It’s a Gas, Gas, Gas
Bit of a grab bag of topics this time out, but it’s a thematically connected grab bag. Inspired by President Bush’s call in his State of the Union Address for over a billion dollars in funding for research on hydrogen-powered cars, I’ve spent some time trolling the web looking for insights and information on fuel efficiency and other energy-saving endeavors. I don’t think I found any solid answers, but I do think there are several interesting launching points for further discussion.
First, I was disappointed but not terribly surprised to find that Bush’s billion dollar proposal isn’t as impressive as the sound bite might suggest. It actually represents a cut in the absolute funding for fuel-efficient automobiles. During the Clinton Administration, the government funded the Partnership for the Next Generation Vehicle (PNGV) to the tune of about $170 million dollars a year. This ten-year program was a partnership between the government and the Big Three American automakers, whose goal was to have 80 mpg family sedans in car showrooms by 2004, at a price comparable to more traditional cars. In order to make that deadline, PNGV focused on hybrid cars which use both a gas-powered and electric motor, much like the Toyota Prius and Honda Civic Hybrid that are available today. By shifting the focus to hydrogen-powered fuel cells, the Bush Administration has pushed forward the point at which the government/industry collaboration is expected to produce a more efficient car decades into the future. Setting a more ambitious goal and then cutting the funding earmarked to achieve it does not strike me as sound policy.
It’s also worth noting that, as I said, Japanese automakers already have hybrid cars out on the market. Granted, they serve a very small niche market right now, and they don’t get 80 mpg – more like 40 to 60, which is still nothing to sneeze at. But Toyota and Honda got their cars on the market despite being rebuffed in their attempts to join up with PNGV. There is a certain irony here – a program designed to increase the competitiveness of the American auto industry inspired America’s competitors to do a better job. Sam Roe of the Chicago Tribune argues that there wasn’t nearly enough coordination between the participants, which suggests that there are significant cultural roadblocks to public/private partnership that need to be overcome. Autoweek columnist Kevin Nelson says part of the problem might be the scale of the effort – the government wasn’t kicking in enough money under PNGV to overcome the additional bureaucracy, competition and inertia it created. And if the Clinton program didn’t do much to advance the cause of science, it’s likely that Bush would do even less. As Nelson says, “Federal funding at this level would appear to have no effect on hastening technological progress.�
The end of PNGV has had another interesting effect. The automakers produced concept cars for the 80 mpg family sedan, but now that there is no government directive pointing them in that direction, they’ve taken the lessons learned and applied them to SUVs. (And Vanity Fair said irony is dead.) Perhaps they’re trying to stay one step ahead of Arianna Huffington and the Detroit Project, a group of activists that encourage Americans to wean themselves from gas guzzlers not only for the sake of the environment, but to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. The project garnered a lot of attention with two commercials it produced as a parody of the current ‘If you buy drugs you fund terrorists’ ads. The anti-drug ads suggest Americans bear moral culpability for the actions of those who profit from our purchases. But many of the terrorist groups and rogue nations in the Middle East – including Osama bin Laden – derive their fortunes in large part from the oil trade. So wouldn’t that mean that every time we fill up the tank, we might as well be writing out checks to al Qaida?
I don’t think so, and the Detroit Project doesn’t either. They’re just pointing out the hypocrisy and fallacious logic of the anti-drug campaign while also suggesting that we can contribute to our national security in the long term by reducing our dependence on foreign oil. As someone who considers himself an environmentalist American thinker, I think they’re right on all counts. Right now, the government gives buyers of hybrid cars a tax credit of a few thousand dollars. At the same time, a program allows small business owners to deduct tens of thousands of dollars if they purchase large trucks and SUVs, to the point that some people are buying luxury SUVs and larger vehicles than they actually want, just to qualify for the tax break. So it’s unlikely we’re going to get much leadership from our elected officials in pointing out our misplaced priorities – that change is going to have to be driven by the consumer. Provocative ads like the Detroit Project’s are one way to get the average American to rethink their stances on some of these issues.
Which brings me to my last point on this little journey. I remember 1994 and its aftermath, when Huffington worked closely with Newt Gingrich and the Republican Party. If you had told me then that I would heap such praise on one of her projects, I’d have thought you were out of your mind. But somewhere over the years, she looked at the evidence around her and came to the conclusion that what she had been doing just wasn’t working, and then she had the guts to say so publicly and change course. That’s the kind of open-mindedness and empirical thinking that democracy needs in order to flourish. I just hope we don’t lose sight of that in these contentious times.
About Dave Thomer
Born and raised in Philadelphia. Studied philosophy at Fordham University in the Bronx, where I made many great friends and met my wonderful wife. We moved back to Philadelphia, where I studied philosophy some more and became a teacher. Online and off, I'm looking for ways that we can be better citizens and build stronger communities.