The received wisdom is that when Americans buy vehicles, they consider gas mileage when gas prices are high and mostly ignore it when gas prices are low. As this is being written, gas prices are relatively low and gas mileage concerns are probably low on the list for most buyers. As such, it is not surprising that the Trump administration has decided to lower the fuel efficiency standards of the Biden administration. This is consistent with the Trump administration’s approach of trying to undo what Biden did, primarily because it was done by Biden. He had a similar approach to the Obama administration.
When the Trump administration did the same thing in his first term, they said the standards were “wrong” and were set as a matter of politics. One plausible economic reason to oppose fuel efficiency in cars and light trucks is that more efficient vehicles also cost more. This economic argument can be retooled into a moral argument: saving consumers money is the right thing to do. But there is also an economic argument in favor of greater fuel efficiency.
While gas prices can vary greatly, increased fuel efficiency will offset increased vehicle costs and result in the consumer saving money. As such, the long-term economic argument favors fuel efficiency. As before, this can be retooled into a moral argument that saving Americans money is a good thing. But consumers saving money would seem to mean lower profits for the fossil fuel industry.
If, for example, an efficient vehicle saves me $4,000 in fuel costs over its life, then that is $4,000 less for the fossil fuel industry. While few would shed tears over lost profits for the industry executives, the broader impact must also be considered. While the executives reap the most benefits, the fossil fuel industry also includes the people working at gas stations and in the production and distribution of the fuel. If the harm done to these people outweighs the good done for the consumers, then increased fuel efficiency would, on utilitarian grounds, seem to be wrong. But it seems unlikely that the savings to consumers would cause more harm than good. After all, if we compare the benefit of the average American saving money to the harm of a microscopic loss of profit for fossil fuel CEOs, then efficiency seems to be the right choice. In addition to the economic concerns and the associated ethical worries, there are also concerns about health.
While the Trump administration does not seem to care about the harms of pollution, about 50,000 deaths each year result from the air pollution caused by traffic. There are also many non-lethal health impacts of this pollution, such as asthma. Increased fuel efficiency means vehicles burn less fuel, thus reducing the air pollution they produce per mile. Because of this, increasing fuel efficiency will reduce deaths and illnesses caused by air pollution. This health argument can be retooled easily into a moral argument: increasing fuel efficiency reduces pollution deaths and illness, and, on utilitarian grounds, this would be morally good. But this argument only works with those who care about the lives and health of others. That is, it should work with people who profess to be pro-life. But it will not, for the usual and obvious reasons.
It is reasonable to ask about how significant the reduction in deaths and illness might be. Arguments can also be made to try to show that the reduction in pollution would not be significant enough to justify increasing fuel efficiency on these grounds. It also should be noted that we, as a people, tolerate roughly 40,000 vehicle deaths per year. As such, continuing to tolerate deaths from air pollution is also an option. Tolerating deaths and illness for convenience and economic reasons is as American as apple pie.
For those not swayed by health concerns, there are national security and economic arguments that have been advanced for increasing fuel efficiency and they can still be applied today. One argument is that increased fuel efficiency will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and make us safer. This security argument can also be presented as a moral argument based on the good consequences of increased security.
Another argument is based on the claim that buying foreign oil increases our trade deficit and this is economically harmful to the United States. Because of the negative consequences, this argument can also be refit as a moral argument in favor of increasing fuel efficiency. Given the Trump administration’s professed obsession with national security and trade deficits, these arguments should be appealing to them. But it is not.
Given the above arguments, there are excellent reasons to maintain the goal of increasing the fuel efficiency of cars and light trucks. While there are some reasons not to do so, such as helping the fuel industry increase profits, this would be the wrong choice.
Bare bones, pragmatist account: fuel effeciency = economics, and/or, environmental and health preservation. *dirty*, fuel, bad; “clean” fuel, good, or, gasoline and diesel, bad; electricity and compressed natural gas good. There are trade-offs, as always. I can’t afford a T—-a….cannot buy one; could not afford to maintain one if I COULD buy it. So, I am stuck with my old-fashioned V——–n. (don’t trouble yourself counting the -‘s; you already know what I am talking about). A much younger neighbor with wife and two kids under ten, had a T—-a. They live in an apartment, two doors from mine. The car was, for previously mentioned reasons, not a good choice for them. So they gave it up, and drive *dirty* fuel vehicles like mine. Case, suspended, or, delayed—held, in abeyance?
postponed? continued? Something like that…
Afterthought:
Inasmuch as fuel prices are an accepted contingency of commerce and economics, is that an *ethical* issue at all? Isn’t it more like a fact-of-life matter of fact?
A generic *we* may hope for ethical and moral behavior from our brothers and sisters. This hope, or expectation, bestows no obligation upon anyone, whether they are ethical, moral, or even think about it. Your subject, therefore, falls short of reality, unless we are discussing an older one. I think my view is different, only in terms of my view of reality, as I see that now. That reality I have characterized as contextual, based in interests, motives and preferences. It is not particularly new—only an inconvenient truth Al Gore talked around, in another context, some years ago…Gore is/was a quiet man, background support—no bluster. Now, we have something else. So, no, IMHO, fuel effeciency is not a moral issue. It is peripheral to our heros of choice. How we select those reflects our notion(s) AROUND ethics and morality. Right now, the score is, ethics,0; morality, -1…a rough estimation. Of course.
I suppose, in a largest sense, fuel efficiency IS an ethical issue. However, those who make money from fuel production and distribution probably do not think much about that. Nor, are they likely to. Contextual reality, see. Inasmuch as we do not think about ethics when it does not *fit* our notion(s) of reality, it does not fit, period So, by comparison and reference, conservation generally is an ethical issue,yes? I think so. I, nor you, need write a treatise on that. Contextual reality erases what we once knew as truth. Ahem.
Change is irrevocable. Yeah.