CAFE Kills
December 4th, 2007 by Peter SudermanThe New York Times is thrilled with Congress’s new energy bill. And, as usual, they get it wrong. Among other things, they tout its inclusion of new, more stringent CAFE standards.
The bill’s centerpiece, negotiated over the weekend by House leaders, is the first meaningful increase in fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks, including S.U.V.’s, in more than 30 years. The provision would raise average fuel economy standards from 25 miles per gallon today to 35 miles per gallon in 2020.
Only one problem. Apparently, no one has ever told the Grey Lady’s editorial board that CAFE standards kill people.
That’s right. This isn’t just some abstract regulatory issue. As CEI’s Sam Kazman tells, “According to the National Academy of Sciences 2002 study of CAFE, this downsizing effect contributes to about 2,000 deaths per year.”
And the program has been going on for about three decades. You do the math. Meanwhile, the New York Times editorial board applauds.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
This is a little dishonest. You’ll note in the footnote that the committee was not unanimous about the death issue and that a dissent in the report’s appendix argues (rather convincingly) that the increase in deaths might be “zero,” since myriad other factors in (what is actually a statistically insignificant) increase in deaths were not examined. Also, note this from the same page:
“Improved fuel economy has reduced dependence on imported oil, improved the nation’s terms of trade … If fuel economy had not improved, gasoline consumption (and crude oil imports) would be about 2.8 million barrels per day greater than it is, or about 14 percent of today’s consumption.”
That’s an additional $280 million PER DAY coming out of the pockets of American consumers. Conservatively, that’s $340 a year saved by every man, woman, and child in America. Obviously the actual savings are far higher, since not every American drives. That’s a lot of additional money going into the economy.
There are really good reasons to oppose CAFE, but the “OMG deaths!” thing isn’t one of them. I’m surprised that a blog all about economics would be highlighting the death thing and ignoring the economic benefit of CAFE.