Commentary

Congressman Dingell acted on behalf of the Detroit automakers which said that the proposed increase of 8.5 miles per gallon over 12 years would cost too much to achieve, would weaken their profitable SUV market and would result in auto worker job losses.

Detroit's argument is ultimately based on the premise that Americans don't want to buy more fuel efficient vehicles.  Given a choice between a V6 or a V8 SUV, we go for the V8 if we can afford it.  On average, we like our vehicles fast, big and powerful.

So is this a case of Washington meddling in affairs best left to Detroit marketing experts?  Or is it a case of Washington trying to save Detroit from its own resistance to improving its product and investing in the future?

I vote for greater fuel efficiency.  Demand for higher fuel efficiency is inevitable.  Protecting Detroit from tougher fuel efficiency standards doesn't make sense.  The world market (Europe and China, for example) already has significantly higher fuel efficiency requirements than the US does.  Higher efficiency engines are in Detroit's best interest. 

When Washington proposed automobile pollution controls in the 70's, seat belt requirements and then years later, air bag requirements, US automakers argued that these features would be too expensive, too dangerous, too unreliable, would cost jobs, that Americans don't want these features, etc..  Today I think Detroit would agree that these features are important parts of their product offering and that a new minivan without side air bags, for example, is going to have trouble with buyers. 

The fear here is not that the greater fuel efficiency cannot be achieved in 12 years.  The fear is that Japanese automakers will be able to achieve it more easily and at a lower cost because their engines are already more efficient.  There has got to be a way to get this done because not getting it done weakens US automakers anyway as gas prices rise and buyers shift to more fuel efficient cars.