United States Action

UnitedStatesAction
Yahoo Group

Back to Economic War Against Terrorists Page

Fighting the Global Terrorists Page

Back to US Action Home Page

recent articles of suv and oil efficiency to help break dependency on middle east oil

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Study Urges Better SUV Efficiency
Fuel Savings Could Offset Added Costs

By Greg Schneider
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 31, 2001; Page A01

Carmakers have the technology to make sport-utility vehicles and light trucks significantly more fuel efficient over the next decade, a National Academy of Sciences panel said yesterday, rebutting years of auto industry arguments against tighter restrictions on what has become the most popular category of new vehicles.

Making vehicles more efficient would add to their sticker prices, but that cost would be offset by savings on fuel, the panel said. A small SUV, for instance, could average 26 percent better mileage for an upfront cost of $818, while a large pickup truck could improve its mileage by 47 percent for $1,466. In both cases, the owner would save the same amount over the 14-year life of the vehicle.

But a majority of the 13-member panel added that those improvements could lead to more traffic fatalities if manufacturers simply opt to make vehicles smaller and lighter instead of implementing other technologies to achieve the fuel savings.

The congressionally mandated report, a month late and the subject of intense political and industry debate, was being anticipated by the Bush administration as a tool for framing national policy on reducing reliance on overseas oil. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said yesterday that the report "highlights promising technologies and reforms" that could increase fuel efficiency.

Administration officials were pleased that the report linked fuel standards to safety, reasoning that framing the debate as a balance between degree of fuel efficiency and level of driver safety is more politically benign than casting it as a showdown between environmentalists and the automobile industry. The report also feeds into a debate in Congress this week over a House energy bill that contains provisions requiring SUVs to cut gas consumption by 5 billion gallons over a six-year period. A group led by Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) plans to push for far stricter guidelines.

The panel's report did not set specific fuel efficiency goals. It also did not settle any arguments among those lobbying for and against higher fuel efficiency standards for SUVs, congressional staffers said.

"From our perspective, no one has really gained a strategic advantage in this debate as a result of this report," said Ken Johnson, spokesman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Both sides of the issue drew ammunition from the findings. Environmental advocates said their longtime claims were validated by the panel's insistence that automakers know how to get better gas mileage out of SUVs. Classified as light trucks, SUVs and minivans currently are required by the Department of Transportation to get an average of 20.7 miles per gallon, while passenger cars must average 27.5 mpg.

The panel suggested establishing fuel efficiency standards based on a vehicle's weight. It said that holding the two types of vehicles to different mileage standards "has been stretched well beyond the original purpose," which was to allow for differences between the way families drive cars and farmers or workers drive light trucks.

Paul Portney, chairman of the panel and president of the energy policy think tank Resources for the Future, said a weight-based system might also bring all types of cars and trucks closer together in size and improve overall safety.

Environmentalists have long argued that SUVs -- which now account for about half of all new-vehicle sales -- no longer qualify as work vehicles, and the panel of scientists agreed.

"This is basically a triple for the environment but not a home run," said Dan Becker, director of energy policy for the Sierra Club.

That's because there were many findings that left automakers just as pleased, such as the lack of definitive standards for fuel economy. Setting such standards -- called "corporate average fuel economy," or CAFE -- is more properly left to Congress and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, said Josephine S. Cooper, president and chief executive of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

Politicians and regulators can be lobbied, of course, and carmakers say there are many issues to take into consideration before imposing stricter CAFE standards. G. Richard Wagoner Jr., president and chief operating officer of General Motors Corp., said at a media luncheon yesterday that it is unfair for the government to demand higher fuel economy without providing a market incentive for consumers to buy the products that result from such regulations.

"If we aren't going to do anything to address oil supply or oil pricing, that undermines what we do on the technology side," Wagoner said. He said GM and other automakers would rather focus on technology, and the panel of scientists agreed that that is where much of the solution lies, including advances such as direct-injection, lean-burning gas engines, direct-injection diesel engines and hybrid electric vehicles.

Cooper, whose group represents 13 major automobile manufacturers, also praised the panel's finding that CAFE standards can affect safety.

The panel found that when strict fuel standards were imposed in the late 1970s, automakers had so little time to react that they did what seemed simplest: made smaller, lighter cars. That tactic contributed to increased traffic deaths, the panel said -- including from 1,300 to 2,600 additional fatalities in 1993 alone.

Two members of the panel disagreed with that conclusion, writing in a dissent that the potential link between fuel standards and fatalities was "complex, ambiguous, poorly understood and not measurable by any known means."

To help guard against any possible impact on safety, though, the panel as a whole recommended phasing in new fuel standards over a 10-year to 15-year period.

