Rolling Back Car Emissions Regulations: Do the Claims Hold Up?
In the past few months, U.S. and foreign vehicle manufacturers have taken sides in an ongoing debate over emissions standards. The Obama-era emissions standards, set in 2012, mandated an increase in fuel economy on new vehicles to 54.5 mpg by 2026. The Trump administration’s rollback calls for fuel efficiency standards on new vehicles to be frozen at 37 mpg after 2020. The Trump administration has also intervened — with support from several major vehicle manufacturers including Fiat Chrysler, General Motors, and Toyota — to prevent California from setting its own independent emissions standards.
The Trump administration has made a number of claims about the benefits of this rollback. EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler claimed that the rollback would “save 12,000 lives and $500 billion.” The threefold reasoning for these claims is outlined in an EPA report. Some fuel efficiency increases depend on reducing the weight of vehicles, and the report states that lighter cars are more vulnerable in the event of a crash. The report claims that more fuel-efficient cars will cost more, which means that drivers will be less likely to buy newer cars with the latest safety features. The report also claims that increases in fuel efficiency will incentivize drivers to drive more, cancelling out efficiency gains.
But do these claims actually hold up, or is this just spin? And, furthermore, are there more effective and eco-friendly ways to achieve the stated goals of saving money and lives?
Claim #1: Lighter Cars are More Dangerous
It is true that lighter cars do take the brunt of the impact in collisions with heavier cars. However, the claim that “lighter cars are more dangerous” comes from the perspective of drivers, not of other people using the road. Since both pedestrians and cyclists weigh significantly less than cars, crashes involving pedestrians and cyclists — which collectively result in an average of 5,000 fatalities a year — will be less severe on average, and therefore less likely to result in fatality, when they occur with lighter cars. One 2004 study found that pedestrians are twice as likely to die in a collision with an SUV, compared to a collision with a car.
Of course, in car-centric American culture, it is de rigeur for the needs of pedestrians and cyclists to come last. However, the population is increasing, and, moreover, public demand is increasing for more walkable and cyclable neighborhoods. Therefore, vehicle collisions involving pedestrians and cyclists will likely increase in frequency without other interventions. In fact, the rate of fatal pedestrian-vehicle collisions increased by 46% between 2009 and 2016.
Additionally, while drivers in large, heavy cars such as SUVs may be more likely to survive a crash, they also may be more likely to get into a crash in the first place. The stereotype of the intimidating, road-rage-afflicted SUV driver may have some evidentiary merit. One Australian study found that SUV drivers drive more aggressively on average than drivers of any other type of vehicle, and even were the most likely to “have had an accident in the last five years because of their own impatience.” It is possible that drivers of larger passenger cars become more reckless and aggressive due to the insulating effect of knowing that they are more likely to survive a crash.
Given the above two factors, it is questionable whether a vehicle-size “arms race” is the best way to solve the problem of motor vehicle deaths. Vehicle size and weight constitute only one contributing factor in collision severity. And of course, the frequency of automobile collisions has nothing to do with the sizes of the cars involved. According to the NHTSA, human error is a factor in over 90% of crashes. Alcohol is involved in about 28% of vehicle collisions, and other drugs are involved in about 16% of vehicle collisions.
Perhaps we should be focusing less on owning the largest and heaviest car possible to gain the advantage in a possible collision. That leads to counterproductive effects by making the road more unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists, causing many drivers to act in a more reckless and aggressive manner, and leading to increased environmental damage. Instead, it may be more effective to focus resources on preventing crashes from happening in the first place.
Claim #2: People Drive More When They Own More Fuel-Efficient Vehicles
A Texas A&M study found that there is no correlation between owning a more fuel-efficient car and driving more. The study looked at people who participated in the Cash for Clunkers program. Participants traded in cars that got gas mileage below 18 mpg in exchange for a cash rebate, which could then be used to purchase a more fuel-efficient car. The study found that most people who participated in this program did indeed purchase a more fuel-efficient car with the money they received. However, on average, they drove just as much after purchasing a newer car as they did beforehand.
This finding also is consistent with common sense. Most people drive places because they need to — because they have no other fast and convenient way of getting there. People in general are not going to waste money and time driving around aimlessly if they don’t have to, regardless of whether they are wasting more or less money by doing so.
