorry but you must have the Libertarians mistaken for the Republicans. Libertarians are pretty much against all forms of regulation. Like others have said on paper this would work, but in practice fail miserably (sp).
if some Libertarian "lite" ideas were applied I think this whole situation would be better. The government should have no say in how fuel efficient my vehicle is, because there is a direct correlation to how efficient it is and how much money remains in my bank account. That said they should be regulating emissions because I have little to no vested interest in the emissions of my car. Libertarians would like peoples wallets to make more decisions than a parental government.
Get rid of CAFE and slowly increase the gas tax. The when another Katrina happens the government might be able to help out with an emergency suspension of the tax.
Reply
_Jon 8:32AM (8/28/2007)
I agree with the majority of the comments - CAFE is a poor solution to the problem.
And the author mocks that just as poorly.
This isn't the first time I've seen a "snooty" attitude on the "Green" site, so I don't plan on following the links from autoBlog anymore.
Yes, you're a "blog", write how you want. But keep in mind it will have an impact on your readership.
Reply
NT 10:16AM (8/28/2007)
Who wrote this post? A 16 year old? First the writer "imagines" that libertarians want a "lawless society", but then admits thats an "exaggeration". Then why say it? It is an exaggeration. Libertarians do NOT want a lawless society. Thats the facts. Real Libertarians are not anarchists, and your imagining that they are like them is not appreciated and is offensive. Here's a tip: the internet is FULL of libertarians and libertarian leaning readers so you might want to stick to the facts on their political beliefs.
Reply
NT 10:29AM (8/28/2007)
I'd also like to point out that government regulation does as much to hurt fuel efficiency as it does to help it. If you look at the ever increasing safety regulations created by the NHTSA, you can see the weight of cars has increased as a direct result, which as we all know, hurts fuel economy. Sure, many of those regulations were implemented in the interest of safety, but at the cost of fuel economy and higher prices. There's also a lot of economic research that shows that as you increase the safety of cars, some drivers drive more dangerously as a result. Every regulation has both expected and unexpected effects, and it's so often the case that the unexpected effects are not linked to the regulation.
Reply
mk 10:29AM (8/28/2007)
Agree with many previous commenters that a carbon tax would be best. I say we tax carbon, not gas per se. But either would be better than CAFE, which doesn't address the problem in the cheapest way.
As environmentalists, we should be concerned with "efficiency"-- energy efficiency, yes, but also economic efficiency. How do we get the biggest pollution reduction for the smallest economic cost? Carbon tax, baby.
Reply
Snark 11:39AM (8/28/2007)
"Congress has no business dictating automotive fuel efficiency. That's a job for consumers, not vote-hustling politicians."
Oh, really. The same consumers that make Ben Stiller movies roaring commercial successes? The consumers, as a group, are dumb as toast and incapable of foresight. Call me elitist if you want, I'll cheerfully admit it; but merely letting the free market decide is asinine, especially when science and common sense make proactive decision-making obvious. The market is reactive, not proactive, and cannot anticipate long-term costs. All it's particularly good for is setting prices and maximizing short-term profit. That's not a useful system for anticipating and mitigating environmental impacts.
Reply
jk 3:12PM (8/28/2007)
I consider myself a libertarian (I used to be a member of the Libertarian party until it was removed from the "official political parties list" in NC because it did not get 5% of the vote in the last presidential election).
Libertarians are big into the rights of the individual. I don't think anyone would argue that my rights as an individual aren't being infringed upon by people who pollute via auto emissions, power plant emissions, etc. So, if you're going to infringe on my rights then I should at least be provided some sort of compensation in return.
How you measure the amount that I should be compensated is, for all practical purposes, impossible to determine. Thus, even as a libertarian I realize that imperfect measures must be used. I agree that CAFE standards are not the preferred way to handle this. It seems to me that taxing gasoline (i.e., at European levels) is a much more effective way of protecting my individual rights while letting the free market determine the best way to build cars.
Reply
derek.hofmann 1:46PM (8/28/2007)
How about a progressive carbon tax that increases as long as we as a country turn more inert carbon (underground petroleum, etc.) into atmospheric carbon than the other way around and decreases whenever the opposite is true? Then the market can be as reactive as it wants.
Reply