|
 urrounded
by hundreds of gleaming new autos at the 2002 North American International
Auto Show, this city's annual celebration of the internal combustion
engine, U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham on Wednesday effectively
conceded what the Big Three and their customers have known for years:
the feds have no business dictating vehicle design.
No longer will
taxpayers hand over hundreds of millions of dollars annually to
underwrite Al Gore's vain dream of producing by 2004 an affordable
emissions-free family sedan capable of 80 miles per gallon. Abraham
instead announced a different type of environmental tax — a
subsidy for hydrogen fuel-cell research — likewise intended
to improve air quality and reduce American dependence on foreign
oil.
This new plan,
dubbed "Freedom CAR" (Cooperative Automotive Research),
certainly constitutes a more flexible approach than Gore's Partnership
for a New Generation of Vehicles, which attempted to force nascent
technology into specific automotive applications — which Abraham
supported while a Michigan senator. But substituting one research
priority for another, sans deadlines, still amounts to unwarranted
federal meddling in the automotive industry, and exposes a troubling
mistrust of the market on the part of the Bush administration.
"The long-term
results of this cooperative effort will be cars and trucks that
are more efficient, cheaper to operate, pollution-free and competitive
in the showroom,'' Abraham said. Which echoes precisely what Mr.
Gore promised in launching his program in 1993.
As so unfortunately
has been demonstrated by the failure of PNGV (as well as California's
unsuccessful electric-vehicle mandate), R&D decisions are best
left to private investors, who have a track record far superior
to government in picking winning technologies based on economically
rational — not politically expedient — considerations.
At century's turn, for example, auto pioneers experimented with
steam and electricity as well as fossil fuels. But the superiority
of internal combustion — not special-interest lobbying —
won out.
Washington funneled more than $1.5 billion over eight years into
PNGV, along with an additional $1 billion a year from Ford Motor
Co., General Motors Corp., and DaimlerChrysler AG — under threat
of tighter fuel economy standards. Some progress has been achieved.
Automakers last year unveiled high-mileage concept cars, but none
met PNGV's overly ambitious cost or emissions targets. Consequently,
in its annual review of the program in August, the National Research
Council judged the supercar goals to be inherently unrealistic.
It may well be that fuel-cell technology would be farther along
today were it not for the diversion of billions of dollars into
the narrow PNGV scheme. (Hydrogen-based power has a great many applications
ignored by the focus on automotive applications.) And while fuel
cells may now appear to be the most promising alternative to the
internal combustion engine, other possibilities may be overlooked
by government's latest shift of R&D funding.
Underlying
both the Gore and Bush push for alternate-fuel sources is the presumption
that corporate executives and their shareholders have somehow failed
to respond to dire environmental circumstance. But technological
progress is unstoppable if and when there exists a shortage of supply
or a change in demand. At present, however, world oil supplies are
cheap and abundant (temporary price spikes notwithstanding), and
automakers have already eliminated more than 95 percent of tailpipe
emissions since 1970. Consequently, consumers understandably prefer
the power and safety of heavier conventional vehicles to premium-priced
subcompacts that require overnight recharging every 70 miles.
The Big Three
may be banking on Freedom CAR as a defense against higher fuel-efficiency
standards. But past efforts at "compromise" have only
emboldened the auto-bashers to demand ever more regulation. And
given the sorry state of the industry, this is hardly an opportune
time to be dabbling in high-concept vehicles. Mass production of
fuel-cell-powered cars is a decade or more down the line. But today,
Ford Motor is on the verge of slashing 17,000 jobs and idling three
North American assembly plants. It seems obvious that Ford and its
rivals have more to worry about than placating the environmental
lobby.
The feds could
help improve fuel efficiency dramatically, however, by repealing
the stringent emissions standards that preclude use of the diesel-engine
technology that would boost mileage by 25 percent or more. But Democrats
and Republicans alike are far more practiced in telling businesses
what to do than actually eliminating the regulatory obstacles impeding
the private sector.
|
