New cars are pretty green — hybrid or not.
Thanks to chemical exhaust scrubbers (catalytic converters), the
precision of electronic fuel injection and computer-controlled
engine management systems, less than 5 percent of the tailpipe
exhaust of a new/late model car is other than water vapor and
carbon dioxide — up till now considered by both chemistry and the
law a harmless, inert gas.
But there’s the rub.
Global warming advocates claim that motor vehicles are
contributing to rising world temperatures and want to have carbon
dioxide re-classified as a “pollutant” subject to EPA (or state
level) regulation under vehicle emissions control laws. They’ve
just won a major court battle, too. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4
decision this spring, ruled that that EPA must re-evaluate whether
carbon dioxide should be considered an “exhaust emission” — and
regulated accordingly. The majority opinion was written by Justice
John Paul Stevens, who said (in part) that the “harms associated
with climate change are serious and well-recognized… .”
But while “climate change” (and specifically, a warming trend in
average global temperatures) is one thing, human-caused climate
change is arguably another thing entirely. It’s quite a leap to go
from the former to the latter — and absent scientific proof that
human activity does, in fact, cause “climate change,” it might be
worth reconsidering whether such draconian steps are justified.
Because unlike earlier efforts to clean up vehicle exhaust
emissions with technology and more efficient engine designs, the
only way to reduce carbon dioxide output is to burn less fuel.
Period.
That will means smaller engines — and smaller vehicles. There’s
no way to get around it. Burning a gallon of gas results in the
creation of a set amount of CO2 that cannot be “converted” into
some other compound in the way that catalytic converters chemically
transform harmful compounds into harmless ones. And the volume of
CO2 created is such that it cannot be stored or “sequestered” as
the vehicle is driven (unlike modern diesel engines, which use
particulate traps to capture the soot that would otherwise be
released into the atmosphere).
For domestic automakers — already reeling from the effects of
exorbitant health care and pension “legacy costs” — an EPA diktat
that effectively outlaws the larger vehicles they specialize in
(and which remain one of the few segments where they’ve been able
to retain market share and make a profit) could be the straw that
finally breaks the camel’s back. The mainline Japanese automakers
— who specialize in smaller cars — are much better positioned to
absorb such a blow. If it seems like the early '70s all over again,
you’re not alone in so thinking. We (or at least our leaders in
Congress) seem to have an instinct for national economic suicide
when it comes to passing laws that cripple our own manufacturing
base while giving huge artificial advantages to foreign
competitors.
MEANWHILE, IT’S DEBATABLE whether laws requiring the auto industry
to build smaller engines and smaller vehicles would even succeed at
reducing the net output of CO2 from motor vehicles. As has happened
previously in the case of federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy
(CAFE) mandates, there may be unintended consequences in using
legislative/regulatory fiat to try to alter market dynamics. For
one, people may simply drive more. After all, there would be every
incentive to do so. This is precisely what happened with CAFE;
today, the average driver puts 12,000-15,000 miles on his vehicle
annually. In part, this can be attributed to the fact that modern
cars, relative to similar-in-size cars of the past, are more
fuel-efficient. It’s cheaper to drive farther than it once was —
and so people drive their cars more often and for greater
distances. Nationally and individually, average fuel consumption is
higher than ever — notwithstanding CAFE standards.
Arguably, in spite of them. It’s not hard to understand why. But
Congress doesn’t see it.
Whether you subscribe to human-caused global warming theory or
not, what is the point of using regulatory power to compel the
automakers to build smaller engines and smaller vehicles — if
those vehicles just end up being driven more? Whether it’s a V-8
SUV that sees 8,000 miles of use annually vs. a compact with a
four-cylinder that’s driven 16,000 miles, the net total output of
carbon dioxide may be about the same. Perhaps more.
We’ll just have forced our domestic auto industry to commit
seppuku in the process.
However, the broader issue remains the question of global
warming itself — and specifically, whether human action, such as
the operation of motor vehicles, is causing it. While climate
scientists agree about the warming trend, there is no certainty as
to the cause. Some believe it is a natural, cyclical phenomenon;
others that recent upticks in global temperatures may be the result
of increased solar activity. Still others believe industrial
activity is the cause — or perhaps a contributing factor. But the
answer is far from definitive. Passing laws and issuing potentially
strangling regulations on the basis of speculation — especially
when it is as politically charged as is the issue of human-caused
global warming — makes about as much sense as taking that
homeless-looking guy with his “The End is Near” cardboard sign off
the street and putting him in front of the controls of a 747 at
40,000 feet.
In either case, the end result is going to be ugly.
