Does the Heritage Foundation misstate results of a CAFE-safety study?
The video above, "The Energy Debate: Just the Facts," is from the Heritage Foundation and includes the results of a study on CAFE and safety that I think may have been misstated. The video starts out by asking the loaded question "why will raising CAFE standards hurt Americans?" to which Ben Lieberman, a Senior Policy Analyst at The Heritage Foundation, answers:
Raising CAFE standards will make cars less safe. In order to meet these standards cars have to be made smaller which makes them less safe in crashes. The National Academy of Sciences have confirmed this effect. Past CAFE standards have caused an estimate 1,300 to 2,600 lives per year. So, tightening these standards will only add to the death toll on the highways.
Now, let's take a look at how the study was presented to the Congress:
There have been adverse consequences as well. Safety is most important. The majority of the committee concludes that the downsizing and downweighting that occurred in the 1970s and 80s (partially in response to CAFE) resulted in an additional 1,300 to 2,600 fatalities in 1993. While fatalities were declining in this period, most committee members believe that they would have declined much more had the downweighting and downsizing not occurred. Two members of the committee dissent from this view. They believe that the data does not support this conclusion, and that the net effect on highway fatalities of the increases in fuel economy may have been zero. David Greene, one of the authors of the dissent in the report, may elaborate on that conclusion.
So, the study concludes CAFE was "partially" responsible. Maybe. In 1993, fatalities were actually going down at the time and not everyone on the committee agreed with the conclusion. What are some of the dissenting views from the National Academies? David Greene found "higher mpg is significantly correlated with fewer fatalities." I think the Heritage Foundation misstates the conclusions but we want to know what do you think. Did they cross the line? Do you think higher CAFE mpg requirements increases fatalities?
[Source: YouTube]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Domenick 8:42PM (12/11/2007)
The Heritage Foundation is one of our country's largest processed meat producer. It's specialty? Baloney.
Seriously, my rule of thumb is, if it's coming from the Heritage Foundation, the opposite is true.
Reply
Mike 9:00PM (12/11/2007)
I'm not sure anything they said was necessarily wrong. But it was carefully parsed to support a pre-existing position.
I personal have big issues with ethanol the way it is currently formulated. But I think the basic idea of bio-fuels will probably help in the long-run.
In a similar fashion, I'm sure that "downsizing" cars caused "some fatalities" in "1993".
But I wonder if airbag technology, mandatory seat belts, and lower speed limits didn't also contribute to substantially lower fatalities.
If the purpose of government policy is to minimize deaths, then the easiest way to do that is to outlaw the car. That's 50k deaths a year instantly saved.
This video is a good example of what is wrong with American politics. The idea that pre-existing principles can be shoehorned into any policy statement without regard to either practical implementation or compromise with those that have a different opinion.
Fundamentally the government's policy in this arena should be to secure a steady supply of energy to support the American lifestyle, and to encourage the development of new technologies to make that lifestyle more efficient (or perhaps even changing the lifestyle).
Can you imagine how many lives would be saved if zoning policies didn't promote suburban sprawl, dramatically increasing the #'s of miles driven per year.
These difficult policy choices might mean:
* Nuclear power over coal
* Wind over nuclear (can it be turned into a base load supply?)
* Biofuels over food (for a time)
* subsidized energy over free markets
* small cars over large ones (for a time).
Perhaps if those who claim peak oil is upon us are right, we may have to trade off drilling in ANWAR or other national parks to secure our nation's energy supply.
But I would certainly not support that if it is just to support rich conservative's god-given right to drive Hummers.
Mike
Reply
rick smith 9:09PM (12/11/2007)
how many have died in Iraq? It,s all about oil. Stop the madness.Lies,deceit,lobbying,alll under false pretenses,claiming
to be GOOD for us and if you don,t agree we're UN-AMERICAN...
HOW DO THESE PEOPLE SLEEP AT NIGHT????
Reply
Dad 9:28PM (12/11/2007)
"includes the results of a study on CAFE and safety that I think may have been misstated"
May have? Wow, you don't know?
Reply
Dad 9:23PM (12/11/2007)
"Do you think higher CAFE mpg requirements increase fatalities?"
Yes, but with qualifications. Had the same large gas guzzling vehicles been upgraded with the current air bags (front, side), antilock brakes, electronic stability control, 4 wheel disc brakes, improved vehicle structure, On-Star, tire pressure monitoring systems, etc., then without a doubt, BIGGER is always safer. Crash a Toyota Tundra into a Toyota Prius and the results will be obvious. BIG, HEAVY gas guzzler will beat any smaller car into a pulp in a head to head crash and really when a "T-bone" at an intersection.
Reply
Dad 9:30PM (12/11/2007)
"HOW DO THESE PEOPLE SLEEP AT NIGHT????"
Pretty well. No terrorists atacks in 6 years.
