What's in Your Tailpipe?
I can finally relate to the libertarians. The State of Oregon forced me to drive my car today – to the DEQ for my emissions test. I should place an asterisk next to those miles on my statistics page since I was forced to drive against my will. I propose setting an annual mileage threshold for having to get your car tested. Should we really be concerned about a beat up jalopy spewing emissions for 1,000 miles a year? That driver should rewarded rather than punished. Plus, is there a sight more filled with irony than a line of idling cars polluting the air waiting to get tested to make sure they aren’t polluting the air? At a minimum, there should be large signs telling drivers to turn off their engines while they wait. Why are drivers so determined to keep their engines running even when they know they’re in for a long wait? The guy next to me was periodically revving his engine. I wasn’t sure if this was some kind of political statement (maybe he’s a libertarian as well). All of this is my fault. If I had been able to get rid of one of our cars, I wouldn’t be dealing with this hassle. Now I have to make two trips to the DEQ in one month (we can't renew our tags without the DEQ certification). This fee, along with my semiannual insurance payments, have me kicking myself for not shedding a car by now. These expenses are part of the savings to be realized from being carless and I’ve just plunked down money for another six months of driving.
I won’t get very far in the event I decide to fight the state over this emissions testing. In case you’ve been living under a rock, the Supreme Court ruled this week that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has the right regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles. I’m not sure I understand the federal agency’s logic in denying its responsibility on this matter, other than being a shill for the automakers. If the agency takes that position, then it might as well question its own right to exist. All those who cheer this decision shouldn’t hold their breath for real action any time soon. The President has indicated that he thinks his policies are already sufficient to address auto emissions, and “whatever we do must be in concert with what happens internationally. Unless there is an accord with China, China will produce greenhouse gases that will offset anything we do in a brief period of time.” That argument has become the “go to” rationale for doing nothing. Unfortunately, the response somehow ignores the basic mathematical reality that a lot plus a little still equals more than a lot.
The automakers aren’t likely to be cooperative either. If they can make the E.P.A. argue that it doesn’t have the authority to regulate gases that harm the environment, then you can imagine that they might have some more tricks up their sleeves. They’ve already weighed in on the ethanol question, christening ethanol as the savior alternative fuel. Ethanol doesn’t require any improvements in fuel efficiency, so from the automakers perspective, it has all the answers. And since ethanol will never be produced in quantities sufficient to supplant gasoline, supporting ethanol is as close to supporting the status quo as you can get.
The bottom line is that consumers have had the opportunity to show concern for emissions through the purchase of smaller, fuel efficient cars, and have only recently begun to voice their support through higher demand for hybrid vehicles. An aggregate increase in fuel efficiency is most likely to occur not through government action, but through continued growth in the popularity of vehicles with higher fuel economy, and a concurrent drop in demand for large, gas guzzling vehicles. This summer should be an interesting test case, with gas prices approaching $4 per gallon in parts of California. Americans have proven quite resistant to changes in gas prices. Maybe this will be the spike in gas prices that finally gets people out of their cars and out of the haze of the queue at the DEQ.