Political Plate Tectonics and Energy Policy
February 8th, 2006Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
Does buying a hybrid car make its owner feel virtuous while helping the environment, or does it just make the driver feel virtuous?
According to an article in today’s New York Times, it may be the latter:
Each one becomes a free pass for its manufacturer to sell a few extra gas guzzlers. For now, this is less true for Toyota’s cars, because they’re above the mileage requirement. But Toyota’s trucks and the American automakers are right near the limits. So every Toyota Highlander hybrid S.U.V. begets a hulking Lexus S.U.V., and every Ford Escape — the hybrid S.U.V. that Kermit the Frog hawked during the Super Bowl — makes room for a Lincoln Navigator, which gets all of 12 miles a gallon. Instead of simply saving gas when you buy a hybrid, you’re giving somebody else the right to use it. The hybrid, then, is just about the perfect example of what’s wrong with our energy policy. It’s a Band-Aid that does a lot less to help the earth than we like to tell ourselves. When Vice President Dick Cheney dismissed conservation as “a sign of personal virtue” a few years back, a lot of environmentalists were disgusted. But that, sadly, is what a lot of well-meaning hybrid owners are driving: an expensive symbol that they’re worried about our planet, rather than a true solution.
Vice President Cheney’s 2001 comment about the “personal virtue” of conservation hit a raw nerve among many observers (see, e.g., this PDF for examples), but consider the quote in broader context,
Now, conservation is an important part of the total effort. But to speak exclusively of conservation is to duck the tough issues. Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis all by itself for sound, comprehensive energy policy. We also have to produce more [energy].
In a passage that immediately follows the excerpt above from the New York Times today a representative from a leading environmental advocacy group says something remarkably similar to the Vice President’s 2001 comment,
You can consider yourself a conservationist and still see the logic in this. As Jon Coifman, the media director of the Natural Resources Defense Council, says, “We’re not going to kick our oil addiction with good will and personal virtue. You do need market signals, and you do need rules. And you need virtue. You need it all.”
Clearly, the Vice President and NRDC would disagree on what energy policy options make sense, but the fact that they have both signaled that new options are needed may be a sign that the status quo may be nearing its sell-by date. Could this be a sign of dramatic changes in energy policy to come?
[Note: We also discussed hybrids here.]
February 8th, 2006 at 10:06 am
President Bush is all about “sending the right message”, so one would think the virtue of driving an expensive bumper sticker encouraging more responsible energy consumption isn’t necessarily invalidated by the duplicity of manufacturers and law makers. Hopefully the trend towards more hybrids on the roads will eventually affect the larger marketplace. Until then, Ford Motor Companies snickers over my naivety will fall on defiantly patient ears, waiting for the invisible hand of the economic engine they so piggishly rely upon.
February 8th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
Roger this nonsense would get a high school freshman flayed alive by his math and english teachers. The buyer of a Prius is not using as much gas as he or she would with a normal vehicle let alone an SUV. Or have you somehow assigned the buyer moral responsibility for Toyota and your actions?
February 9th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
eli, the point is that US policy revolves around CAFE standards, the two key words in that acronym being Corporate and Average. So if a Big 3 ups one model to 30 mpgs, that gives them latitude to down one model to … well, something low. And the net is that nothing is getting any greener.
But if your sentiment is “If two Michigan Senators can exert absolute control over CAFE standards and thus leave consumers with zero control over the emissions of the fleet, why bug them for at least being personally virtuous and trying *something*?” then I agree with you.
February 9th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
well, seems like it has become fashionable in the last few years to dump on those trying to be environmentally conscious. The article is right of course, about the total emissions of the fleet being what matters. But surprisingly, it did not mention that CAFE standards have been stagnant for decades, and that even though viable (even cool!) technology exists to make cars and trucks more efficient, politicians still refuse to raise the standards. To me, the Prius and other hybrids are de facto demonstrations that there just is no excuse any more to resist raising efficiency standards across the board. The hybrid isn’t the problem. The problem is the low end, inefficient vehicles, lack of “market signals” and, yes, I agree, the lack of a true national energy policy.
February 9th, 2006 at 7:08 pm
Lisa Dilling writes, “But surprisingly, it did not mention that CAFE standards have been stagnant for decades, and that even though viable (even cool!) technology exists to make cars and trucks more efficient, politicians still refuse to raise the standards.”
This is the point that Dano could remonstrate you by informing you of his belief in and support of the idea that politicians represent the “voice of majority.” But my guess is he won’t.
So instead, let me pose this hypothetical. Suppose you were transformed in Queen of the U.S. And no nasty Congress to hold you back. What would you do regarding CAFE, and what do you think it would accomplish?
The current CAFE requirements are 27.5 mpg for passenger cars, and 20.7 mpg for light trucks (and SUVs). And the current amount of gasoline consumed in the U.S. is approximately 130 billion gallons.
If you were Queen, what would you do to CAFE requirements over the next 20 years…and what do you think the changes you would mandate would do?
February 9th, 2006 at 9:49 pm
I am still mystified by the moral calculus here. We should blame those who conciously buy hybrids, because others buy SUVs? Because Toyota sells at both ends of the consumption curve we should blame those who buy hybrids? Black is white?
You might also notice the weasel words in the article: “For now, this is less true for Toyota’s cars, because they’re above the mileage requirement. But Toyota’s trucks and the American automakers are right near the limits” which clearly shows that the hybrids ARE having an effect, but tries to apple orange this away.
While we are at it would anyone care to comment on the fact that for 2005 General Motors fleet mileage is 20.5 mpg, Toyota’s is 23.5, Honda is 25.1 and Ford’s is 19.5 mpg. Guess who sells hybrids? Toyota and Honda.
February 10th, 2006 at 8:39 pm
“While we are at it would anyone care to comment on the fact that for 2005 General Motors fleet mileage is 20.5 mpg, Toyota’s is 23.5, Honda is 25.1 and Ford’s is 19.5 mpg.”
I’ll comment: Where did you get those numbers, and what do they represent? I don’t understand the numbers, since the CAFE for passenger vehicles and light trucks/SUVs is above GM’s and Ford’s numbers.
February 11th, 2006 at 10:27 pm
Try Google Mark.
February 12th, 2006 at 6:35 pm
“Try Google Mark.”
OK, plenty of articles have numbers.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=106644
But how does Ford only manage 19.5 mpg, given the fact that the passenger car CAFE is 27.5 mpg, and the light duty trucks/SUVs CAFE is 20.7 mpg?
http://www.policyalmanac.org/environment/archive/crs_cafe_standards.shtml
Do they pay fines, or do the numbers count something that isn’t covered under passenger cars or light duty trucks/SUVs (e.g. heavy duty trucks)?
May 24th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
I think the purchase of a hybrid is motivated less and less by “virtue” and more and more by economics. After all, with gasoline approaching the $3-4 mark on a consistent basis many Americans are adding hybrid vehicles to their list of products to consider.
Together with Toyota’s announcement of many new hybrids outside of the “eco-friendly box” (like the new http://www.tundraheadquarters.com/blog/2007/05/16/toyota-tundra-hybrid-no-later-than-2010/ tundra hybrid) and the statements from the Big 3 that they’ll be adding hybrids to all of their product lines in the coming decade, and it’s safe to say the hybrid is no longer about being green. It’s about saving green too.
And the virtue of savings is definitely debatable.