YOUR CAR IS GOING TO RAT ON YOU,
The Economist calls it “post- truth” politics, “a reliance on assertions that ‘feel true,’ but have no actual basis in fact.” Of course, prevaricating politicians are nothing new, but what is different about the modern art of the lie, says the world’s foremost news magazine, is not that truth is falsified, but that it is “of secondary importance.”
The lies, it says, are not intended to convince nonbelievers of a false view of the world, “but to reinforce prejudices” and, most especially, validate “common sense” truths that, again, “feel true.” In other words, just tell us what we want to hear so we don’t have to think.
It should come as no surprise that Donald Trump is cited as the leading practitioner of the “post-truth” lie, but then Hillary is hardly a stranger to fantabulous fabrication. Now, judging from the hearings surrounding the midterm evaluation of U. S. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, both automobile manufacturers and environmental lobbyists are following in their footsteps. And just like The Donald, both sides of the argument are using a kernel of truth — that CAFE standards call for U. S. automakers to achieve a fleet average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 — to tell their whoppers.
The automakers, represented by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and backed by Republican l awmakers, are implying they can’t meet the standards because consumers are buying more trucks and SUVs that — no surprise — can’t get anywhere near 54.5 mpg. Environmental groups, meanwhile, counter that automakers signed on for the regs and should damned well have their feet held to the fire to meet them. Both are lying. The worst — or, if you’re a cynical journalist, the funniest — thing about this deception is that they’re both telling the same lie. Indeed, while climate- change deniers and eco- weenies may be pandering to different constituencies and perpetuating radically different agendas, in a perfect example of the duplicitous nature of politicians, the tall tales they’re telling are based on the very same falsehood. Which is that no one — despite all the numbers quoted, despite the massive headlines back when president Obama signed the l atest CAFE standards into law — actually ever promised 54.5 mpg.
They i mplied i t. They hoped for it. Indeed, they expected it. But the agreement that in 2011 was heralded as a breakthrough for emissions reduction across North America — because we Canadians basically followed suit — never once, despite the claims you’re reading in other newspapers, promised 54.5 mpg.
Here’s what t hey did promise:
CAFE regulations don’t actually call for a fleet average, 54.5 mpg or otherwise. What they do stipulate is model- by- model fuel- economy improvement or, more accurately, segment- by- seg- ment increases in fuel economy.
Essentially, the government divided all cars into segments determined by size — designated by their “footprint” or physical length and width — and mandated fuel economy improvements for each segment. Thus, all economy cars were lumped together, as were all mid-size sedans, SUVs and pickups. And each group was expected to increase its average fuel economy by a specific amount — five per cent for passenger cars, 3.5 per cent for pickups and SUVs — every year until 2025.
Here’s where that magical 54.5 miles per gallon figure came from: Based on the sales at the time — passenger cars versus trucks and SUVs — when you averaged out the fuel economy of all the cars being sold, those mandated improvements would have eventually lead to that magical 54.5 mpg number. It’s important to note that this 54.5 mpg was not mandated; it was simply the target. Only the individual segment-by-segment “footprint” fuel economy improvement is law; the average is not.
Of course, because we’d become so accustomed to price increases at the pump, no one could envisage the cheap gas we c urrently enjoy. Or the fact that consumers, admittedly shortsighted, would use this unexpected economy to buy more trucks and bigger cars. So, while individual models are in fact increasing their fuel economy as per the regulations, the fact remains that the North American fleet will not, at least if current sales trends hold, hit that 54.5 miles per gallon fig- ure in 2025. The original 54.5 mpg figure was based on just 33 per cent of the vehicles sold in 2025 being trucks. If, as estimates now suggest, that percentage is closer to 52 per cent, the projected fuel economy drops to 50 mpg.
Maybe now you can see the fibs both sides are weaving out of this narrative. Environmentalists, claiming that 54.5 mpg figure as sacrosanct, are saying that automakers are failing to meet their obligations and doing what environmentalists — at least those in the automobile industry — always do: tr ying to force automakers to sell vehicles — small cars and EVs — that the public clearly doesn’t want. Read between the lines and what they really want is for the government to up the mpg requirements of individual cars (which is already a law) so the fleet still meets that 54.5 mpg average (which, again, was nothing but an estimate).
Of course, the automakers ( and their GOP friends) are hardly i nnocents in this fracas. Never a fan of legislated improvements, some are using the public’s desire for increasingly larger cars and trucks to claim that consumers are unconcerned if the fleet average doesn’t hit the 54.5 mpg target; they just want to buy trucks and bigger cars. That may well be true, but the fact remains that current legislation does not in any way hinder them from selling the trucks and SUVs the public so craves. Indeed, Ford could sell nothing but pickups but, if it managed to increase the F-150’s year-over-year fuel economy by the proscribed amount, it would still be in compliance.
( Automakers are also complaining that these targets are too expensive to meet, even though Consumers Union — the policy and action division of Consumer Reports magazine — pointedly notes that, so far, technology costs associated with fuel economy improvements are running below predictions.)
In other words, both sides are fibbing and, as I said, using the very same misrepresentation to peddle their falsehoods. Oh, what a tangled web government bureaucrats weave when they try to force change that the market — namely you and I — doesn’t want.
BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT ARE USING A KERNEL OF TRUTH.