June 8, 2007
Even as major automakers and some federal lawmakers try to put the brakes on plans to accelerate federal fuel-efficiency vehicle standards, more than three out of four Americans -- including 78 percent of likely 2008 voters -- want Congress to raise the mile-per-gallon (MPG) requirement sharply now to 40 MPG by 2010 rather than waiting to reach a more modest MPG goal by 2018, a new survey finds.
The Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) survey was conducted for the nonprofit Civil Society Institute (CSI) think tank and its 40MPG.org project.
The survey is at odds with a major advertising blitz launched by the Detroit Big Three along with Toyota Motor Corp. The ads, featuring ranchers and soccer moms, seek to persuade consumers that fuel regulations under consideration by the U.S. Senate would lead to higher vehicle prices and smaller and less safe vehicles.
Earlier this week, an analysis by the Consumer Federation of America (CFA) found that a ten mile-per-gallon improvement in the fuel economy of new vehicles achieved over ten years would pay for itself -- not just over the vehicle lifetime but on a monthly basis for the majority of consumers who borrow to buy their cars and trucks.
And a separate CSI/40MPG.org report shows that, compared with the much more modest 35-MPG-by-2018 approach set out in one major bill on Capitol Hill, a 40-MPG-by-2010 plan would
(1) save consumers a total of $246 billion at the gas pump by 2018,
(2) cut 2.4 trillion additional pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution linked to global warming and
(3) offset the equivalent of the current U.S. reliance on oil imported from the Middle East.
Under the more aggressive mileage standard, 58 percent of the vehicles on the road in the U.S. would achieve 40MPG by 2018 versus 11 percent or less under the go-ahead-slow approach.
Key findings of the CSI/40MPG.org survey include the following:
• There is little partisan difference in the preference of Americans for raising federal standards by 2010 to 40mpg, with support from Democrats at 82 percent, Independents at 80 percent, and Republicans at 72 percent.
• Half of Americans (53 percent) say they would be more likely to support a candidate who advocated a 40mpg fuel-efficiency standard as a way to lower global warming and reduce U.S. reliance on Middle Eastern oil.
• Over a quarter of Americans (28 percent) say that a 40-MPG stance would make them as likely to support a candidate, and only 15 percent say it would make them less likely to back such a candidate.
"As Detroit's Big 3 and Toyota launch an astonishingly short-sighted advertising and lobbying campaign to block even modest improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency, it is time for Washington and Detroit to address the fact that our nation is needlessly losing the race to develop the best fuel-efficient vehicle technology," said Civil Society Institute President and 40MPG.org founder Pam Solo.
"American consumers want to purchase these vehicles," she said. "Increasing fuel efficiency can simultaneously reduce our reliance on Middle Eastern oil, cut greenhouse emissions, save quality auto industry jobs and help build the US economy."
According to the new CSI/40MPG.org report, a focus on a 40-MPG-by-2010 versus a 35-MPG-by-2018 approach would mean:
• Total U.S. vehicle carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions under the 35 MPG-by-2018 plan would drop only 3 percent by 2018 from 2010 levels ... versus a 14 percent drop under the 40 MPG-by-2010 plan. The 40-MPG approach would take 2.4 trillion more pounds of CO2 emissions out of the air than the go-ahead-slow approach. CO2 pollution is linked to global warming.
• The 40 MPG-by-2010 plan would more than wipe out by 2018 the equivalent of America's current dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Oil consumption in 2018 would drop by 16 percent (under 40 MPG-by-2010) versus 3 percent (35 MPG-by-2018).
• Based on a $3-a-gallon gas price, consumers would save $246 billion more at the pump from 2011 through 2018 under the 40 MPG-by-2010 approach than under the much more gradual 35 MPG-by-2018 approach.
