While grandstanding politicians and the mainstream media continue to fan the flames of populist rage over the AIG bonus scandal, little attention is being paid to other critical issues taking place in Washington. Even though GM and Chrysler have yet to submit their viability plans due on March 30th, the Obama administration has already announced that it will divert $5 Billion in TARP funds to bail out automotive parts suppliers. If we’re preparing to bail out the suppliers, is there any doubt that the automakers themselves will receive another round of taxpayer funded assistance, regardless of the plans they submit? There would be no point in keeping the suppliers afloat if the government had any intention of allowing the automakers to fail.

Hardly a day passes that President Obama doesn’t talk publicly about massive taxpayer investments in new vehicle technology, particularly for electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids. Under the Bush administration, Congress already passed the $25 billion fund known as the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Incentive Program, to be administered by the Department of Energy. Is President Obama talking about additional billions on top of this existing program, even though the DOE has yet to make the first loan?

It has been widely reported that the intended purpose of this fund was to help automakers retool to build more fuel efficient vehicles, with the assumption being that the funds were specifically set aside for GM, Ford and Chrysler. This is simply not true. The act specifically stated that the Department of Energy should use the funds to provide “grants and loans to eligible automobile makers and component suppliers for projects that re-equip, expand, and establish manufacturing facilities in the U.S. to produce light-duty vehicles and components that make meaningful improvements in fuel economy.” Any company that meets the technological and financial requirements set forth by the DOE is eligible to participate. Nothing in the act indicates that the Big 3 are the intended recipients of the funding.

In spite of all the President’s talk of creating a new automobile industry for the 21st century, the actions of the Department of Energy tell a very different story. Rather than focusing on dramatic innovation, the policy of the government seems to be preservation of the status quo. What’s unclear is whether this is a result of lack of imagination on the part of the regulators, or commitment to the preservation of union jobs by the administration.

What is clear is that the automobile hasn’t really changed very much in the 122 years since the first practical car was invented. We’ve made remarkable advancements in performance, emissions control, and safety, but the basic concept of a large four wheeled vehicle, constructed primarily of steel, and powered by an internal combustion engine remains the same. The reason that the basic concept hasn’t changed is that the companies that design and produce automobiles have substantial investments in manufacturing capabilities that lock them in to this basic formula.

As a nation, we must realize that the main source of innovation in automobile design will not be the existing automakers. Just as we cannot expect the oil companies to jeopardize their primary business by developing alternative energy sources, we cannot expect an entirely new concept in automobile design to come from companies with a vested interest in the status quo. While certain auto makers such as Toyota and Honda are known for being innovators within the industry, even their most dramatic concepts tend to fit the conventional mold. The fact is that true innovations are most likely to come from outside sources.

Enter Aptera Motors. This California based start-up has developed a stunning new concept in automotive design that shatters the existing mold. Intended primarily as a commuter vehicle, the 3 wheeled Aptera will be available in both electric and plug-in hybrid models. The electric model will have a range of 100 miles on an overnight charge from a standard 110 volt outlet. It takes advantage of lightweight composite construction to reduce weight to roughly half that of the average car on the road today. Aptera has already received more than 4000 advance orders, and is scheduled to begin delivery of the first vehicles in California later this year.

This is exactly the kind of innovative company that would seem to be an ideal candidate for loans under the ATVMI program. Unfortunately, the Department of Energy has a different view of things. Aptera designers chose a 3 wheel configuration for aerodynamic efficiency and reduced rolling resistance, resulting in a 25% improvement in highway mileage. DOE officials claim that since the vehicle only has 3 wheels, it cannot be considered an automobile, and is thus not eligible for loans under the program.

Under Federal and most state laws, 3 wheeled vehicles are classified as motorcycles. As such, they are not required to meet the crash safety standards of passenger cars. From the start, Aptera engineers have insisted that their vehicle will meet those safety standards, in spite of the fact that they won’t be subject to testing. The vehicle is built around an aluminum and composite safety cage, and is equipped with a full complement of airbags. This thing may not meet the current Federal definition of a passenger car, but it certainly not a motorcycle. Perhaps the most absurd consequence of the motorcycle designation is the fact that most states will require Aptera drivers and passengers to wear helmets.

