FUEL ECONOMY: IT’S ALL ABOUT "CHOICE"

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the National Automobile Dealers Association have launched a brilliant new interactive website in the raging battle for a sensible national fuel economy policy. Autochoice.org poses the salient question:

"Why do people drive what they drive?"

Undoubtedly banking on the thirty-plus year winning streak that the concept of "choice" has achieved in liberal circles, the AAM and NADA have properly refocused the fuel economy debate on the market choices of consumers. The Autochoice website points out "When considering what kind of vehicle to buy, consumers evaluate all the different uses they will demand of their new car or light truck. Most consumers select vehicles that best serve their peak uses — even if these attributes may be used infrequently.

In other words, consumers buy what they NEED!

"Peak" functional attributes, such as load carrying capacity, trailer towing ability, and higher passenger ratings have largely driven a huge shift since 1970 from automobiles to light trucks. According to the Autochoice website, light trucks accounted for 53 percent of U.S. light vehicle registrations in 2006! This is obviously one of the unintended consequences of the EXISTING Corporate Fuel Economy Average scheme.

The predominant interactive feature of the Autochoice website is a stunning map of the United States of America, which breaks down the truck vs. car registration data on a state-by-state basis.

Autoblog Green howls "Wow, is that site tailored-made for Senators on the fence on this issue or what?" Interestingly, the few states where cars outnumber trucks are all "blue states." Much like the famous "Bush vs. Gore" map of 2000, the RED STATES are solidly "light truck country."

The brilliant aspect of Autochoice.org is that it "tees up" positioning those who demand unrealistic Corporate Average Fuel Economy mandates as "anti-choice!"

Autochoice.org is clearly a better effort than the AAM’s earlier internet salvo, drivecongress.com, because it tilts the debate to a common-sense, "kitchen table" issue for politicians and voters.

Certainly, a mass of technologically unsophisticated voters "want it all" (i.e. a massive SUV with hybrid-style fuel economy, no compromises in functionality, and no price increase). And the hard core "greeniacs" apparently could care less about how small businesses, sportsmen, "country folk" and large families actually use vehicles in "flyover country." Instead they pine on for a future based on tiny, urbanized hybrids and government-controlled mass transit. Both of these groups are detached from the technical and economic realities at stake.

Of course, the reality is that even H.R. 2927, the industry-backed "Hill-Terry" alternative Corporate Average Fuel Economy bill, will dramatically increase new vehicle prices and gut consumer choices. But the wholly unrealistic Markey bill is a prescription for economic disaster.

Hill-Terry "sets rigorous standards for automobile fuel economy that are very challenging but achievable - a combined fleet average that will be between 32 mpg and 35 mpg in Model Year 2022." As Speedzzter has pointed out before, even the less draconian Hill-Terry targets may extract significant damage from the "sports and high performance" niches.

Thus, Autochoice could go further than it does:

• It could emphasize that many people choose larger vehicles for increased safety.
• It could acknowledge the significant niches for limited use sports cars and high performance vehicles, both of which could be decimated by unnecessarily strict fuel economy standards.
• It could point out that increased costs for new vehicles will be disproportionately borne by lower income Americans (who will be increasingly deprived of newer, safer and more functional vehicles by the increased buy-in of turbo-diesel engines and other expensive, complex fuel saving technologies).

Still, the Autochoice campaign is a baby step in the right direction. Hopefully it will educate some of those who see light vehicles as "magic black boxes" that could become dramatically more efficient merely upon the whims of a few Washington liberals. Hopefully it will help politicians and voters to view the issue of "vehicular choice" a bit more soberly.