Clean Cars

The costs of Americas dangerous addiction to oil are mounting. Auto emissions are deeply
implicated in global climate change, even if the
Bush administration is still largely in denial
about its risks. The wars on terrorism and with
Iraq have highlighted the national security risks
of our excessive dependence on imported oil.
All of this is fueling a public clamor for a
different, less petro-centric energy policy. Yet,
the debates in Washington are still mired in
political gridlock. For nearly half a century, transportation has accounted for about one-fourth of total U.S.
energy use and two-thirds of total oil
consumption. 1 Tailpipe exhaust remains a leading source of air pollution and accounts for
roughly one-third of the nations emissions of
carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), a key contributor to global warming. 2 Clearly, any serious strategy to promote a cleaner, more secure energy future
must be aimed at accelerating the use of newer,
cleaner, and more fuel-efficient technologies. While everyone, including the president, is focusing on the long-range promise of
hydrogen as a replacement fuel for oil, that
future is still more than a decade away.
America cannot afford to waste another
decade in which our economic, environmental,
and national security is held hostage to our
undiminished appetite for imported oil. We
need action now. To make progress toward energy indepen- dence, our political leaders need to surmount
three obstacles: The Drain America First strategy. Rather than taking immediate steps to reduce
Americas dependence on oil from what-
ever source, foreign or domestic, the Bush
administration and its congressional al-
lies insist on focusing the debate on in-
creased domestic production, such as
opening Alaskas Arctic Refuge to drill-
ing. This is a phony debate. With only 3
percent of the worlds oil reserves,
America will always be overwhelmingly
reliant on imports to fill our tanks. And
while boosting domestic oil supplies will
have little impact on world oil markets,
it will only worsen our environmental
problems. 3 Over-the-horizon panaceas. The White House last year launched an initiative
purportedly aimed at putting children born
today into clean and efficient cars that
eliminate the need to import oil or drill in
pristine areas. The $1.7 billion dollar, five-
year FreedomCAR program is designed
to harness hydrogen fuel cells as a way to
reduce U.S. demand for foreign oil by 11
million barrels per day by 2040. Although
the initiative sounds hopeful and promises
funding, it requires nothingparticularly
in the near term. Replacing the internal
combustion engine with hydrogen fuel cells
may very well be the answer in decades to
come, but we also need to make progress
in the decade at handto harness todays by Roger Ballentine and Jan Mazurek Policy Report March 2004 Clean Cars Kicking Americas Oil Habit Progressive Policy Institute www.ppionline.org 2 existing technologies to enhance our
economic prosperity and promote a
healthier environment. 4 Gridlock over fuel standards . Created by Congress in response to the energy crisis
of the 1970s, Corporate Average Fuel
Economy (CAFE) standards require
automakers to build cars that get better gas
mileage. But falling oil prices and stable
supply during much of the 1980s and 1990s
undermined the consensus for tough action
to reduce consumption and made
lawmakers more reluctant to raise CAFE.
Automakers complain that CAFE forces them
to make costly trade-offs in terms of vehicle
performance and safety. They also claim that
higher standards would force them to build
vehicles that consumers do not want. Twice
in these past two years, the White House sided
with automakers to defeat proposals to up
the standards for cars and light trucks. 5, 6 Breaking Political Gridlock Most economists agree that the most effi- cient way to curb gasoline consumption is to
raise prices at the pump by upping federal fuel
taxes. 7 In December 2003, the Congressional Budget Office released a report that compared
options for reducing U.S. oil consumption. The
report found, not surprisingly, that an increase
in the gasoline tax would achieve the goal at a
significantly lower cost than those associated
with increasing CAFE standards. 8 Directly rais- ing prices would also better reflect the hidden
costs of using oil: tailpipe pollution and green-
house gas, congestion, and overseas military
deployments. But given the anti-tax mania that
has engulfed Washington, this policy tool re-
mains a political non-starter. In fact, Congress
created CAFE because it did not want to raise
gas taxes. Though flawed, CAFE remains the most plausible near-term tool we have for reducing
oil consumption and spurring the commercial-
ization of new clean car technologies. The key reason CAFE has failed to drive sufficient fuel economy improvements is be-
cause it sets a lower miles-per-gallon stan- dard for trucks (20.7) than for passenger cars
(27.5). Not surprisingly, since CAFEs incep-
tion in 1975 the share of new vehicles classi-
fied as light trucks (SUVs, minivans, and
pickups) has increased dramatically from 20
percent of sales to more than 50 percent of
the market today. The more permissive truck standard was premised on the idea that such vehicles were
mostly for business or farm use. Yet the vast
majority of vehicles currently regulated as light
trucks are in fact used in exactly the same way
as passenger cars. Another flaw in CAFE is that standards are averaged over too many types and models
of cars with very different costs of increasing
fuel efficiency. A manufacturer of many big and
some small cars could have a hard time achiev-
ing the standard, but a maker of only small
cars would not have any problem at all, even
if the former produced a more fuel efficient