If we are truly seeking to develop an automobile industry for the 21st century, federal and state regulators must abandon their 19th century concept of the passenger car. Legislation has been introduced that would open ATVMI funding to 2 and 3 wheeled vehicles, but it remains to be seen whether it will be defeated by the entrenched interests who are more concerned with the preservation of union jobs than in promoting true technological advancement.

One of the greatest problems we face today is the fact that scientific research and government funding are so hopelessly intertwined that it has become virtually impossible to separate fact from politicized fiction. Ordinary citizens and government policy makers alike require unbiased data in order to make informed decisions. Unfortunately, information untainted by politics has become increasingly difficult to come by. What we end up with are situations where embryonic stem cell research becomes a proxy for the abortion debate, and lobbyists from corn producing states overshadow any efforts to develop rational energy policies.

Nowhere is this mixing of science and politics more evident than in the field of global climate research. Proponents of the case for man made global warming have told us for years that there is a consensus in the scientific community, and unilaterally declared that the debate is over. These people continue to push for drastic government actions that would severely restrict global economic activity, and place a burden on businesses measured in trillions of dollars. Failure to act now, they warn us, will have dire and irreversible consequences. What they never mention are the dire and irreversible consequences of acting prematurely in the event that their warnings are unfounded.

I admit that I do not have a scientific background, but there are several things about the global warming argument that have always aroused my skepticism. I’m not saying I don’t believe it’s possible, but based on the evidence I’ve seen to date, I am far from convinced. We know that the Earth goes through natural cycles of warming and cooling measured in tens of thousands of years, so how can we possibly draw any meaningful conclusions based on patchy temperature readings that only date back to 1880? How can we rely on 4 or 5 decades worth of satellite imagery to determine the relative size of the polar ice caps today to what they might have been 100, 1000, or even 10,000 years ago?

Until recently, climate change skeptics have been hard pressed to refute the assertions of the true believers with reliable evidence of their own. Those who challenged the conventional wisdom were generally dismissed as crackpots. In the past couple of years, however, the “consensus” has begun to unravel and more scientists have been willing to speak out in opposition to the theory of man made global warming. It is obvious now that the debate is far from over.

In my quest to become more informed on the subject, I’ve recently discovered a great resource. Watts Up With That is a multi-author blog that questions the basic assumptions behind global warming theory. Most of the information is well written and does not require a scientific background to digest. If you’ve had lingering doubts about the science behind global warming, I recommend you check it out. It may not change your mind one way or another, but none of us can consider ourselves to be truly informed without examining both sides of the argument.

Instead of simply appropriating new funds specifically designated for a bailout, Big 3 supporters in Congress have been busy playing shell games that they hope voters are too stupid to figure out. After witnessing the electoral backlash suffered by Republicans in the wake of the $700 billion financial bailout, Democrats are desperate to create the illusion that money for GM, Ford and Chrysler will come from an existing pool of funds. The plan they have hatched is to raid the $25 billion Advanced Technology fund, and then to appropriate an additional $15 billion to replenish the fund as soon as President Obama takes office. Voters should not be fooled by this political slight of hand.

There is also growing agreement on Capitol Hill that a federal overseer should be put in place to administer any bailout funds. The appointment of the so-called car czar is an even worse idea than the bailout itself. The U.S. Congress is one of the few organizations in the world that is more dysfunctional than the Detroit automakers, and allowing them to meddle in the day-to-day operations of the companies would only make matters worse. Are we really going to count on the same people who brought us the boondoggle of corn based ethanol to save the auto industry?

The initial bailout plan would have taken $25 billion from the Troubled Asset Relief Program administered by the Treasury Department. Secretary Paulson and President Bush have both made it clear that they would not support this diversion of funds away from the intended purpose of propping up the banking system. Apparently they see no irony in the fact that they have already diverted the money away from the original intended purpose of purchasing troubled assets.

Convinced by the auto executives that their survival hinged on immediate action, proponents of a bailout set their sights on another pool of unspent funds. Passed in 2007, the Energy Independence and Security Act contained several provisions, including an increase in Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, and a mandate for the increased use of biofuels. The bill also created a $25 billion fund known as the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Incentive Program to be administered by the Department of Energy. This is the money that lawmakers now seek to redirect to aid the Big 3.

