As I wrote in Sunday’s Washington Times,the public is anxious about climate change and dependence on Middle East oil. That’s why Senate Democrats last month pushed through a 40 percent increase in the corporate average fuel economy (CAFÉ) standard for cars and trucks as the centerpiece of their energy bill. If conservatives are to do better, we have to do more than appeal to Americans’ reflexive distaste for government regulation. We must make a pragmatic case for relying more on markets and less on bureaucrats in coping with issues of energy security and climate change.
A new mileage standard will do nothing to alter the realities of energy dependence. While reducing oil imports would be desirable, the fact that two-thirds of our liquid fuel now comes from abroad makes it implausible that any policy initiative could significantly affect our overall dependence on foreign sources.
Of course, a supply-side solution to dependence on Middle East oil wouldn’t reduce carbon dioxide emissions or thus contribute to efforts to contain climate change. But the miles-per-gallon standard, which affects only vehicles (and, among vehicles, only new ones) is hardly anybody’s idea of a comprehensive climate control initiative.
The most efficient way to control climate change — and the way prudent conservatives would be wise to favor — is to cap total carbon emissions, then auction (or even give away) these limited emissions rights to users and distributors of all fossil fuels.
Where do emissions from cars and trucks fit in this approach? The market would decide. Vehicles generate just one-fifth of greenhouse gases Americans dump into the atmosphere. And we simply will never know which ways to curtail emissions — the menu over the next decade includes everything from nuclear power to new light bulbs to ultra-efficient diesel engines — are the least expensive and least inconvenient to consumers, unless we make choices through markets.
What conservatives can do for the nation — and for themselves — is to remain relevant players in the formation of policy. And articulate opposition to tougher mileage standards is a fine place to start.
Doug A. Wilson is chairman of Townhall.com and co-author of “Getting America Right: The True Conservative Values Our Nation Needs Today.”
This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 18th, 2007 at 9:54 am and is filed under Cap and Trade, Climate Change, Oil and Gas . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 18th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Increased CAFE standards will have no net effect on energy usage. People like to drive. If it costs less to drive, they drive more. Thats why CAFE has had no effect to date, other than to disrupt the sales process of the automative industry.
July 20th, 2007 at 4:56 am
Before CAFE, if you wanted a big car you bought a station wagon. When CAFE outlawed station wagons, those people moved up to pick up trucks and vans. That was productive. Before CAFE (and pollution laws) car parts could be used for over 15 model years. Thanks to CAFE and pollution laws, some parts dont even last one model year. The result is expensive cars and expensive parts because the NRE cant be amortized over a long period of time and the volume of replacement parts being sold is too small to realize mass production and competitive efficiencies. Now people drive older cars which are cheaper and pollute more. When President Ford tried his “my lights are on for safety” campaign, they found there was no significant reduction in accidents. Now we have day time running lamps (which use more gas). The feds now want every gallon of ethanol to have a serial number and E90 is illegal.
It is clear that the government is totally ignorant of history, has no understanding of economics and in general is totally stupid. The best thing they can do is abolish all laws concerning the manufacture of automobiles and fuels. They always cause more harm than good.
July 25th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
WRONG !
My policy initiative could reduce US oil consumption by 10% in ten to twelve years using mature technology.
http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2006-05a.htm
It would also give the USA a strategic advantage; a non-oil transportation alternative.
Best Hopes,
Alan