The panel also advocated basing the CAFE system on tradable fuel economy credits, much as coal-fired power plants that violate air-quality standards are allowed to purchase emissions credits from cleaner facilities.

If Ford Motor Co. had trouble meeting fuel economy standards, for instance, it could buy credits from Honda, which tends to far exceed requirements.

Although the Sierra Club's Becker argued that such a system would actually make the current situation worse, Portney said that such flexible practices are necessary to tackle such a "complex and difficult task."

Portney defended the decision not to recommend specific gas mileage targets, saying that the panel's role was "to illustrate what are the technological possibilities and the attendant costs. It's the responsibility of Congress to make those trade-offs."

One of those trade-offs involves the will of the consumer, which is what worries the auto industry. Many drivers were unwilling to give up their SUVs even when gas prices were escalating, and a brief survey of local drivers yesterday found many concerned that tighter fuel standards would rob their trucks of power.

"If they can make it so that a truck still runs the way it's supposed to run, that's great," said Scottie Melo, of Bowie. Melo drives a Dodge Durango every day for his landscaping business and spends at least $100 on gas every week.

It's a price he's willing to pay. "I buy a big vehicle because I want my family to be safe," he said.

Bruce Duncan, of Upper Marlboro, said the $58 worth of gas he was pumping into his Chevy Suburban was worth the cost. A more fuel-efficient version would not have the same power or towing capability because it would be too light, he said.

"I could care less about gas mileage," Duncan said. "When fuel costs went up, I just sucked it up. You can't buy a large SUV and not expect to pay the price."
 

U.S. House rejects stricter SUV mileage standards
By Tom Doggett, Reuters
Thursday, August 02, 2001

WASHINGTON — In a big win for automakers, the U.S. House of Representatives refused Wednesday to require gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles to meet the same higher fuel-mileage requirements of passenger cars in six years.

The fuel-efficiency provision was offered in a broad energy bill that implements much of the Bush administration's plan to boost domestic oil and natural gas supplies.

The entire energy package includes more than $33 billion in tax breaks for the energy industry, funding to promote "clean coal" technology, programs to encourage solar power, purchases of hybrid vehicles, and the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drilling.

Lawmakers voted 269 to 160 against the amendment that would have forced Detroit to improve the fuel efficiency of SUVs, minivans, and light trucks from the current 20.7 miles per gallon (mpg) to 27.5 mpg by 2007.

Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., who sponsored the provision, said raising current mileage standards would save more oil than could be drilled in the Arctic refuge. Drilling in the Alaskan wilderness is the central plank of the White House energy plan. "There's just no persuasive argument against raising (fuel) standards. It's the simplest, most basic conservation step available to us," Boehlert said.

Opponents, however, said the higher fuel requirements would force automakers to build lighter, unsafe vehicles. "Don't kill Americans with this amendment," warned Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., gave a emotional plea against raising fuel standards and recalled how she believed her life was saved in an accident because she was driving a heavy SUV.

MODEST INCREASE IN MILEAGE

Late Wednesday night the House was expected to approve the overall comprehensive energy bill, which already includes language requiring the Transportation Department to reduce gasoline use of SUVs and light trucks by 5 billion gallons between 2004 and 2010.

Democrats and environmentalists claimed the fuel savings — which equals the amount of gasoline U.S. drivers use in two weeks — would increase the fuel efficiency of light trucks by less than 1 mpg.

"SUV owners can now look forward to the paltry savings of about one tank of gas each year," said the Union of Concerned Scientists. The group said 35 billion gallons of gasoline could be saved by 2010 if the higher fuel standards were adopted.

The Transportation Department is expected to begin working later this fall on raising the current fuel standards, relying in part on a report this week from the National Academy of Sciences that said automakers could increase fuel efficiency by as much as 46 percent over the next 10 to 15 years.

ALASKA DRILLING?

Much of the House debate centered on a provision in the bill allowing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a controversial plan endorsed by Bush administration to boost domestic energy supplies and cut foreign oil imports.

Rep. Nancy Johnson, R-Conn., and Edward Markey, D-Mass., planned to offer an amendment to keep the area closed to energy firms. A close vote on the issue was expected Wednesday night.

The White House made a final plea earlier in the day for lawmakers to defeat any move to block drilling in ANWR. The White House maintains energy firms could drill for oil and natural gas on about 2,000 acres (809.4 hectares) of the refuge's 19 million acres (7.689 million hectares) without harming the environment.

"The president believes it is very important to a balanced energy program to have conservation but also to explore," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters. "The president is hopeful going into the vote."