small car than the latter. The standard does
not necessarily encourage either manufacturer
to build a more fuel-efficient small car. The combination of the SUV loophole and the fact that CAFE only measures fleet
averages has caused automakers to build and
sell more and bigger SUVs while trying to keep
their average up by also making very small
passenger cars. This top-heavy, bottom-light
approach means that consumers sometimes
must choose between the cars they want and
those that meet high fuel economy standards. As concerns about global warming, the in- stability in the Middle East, and the cost of
gasoline grow stronger, the proponents of
higher CAFE standards have become more
vocal. But now, with the promise of an oil-free
and environmentally friendly future via hydro-
gen, politicians have all the more cover when
siding against any present efforts to reduce oil
consumption. We support robust research into fuel cells and hydrogen, including significant federal in-
vestments in fuel cell technology, hydrogen pro-
duction, transportation and storage, and the
training of a skilled workforce to run a future
hydrogen economy. But the governments role
in encouraging new technologies that address
our national interests consists of two phases. Progressive Policy Institute www.ppionline.org 3 For hydrogen, which remains at the pre-com-
mercial stage, public dollars are best invested
in helping to supplement research and devel-
opment that private markets fail to fully fund.
But the federal government must also ensure
that taxpayers who fund a portion of that R&D
get a return on their investment by adopting
policies to compel the private sector to apply
these technologies once they are developed. For fuel cells and hydrogen technologies, we are in the first stage: Governments role is to
invest in R&D. For other technologies, however,
we are at stage two. Over the past decade, American
taxpayers have helped fund R&D for alternative
fuels and technologies that can increase the
fuel efficiency of our cars and trucks. Many of
these technologies (such as hybrid-electric
vehicles) are available on the market today
(Appendix). Public action is needed to
accelerate and expand deployment of these
newer but ready technologies. We need to set a clear national goal: giving consumers the cars they want while reducing
oil consumption. This will help to create a stron- ger and more certain future for our auto in-
dustry. By sheltering the U.S. market from fuel
efficiency trends that the rest of the world is
experiencing, we are in effect practicing short-
sighted protectionism. The U.S. auto industry
can and must compete and lead the world in
the production of a new generation of clean,
high-performance cars. We propose a three-part strategy that America can adopt today to begin dramatically
reducing our costly dependence on oil: 1. Shift gradually from a fuel economy standard to a carbon reduction standard,
and institute tailpipe trading to reward
companies that bring cleaner cars to
market. 2. While moving toward a carbon standard and trading, make short-term gains by
closing ill-conceived loopholes in the
current standard. 3. Create new consumer tax incentives for buying clean cars that burn less oil. To accelerate the transformation of todays
fleet into tomorrows cleaner, more fuel
efficient one, we need incentives that are
performance-based, technology neutral,
and of sufficient size to overcome the
obstacles of cost and consumer caution
about investing in new technology. We believe this approach can best fill the gap between the mounting, multifaceted costs
of our dependence on oil and the more distant
promise of hydrogen car technologies, a
position concurrent with previous PPI policy
reports. 9 Step 1: Adopt Tailpipe Trading California recently became the first state to impose greenhouse gas emissions standards on
cars. This departure from CAFEs fuel
efficiency or miles-per-gallon standards reflects
the simple reality that the only way to curb
carbon emissions is to burn less carbon-based
fuel. Californias law, however, is likely to face
stiff legal challenges from industry based on
the argument that regulating fuel economy
is a federal prerogative. 10 Nonetheless, measuring tailpipe emissions is really a more direct and efficient
way to achieve CAFEs goals. Efficiency for
efficiencys sake is fine, but the real reason
we need increased vehicle fuel economy is
that we want to burn less petroleum (and thus
avoid the security, economic, and
environmental problems that result). If
someone invented a car that ran on water, we
would not be as concerned with whether it
got 20 miles per gallon or 30 miles per gallon. We believe federal efficiency standards based on CO 2 tailpipe emissions would prove more effective and less burdensome to
administer than CAFE. Because phasing in
such a system would take time, we propose that
Congress adopt a performance and testing
regime that allows manufacturers to meet
CAFE standards either by a straight miles-per-
gallon measure or by carbon dioxide tailpipe
emissions. Because a tailpipe standard is
indifferent to what fuel a car burns as long Progressive Policy Institute www.ppionline.org 4 as its carbon emissions are in compliance, it
also would eliminate the many complications
and perverse incentives that arise from
crediting alternative fuels under CAFE. An emissions-based standard can be made even more effective and efficient by
letting manufacturers buy and sell these
credits from each other, similar to the
tradable emissions allowances that helped
reduce acid rain. Under a tailpipe trading
system, makers of more fuel-efficient
vehicles could sell credits to competitors who
fail to make the grade. All manufacturers
would have a continuous economic incentive
to innovate and improve fuel efficiency.
