1. Fuel economy is not actually a strong lever to green house gas emission. California’s CARB (California Air Resources Board) ratings are a direct evaluation of emissions. For example, cars built in the 80’s generally had better fuel economy than today’s cars, but they polluted more. So the “clean diesels” you speak of do get better fuel economy – as all diesels tend to – but they are clean because they were designed to meet high CARB emissions standards. That’s the only reason why they’re popular today.

So the end result is that more efficient engines have a stronger lever on GHG emissions than CAFE alone. High CAFE and low CARB doesn’t help much in the long run. High CARB standards with high CAFE is the best solution for everyone.

So if the industry follows your suggestion, there is no reason for the auto companies to design cars that have lower GHG emissions.

The EPA’s refusal to grant California’s waiver is based on their belief that CAFE standards are a better driver for emissions – even though they have no data to prove it (just their attitude). CARB and California have technical data to show that it is not.

2. You also imply that it is in the auto companies’ best interest to have one standard. That’s true, but they don’t operate by one standard as it is. All the big players – GM, Toyota, Ford – operate in almost every country on the planet each with their own standards. If there are 10 or 12 different standards in the U.S. they would be more than able to handle it.

You notice that none of the auto makers flinched at the higher CAFE standard increase. You would think they would have had a fit if it really mattered to them.

As it stands, they all tend to design for California anyways – they may offer other options in other states on given models that may not align with the California ratings. But overall, the auto makers design by California’s CARB ratings (you should have a little CARB rating sticker on one of your rear windows).

3. The head of the EPA isn’t a public official; Each individual state in the union has a level of sovereignty. I personally find it inappropriate for such an agency to stand in the way of a sovereign state’s ability to govern itself.

And as an aside, ethanol is a perfectly fine fuel – it doesn’t really work with our current infrastructure obviously. But Ford and GM both showed some great ethanol-specific technologies. As for the supply chain issue, that’s something that I’m confident can be solved.

The first, and undoubtedly most important, step in reducing our dependence upon foreign oil is to improve the efficiency of our transport systems.

Ethanol, most particularly corn based ethanol, is not the answer. Certainly not in the very short term where improved efficiency can be achieved within the next two model years of automobile production.

Congress should remove the EPA’s authority to grant waivers such as the one sought by California.