Reply
rick smith 9:43PM (12/11/2007)
Why are we subsidizing ethanol??...oil company subsidies should be stopped....there should be no pork attached to any energy bill...all this political crap needs to stop...I wonder where the Heritage Foundation gets their funding??...
Reply
Vince Caruso 9:48PM (12/11/2007)
Big Corps run our country and until that changes nothing changes. Clean Elections Rule.
Remember that idea that SUVs are safer? Just look cross eyed at one and it flips over killing your teenager all his friends and innocent bystanders. This is safer?
Not so with my Prius.
Total BS. Just totally more profits for the few at the great cost to many.
Reply
rick smith 9:42PM (12/11/2007)
Pretty well. No terrorists atacks in 6 years.
What's a dollar worth??
Reply
GreyFlcn 9:56PM (12/11/2007)
Well here's my comments on that:
_________________________________
They are refering to a study which was observing cars manufactured in the early 1980s. Well before the roll-over, swerving prone SUVs entered the market. So thats not really an honest comparison.
greyfalcon. net/ nas
Additionally there was a specific review on this comment made by members of that NAS commitee which commented that the safety implications of increasing "Fuel Economy" were actually either neutral, or beneficial to safety.
greyfalcon. net/ nas2
They commented that vehicle drivers were less likely to sacrifice either acceleration speed or vehicle size in their purchasing habits.
Simply by switching to these engine types they could quite easily achieve the 40% increase in mileage.
Diesels, HCCI Engines, Hybrids offer far more mileage.
And 2008 will be the first year in a long time that light-duty diesels will be produced in all 50 states. So that really is a very viable option.
Do we really need the government to step in?
Hell yes. We haven't gotten higher CAFE mileage in 30 years.
greyfalcon. net/ cafe.png
They need to set a level playing field so the market is monetizing the impacts of air and atmospheric pollution. (Same as they did with Catalytic Converters)
As well as the logistical problems associated with antiquated technology. We are losing the American car market to Japan.
==Hertiage is right about ethanol. It's a boondoggle.==
Well yeah, they don't have to be wrong about everything.
Frankly I don't like biofuels because of it's impacts on greenhouse emissions, deforrestation, water pollution, and raw thermodynamics.
greyfalcon. net/ zeiger
But frankly they are right for the wrong reasons. Oil it's amazingly subsidized. We spend more money on Iraq in a month than we do on biofuels in a year.
greyfalcon. net/ iraqvsenergy.png
greyfalcon. net/ biotaxes.png
Reply
GreyFlcn 10:07PM (12/11/2007)
1. Nuclear power is absolutely way too expensive.
http://greyfalcon.net/h2nuke
2. Yes Wind power can do baseload
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/1122-wind.html
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gSEAR2EcabwxgHhkuFhb7xjUJ4dg
Reply
GreyFlcn 10:19PM (12/11/2007)
==Pretty well. No terrorists atacks in 6 years.==
Yeah, thats because we've been distracting them with clay pidgeons in uniform in Iraq and Afganistan. Much easier to kill Americans that way.
While the rest come back with post-traumatic stress and suicide.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/washington/31suicide.html
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/49226
Lets also not forget the hundreds of thousands of dead iraqis. Since frankly, they are human.
If you compare that to the deathtoll on 9/11, around 3000, I can't really say it's worth it.
Neither can this liberal politician:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY
Reply
GreyFlcn 10:25PM (12/11/2007)
Ah here's the study I was thinking about:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/usiraqmilitaryhealth
The early screenings for PTSD cover up the much broader impact that was detected with later screenings.
Reply
rick smith 10:38PM (12/11/2007)
Well there you go ....the heritage foundation is a conservative think tank and if you buy a 4 pack of TIES.. from their bookstore they'll GIVE you a book that will GUIDE you..in your persuit of being a good conservative..happy reading young republicans....
https://secure.heritage.org/bookstore/
Order all four ties and receive a copy of “Reading the Right Books, A Guide For The Intelligent Conservative.” Edited by Lee Edwards. More...
Reply
susan.kraemer 10:35PM (12/11/2007)
Rick, "I wonder where the Heritage Foundation gets their funding??..."
wonder no more:
Heritage Foundation has received $585,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
scroll down the list to H...
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php
Reply
Dad 10:51PM (12/11/2007)
"Yeah, thats because we've been distracting them with clay pidgeons in uniform in Iraq and Afganistan. Much easier to kill Americans that way."
I must be blunt and say you have lost your mind.
Well, I guess having served in Iraq as a "clay pidgeons in uniform"(OIF 1). I can tell you that the folks I served with are proud of what we have done and what we are doing. You would not know that for the simple reason that you have not served anyone but yourself. Do all of us a favor and do not insult the folks who are serving by referring to us as "clay pidgeons in uniform". You insult the sacrifices we make. If you don’t like what we do and what we stand for (service before self) then please, be respectful of those who do serve others before themselves and be quiet. I chose to join and serve. It is an all volunteer military.