According to the CBO, adding a trading
component to CAFE would reduce the costs
of CAFE by 16 percentmaking such a
system much closer in cost effectiveness to a
straight gas tax. Creating a tailpipe trading system would not require many changes to the existing pro-
gram because CAFE currently gives manufac-
turers credits from the federal government that
they can bank and save in the event that their
fleet is unable to meet the standard in the fu-
ture. This program simply takes the banking
provision one step further by letting manufac-
turers trade not only among themselves but po-
tentially among petroleum producers when
Congress passesand the president signsa
system to make CO 2 reduction mandatory. A good model is found in the Climate Steward-
ship Act of 2003 (S. 139) introduced in Janu-
ary 2003 by Sens. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) and
John McCain (R-Ariz.). By first allowing tailpipe CO 2 emission stan- dards as an alternative compliance measure,
we will build the regulatory expertise and the
private sector familiarity to eventually phase
out CAFEs fuel economy metrics. Just as with
CAFE, these standards must be set at aggres-
sive but realistic levels and should again be set
separately for vehicle classes. Congress should task the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA)
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) with developing necessary testing proto-
cols and standards, first for the alternative com-
pliance option and then for a complete phase in. If done right, we can smoothly transition to a
new and simpler regime that will help reduce
our dependence on foreign oil and deliver the
promise of cleaner vehicles without unduly
burdening the automotive sector or consumers. Step 2: Modernize CAFE As we set up a tailpipe trading system, we can also modernize CAFE by closing ill-conceived
loopholes and by making it more performance-
driven and flexible. For all its flaws, CAFE has
reduced oil imports: The National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) in 2002 concluded that, but for
CAFE, gasoline consumption (and crude oil
imports) would be about 2.8 million barrels per
day greater than it is, or about 14 percent of
todays consumption. 11 But we can do better. With some commonsense CAFE reforms, we can
satisfy the environmental community and deliver
an auto fleet to American consumers which
preserves existing jobs and creates new ones. Take the A out of CAFE. Congress should abandon the A in CAFE, throwing out
fleet averages and setting standards by
specific classes of vehiclesor
delegating the setting of class standards
to the executive branchunder strict
overall requirements based on total fuel
savings or differing percentage
improvements in performance for each
class. Thus, small vehicles in the
companys fleet would have to meet X
standard, mid-size vehicles would have
to meet Y average, and so forth. These
standards must be developed in a way
that will lead to overall fuel consumption
reductions based on projected sales. This
approach would eliminate industry
complaints about being forced to build
cars consumers dont want and instead
can get us what consumers want most and
what CAFE originally promised:
improved efficiency in every type of
vehicle. Close dual-fuel loopholes. Moving toward a tailpipe emissions trading approach
could also help us address the complaint Progressive Policy Institute www.ppionline.org 5 that CAFE discourages the production of
vehicles that run on alternative fuels.