It has been widely reported that the intended purpose of this fund was to help the automakers retool to build more fuel efficient vehicles, with the assumption being that the funds were specifically targeted at GM, Ford and Chrysler. This is simply not true. The act specifically stated that the Department of Energy should use the funds to provide “grants and loans to eligible automobile makers and component suppliers for projects that re-equip, expand, and establish manufacturing facilities in the U.S. to produce light-duty vehicles and components that make meaningful improvements in fuel economy.” Any company that meets the technological and financial requirements set forth by the DOE is eligible to participate. Nothing in the act indicates that the Big 3 are the intended recipients of the funding.

Tesla Motors is one of several new automobile companies formed in recent years to manufacture electric vehicles in the U.S. They recently began production of their two seat roadster model that offers a range of 244 miles per charge. They have plans to begin producing a five passenger sedan in 2011. Their current vehicles are quite expensive which is to be expected for a low volume producer. As with any new technology, we should expect to see the price fall dramatically as production volume increases.

Tesla has applied for a $400 million loan under the ATVMI program. The company intends to use the money to construct a new plant and purchase tooling to build their sedan model. If Congress raids the fund to provide a bailout for the Big 3, new companies like Tesla will find it nearly impossible to get the funding needed to bring their revolutionary products to market on a scale that will make them affordable to the general public.

Supporters of the Big 3 tell us constantly that automobile manufacturing is vital to our economy and to our national security. I agree with them wholeheartedly. Where I disagree is with the notion that GM, Ford and Chrysler are vital. If they disappeared tomorrow, there will still be a healthy demand for automobiles that someone will build in the U.S.

Tesla Motors is not alone in the development of revolutionary green vehicles that are ready for large scale production. The Aptera 2e will be available for sale in California starting next year, and Fisker Automotive is taking orders for their plug-in hybrid sedan for delivery in 2010. The plans of all three companies could be jeopardized by the current lack of available credit. We should not hinder the growth of new businesses offering revolutionary products in order to prop up failed companies that will only give us more of the same. If Congress truly believes that automobile manufacturing is vital to our national interests, they should demonstrate their convictions by leaving the ATVMI program intact.

RELATED POSTS

Rethingking The Automobile

Rewarding Failure Only Postpones The Inevitable

Lies, Damned Lies And Statistics From The Big Three

Why Energy Independence Really Matters

LINKS

http://www.teslamotors.com

http://www.fiskerautomotive.com

http://www.aptera.com

Fast forward three decades and the remaining U.S. automakers are asking for another bailout on a far more massive scale. Their inability to obtain credit for marginally qualified buyers is a major factor in the equation, but the greater underlying problems are exactly the same as they were in 1979. The companies continue to produce poorly designed products that consumers reject in favor of Asian and European brands, and they are still unable to meet the demand for fuel efficient vehicles, 35 years after the 1973 oil embargo. Their bloated bureaucracies and the continued extortionate demands of the UAW make it virtually impossible to compete in the global marketplace.

The main argument in favor of saving Chrysler in 1979 was that it was essential to preserve jobs in the manufacturing sector. In spite of this, Chrysler shed 60,000 workers in the three years following the bailout. When Chrysler merged with American Motors in 1987, the resulting layoffs were equivalent to the entire white collar workforce at AMC. Auto industry lobbyists claim that as many as 2.5 million workers could lose their jobs if the Big Three automakers are allowed to fail. The reality is that the only way for the automakers to survive is by shedding massive numbers of employees.

The largest group of people employed in the automobile industry don’t actually work for the manufacturers or the parts suppliers, but for franchised new car dealerships. At the start of 2008, there were nearly 21,000 new car dealerships in the U.S. employing roughly 1.1 million people. Over 15,000 of these dealers sold GM, Ford and Chrysler products. Big Three dealerships have been closing in record numbers in recent years, but analysts estimate that a full 2/3 of the remaining dealers will have to close their doors in order to allow the strong to survive. As it stands today, the average Toyota dealer sells over 1700 vehicles per year, while the typical Big Three dealer only sells around 600. Chrysler alone has over 3600 dealerships in the U.S., compared to 1200 for Toyota. Bailout or no bailout, the number of people employed by new car dealerships will be substantially smaller in the not-too distant future.

Just as they did in 1979, supporters of a bailout today point to the auto industry as the cornerstone of the manufacturing sector. What they don’t mention is that auto manufacturing is actually very much alive and well in this country. Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Subaru, BMW, and Mercedes-Benz all have sizable manufacturing operations in the U.S. The primary difference is that they have chosen to set up shop in Right To Work states far from the poisoned labor atmosphere that prevails in the Rust Belt. Given that the auto industry is one of the last strongholds of organized labor in the U.S., the fact that Democrats tend to support the idea of a bailout should come as no surprise. Just as in 1979, Democrats will soon control the White House and have overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate.