Republican lawmakers are concerned about public unease over the administration's energy policies. Green groups have also said they will work to defeat lawmakers in next year's congressional election who voted for drilling in ANWR. House lawmakers also had to consider the political reality that even if they voted to open the refuge, the Democrat-controlled Senate is set in September to block drilling in the Alaskan refuge.

Supporters said drilling would benefit the nation's energy supply with little, if any, cost to the environment. "It is a frozen desert with few signs of life," said Florida Republican Cliff Stearns of the refuge.

Government estimates have said the refuge could hold up to 16 billion barrels of oil, enough to replace the crude the United States imports from Iraq for 70 years. The U.S. market consumes close to 20 million barrels of petroleum a day and must import about 56 percent of that amount.

"America faces a serious degradation of our national security unless we move at once to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy," said Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas. "We need to take control of our own destiny."

Democrats also criticized the energy bill for containing billions of dollars in tax breaks for big oil companies already enjoying record profits. The tax relief would be paid for by dipping into the Medicare Trust Fund, they said. Rep. Markey said oil firms were "going to build a pipeline into the pockets of the senior citizens of our country." "It's nothing more than a grab bag of goodies" for the oil industry, said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn.


 

Sport Utility Vehicles, Hybrids Top Media Charts -
There's a First Time for Everything

Last update: May 31, 2001

By Jennifer Kelly, EMS

Activists who have been toiling away to warn the media, public and policymakers about "gas-guzzling" sport utility vehicles (SUVs) can finally celebrate. The message seems to be getting through.

Of the nearly 400 clips in the top 20 newspapers from May 1 through 24 dealing with SUVs, 135 focused on gas mileage or fuel efficiency. This is an impressive number when you consider that coverage of SUVs has also been focused on the Ford Explorer/Firestone Tire fiasco, concerns over vehicle safety, plummeting stock prices and corporate finger-pointing.

Here EMS takes a closer look at the words and themes in those 135 SUV clips.

 

References to Key Ideas or Themes
 
Renewable energy    26
 
Energy efficiency    33
 
Gas-guzzling/
gas-guzzlers		    55
 
Tax credit
(for hybrid vehicles)		    60
 
Bush-Cheney
energy plan		    106
 
Fuel efficiency    183
 
Hybrid vehicles    184
 
Sport utility vehicles/SUV    446

In the first three weeks in May 2001, hybrid vehicles are mentioned in these SUV articles 184 times. A search for media clips about hybrid vehicles just during this three-week period yields 93 articles. Compare this to a search of the same top 20 newspapers for the previous year (May 1, 2000 to May 1, 2001) yielding only 130 stories that contain references to hybrids. More and more media reports refer to "gas-guzzling" vehicles, and fuel efficiency is moving to center stage in predictions about the future of transportation.

 

Hybrid Vehicle Articles
 
May 1, 2000 to
May 1, 2001		    130
 
Three weeks
in May 2001		    93

Policymakers are also starting to march to the SUV-reform and fuel-efficiency drum, as the Boston Globe points out May 13. "SUVs took a hit last week when Senator Frank H. Murkowski, the Alaska Republican who chairs the Senate Energy Committee, said he would support more stringent fuel-efficiency standards for sport utility vehicles and light trucks as part of a broader plan."

It may take the public a bit longer to adjust its thinking. As the Associated Press points out May 19, "Americans are snapping up model-year 2001 cars and light trucks with an average fuel economy of 24.5 miles a gallon, continuing to buy vehicles with low gas mileage, the government says."

Everything must also be put into perspective, as the USA Today says May 22. "Complain as we may, the added cost to fill 'er up amounts to an extra $ 3 or $ 4 on average -- roughly the equivalent of a grande latte at Starbucks. That is nowhere as bad as the energy crisis during the 1970s, when gasoline prices more than tripled. When adjusted to 2001 dollars, gas prices would have to hit a sustained $2.62 a gallon nationwide to have the same impact."

The Bush-Cheney energy plan continues to take a beating as journalists reference the scare tactics and rhetoric of the Bush administration (see last analysis), yet point out that the administration does not attempt to implement policies that would avoid a crisis. As the Houston Chronicle notes on May 18, "Nor did [Bush] demand that automobile companies increase the fuel efficiency of gas-guzzlers, such as sport utility vehicles."

Environmental advocates and spokespeople seem to be holding their own in terms of being important resources for journalists on these stories. Specific groups such as the Sierra Club that are taking the lead on energy and fuel issues are quoted or referenced about as often as university researchers or government representatives.

 

Quoted or Referenced as a Source
 
University researchers    13
 
U.S. Senators or Representatives    13
 
EPA    17
 
Environmental Defense    4
 
Union of Concerned Scientists    7
 
Sierra Club    19
 
"Environmentalists"    56