When environmentalists want regulation, its never enough. And the
media are often willing to give them the spotlight.
New fuel efficiency regulations have the media going straight to
environmental groups for frowns all the while assuming that more
costly regulation of the auto industry is a good thing.
His plan is so weak, its like asking a three-pack-a-day smoker to
cut back one cigarette, said the Sierra Clubs Daniel Becker in Tom
Costellos story on the March 30 Today.
March 30 articles for
The Washington Post
and The New York Times jumped immediately into complaints by
environmental groups. The Post left out any response from
opponents of the regulation, while the Times buried the response of
the SUV Owners of America (SUVOA).
The Timess
Matthew Wald dismissed SUVOA as a group run by industry lobbyists, allowing
them one quote at the end of his article. In an era when were at
$2.50 a gallon plus, the real question is why you need a rule like
this, argued SUVOA spokesman Ron DeFore.
NBCs Costello also included DeFore in his Today story but put
greater weight on complaints about the regulation by the Sierra
Club.
Costello added that environmental groups like Beckers want
40-mile-per-gallon requirements for all passenger vehicles in the
United States, regardless of size, but he didnt find an expert to
address how feasible, or calculate how costly, it would be to make
vans and trucks meet such a high standard.
CNNs Miles OBrien agreed on the March 30 American Morning,
saying, Id like an SUV that gets 50 miles to the gallon. Why cant
we do that? We sent a man to the moon. Andy Serwer then encouraged
him to buy a hybrid.
Serwer said the standards, which would require a Ford Explorer SUV
to increase its fuel efficiency from 17.7 mpg to 25.2 mpg by the
year 2011, were a modest increase and added, consumer advocates
say that this is not enough and more should be done. He didnt
identify these so-called consumer advocates, who supposedly would
support higher car prices for auto buyers. The Post reported that
the regulations will increase automakers costs by $6.7 billion.
In the drive to reduce gasoline consumption, the media overlooked
experts such as Mark P. Mills, a physicist and energy expert
quoted by the Times on March 30. He explained what a real consumer
advocate would understand, exposing a flaw in the regulatory
agenda. As the Times reported, he said that improvements in vehicle
efficiency would not reduce consumption because without a
significant rise in gasoline prices to encourage buyers to save
fuel, most people would simply take advantage of the advances to
demand bigger, faster vehicles.
Cant Get Enough of that Regulation
March 30th, 2006 2:00 PM
Font Size