Autos: Scott Burgess' Blog

Emissions don't kill people, government regulations kill people

Here's a little footnote that struck me while reading about the new EPA/NHTSA fuel economy standards: The government estimates that more people are going to die because of the regulations.

Does that mean the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have become the first government sponsored Death Panel?

Here's an excerpt from The Detroit News story today.

"Under a worst-case scenario, NHTSA said the new requirements would result in an estimated 493 additional "weight-related" auto deaths from 2016 models. Under that scenario, nearly 1,100 additional people could die over the lifetime of the 2012-16 models, with about 250 of those through 2020. The fatalities would have a net societal cost of up to $15 billion."

Now to be fair, the EPA/NHTSA does try to wash its hands of this mess by saying that, well, maybe the auto industry could defy physics and do something to make smaller, lighter cars safer. Maybe the panel should pass a regulation on that too: "We hereby declare our laws will supersede those of nature."

See, even these government yahoos know that smaller, lighter cars tend to crumple up worse in an accident. It's because they are smaller and lighter. This leads to more fatal accidents in smaller vehicles. Now add to the equation a large vehicle smashing into a smaller one and things get worse. Who would you bet on walking away from an accident between a Chevy Suburban and Chevy Aveo?

Raising fuel economy standards is smart -- every automaker needs to offer efficient vehicles.

The higher standards will help cut down on oil consumption. Conservation -- of everything -- is currently in vogue and, realistically, it's a responsible way to live your life. Having a fuel efficient vehicle is one way to conserve.

However, thinking carmakers simply have some kind of on-the-shelf technology they can plug into a vehicle to make it reach the new standards is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Big oil did not secretly buy that 100 mpg carburetor and give it to GM or Ford or Chrysler.

Every carmaker, even the American ones, do everything they can to get that last mile per gallon. Who started the trend of six-speed transmissions on four-cylinder engines? (Correct answer: GM, followed quickly by Ford). They do it because consumers demand it, not because the government mandates it.

Do you think the Chevy Equinox is doing so well out of the gates because of government regulations? Of course not, it's a hot seller because it gets 32 mpg on the highway. The race to sell cars and trucks has always included high mileage numbers -- the higher the number, often, the higher the sales. As fuel prices have gone up â€" and the scare from last year â€" fuel economy is more important. (Of course, this has been one of the arguments for artificially raising the cost of fuel, which is idiotic and stupid, but, no doubt, I believe, will happen in the coming years.)

And there are improvements every day. There are turbocharged engines allowing carmakers to add power with smaller displacements and the electrification of vehicles (which are ideal for people who don't want to see the pollution they're creating and sleep smugly at night while that coal-fired power plant charging up their car spews smoke in some far away country side -- because, you know what, that's what's really happening).

However, mileage is not always king. Even if it's the most important factor for buying a vehicle, it's not the only factor.

I'd love to drive a 30 mpg F-150, physics won't let me. The weight needed to make a vehicle capable of hauling 10,000 pounds, while carrying a five-man crew doesn't exist. Will it in the future? Maybe, but if someone could make it right now, I have no doubt they would. It would set sales records in the worst automotive market in a generation.

Really, I'm not sure what to make of the government admission that the new fuel standards will result in the loss of life. Maybe its just being practical. Maybe it thinks sacrificing 500 lives is worth forcing people to buy smaller cars. Of course, roughly 500 people might disagree.

I just have to assume these people realize if you're going to make an automotive omelet, the yolks on them.