The primary factor in influencing whether someone drives somewhere is likely whether or not they can get there quickly and easily by an alternate transportation method. Therefore, if the goal is to incentivize people to drive less, the more effective intervention is to increase the availability of alternate transportation methods. For example, neighborhoods can be made more walkable and cyclable through additions such as sidewalks, bike lanes, crosswalks, and curb cuts. More consistent enforcement of traffic laws helps to reduce pedestrian and cyclist fatalities and increase drivers’ adherence to pedestrian right-of-way laws. Better neighborhood design also leads to neighborhoods that are easier to navigate without a car.
More walkable and cyclable neighborhoods have a host of other benefits as well. Residents of walkable neighborhoods tend to have better rates of overall health, better cognition, stronger social connections, and lower rates of lifestyle-related illnesses such as obesity and diabetes. It also stands to reason that more walkable neighborhoods have lower rates of air and noise pollution. This means that more walkable and cyclable neighborhoods lead not only to reduced driving rates, but also to lives being saved. This is an intervention that actually accomplishes two of the stated goals of the emissions rollback while also reducing environmental damage — a win-win.
Claim #3: People Will Not Be Able to Afford Newer, Safer Vehicles If Those Vehicles Are Made More Fuel-Efficient
There is evidence refuting the claim that more fuel-efficient cars are bound to be unaffordable. Cars in Europe are much more fuel-efficient on average than cars in the United States. Yet, the average car on the road in Europe is only 7.4 years old, while the average car on the road in the United States is 11.8 years old. Clearly, other factors besides the cost of fuel efficiency upgrades play a more definitive role in determining whether people can afford newer cars.
Also, while more efficient cars may cost more up front, they save a lot of money over time on fuel costs. Currently, new cars get around 24.7 mpg. An increase in average fuel efficiency to 54.5 mpg will save thousands of dollars in fuel costs over the life of the car, depending on the price of fuel. The price of fuel, of course, is highly dependent on a number of internal and external factors, and is subject to rapid change.
In fact, a 2018 Consumer Federation of America study found that “fuel savings exceeded fuel economy technology costs for 94% of all new 2017 models.” One of the authors of the study stated: “the fuel savings that result from the [Obama-era emissions] standard more than pay for the annual increases to cost of the vehicle. The fuel savings also cover […] the cost of new safety features, like automatic crash protection, automatic braking, and automatic lane changing.”
So What’s Really Going On Here?
Are the stated goals of saving lives, reducing vehicle usage, and reducing costs of new vehicles the real impetus for the emissions rollback?
The evidence suggests there may be an ulterior motive. For years, many of the world’s major vehicle manufacturers have been spending millions of dollars on lobbying governments to not take action on climate change. The companies which have engaged the most in this type of lobbying — such as Fiat Chrysler, Toyota, and General Motors — are the same companies that support the emissions rollback and oppose California’s attempt to set its own emissions standards. Environmental experts state that many vehicle manufacturers put on a facade to consumers of supporting environmentally friendly measures, while acting to dismantle those same measures behind the scenes.
This lobbying has even sunk to the level of climate change denial. A 2018 Atlantic article stated that the Auto Alliance, a lobbying group representing Ford and Toyota, sent a letter to the EPA “suggest[ing] that climate scientists were ‘tuning’ their models to get certain results, and…cast[ing] doubt on whether global warming would cause droughts, floods, and more intense hurricanes.”
In a recent Guardian article, Julia Poliscanova, director of clean vehicles for the Transport & Environment NGO, stated that the automotive industry has avoided investing in fuel efficient and electric technologies because, as usual, they are unwilling to sacrifice short-term profits for long-term gains. Instead, vehicle manufacturers have tried to stretch out the profits of their existing models for as long as possible by delaying the transition to low- and zero-emissions vehicles. They now claim that the burden is too onerous to meet emissions targets on a timely schedule, but in reality, that is mostly because they have deliberately procrastinated and delayed implementing it.
In the end, this emissions rollback seems to be more about the usual corporate bottom line, than anything to do with improving the lives of citizens.
