28 Feb 2002 Cautionary energy tales, edited by David Ridenour
Premature Death: A Cautionary Energy Tale
CAFE Costs, and CAFE Kills
Premature Death: A Cautionary Energy Tale
A young woman who didn’t care for my opinion that energy should be cheap and plentiful confronted me one night on a Chicago public television talk show.
Insisting that air pollution from burning fossil fuels was killing Americans and that higher taxes should be placed on these forms of energy to restrict their use, she said, “What does extra cost mean when lives are at stake?”
She was referring to studies supposedly showing the thousands of “premature” deaths caused by fine particulates and other pollutants produced by burning fossil fuels and the resulting need to produce cleaner electricity, regardless of cost.
There have been many of these studies. They always leave one question unanswered: Premature to what?
When my parents were born, back when horses were the primary transportation devices and candles provided light, living into your early 50s was considered a gift from God. By the time I was born, you had a better-than-even shot at getting into your 60s. I remember wondering, as a kid, if I would see the 21st Century. Now we have pushed life expectancies to nearly 80 and are speculating about how long the human body is designed to last, perhaps 120 to 150 years.
Cheap, abundant energy has had a lot to do with our expanded life expectancy, just as it did with my survival of a heart attack 18 years ago.
High-octane gasoline got me from my remote home to a hospital within what cardiologists call the “Golden Hour,” a key to surviving such events. The staff of the hospital – hospitals are real energy guzzlers – used yards of plastic tubing, wire, oxygen and costly electronics to save my life. All required great amounts of energy for their production and use. This was also true of the heart-lung machine that took over the job of pumping oxygenated blood during the bypass surgery.
Today, I eat a healthy diet of fresh fruits and vegetables year ’round. When I was a kid, such luxuries were available only in the summer and fall. There simply wasn’t the cheap, abundant energy needed to grow, process, refrigerate or freeze and transport fresh food year-round.
Soon we will undoubtedly be using energy to irradiate our food to wipe out diseases such as botulism and salmonella, and our descendants will take this for granted.
Odds are that I will live another 20-some years in our energy-abundant society. If the young woman whom I met on television lived in the limited-energy society of the past, an energy-deprived society that would return should the policies she proposes be adopted, she, too, might expect to live just a bit over 20 years more. The difference: I would die in my 80s, she would in her 40s.
I urge this young lady and others who think cheap, abundant energy is unhealthy to give the matter another thought.
The next time you roll out of bed, well rested because you didn’t have get up in the middle of the night to throw a couple of logs on the fire… the next time you get out of your piping hot shower and grab the hair dryer… the next time you polish off that breakfast of fresh juice, fruit, cereal and milk – or maybe it’s just a hot latte as you drive to your air-conditioned workplace… give cheap, abundant energy and its contribution to health, happiness and physical well-being another thought.
Give it a thought as you send your e (as in electronic) -mail. Give cheap abundant energy a thought as you plan that next vacation to see family and friends… think about jet engines… aluminum airplanes… miles of concrete runways… the trip that will take mere hours instead of perilous days, weeks or even months.
God forbid that you should have to think about it as a pain grows in your chest.
by Tom Randall, director of Environmental & Regulatory Affairs of the John P. McGovern, MD Center for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs of The National Center for Public Policy Research
CAFE Costs, and CAFE Kills
Washington is debating whether to increase Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) standards to require automakers to produce cars, minivans, SUVs and light trucks that get better gas mileage.
Some Democrats and Republicans are pushing for a mandatory increase in the requirements; saying fuel efficiency is the only way to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil. What they nearly always fail to point out are the tradeoffs that occur when cars and trucks are made smaller and lighter to attain a better fuel efficiency.
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recently released a study showing that, since CAFE standards were imposed in 1975 as an answer to the Mideast oil embargo, an additional 2,000 deaths per year can be attributed to CAFE-required downsizing. That’s a total of 52,000 deaths – nearly as many Americans as were lost in Vietnam. The study also estimates that moving to smaller, lighter vehicles in the 1970s and early 1980s resulted in “an additional 13,000 to 26,000 incapacitating injures and 97,000 to 195,000 total injuries in 1993” alone.
After driving small cars for a period of time, Americans decided to move back to larger, heavier cars in the 1980s. Safety and space were key considerations.
Something legislators and regulators frequently fail to take into account, the “law of unintended consequences,” began to assert itself.
As Americans began looking for roomier cars in the 80s they found few station wagons, previously the main transportation of many multi-child families, offered for sale. Full-size station wagons simply couldn’t meet the mandated fuel economy standard of 27.5 mpg for cars. But since vehicles in the light truck category needed only to meet a 20.7 mpg standard, carmakers satisfied both families and regulators by inventing SUVs – vehicles large enough for multi-child families, yet categorized as trucks under the law.
CAFE standards are the reason we see few full-size station wagons on the road anymore, and they are the reason SUVs were invented. Indirectly, environmentalists invented SUVs.
But environmentalists today care little for the unintended product of their labors. They argue now that Americans shouldn’t drive “gas guzzling” SUVs. Many wish SUVs didn’t exist.
In a free market, however, consumers buy the products they want and push the market to supply more of those products. Many Americans want large, safe and roomy vehicles. Others want small, economical and low-mileage vehicles – even environmentalist-pleasing hybrid vehicles. All options are available.
No discussion of CAFE standards would be complete without consideration of their monetary costs, and the effect these higher costs have on the poor and disproportionately low-income minorities. When the U.S. House of Representatives in 2001 debated its version of an energy bill, an amendment was offered to raise the fuel economy standards for light trucks and SUVs from the current 20.7 mpg to 27.5 mpg by 2007. A whopping 22 of 38 Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) members voted against that amendment. In fact, CBC member U.S. Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY) said the provision would be “ill conceived and counterproductive. It would bring about a tremendous job loss.”
Towns might have added that the NAS also predicts the new standards would add costs of between $500 and $2,500 per vehicle. The result would be that very many low income and even middle class Americans would keep their current cars longer and thus older cars, which emit more pollutants, would remain on the road.
Alternative vehicles such as hybrid electric cars do get more mileage but these vehicles are necessarily small, and thus are a less-than-appealing option for multi-child families.
Some say fuel cell vehicles can help automakers meet stricter CAFE standards, but few fuel cell proponents mention how much energy it takes to produce hydrogen. Nor do advocates note that moving to hydrogen as a fuel requires building the infrastructure for supply stations in every city and town. The Department of Energy’s Alternative Fuels Data Center notes that high production costs make it likely it will be 20 to 30 years before hydrogen is a “viable transportation fuel.”
As much as we’d all like to contribute to fuel economy for our nation’s security, mandated increased fuel economy standards aren’t the answer.
by Gretchen Randall, director of Environmental & Regulatory Affairs of the John P. McGovern, MD Center for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs of The National Center for Public Policy Research