Change the Climate Change Debate

By Marc Kilmer, posted June 13, 2008

With gas prices rising and alarm over global warming on the lips of everyone from John McCain to Sheryl Crow, it's trendier than ever to support policies to reduce gasoline usage or somehow combat climate change. In response, politicians are rushing to "do something." Congress is debating a climate change bill. State politicians in California are even looking at imposing their own greenhouse gas regulations. While they may be well-intentioned, it is hard to see how these legislative efforts will have any effect.

While there is still debate raging over whether climate change exists and how much humans impact the climate, let us assume for the sake of this argument that these questions have been settled. The globe is indeed warming and humans are having an impact on it. What, then, are the proper steps to take?

One of the steps supported by public officials is the legislation being offered by Senators John Warner (R-VA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT). The stated goal of this legislation is to decrease greenhouse gas usage. A noble goal, perhaps, but how will we accomplish this short of shutting down a large portion of our economy? No one - not even the bill's sponsors - seems to know.

Another bit of legislative evasion is coming from the state of California, which is looking for federal authority to pass its own law limiting greenhouse gases. Of course, the same problem exists with this legislation that bedevils the federal efforts - there is little idea how to go about achieving these savings.

One likely result if California gets its way is that the state would require higher fuel economy standards. Traditionally, this is not a state issue. It has always been handled by the federal government. In fact, at the national level, an increase in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards was enacted last year. Raising these CAFE standards will mean that the cars being used in the U.S. will, on average, have better fuel efficiency by 2020.

There are a variety of problems with CAFE standards. Sure, everyone likes the idea of being able to drive more miles per gallon of gas, but you can't get something for nothing. Increasing fuel efficiency means that vehicles must be lighter or engineered in some other way to achieve these savings. There is evidence to suggest that these changes have led to cars becoming less safe over time.

With American's historic love of large sports utility vehicles and pickup trucks, it seems that when consumers actually come to choosing, many prefer heavier vehicles over fuel efficiency. Perhaps they like the safety of heavier vehicles or the space they provide. Whatever their reason, not all consumers are alike and some will choose differently than others.

While California pursuing its own fuel economy rules may seem like a good example of federalism at work, there was a reason why the Founding Fathers gave the federal government power to regulate interstate commerce. If California and other states can set their own individual fuel economy standards, the burden that auto makers will face in complying with these laws will be overwhelming.

In an ideal world, Congress would recognize the power of consumer choice and do away with CAFE standards. As we are already seeing as a result of high gas prices, car customers look to buy more fuel efficient vehicles when it makes economic sense for them to do so. For instance, SUV sales are half what they were last year. There is no need for regulations to force people to make good economic choices. But if we are to have these fuel efficiency standards, they should be uniform national standards. Forcing car makers to face a hodge-podge of state rules would only further hurt struggling auto makers.

Both the Warner-Lieberman bill and the California greenhouse gas legislation are well-intentioned bills. After all, it's hard to argue with trying to help the environment. But in seeking to offer that help, legislators must make sure that their legislation will truly accomplish something and not unduly burden the nation's economy. Unfortunately, this is not the case here.

Marc Kilmer is a policy analyst with the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, a research and educational institute located in Columbus, Ohio.