Exceptions

It’s obviously frustrating that the final version of the fuel economy provision wending its way through congress is probably going to preserve the distinction between cars and trucks (including SUVs). There’s really no good justification, at all, for doing that. It’s weird, too, since many opponents of fuel economy standards cite the danger involved in making cars smaller. To the extent that that’s true, this distinction should have a larger size impact on small cars than on trucks, making roads more dangerous. But it’s not really true.

Anyway, the main point is that if we priced carbon, through a tax or a cap-and-trade system, none of this would matter. Driving a huge SUV everywhere would become as dumb a decision on a personal, financial level as it currently is on a global, climatic level.

Comments

  1. monkeyrotica says:

    One would think that a company like Ford that invested so much in SUV sales, then was brought to the brink of bankruptcy, would learn something from market economics. But apparently not when you have two oil men in the White House whose “energy policy” consists of increasing supply at all costs.

  2. AC says:

    I think CAFE is dumb — forcing car makers to lower the marginal cost of driving an extra mile is a dumb response to pollution/carbon externalities.

    Yes, I know the price elasticity of gasoline demand has been calculated at a low .2 – .25, but those studies were conducted when gas was a lot cheaper. Elasticity varies by price; it depends on where you are on the demand curve. It is likely that elasticity is much closer to 1 at today’s prices (and at tomorrow’s likely prices). The closer to 1, the dumber is CAFE.

    And, of course, CAFE is an inefficient way to get better fuel economy.

    You know the arguments . . .

    I agree that if we’re going to have CAFE, it makes no sense to distinguish between SUVs and cars.

  3. ryan says:

    Yep. I discussed some of that here.