At this point we can only speculate what the condition of General Motors and Ford might be today if Chrysler had been allowed to fail in 1979. The remaining players would have learned some hard lessons about the need to streamline their operations and to offer consumers the kind of products they wanted to buy. The unions might have come to realize that their unrealistic demands amounted to a stranglehold on the their employers. What they learned instead is that Uncle Sam will come to the rescue and reward decades of poor decisions on the part of management and labor alike. Unfortunately, we are poised to make the same mistake again, using tax dollars to prop up an otherwise unsustainable business model.

What happens without a bailout? In all likelihood, Chrysler would fail immediately, and GM and Ford would both be forced into Chapter 11 bankruptcy. This would give both companies an opportunity to reorganize and emerge as more viable competitors in the global marketplace. They would be much smaller than they are today, but their new size would better reflect their market share. There is no question that many jobs would be lost in the process, but the fact is that those jobs are going to be lost regardless of whether the government steps in.

Do not assume that the demise of the Big Three would be the end of automobile manufacturing in the U.S., and do not dwell on mythical notions about American cars built by American companies. Auto manufacturing is a truly global industry, and other global companies will expand quickly to meet the demand. Rapid technological advancements by smaller companies may also bring about a dramatic change in the composition of the industry. You may have never heard of companies Like Tesla Motors, Fisker Automotive, or Aptera, but growing demand for electric vehicles could very well make them the next Big Three. If our government cannot resist the urge to save the automobile industry, they should consider investing in the future instead of dwelling in the past.

RELATED POST

Rethinking The Automobile

Iran’s nuclear program would not be possible without the enormous revenues from the sale of oil, and their expressed desire to wipe Israel off the face of the earth could be dismissed as an empty threat. Venezuela would just be another insignificant banana republic if the socialist agenda of Hugo Chavez were not financed entirely by oil exports. With the exception of North Korea, every country that represents a major threat to global stability is financed entirely by the sale of oil and natural gas.

The first Cold War ended when the Soviet Union collapsed under the burden of unsustainable military spending. Since then, massive oil and gas discoveries have allowed Russia to rebuild it’s armed forces and once again threaten global security. It also allows them to keep their neighbors in line by turning off the spigot whenever it serves their political purposes. There is every reason to believe that we are on the brink of a second Cold War, and it will be financed by the sale of oil and natural gas.

Many people believe that the greatest threat to peace and stability in the world comes from radical Islamists, who also rely directly or indirectly on oil revenues to support their terrorist activities. The fact of the matter is that the majority of Arab countries produce nothing besides oil, and for the most part they are not even capable of getting it out of the ground on their own. These countries would rank among the poorest in the world if it were not for their vast oil revenues, and they would certainly be in no position to finance terrorist activities. To illustrate how truly insignificant their global contributions are, all you need to do is look at international patent applications filed with the World Intellectual Property Organization. In 2006, the United States applied for 49,555 international patents. In that same year, Saudi Arabia and Egypt applied for a combined total of 86, while the rest of the Arab world combined produced a grand total of 32 applications.

While our political leaders focus on reducing the cost of a gallon of gasoline, they seem entirely oblivious to the larger issue. For the sake of our economic well being, and in the interest of global security, we need to focus on rendering oil obsolete as a source of energy. Doing so will require a total commitment on the part of the American people not seen since World War II, and a massive public and private investment in renewable energy infrastructure on a scale far greater than any proposal currently under consideration. The technology already exists to produce all of the power we need from a combination of nuclear, solar and wind, and we need to begin putting it to use immediately. We can either continue to finance our enemies by buying their oil, or we can render them impotent by dramatically devaluing their only resource.

Since the price of gasoline began approaching $4.00 per gallon, Americans have reduced the number of miles they drive, and they have moved away from trucks and SUVs in favor of more fuel efficient vehicles. These are positive steps, but we’ve seen it all happen before. Unfortunately, we tend to have very short memories. As soon as prices retreat to a more palatable level, we revert to our old ways almost as quickly as we abandoned them.

