UtahBill,

I don't have exact figures about what the impact would be if light trucks and SUV-type vehicles were not considered in the data. However, when it comes to the national interest, the need for energy efficiency, as one aspect of a larger national energy policy, trumps the narrower interest of given companies. The overall economy and also national security are put at risk if the supply of energy is not reliable nor reasonably affordable relative to available commercial, individual, and military finances.

Given past innovation and also the experience in countries in which more rigorous standards have been implemented, I have little doubt that the need for vehicles will be filled even if the U.S. were to accelerate its increased fuel economy standards. Arguably, the U.S. auto industry, largely because it repeated its approach of prior to the 1970s energy shocks, put itself in a position of vulnerability that is now wreaking havoc in the present environment of higher energy prices.

It should be noted that the return to complacency is not unique to the U.S. auto industry. Such a tendency seems to be inherent in human nature, as one sees such a pattern manifest itself time and again in economic affairs and markets. Smart regulation can't prevent such a tendency, but it can reduce prospects of its recurrence.

Also as you noted, if the auto makers are forced to retool to attain better fuel economy, there are existing tax laws that will help them pay for the transition. I would also like to see anti-trust laws relaxed to permit greater joint efforts in R&D. Prohibiting pricing collusion and other practices that harm consumer welfare is one thing. Those laws that protect consumers from such practices are entirely appropriate. However, overly blunt rules that also preclude the kind of collaboration that could benefit consumer welfare, as well as the national interest, constitute another matter.