A senate bill requiring Detroit to increase by fifty percent the gas mileage of the cars sold in the United states has just been defeated, and the usual suspects are wringing their hands. As they see it, this simple measure could have reduced fuel consumption, prevented further human intrusion into another caribou hangout, and spare the planet volumes of evil internal combustion engine emissions. And there was the added bonus of making our lives as frugal and virtuous as under any European statist regime.

Of course, this is piffle. The exploitation of the ANWR fields would not disturb the sacrosanct caribou, which would certainly enjoy a little activity in an area where distractions are few. Actually, the caribou have shown a great deal of appreciation for pipelines, as could be observed around Prudhoe Bay by scientists especially trained to observe. As to the effects of automobile flatulence, a main concern of the worrywarts in the ecology corner, they have nothing to do with gasoline consumption. Government standards for exhaust emissions are measured in units of weight of emission per mile driven, which is the same for all cars and light trucks, regardless of gas consumption. It is probable that some of the devices installed on our cars to keep the air clean work only because of a good balance between fuel economy, horsepower, safety, and cost. Tampering with that balance would certainly have adverse results. I am not making it up, it is one of the conclusions of a recent study by the National Academy of Sciences.

What are the main effects of government mandates on fuel economy? They are mostly harmful in that they force Detroit to make more smaller, lighter cars in order to satisfy the prescribed fleet allowance. Light cars roll over more easily than heavy cars and give little protection to their passengers in case of accident. Statistics collected in the past thirty years have shown that more people die or are seriously injured in mishaps involving smaller cars. Smaller cars have smaller engines, which have a shorter life because they must rev faster to deliver the level of torque and horsepower needed for freeway traffic. Shorter life means increased costs, including the costs of the energy needed to recycle metals and other materials more frequently. It is probable that the negative impact of the government mandates largely offset the benefits of fuel economy. But the do-gooders never consider the consequences of their intentions and believe that jacking up gas mileage will leave all other conditions invariant. It is not the first time in our history that politicians try to legislate the physics that they do not understand and do not like. I would vote for a constitutional amendment requiring lawmakers to study physics. On second thought, I would not. A politician well versed in physics is still a politician.

Another unintended consequence of the government mandates is the SUV. The SUV has caused quite a bit of grousing lately. Where I live, all the little women drive monster SUVs to the upscale supermarket to buy sushi. The worrywarts, who say they are concerned about the depletion of the world’s oil reserves, claim that it is a terrible thing to do, because big SUVs guzzle about as much gas as the big station wagons of thirty years ago, which is true. But try to buy a station wagon nowadays. Save for expensive imports, they have disappeared. It seems that only Subaru makes sensible, affordable station wagons—but mid-size only. The origin of this scarcity can be traced to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy regulations of 1978 (CAFE), which tolled the death of the American family’s beloved vehicle—thank you Jimmy "Malaise" Carter. Because station wagons were big cars that lowered the fleet averages of fuel economy, the manufacturers started phasing them out. They could do that because the demand could be satisfied in other ways that possessed substantial advantages. As economy standards for light trucks were more lax than for cars, there was an irresistible temptation to build station wagons on light-truck chassis. Technically, the new contraption, which was called a minivan, was still a truck, and as such allowed easier compliance with the government mandates. Its interior was fitted with all the amenities found in cars—cup holders and multi-speaker stereo systems—and people bought it. On the business side, the minivan was a profitable move. It sold for a car price, but its assembly was cheaper, since a truck-based vehicle has fewer components. Of course, it drove like a truck and handled like a truck, but it sold well because of the absence of a suitable alternative.

Meanwhile, the Detroit marketers were working hard on pushing the truck idea a tad further. Why not make truck-based vehicles even more truck-like and more profitable? Yuppies, the largest segment of the minivan market, were the designated target for such products, because sooner or later they would have to replace their minivans. This is where advertisement did its part by creating entrancing images of the yuppie at play with his "SUV," as the newfangled transportation was called. Here was the yuppie nature lover, driving his SUV on the dirt roads of Monument Valley. And the yuppie sportsman packing his scuba gear or his skis in his SUV. And the yuppie rugged individual fording a river with his SUV on a camping trip in Yellowstone. Clearly, such active yuppie living required a machine with a four-wheel-drive capability, a high ground clearance, and a powerful engine, which is exactly the standard profile of a commercial truck. Aha! In one masterful stroke, the truck market expanded from a clientele of trades to an upscale segment. To a yuppie crowd particularly safety conscious—the yuppie rugged individual?—the SUV has the advantage of providing superior protection in a collision with regular cars. Chevrolet suddenly saw a boost in the sales of its updated Suburban, no longer derided as a behemoth fit only for hicks who had not heard about birth control. The luxury carmakers soon got on the bandwagon. Now, the SUV—still a truck—is an expensive status symbol. A prized SUV is the Land Rover, because it is a real rugged-individual’s thing, the very same one that National Geographic rugged photographers drive in the Kalahari Desert. To feel more rugged, one would have to buy a $100,000 Humvee with a machine-gun mount on top.

Of course, the worrywarts blame Detroit for what they consider a devious exploitation of the CAFE loopholes. I think that they are wrong. The loophole issue is irrelevant. The ninnies who dreamed up and supported the idea of CAFE are to blame, because they tried to reduce fuel consumption by increasing fuel efficiency, which is an entirely different matter. As shown by a good forty years of data, fuel consumption is governed by fuel prices. For a set fuel price, increasing fuel economy just allows for more automobile use and does little to reduce consumption. Of course, it is the SUV that the worrywarts had in their sights when they supported the senate bill. It is a good thing that it did not pass. Technology has already done much to produce clean, economical cars. My fifteen-year-old full-size Buick goes twenty-eight miles of freeway on one gallon of gasoline. The combination of a well-geared transmission and a big V6 provides the oomph of the V8 of yore. According to biennial smog checks, its exhaust contains oxygen—the car is as good as a tree! I wish there were a station-wagon version of this model. But there is none, thanks to CAFE, and the SUV substitute that comes closest to it is rated at twenty miles per gallon or a little less.

Since fuel prices drive consumption, should they be increased by taxation? This is the model adopted in Europe, whose state-governed economies have been in the doldrums for a long time. Two good reasons come to mind against this approach. First, the added revenue to the government and the power that goes with it would only encourage spending for unproductive purposes of political expedience and against the long-term common good. Second, the market can take care of the worrywarts’ concern for the depletion of oil reserves. When in a distant future oil becomes scarce, prices will naturally rise to the point where technology will allow for economically practical replacements. Until then and beyond, government intervention will do more harm than good. If our politicians had any sense, they would rid us of CAFE, which is just a pointless exercise for costly paper pushers. But don’t hold your breath.