PERSPECTIVE: Blood for oil

By: Richmond Times Dispatch | Culpeper Star Exponent
Published: September 07, 2012 Updated: September 07, 2012 - 12:00 AM

The Obama administration is getting the usual hosannas from the usual suspects for rolling out steep new mileage standards for new cars and trucks. Missing from the chorus: any recognition of the harm those standards will cause.

The new rules will bring the U.S. auto fleet to an average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. Meeting that goal will require some advanced engineering that could add a couple of thousand dollars to the cost of a new car. The White House argues you'll make up the difference by saving money at the pump. But those savings are irrelevant to people of modest means who decide, because new cars have gotten so expensive, to hang on to their older, less-efficient cars even longer. And since the oldest cars are the worst polluters, the new standards will, in effect, undermine themselves.

More serious than that, however, will be the cost in human lives. According to the National Research Council, fuel-economy standards already contribute to about 2,000 road deaths per year. That's because the surest way to reduce fuel consumption is to make cars smaller ? and smaller cars are more dangerous.

Advocates of tougher mileage standards often try to dodge this point by arguing: Sure, a small car will lose in a collision against a big car. But if we make big cars smaller too, then that problem will go away.

Wrong. In fact, it would have the opposite effect, by putting the passengers in both vehicles at greater risk. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety reports: "Occupants of smaller cars are at increased risk in all kinds of crashes, not just ones with heavier vehicles. Almost half of all crash deaths in minicars occur in single-vehicle crashes, and these deaths wouldn't be reduced if all cars became smaller and lighter."

This doesn't mean the higher efficiency standards cannot be justified. Society makes cost-benefit judgments all the time ? such as when setting speed limits. Nevertheless, it is ironic to hear liberals cheering so loudly for a policy that could end up killing hundreds or thousands more Americans every year. "No blood for oil!" was one of their favorite chants during the Bush administration.

Who knew that applied only to consumption? Apparently, many progressives feel that if a little blood ? or a lot ? needs to be spilled in order to conserve oil supplies, well then: So be it.

?

Richmond Times Dispatch

Source: http://www2.starexponent.com/news/2012/sep/07/perspective-blood-oil-ar-2184054/

drew barrymore bill o brien portland trailblazers will kopelman casey anthony leann rimes dakota fanning