For the first time since the 1970’s congress is debating meaningful changes to our national energy policy. While partisan bickering will prevent us from ever developing an optimum strategy, at least there are substantive issues on the table beyond those favored by the petroleum and agriculture lobbies. The problem now is that unless we maintain the pressure on our elected officials to come up with a real solution to the problem, they are just as certain to revert to their old habits as the rest of us.

We may be past the short-term spike in prices, but nothing has happened to fundamentally alter the fact that global demand for energy will continue to outstrip supply. Even with a perfect plan in place, it’s going to take decades to replace our fossil fuel energy infrastructure. We should have responded to the first energy crisis of the 1970’s with a long-term strategy that focused on alternative fuels and energy independence. Instead, we squandered the opportunity. Thirty-five years have passed and we are more dependent on foreign oil than ever before. Regardless of what happens with the price of oil over the coming weeks and months, we must not allow ourselves to be distracted from the long-term problem. We can’t afford to waste another 35 years.

UPDATE

As of 10/30/08, the price of oil has fallen to $64.79, more than $82.00 below the all time high reached in July.

Imagine that we’re looking down the road 30 or 40 years into the future. We’ve replaced the entire global vehicle fleet with new cars and trucks powered by hydrogen fuel cells. CO2 emissions are a thing of the past, but now we’ve got a billion or more vehicles running around the planet spewing warm water vapor into the atmosphere. Call me crazy, but I can’t help thinking that’s bound to have an impact on the climate.

Let’s look at the case of wind power. The largest modern wind turbines stand over 400 feet tall, and have a blade span of approximately 150 feet. Now let’s assume that Mr. Newton knew what he was talking about when he said that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. That means that the wind velocity on the other side of the turbine will be reduced by an amount equal to the force required to turn the blades. In the case of a single turbine, the effect would be negligible, but what happens when we scale it up? Mesa Energy has recently proposed building the world’s largest wind farm in the Texas panhandle. It would consist of 4000 wind turbines spread over 200,000 acres. Altering wind velocity over that large an area might not bring about any global climate changes, but it must have some measurable impact on local weather patterns.

Texas oil billionaire T Boone Pickens is the man behind this plan, and he is actually lobbying for the construction of an array of these massive wind farms stretching across the mid-section of our country from Texas to North Dakota. This plan would involve hundreds of thousands of massive turbines dissipating wind velocity across the Great Plains. Certainly this is a potential side effect that ought to be taken into consideration before proceeding.

I would love to hear from some folks who knows a whole more about this subject than I do. If you can offer a plausible and readily understandable explanation as to why my concerns are unfounded, please leave your comments. If you think I might be right, give me some science to back up my beliefs. Either way, I appreciate the input.

When U.S. manufacturers first began exporting jobs to countries like China, the relatively low price of oil made it economically feasible to transport finished goods across the Pacific. Even with the cost of shipping, companies could still enjoy a substantial savings based on the labor cost alone. As transportation becomes more expensive, that equation no longer balances. Since the start of the decade, the cost of shipping a standard container from China has tripled, and there is every reason to believe that the price will continue to rise. When the increased cost of shipping finally outweighs the labor savings, the logical decision for U.S. based manufactures will be to bring jobs back home.

This is not to say that every lost manufacturing job will return to American soil, or that companies will come back to the same cities and towns they left behind. As long as they are plagued by high taxes, onerous regulations, and hostile labor unions, the rustbelt states will continue to suffer job losses. On the other hand, business friendly, right-to-work states like Virginia stand to benefit. This is good news for a region that has lost thousands of manufacturing jobs in the textile and furniture industries. It also highlights the need for increased cooperation among our local and regional governments.

With rising oil prices, the cost of transporting raw materials and finished goods is going to play an increasingly important role in determining the location of new manufacturing facilities, and first consideration will be given to sites with ready access to transportation infrastructure. The cost advantage of shipping products by rail will also increase. All of this means that the need for an intermodal freight facility in the Roanoke Valley is more vital than ever. Not only will it make the decision easier for furniture and textile manufactures to return to the region, but could also serve as a major enticement for other companies seeking alternatives to their former rustbelt locations.

After years of study, Norfolk Southern and the State of Virginia have determined that the Elliston site is the most feasible location for the proposed freight yard. The only hitch is that the people of Elliston clearly don’t want it there, and the Montgomery County Board of Supervisors has vowed to stop it. While the projected benefits of the facility are expected to provide an economic boost for a region encompassing nine counties, the people of Elliston are the only ones who are being asked to pay the price in terms of quality of life and environmental degradation.