3,000 innocents died in 9/11. NEVER FORGET. You have.
If you really believe this war is about oil, then practice what you preach. Your talk is cheap. Sell your car; walk to work and on bad weather days, car pool. Also, turn off your computer, it is wasting a fossil fuel. Next time you need air conditioning or heat, tough it out, sleep in a tent outside.
PS Take the time to learn how to spell, your lack of attention to detail indicates that your education was wasted.
Reply
Dad 11:01PM (12/11/2007)
"Lets also not forget the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. Since frankly, they are human."
No one remembers the > million that died at the hands of Saddam. It was easy then with President Clinton. Cheap gas and SUVs. Nice to hear that you now regard them as human. It took you awhile.
The Iraqis I worked with in Iraq adore us, they love American soldiers. Sadly, when all the news you get is anti-Bush and so prejudiced in it's viewpoint, the truth never gets out.
When you have done a tour in Iraq, let me know, and then we can talk as "equals".
Reply
Ernie 12:33AM (12/12/2007)
Dad said:
"I can tell you that the folks I served with are proud of what we have done and what we are doing."
Excellent. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what the Army is doing in Iraq, because it's as clear as mud to me.
What I've been told, is that the *reason* we went there was because, ah, Osama Bin Laden was there. Or maybe it was because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. So we invaded a country which hadn't actually attacked anyone in some 10 years, toppled the government that had somehow kept its own population from killing each other for some 30+ years (despite deep sectarian hatred which is now becoming pretty obvious), and then tried to act as police officers when the inevitable civil war broke out. But, ah, apparently there weren't any weapons of mass destruction, and Osama wasn't there.
Which is funny, because we *know* that Pakistan has weapons of mass destruction. Their tests were quite public. And Osama Bin Laden is much more likely to be there. And they're currently being led by a military dictatorship that's violently suppressing dissent and democratic threats to its power. Why didn't we invade them?
Now, I can't blame any of that on you. You were just sent there at the behest of your superiors. I'm sure that the soldiers there are very proud of the accomplishments they've made, keeping one part of the population from exterminating the other. But they wouldn't actually need to do that job if they weren't even there in the first place.
Which brings us back to "Why are we there?" Personally, I don't think it's oil. Its price has gone up by at least 30% anyway, so if anything we've made matters worse that way.
Reply
gsolman6 12:42AM (12/12/2007)
Actually the Chevy Blazer has the absolute highest death rate of all cars and trucks available in the U.S. My VW Golf's death rate is many times less than it so size isn't everything. The vehicle with the lowest death rate wasn't a truck but the Mercedes S Class.
Given the same price point a smaller car with less steel, aluminum, plastic, etc. and smaller dimensions would have more funds available for extra safety equipment which would bring it back to the same safety level as the larger car. Case in point the Mini with X airbags, ESP, BFD versus many mid-size SUVs with just the mandatory 2 front air bags.
Reply
jake 1:27AM (12/12/2007)
@ Dad
I know you are getting a little fired up and I agree with you that the soldiers in Iraq deserve some respect, but you have some pretty significant factual errors there.
"3,000 innocents died in 9/11. NEVER FORGET. You have.
If you really believe this war is about oil, then practice what you preach. Your talk is cheap. Sell your car; walk to work and on bad weather days, car pool. Also, turn off your computer, it is wasting a fossil fuel. Next time you need air conditioning or heat, tough it out, sleep in a tent outside. "
First of all, there was really no connection between 911 and Iraq. If we really wanted Osama, our effort would be better spend in afghanistan. Second, electricity isn't generated with oil. It is mostly generated with domestic coal. Oil only generates 2% of electricity in the US. So the computer and air conditioning comments don't apply.
I don't believe the oil story either. In fact, I can't find a single reason why we want this war in the first place. The WMDs, 911 connections were found to be false. As Ernie, mentioned oil prices went up after the war. And don't kid me with the removing a dictator thing; that wasn't what the reason given when we started the war, and there are way more dangerous dictators like north korea's and iran's.
In fact, I think the only reason why people are not outright against this war is that they are afraid of the impact on the morale of troops in Iraq. I mean, we are the ones who put them into this war.
Back on topic, lighter cars don't necessarily make you less safe. If most people are driving cars with roughly the same mass then lightness wouldn't matter. It is difference in mass that raises probability of death. As the CAFE standards are increased, more Americans will switch to lighter CUVs that are more compatible in crashes with smaller cars. And it is not like small cars can't be made as safe if not safer than large cars. The subaru impreza has a side pillar that is highly effective at absorbing side impacts (the single biggest weakness in small cars today). Standard side airbags can also help make small cars safer.
Reply