Closing SUV loophole would help environment, wallets

Published 9:00 pm Wednesday, August 8, 2001

WASHINGTON — You try to be moderate enough to reach the many when you’re writing a column, but moderation is sometimes unsuitable: There just isn’t an ounce of prudence or good sense in the House of Representatives’ inaction last week on gas-mileage standards.

As you may have read, the House decided against closing something called the "SUV loophole." Now, bear with me a minute here and I think you’ll see — even if you’re an SUV lover — that this defies reason. Federal regulations require carmakers to produce fleets averaging 27.5 miles per gallon. When these regulations began in 1975, out of concern about reliance on foreign oil, light trucks were given a break. They were almost exclusively used for work, and represented a tiny percentage of sales. Their average mpg requirement was set at 20.7.

Since then, much has changed. SUVs have burgeoned in popularity. Sales of minivans, SUVs and pickups — all classified as light trucks — are expected to exceed passenger car sales for the first time this year. And fuel economy is at its lowest level since 1980. Meanwhile, it has grown ever clearer that controlling gas mileage is the most effective, most painless step we can take to reduce our dependence on foreign oil supplies and alleviate global warming — to say nothing of protecting American pocketbooks.

According to clearinghouse Environmental Media Services, 40 percent of the oil used in the United States is consumed by cars and light trucks. In turn, they emit 20 percent of the country’s carbon pollution — a major contributor to global warming. SUVs are especially heavy energy consumers — and carbon polluters. Indeed, a Washington Post story noted recently that fast growth of SUV sales in the Washington region now appears likely to push the area over its pollution limits for auto emissions.

The simple fact is that SUVs today are used to drive not around the farm, but over to the pharmacy. They’re used as cars — and their mileage requirements ought to be the same as for cars, too.

The potential effect of overall mileage savings on vehicles is huge. Again, according to EMS: "Raising (fuel-efficiency) standards to 40 miles per gallon for cars and light trucks would save more oil than our Persian Gulf imports, offshore California drilling and potential deposits in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge combined."

No one imagined Congress would go for that high a standard — though it wousld be well within automakers’ capabilities. But when Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, a New York Republican who chairs the House Science Committee, stepped to a Capitol Hill podium on May 10 to introduce legislation bringing SUVs to auto-level compliance, this modest — and self-evidently correct — step seemed highly achievable, even after years of resistance.

But that was before the Teamsters and the United Auto Workers swung into action. Understandably concerned about jobs — companies had reportedly threatened to cut back if fuel-efficiency standards were strengthened — they swarmed Congress, demanding rejection of the higher standards. The companies’ manipulation of the workers was shameful — SUVs produce a profit margin 10 times higher than sedans or minivans, according to an article in the April issue of Harpers — but it was successful.

Democrats like David Bonior of Michigan joined the likes of Majority Whip Tom DeLay to defeat the measure, 269-160. What Boehlert rightly called "a fig leaf" of inadequate standards took its place.

Many of the same representatives, who then went on to vote for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, said they were motivated on that issue by the danger our reliance on foreign oil poses to our national security. You have to wonder where that concern had been during the debate on closing the SUV loophole, which would provide even more oil, according to its advocates.

The story is not over yet. The energy bill now goes to the Senate, which will take it up after its August recess. The truth is — here’s my ounce of moderation — I don’t really know what to think of ANWR drilling. The technology has progressed so far, perhaps the drilling could be clean enough today that those pristine lands could mostly remain so. But this measure — saving fuel and cleaning up the air — is a no-brainer.

As Rep. Anna Eshoo of California put it: "The Congress can do better. We’re not the automobile industry. We’re the Congress of the United States."

Here’s hoping the Senate will remember the difference.

Geneva Overholser can be reached at The Washington Post Writers Group, 1150 15th St. NW, Washington, DC 20071-9200 or overholserg@washpost.com.