This is clearly the kind of issue that demonstrates the need for true regional cooperation, but so far all we’ve heard are calls for the people of Elliston to “suck it up” or “take one for the team”. Before losing his seat on the Roanoke City Council, Bev Fitzpatrick publicly stated that “one government cannot keep this region from moving forward.” In reality, they can. While the railroad could exercise it’s power of eminent domain as a last resort, the county and the town could also choose to dig in their heels for a protracted legal battle that the railroad may choose not to fight. In that event, we would all lose.

There is a far better alternative. Rather than simply bullying the citizens of Elliston into accepting a project that will dramatically alter their landscape and their way of life, our elected leaders need to focus on a solution that will benefit everyone, including those who will suffer the negative impact. Instead of demanding that the people of Elliston suck it up, why not ask them what we can offer in return? A package of incentives with money for local schools, or for preservation of other green space in the surrounding area just might make the project palatable. Perhaps the answer will be hiring preferences for local residents once the new facility is operational. In any event, a carrot will be far more effective than a stick. This facility represents an economic development opportunity that our region cannot afford to lose, and it’s up to our elected leaders to work together to make it a reality.

In the 35 years since the Arab oil embargo of 1973, we as a nation have had ample opportunity to adjust to the reality of a world where efficient use of our natural resources is no longer optional, but instead of taking advantage of this opportunity, we have done virtually nothing. In addition to making no progress toward energy independence, we have also allowed ourselves to be caught entirely off guard by the rapidly increasing global demand for non-energy resources. While we could have used the last three decades to prepare and adjust to this new reality, we now find ourselves facing a major economic crisis for which there is no short-term solution.

The incredible economic growth taking place in India and China means that not only will competition drive up global energy costs, but that demand for all natural resources and commodities will only continue to increase. Standards of living in these countries are rising rapidly, and their burgeoning new middle classes will drive dramatic increases in demand for food, housing, consumer goods, and untold millions of additional automobiles. Not only will we be competing against these newly affluent consumers for the fuel to power our cars, but for the raw materials required to build them.

The automobile hasn’t really changed very much in the 122 years since the first practical car was invented. We’ve made remarkable advancements in performance, emissions control, and safety, but the basic concept of a large four wheeled vehicle, constructed primarily of steel, and powered by an internal combustion engine remains the same. The reason that the basic concept hasn’t changed is that it met our needs for a very long time, and the companies that design and produce automobiles have substantial investments in manufacturing capabilities that lock them in to this basic formula.

What we need to realize is that the factors that made the concept successful are changing, and in order to adapt to these changes, we must rethink the automobile from the ground up. We must also realize that the main source of innovation will not be the automakers themselves. Just as we cannot expect the oil companies to jeopardize their primary business by developing alternative energy sources, we cannot expect an entirely new concept in automobile design to come from companies with a vested interest in the status quo. While certain auto makers such as Toyota and Honda are known for being innovators within the industry, even their most dramatic concepts tend to fit the conventional mold. The fact is that true innovations are most likely to come from outside sources.

American consumers have clung to their oversized vehicles partly as a lifestyle preference, and partly as a result of an arms race mentality. It only takes a small number of 7700 pound Ford Excursions on the road to make every other driver fear for their own safety. As long as gasoline remained cheap, the most obvious defense was to arm yourself with an equally absurd vehicle. With this kind of predictable consumer behavior, it’s easy to understand how we’ve reached a point where half of the U.S. passenger fleet consists of pickups and SUVs.

We have also tended to purchase vehicles based more on our occasional needs than our actual daily driving habits. Seventy-seven percent of American commuters drive to work alone. Even though most of us do the majority of our driving without passengers, we select vehicles that allow us to pack up all of our earthly possessions for a once a year trip to Disney World. For most families, it would make far more sense to own at least one very small commuter vehicle, and to rent a larger car or van for those occasional long trips.

Automobile manufacturers responded to the demand for increasingly large and powerful vehicles by giving consumers exactly what they wanted. We can’t blame them for responding to market conditions, but given the incredibly long development cycles required to put a new vehicle into production, their approach has obviously been very shortsighted. American drivers in the market for new fuel efficient vehicles will find them to be in short supply for the next several years as automakers scramble to realign their manufacturing capabilities.

