Marty Nemko is the ”The Bay Area’s Best Career Coach”, and a contributor to The Atlantic as well as U.S. News, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and San Francisco Chronicle. So what makes him qualified to sound off on raising the CAFE standard to 100 MPG.
Nemko’s column, dubbed “Driving Is A Freedom: The Case Against Making Gas More Expensive”, Nemko dismisses some of his readers’ previous suggestions to raise gas prices. Why? Because it wouldn’t help reduce global warming but cause the price of everything to rise.
What would be better, Nemko suggests, is smaller, more fuel efficient cars. Says Nemko
I would raise CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards so that every vehicle manufacturer’s fleet of cars and light trucks would, by 2025, average 100 miles per gallon. (Automakers have already agreed to 50 mpg.)
Yes, that would mean that until a breakthrough technology arrives, more new cars would be small, which would cause some increase in car crash injuries. And yes, to accommodate apartment dwellers without a place to plug-in their car, we’d need to expand the network of electric vehicle charging stations that the taxpayer created a decade ago when it was thought electric cars were nigh.
Nemko backs up his proposal with more questionable assertions
In addition to abetting energy independence and decreasing carbon footprint, the 100 mpg mandate would mean our cost-per-driving mile would dramatically decrease because of the better gas mileage and because the lower demand for gas would force oil companies to cut the price. Those cost savings benefit all of us significantly, particularly the poor–and with 100% certitude.
TTAC readers know that buying a newer, fuel efficient vehicle, let alone a hybrid, EV or alternative fuel vehicle rarely nets any significant savings compared to a well maintained older vehicle – and based on anecdotal evidence and observations, gas prices rarely tend to fall as much as we’d like, though they’re quick to rise with the price of crude oil. Finally, “the poor” are often the patrons of used car lots, in particular the “buy here, pay here” kind that charge usurious interest, rather than the new car dealerships that offer lower financing rates, provided the applicant has decent credit.
Aside from the fact that Nemko said nothing to indicate that he is aware of the difference between “adjusted” and “unadjusted” CAFE numbers, the whole suggestion seems arbitrary and poorly thought out – sound familiar? Regulating Americans into smaller, more fuel efficient cars, via CAFE isn’t a viable solution, to the point where Nemko seems to be talking out of his ass. By publishing unsubstantiated, pie-in-the-sky proposals, The Atlantic is lending de facto credibility to sound-bite theories that hold little substance.