On Point Vincent Carroll, editor of the editorial pages, writes his On Point column most weekdays. He is also an author and freelance writer. Reach Vincent Carroll at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.

• Blog front page
• Add this blog to your RSS reader

My colleague Rob Reuteman — business editor here at the Rocky — is understandably irritated by the U.S. auto industry’s doomsday predictions regarding the fuel economy standards the Senate passed last week (“Detroit, get on board with fuel standards,” June 23, Wall Street West). Yes, automakers will doubtless cope with a car and light truck average standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020 (up from approximately 25 mpg today) — even if some SUVs have to go on a diet.

But you can’t blame the industry for resenting a costly mandate that the public supposedly supports. If the public really wanted higher fuel standards, after all, the proof would be sitting in their driveways.

On the one hand people tell pollsters it’s high time to pursue energy independence and attack high gasoline prices. But many of these same folk are the first to embrace larger vehicles and more horsepower. They’re all for cars that burn less gas so long as someone else drives them.

Or maybe they’re complacent about America’s techno-prowess. Maybe they think a 35 mph standard can be achieved without touching price, performance or vehicle size. If so, they could be in for a jolt. And automakers will be blamed for any resulting consumer resistance.

What irritates me about what happened in the Senate last week is not the automakers’ self-interested lobbying but our politicians’ almost total indifference to increasing domestic energy production outside of the renewable end of the spectrum — say, by opening up more of the vast deposits of oil and natural gas on the outer continental shelf to exploration. Based only on the evidence of this legislation, you’d think our economy were well on its way to phasing out fossil fuels; in fact, that transition, while picking up steam, has only begun.

Senators’ headlong embrace of a larger ethanol mandate is equally maddening given the likelihood that it will save little energy while boosting the price of a variety of food products and livestock feed.

Now the energy bill moves on to the House, where still more principles of economics can no doubt be ignored.

That’s a lot of starch

Roy Pearson obviously overplayed his hand in suing the owners of Custom Cleaners in Washington, D.C., for $65 million (later lowered to $54 million) over a pair of pants they allegedly lost. The case became such a symbol of litigation abuse that even the tort bar distanced itself from Pearson’s unhinged greed.

Now that Pearson has lost his case — a judge declared that he was “not entitled to any relief whatsoever” — apologists for America’s litigation mania will no doubt announce that “the system worked.”

No, it didn’t. The Chung family, which owns the cleaners, is still saddled with huge legal fees. Even if the court eventually decides Pearson should pay them, it will amount to a relatively rare victory for a prevailing defendant, prompted in part by publicity.

More telling, however, is that the Chungs say they offered to settle the case three times, most recently for $12,000, but that Pearson turned them down. A man of greater self-discipline would have completed the shakedown — as far too many authors of frivolous lawsuits do.

Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountain
News.com.

READER COMMENTS

The Big 3 are hand in glove with Big Oil. They have chosen to ignore waiting lists of up to 2 years for a Prius,and instead offer (to folks with more money than brains) Humveess & super-sized SUVs that most folks in the metro area only need because they need protection while driving & talking on their cell phones - and nobody can miss seeing these behemoths. I don't have a choice from the Big 3 when it comes to a truly fuel efficient car - and yet, the government gives them corporate welfare, while they offshore building so-called 'American' cars. Yep - I have sympathy for the Big 3 - in my home dictionary!

Wow, Carroll sides with the "free" market. Big surprise there.

Had congress acted 20 years ago to tighten fuel efficiency standards, perhaps Detroit and the big 3 would not be in such a bind right now.

Its ironic, really. Had they gone along with congress and the american people, they probably would be doing just fine now. Instead, they chose to drag their feet, to their own detriment.

this line is great: "If the public really wanted higher fuel standards, after all, the proof would be sitting in their driveways". Uhh, you checked the waiting list for a Prius lately, Carroll? On a 10 minute drive down 6th last week, I counted 5 Prius'.

Mary - well said - the big 3 have left the american consumer no choices. European car makers produce over 100 fuel efficient models. American car makers? A whopping three models.

Personally, I think the mandated standards are great.

We should follow this approach in other areas. I think that the legislature should mandate that school districts lower the high school graduation age to 15 and require that 60% of all students get at least 1200 on the SAT. We can also mandate that cows have 30% less fat and 25% more protein.

Yaakov, equating mandating higher fuel economy to sat scores or cow fat is just plain dumb. By mandating the fuel standards, all manufactures are treated equally and thus fairly. All manufactures have to play by the same rules. The big three are worried because everyone else in the world has already worked towards this goal where they have not. Well guess what, either we as a nation can catch back up now, and save our industries, or everything worthwhile will be made overseas. If that happens there will be no big three to defend anyway, and your opposition to what is needed will be a moot point.

Is there something wrong with letting people buy what they want to drive? I guess if they have to make more rolling cracker boxes to meet fuel standards they will but the people who choose to drive something else will still buy it. Result: Higher prices for all and a nice warm fuzzy feeling for those who know what's good for the rest of us.

momma-

We're not telling (at least I'm not) anyone what to drive.

I'm just wondering why detroit can't figure out the simple fact that americans want more fuel efficient vehicles.

And how does this result in higher prices for all?

I am somewhat puzzled by the "waiting lists for a Prius" remarks - my husband and I recently bought one. I think it may have taken 2 or 3 hours to do the paperwork, which was all the wait time involved.

The problem is that very fuel efficient cars need more advanced technology, which (duh!) costs more. Many americans do want fuel efficient cars -- as long as they don't have to pay for them. How does a mandate change this?

We should all be driving electric cars by now. Automakers and the oil companies have kept this from happening.

Awww, yes The bleating of the sheep... The Big three must make more efficient cars, blah blah blah. Ford introduced hybrid models, sales were flat... GM introduces flex fuel vehicles.... we shall see.

The honda accord hybrid sold dismally and they are pulling it from the market....Why?
Because it doesn't look like a hybrid... It doesn't look like an egg on wheels and self conscious greens can't show off on the road and say "Look at me, I care about the environment"

If there was truly a market for these cars except as a status symbol, and if anyone could afford them, they might sell.

Funny, I see Prius' for sale at my local Toyata dealership. Must be a 2 year wait for the paperwork.

Now to the standards. There are only a few ways to increase fuel economy.. lighter cars... new technology that adds kitten fur to the fuel mix to make it better... mix something else in to the fuel.

Soccer moms do not want a car that is less safe....It's for the kiddies, you know. Not much new technology coming down the pike, except for the crazed guy on the internet who claims he can run an engine on water. Mixing in other ingredients really doesn't involve the auto industry at all, excet to change engines.

Let the market work and if GM et al cannot compete, so be it.

Since we'd get electricity to power electric cars primarily from fossil fuels, I'm not sure how "we all should be driving electric cars by now" either hurts "Big Oil" or helps the environment.

POST A COMMENT

• Carroll: Slippery holiday slope
• Carroll: Parental gall
• Carroll: Clearing the air
• Carroll: Blather about business
• Carroll: The 'Truthers' cult
• Carroll: Numbers game
• Carroll: Brownouts by design
• Carroll: Poor judgment