I. Introduction
Oh, what a tangled web we weave . . . when first we practice to deceive.
― Walter Scott, Marmion
The internal combustion automobile transformed American life. It liberated rural counties from the tyranny of distance and displaced the horse and buggy. Throughout the 20th century, internal combustion automobiles got better on every metric, and quality-adjusted prices fell. Today’s spark-ignition automobiles offer incredible acceleration, towing capacity, comfort, space, range, and yes, even fuel economy, at prices Americans can afford. They’ve gotten better on other metrics too. Since the 1970s, automobile manufacturers have reduced smog-forming emissions by an astonishing 99%. All new cars today are “clean cars.”
The Biden Administration now seeks to discard the internal combustion engine—and a century’s worth of innovation and improvement—through a “whole-of-government” approach, in cahoots with California. The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) is proposing to do its part to carry out this bureaucratic agenda. By proposing fuel efficiency standards so stringent only hybrids and plug-in electric cars can meet them, NHTSA seeks to gradually phase out the internal combustion engine.
NHTSA and the Biden Administration, to be sure, have no serious plan beyond banning internal combustion engines. NHTSA simply assumes the enormous quantity of minerals—such as copper, cobalt, and lithium—needed to supply the electric automobiles it imagines will materialize. It says nothing about the geopolitical risks of relying on China’s coal-powered mineral monopoly to supply the vast quantity of raw materials needed for this “transition.” And it shrugs away all the greenhouse gases and pollution that’ll be shifted to the industrial sectors of third-world countries in the process.
To carry out this half-baked industrial plan, the agency relies on a tangled web of dissembling and deception. Chief among these misrepresentations is that, on the whole, the proposal would somehow be a boon for both the climate and consumers. This is fantasy. The proposal won’t make a difference to the climate, and it will be very expensive.
Fuel efficiency standards are an inherently inefficient way to reduce fuel use—or, what’s the same, carbon emissions from combustion. The way to do this would be a gas tax, but that’s a political nonstarter, as are de jure electric vehicle mandates. That’s why the Administration needs a “whole-of-government” plan: by distorting price signals through an opaque Rube-Goldberg machine of fiscal subsidies, regulatory cross-subsidies, and state laws, it avoids political accountability for the unacceptable social cost to Americans.
NHTSA’s principal lie takes the form of “behavioral economics.” The agency postulates that car drivers are extremely myopic, in that they irrationally ignore most of the fuel savings they could get if they invested in more efficient automobiles, such as hybrid cars. NHTSA, in short, says the proposal is here to help drivers buy better cars—coincidentally, those preferred by the Administration.
The only myopia is NHTSA’s. NHTSA assumes that fuel economy standards have zero opportunity costs to consumers, the fallacy of the free lunch. Of course, that’s not the case. When fuel economy standards tighten, manufacturers give up improving features that drivers like better than fuel economy—such as acceleration, space, towing capacity. When consumer preferences are considered, NHTSA’s rules harm, rather than help, consumers. Only by ignoring real consumer preferences, and assuming away all trade-offs, can NHTSA pretend the proposal will help consumers buy better cars.
But the laws of physics and economics have finally caught up with NHTSA. Deep within the preamble, NHTSA for the first time makes a remarkable concession: It admits that the proposed car standard will cost society over five billion on net. The costs are so high even NHTSA’s distorted math can no longer serve as a justification.
* * *
NHTSA lacks legal authority to carry out the Biden Administration’s plan to deindustrialize the Midwest and enrich China. But if it’s going to try anyway, it should at least be honest about the real cost.
DOT’s proposed fuel efficiency standards would force EVs on customers without regard to cost or environmental harm
I. Introduction
Oh, what a tangled web we weave . . . when first we practice to deceive.
― Walter Scott, Marmion
The internal combustion automobile transformed American life. It liberated rural counties from the tyranny of distance and displaced the horse and buggy. Throughout the 20th century, internal combustion automobiles got better on every metric, and quality-adjusted prices fell. Today’s spark-ignition automobiles offer incredible acceleration, towing capacity, comfort, space, range, and yes, even fuel economy, at prices Americans can afford. They’ve gotten better on other metrics too. Since the 1970s, automobile manufacturers have reduced smog-forming emissions by an astonishing 99%. All new cars today are “clean cars.”
The Biden Administration now seeks to discard the internal combustion engine—and a century’s worth of innovation and improvement—through a “whole-of-government” approach, in cahoots with California. The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) is proposing to do its part to carry out this bureaucratic agenda. By proposing fuel efficiency standards so stringent only hybrids and plug-in electric cars can meet them, NHTSA seeks to gradually phase out the internal combustion engine.
NHTSA and the Biden Administration, to be sure, have no serious plan beyond banning internal combustion engines. NHTSA simply assumes the enormous quantity of minerals—such as copper, cobalt, and lithium—needed to supply the electric automobiles it imagines will materialize. It says nothing about the geopolitical risks of relying on China’s coal-powered mineral monopoly to supply the vast quantity of raw materials needed for this “transition.” And it shrugs away all the greenhouse gases and pollution that’ll be shifted to the industrial sectors of third-world countries in the process.
To carry out this half-baked industrial plan, the agency relies on a tangled web of dissembling and deception. Chief among these misrepresentations is that, on the whole, the proposal would somehow be a boon for both the climate and consumers. This is fantasy. The proposal won’t make a difference to the climate, and it will be very expensive.
Fuel efficiency standards are an inherently inefficient way to reduce fuel use—or, what’s the same, carbon emissions from combustion. The way to do this would be a gas tax, but that’s a political nonstarter, as are de jure electric vehicle mandates. That’s why the Administration needs a “whole-of-government” plan: by distorting price signals through an opaque Rube-Goldberg machine of fiscal subsidies, regulatory cross-subsidies, and state laws, it avoids political accountability for the unacceptable social cost to Americans.
NHTSA’s principal lie takes the form of “behavioral economics.” The agency postulates that car drivers are extremely myopic, in that they irrationally ignore most of the fuel savings they could get if they invested in more efficient automobiles, such as hybrid cars. NHTSA, in short, says the proposal is here to help drivers buy better cars—coincidentally, those preferred by the Administration.
The only myopia is NHTSA’s. NHTSA assumes that fuel economy standards have zero opportunity costs to consumers, the fallacy of the free lunch. Of course, that’s not the case. When fuel economy standards tighten, manufacturers give up improving features that drivers like better than fuel economy—such as acceleration, space, towing capacity. When consumer preferences are considered, NHTSA’s rules harm, rather than help, consumers. Only by ignoring real consumer preferences, and assuming away all trade-offs, can NHTSA pretend the proposal will help consumers buy better cars.
But the laws of physics and economics have finally caught up with NHTSA. Deep within the preamble, NHTSA for the first time makes a remarkable concession: It admits that the proposed car standard will cost society over five billion on net. The costs are so high even NHTSA’s distorted math can no longer serve as a justification.
* * *
NHTSA lacks legal authority to carry out the Biden Administration’s plan to deindustrialize the Midwest and enrich China. But if it’s going to try anyway, it should at least be honest about the real cost.