Congress originally gave manufacturers
additional credits for dual-fuel engines
that could burn more than just gasoline
(for example, ethanol). In practice,
however, alternative fuels such as ethanol
are only actually used in these vehicles
around one percent of the time, yet
manufacturers are able to apply their
credits to their entire fleet. As the NAS
concluded, such practices bring overall
fuel economy down and should be
eliminated. But if a manufacturer did
produce a vehicle that only ran on
alternative fuels, the tailpipe emission
option would give the manufacturer fuel
credit for that vehicle and not for those
that do not deserve it. Eliminate light truck loopholes. Moving to class-based standards based on tough
but achievable goals also allows us to get
rid of loopholes that let SUVs get lower
fuel economy and drag the average of the
whole fleet down simply because we call
them light trucks. The National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) has, in fact, now itself
proposed reclassifying some crossover
vehicles like Chryslers PT Cruiser from
the light truck category to the passenger
car category. 12 This is a good first step, but too many SUVs that are nothing more than
passenger vehicles face overly lenient
fuel economy requirements. By eliminating the practice of averaging miles-per-gallon across the entire fleet,
manufacturers can concentrate on
improvements in each vehicle class
recognizing that a 20 percent increase in
efficiency for a vehicle getting 10 miles per
gallon is of greater impact in terms of
barrels of oil than a 20 percent increase in
a vehicle that is already getting 40 miles
per gallon. Eliminate the two-fleet rule . CAFE currently requires manufacturers to meet standards
separately for their domestic fleets of new passenger cars and their imported fleets.
(Domestic models are defined as those
comprised of at least 75 percent American
parts.) Manufacturers can calculate average
fuel economy standards over each of these
two fleets, but may not combine the two fleets
to come up with one number. The
requirement originally was intended to
promote the use of domestically produced
parts and to discourage domestic
manufacturers from simply importing large
numbers of very small vehicles originally
designed for foreign markets as a way to
comply with the CAFE standard. But in some instances, the two fleet rule has had precisely the opposite effect.
By reducing the U.S. content of some of
their biggest gas-guzzlers to a level be-
low 75 percent, manufacturers can aver-
age their fuel inefficient vehicles with
their more fuel-efficient import fleet to
comply with CAFE. Repealing the two-fleet rule would eliminate such practices and the need for
automakers to juggle manufacturing
decisions to ensure compliance with
CAFE for both imported and domestically
produced vehicles. Modernize testing . We also need to alter the regulations that govern the testing of
vehicle efficiency for CAFE purposes.
For example, vehicles are currently tested
on a dynamometer with all auxiliary
systems turned off. Thus, a car or light
truck with an advanced battery system
that powers air conditioning and other
vehicle functions will provide real fuel
savings but will not receive credit for that
increased efficiency under current tests.
On the other side of the equation, some
vehicles perform unrealistically well
when tested under current procedures
relative to real world driving, given
features and options that are not
adequately picked up by the test. Our
testing protocols should spur new
technologies with stronger incentives
while better simulating real world driving
conditions. Progressive Policy Institute www.ppionline.org 6 Step 3: Spur Consumer Spending on
Cleaner Cars Modernizing CAFE will enable automakers to better build clean cars. At the
same time, however, consumers need
stronger incentives to buy next generation
vehicles, to make such vehicles both more
attractive to potential buyers and more cost
competitive with conventional vehicles. Consider the case of the newest efficiency technology for vehicles on the
market, the hybrid vehicle, which is expected
to represent 1 percent of new car and truck
sales in the United States by 2005. So far,
demand for these vehicles has exceeded
supply, but when additional models become
available next year, their sticker price is still
likely be about $4,000 higher, or more, than
their conventional counterparts. In order to
move this emerging technology beyond a niche
market in the near term, it is necessary to reduce
its cost and promote consumer acceptance. Consumers can accelerate the turnover of the inefficient American fleet, but they
need a reason and the financial ability to
purchase more efficient vehicles. Alone,
periods of high gasoline prices have not
lasted long enough to spur greater
consumer spending on more fuel-efficient
vehicles. Using tax credits to move the efficient vehicle market is not a new idea; businesses
and individuals currently can write off 10
percent, up to $4,000, of the cost of electric,
fuel cell, and hybrid vehicles. But this
provision will be phased out starting in 2004. Several Congresses have considered but not passed the bipartisan CLEAR Act (a scaled-
back version of which can be found in the
Energy Policy Act of 2003), which extends and
expands existing incentives to promote
alternative vehicles. Rather than dictate what
type of automotive technology consumers
should buy, the proposal is technology-neutral:
It would provide a tiered income tax credit for
individuals and businesses that purchase