In the face of a looming crisis, and with manufactures and consumers clearly unwilling to moderate their own behavior, our government had the opportunity to step in and impose some degree of restraint. This could have taken the form of additional taxes on gasoline, taxes on vehicles by size or engine displacement, or mandated increases in fuel efficiency. Congress did pass the original Corporate Average Fuel Economy act in 1975, but failed to require meaningful improvements over time since then. The standards were not revised at all from 1984 until 2007. The newly imposed requirement for average fleet efficiency of 35.5 mpg by 2020 represents a marginal improvement at best, and will not require the automakers to stretch the technological envelope. Marginal improvements of this nature will not be sufficient to offset projected increases in our demand for energy.

It appears that we have finally reached a tipping point in consumer behavior with gasoline at $4.00 per gallon. People are driving fewer miles, and sales of new trucks and SUVs have plummeted. Previous spikes in gas prices have led to short-lived changes in consumer behavior, but the question remains as to whether this change will be permanent. Even in the event that gas prices do fall below $3.00 in the future, we cannot afford to revert to our previous unsustainable habits.

While market forces are likely to play a significant role in reshaping our attitudes, it is time for our government to take the lead if we are to reach the efficiency levels required to make our standard of living sustainable. This means we must take steps that go far beyond mandating marginal improvements in fuel economy, and redefine the basic parameters of the automobile.

First and foremost, our cars must become substantially lighter. It doesn’t matter if we’re talking about gasoline, electric, or hydrogen powered vehicles, lighter cars require less energy to operate and to produce. Many drivers believe that lighter vehicles are inherently unsafe, but this is only partially true. According to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration studies, vehicle weight offers no safety advantage or disadvantage in single-vehicle crashes. The real danger comes from collisions between vehicles of dramatically different weights.

Ordinarily I am against any government imposed restrictions on consumer choices, but I believe the time has come that we must be willing to live with a limitation on the size and weight of our vehicles. If we can restrict smoking in public places, we can certainly restrict vehicles that represent a threat to our safety. As long as we allow 3 and 4 ton behemoths on our public roadways for personal transportation, we will endanger the lives of those who choose to drive lighter and more efficient vehicles. Obviously there are substantial costs involved when such restrictions are imposed, both to vehicle owners and manufacturers. These costs are unavoidable, but they can be phased in over time to soften the impact.

The first step would be to prohibit the sale and manufacture of the very largest vehicles immediately. We’re at an opportune moment for this restriction to take place, since sales of these vehicles have already declined to historic lows. Over a period of 15 to 20 years, limitations on maximum vehicle weight could be phased in gradually, with an ultimate goal of reducing the average weight by half or better. Since nearly 70% of the weight of a modern passenger car comes from steel, these reductions are can be achieved through the use of aluminum and lightweight composite materials without requiring any major technological advancements.

We will always have a need for large commercial vehicles on our public roadways, and these heavy trucks will represent a particular danger to very light passenger cars. In order to alleviate this problem, we must study ways to separate commercial and non-commercial traffic wherever possible. The easiest way to accomplish this is by designing cars that are narrower and use smaller lanes. By doing this, the majority of our public roads could be reconfigured to add additional lanes without an actual increase in the width of the paved surface. We must reexamine the basic layout of our vehicles and consider moving away from the standard two abreast seating configuration. Making this change would also serve to dramatically reduce traffic congestion on our roads since we could increase the number of lanes available simply by painting new stripes.

If our government is to succeed in bringing about significant changes in fuel efficiency, the agencies involved must begin to cooperate rather than enacting contradictory policies. One of the reasons that our vehicles are heavier today than 20 years ago is that we continue to insist on ever increasing safety standards, without regard to their cost or consequences. The NHTSA is currently proposing new standards that would require vehicles to withstand a crushing force equal to 2.5 times their own weight, as opposed to the current standard of 1.5 times. The only way to accomplish this goal is by adding weight to the vehicle structure, thus reducing efficiency. By their own admission, this change would result in a reduction of as few as 13 fatalities per year. For the sake of comparison, California officials predict that 300 fatalities will be prevented annually in their state by simply by banning the use of handheld cellphones while driving. Safety is certainly a worthwhile objective, but we would be much better served by getting oversized vehicles off the road than by sacrificing efficiency for statistically insignificant changes in the fatality rate. Faced with a new global reality, governments and government agencies must figure out a way to work together on a prioritized set of objectives that balance the needs for fuel efficiency and passenger safety.