School, college and other closings for Monday

MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all. 

Turn Up Your Support

With pollution and energy issues so much on the public mind, this is a crucial time for auto manufacturers selling in the United States, because in the public's mind cars are the front line in generating and reducing emissions. 


Those manufacturers are compelled by the government to meet certain "fleet" economy averages. These are known as the 

, or Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. They aim to reduce carbon emissions, and they force the manufacturers to meet the standards or face penalties. 


As a high schooler, I took a required civics class about the function of our economy and our government. That little bit of education is enough for me to see some practical and philosophical downsides to the way the CAFE standards function.


First, the federal government is directly requiring the manufacturers to meet the fuel economy standards. Those standards require the manufacturers to build vehicles people may not want to buy. Philosophically, this is contrary to the American tradition of free enterprise. 


It is also a lose-lose situation for all manufacturers selling in the United States. They either must build small, efficient vehicles that meet CAFE standards, but are sales disasters, or build what people want, and suffer federal penalties. Look at the 

, the first practical electric car, built in the mid '90s. Though the eco-minded California government liked the cars, and a small group of enthusiasts loved them, they were too expensive. The mainstream public did not embrace them. The EV1 simply could not survive. It's just capitalism.


In short, CAFE has done a better job of interfering with the mechanics of capitalism than of improving the nation's gas mileage, due to several key faults in the legislation.


My solution? Proportional taxes on both vehicle weight and fuel economy.


This would be more effective, for three important reasons. One, vehicle weight is one factor that affects everything else in a vehicle. The lighter a vehicle is, the better its fuel economy, not to mention braking, turning and handling ability.


The second is that a tax on fuel economy would make a larger impact on people's buying habits than most people realize. If the more fuel-efficient vehicle were cheaper than a gas guzzler, people would think with their wallets, and buy the cheaper, more fuel-efficient car.


And of course the last important reason is that we can achieve the same goal as the CAFE  standards while avoiding a direct mandate and reducing the deficit. And manufacturers will be free to put their development money into cars that people will want to buy. As capitalists, manufacturers should make what the people want, not what the federal government thinks people should buy.


So let's replace the CAFE standards with separate proportional taxes based on weight and economy. If people want a gas-guzzling, 3-ton behemoth status symbol, no one will stop them, but they will have to pay. It's a free country.


Ian Grinde recently finished 10th grade at Saint Louis Park High School. He enjoys tinkering with nitro RC cars, and reading about all things car related.

Gallery

Science

Business and Economic News

Environmental News

Minnesota News

Commentary

Ian Grinde

Author

Federal standards aim to force automakers to build cars that people don't want to buy. There's a better way.

Let marketplace be the engine that drives fuel economy

Go Deeper.

Like this?

News you can use in your inbox