dedicated alternative fuel and advanced
technology vehicles, including electric vehicles,
fuel cell vehicles, and hybrids. The proposal
would allow taxpayers to claim a credit of 50 percent of the incremental cost of any such
vehicle. In addition to tying tax credits to technology, the bill also pegs tax credits to
emissions. The proposal would provide an
additional 30 percent credit to vehicles that
meet the Clean Air Acts most stringent
emission standards (excepting Californias
more stringent Zero Emissions Vehicle
requirementsa set of regulations unrelated
to the states new tailpipe emissions law). Incentive packages, such as the CLEAR Act, that are broad-based, technology neutral
(including fuel cells, hybrids, and alternative
fuel technologies), and of sufficient size to
overcome obstacles of cost and consumer
caution about investing in new technology,
can accelerate fleet transformation. Offer true alternative fuel vehicles. Tax deductions for the incremental costs of
alternative fueled vehicles should be
expanded as these vehicles can reduce
petroleum consumption and carbon
emissions. Under the CLEAR Act, a base
credit of up to $2,500 would be provided for
the purchase of such vehicles. An additional
$1,500 credit would be available for vehicles
meeting stricter emissions criteria. Provide support for fuel cells. Both cham- bers have supported significant tax cred-
its, pegged to efficiency and weight, to
speed fuel cells to market. This promis-
ing technology deserves that support, but
not at the expense of other options. At
this early stage of advanced alternative
vehicle development, tax incentives
should be directed at a wide variety of
options, rather than seek to promote one
type of vehicle technology over others. Provide incentives for advanced diesel. Although diesel vehicles get significantly
better mileage than comparable gasoline-
powered vehicles, concern over the ad-
ditional emissions of particulate matter
and other air pollutants from diesel com-
bustion has limited support for diesel
technology in the United States. As a
result, the CLEAR Act stops short of Progressive Policy Institute www.ppionline.org 7 providing consumer credits for ad-
vanced diesel purchases. But according
to its proponents, this may be an over-
sight. Industry sources say diesels im-
prove fuel economy by, on average, 40
percent over gasoline vehicles. New Clean Air Act regulations sched- uled to take effect in 2007 also increased
the likelihood that producers will be able
to reduce particulate matter and nitro-
gen oxide from diesel through advances
in low sulfur fuel and treatment technolo-
gies. Known as the Tier II emission stan-
dards (Tier I standards were phased dur-
ing the 1994-1996 model years), the
regulations will tighten controls on mo-
bile sources emissions, such as hydro-
carbon and nitrogen oxides. If the advanced diesel technologies can meet the Clean Air Acts emissions
standards for mobile sources, then these
technologies should be eligible for tax
incentives to allow us to benefit from their
greater fuel efficiency. Explore other incentives . Other possible incentives include an additional one-time
credit for a new vehicle that is 50 percent
more efficient than the taxpayer s
previous vehicle. With the proper
tracking, this could help to get the older,
least efficient vehicles off the road faster
than they might otherwise be traded in. Encourage new fleet purchasing habits . Providing additional incentives for rental
companies and other private fleets to
change their purchasing habits (for
example, with a tax credit for increasing
the average efficiency of their fleet or incentives for alternative fuel
infrastructure) would not only move the
market, but help to acquaint consumers
with the newer technologies. The
federal government should do more to
help develop the market by expanding
and then enforcing its efficiency
requirements and alternative fuel
vehicle purchasing requirements. Conclusion Our pressing national security and environmental interests demand that we neither
accept todays political gridlock over energy policy
nor passively wait for a wholesale shift to a
hydrogen economy. Near-term progress will
require that we reinvent the politics of fuel
economy with rational and reasonable
improvements to our present regulatory
structure. This will call for both sides in the
current debate to take a fresh look at the
problem and understand that it is in all of our
interests to make real progress now. For the
U.S. auto industry in particular, it is imperative
that the domestic marketplace continue to lead
the world in cutting-edge technologies. While the president articulates a welcome vision of children born today driving hydrogen-
powered vehicles when they turn 16, it is also
possible to show leadership now to ensure that
todays high school freshmen will have cleaner,
more efficient and affordable vehicles to drive
when they graduate. The tough issues the
nation faces today at home and in the world
will not wait for us to build a new hydrogen
economy. With bold and practical changes, we
can meet the challenges of the decade at hand
while building a better future in decades to
come. Roger Ballentine is a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute and president of Green
Strategies, Inc. He formerly served as chairman of the White House Climate Change Task Force,
deputy assistant to the president for environmental initiatives (1999-2001), and special assistant
to the president for legislative affairs (1998- 1999). Jan Mazurek directs PPIs Center for Innovation
& the Environment. For more information about this or any other PPI publication, please contact the Publications Department at:
(202) 547-0001, write Progressive Policy Institute, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20003,
or visit our site on the Web at http://www.ppionline.org. Progressive Policy Institute www.ppionline.org 8 Endnotes 1 U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/. 2 Green, David L. and Andreas Schafer, Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions From U.S. Transportation, prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, May 2003, http://www.pewclimate.org/projects/ustransp.cfm. 3 Fox-Penner, Peter, Clean Growth: A Balanced Energy Policy for the 21st Century, Progressive Policy Institute, 2001; Ronald E. Minsk, Ending Oil Dependence as We Know It, Progressive Policy Institute, 2002; David J. Hayes,
Domestic Oil and Gas Production: Pursuing a Principled Approach, Progressive Policy Institute, 2002, http://
www.ppionline.org. 4 Sperling, Daniel, FreedomCAR and Fuel Cells: Toward the Hydrogen Economy?, Progressive Policy Institute, 2003; Peter Hoffmann and Robert Rose, Speeding the Commercial Use of Fuel Cells and Hydrogen, Progressive
Policy Institute, 2003. Both available at: http://www.ppionline.org. 5 The bi-partisan proposals, cosponsored by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), if passed would have increased federal fuel economy standardscurrently set at 27.5 miles per gallon for cars and 20.7 mpg for light
trucksto 35 mpg overall by 2016. 6 In addition to promoting his hydrogen agenda, President Bush has also formally proposed modestly increasing federal fuel economy standards for light trucks to 21 mpg for model year 2005, 21.6 mpg in 2006 and 22.2 mpg in 2007
an overall increase of 1.5 mpg, or 7.2 percent. 7 See, for example, Darmstadter, Joel, Options for U.S. Energy Security, Resources for the Future, 2003. Available at: http://www.rff.org. Darmstadter estimates that the current federal fuel tax should be raised from its current level of
about .40 cents per gallon to close to a dollar. 8 The Economic Costs of Fuel Economy Standards Versus a Gasoline Tax, Congressional Budget Office, December 2003. 9 Sperling, Daniel, op. cit., and Hoffmann, Peter and Robert Rose, op. cit. 10 California, on the other hand, argues that it has appropriate authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. 11 National Academy of Sciences, Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards, Transportation Research Board, National Academies Press, 2002. 12 Proposed Rule, Federal Register, vol. 68, no. 248, December 22, 2003. Progressive Policy Institute www.ppionline.org 9 Appendix: Some available and near-term automotive technologies to
economize on fuel use Hybrid-electric drives. Already on the U.S. market in several forms but in limited quantities,
combining the power of a smaller gasoline or diesel engine with a regenerating electric
motor is an improving yet proven technology that can significantly increase fuel efficiency. Advanced battery systems and mild hybrids. Although a ubiquitous technology, batteries
have proven to be a very challenging problem and one that government research has
addressed for some time. Several automakers have been working on advanced battery
systems that can significantly improve fuel economy. Larger and more powerful batteries
can run auxiliary systems such as air conditioning that currently sap efficiency directly
from the engine, and more powerful and advanced electronic systems can even act more
like a hybrid by shutting off an engine at idle and instantly restarting it at acceleration. Digitally controlled variable valve timing. Computer technology has already yielded significant advances in vehicle technology. Great efficiency can be achieved by applying digital
technology to more accurately control the timing of engine valves. Low resistance and run flat tire technology. We know that tires are a significant factor in
vehicle efficiency. Advances in tire technology can reduce fuel consumption by reducing
resistance and obviating the need for weight-adding spares without sacrificing performance
or safety. New-generation direct injection, lean-burn technologies. Diesel engine technology remains
both ubiquitous in large vehicles and controversial among consumers and
environmentalists. Yet new diesel technologies are improving in ways that can allow us
to benefit from the significant efficiency advantages inherent in this venerable technology
without suffering an increase in conventional pollutants. Direct injection gasoline
vehicles can also get better mileage. Continuously variable transmissions. Advanced transmission technologies can add mileage
performance to different types of vehicles and engines. Cylinder deactivation. Engines that only use the number of cylinders needed at a given
time have been around for some time and could be improved and more widely deployed. Advanced construction materials. Primarily by reducing weight, advanced materials such as
composites can provide great efficiency and equal or greater safety and aesthetics. While
more expensive than traditional materials, ongoing advances and economies of scale can
help bring down these costs. Alternative fuel technologies. And of course, if our cars can run on fuel other than petroleum,
we will indeed help to solve our energy security concerns. Natural gas, bio-diesel, and corn
ethanol (when produced and transported in such a way as to produce net reductions in
energy use and harmful emissions) are all present options.

Comments