Aff CAFE 39

WNDI 2008 1
7/18/08 CAFE Aff
CAFE Aff
CAFE Aff.....................................................................................................................................1
CAFE Aff.............................................................................................................................1
***1AC***...................................................................................................................................4
***1AC***..........................................................................................................................4
***1AC***...................................................................................................................................5
***1AC***..........................................................................................................................5
***1AC***...................................................................................................................................6
***1AC***..........................................................................................................................6
***1AC***...................................................................................................................................7
***1AC***..........................................................................................................................7
***1AC***...................................................................................................................................8
***1AC***..........................................................................................................................8
***1AC***...................................................................................................................................9
***1AC***..........................................................................................................................9
***1AC***.................................................................................................................................10
***1AC***........................................................................................................................10
***1AC***.................................................................................................................................11
***1AC***........................................................................................................................11
***Advantage – Oil and Warming***.......................................................................................12
***Advantage – Oil and Warming***..............................................................................12
Plan key to warming and oil and impact internal laundry list....................................................13
Plan key to warming and oil and impact internal laundry list...........................................13
Warming internal and impact laundry list..................................................................................14
Warming internal and impact laundry list.........................................................................14
Plan key to US and global oil dependency.................................................................................15
Plan key to US and global oil dependency........................................................................15
Plan key to foreign oil dependence.............................................................................................16
Plan key to foreign oil dependence....................................................................................16
SQ CAFE = no functional oil savings........................................................................................17
SQ CAFE = no functional oil savings...............................................................................17
SQ = no functional oil savings and AT: the auto industry can’t comply...................................18
SQ = no functional oil savings and AT: the auto industry can’t comply..........................18
WNDI 2008 2
7/18/08 CAFE Aff
Plan = 2 million barrels a day.....................................................................................................19
Plan = 2 million barrels a day............................................................................................19
Plan key to save industry – consumer demand...........................................................................20
Plan key to save industry – consumer demand..................................................................20
Plan key to save industry – supply side and consumer demand.................................................21
Plan key to save industry – supply side and consumer demand........................................21
Plan key to save industry – supply side and consumer demand.................................................22
Plan key to save industry – supply side and consumer demand........................................22
***Advantage – Refineries***..................................................................................................23
***Advantage – Refineries***..........................................................................................23
Plan key to stop oil spills............................................................................................................24
Plan key to stop oil spills...................................................................................................24
Marine extinction impact 1/2......................................................................................................25
Marine extinction impact 1/2.............................................................................................25
Marine Extinction Impact 2/2.....................................................................................................26
Marine Extinction Impact 2/2............................................................................................26
***Plan Actor***.......................................................................................................................27
***Plan Actor***..............................................................................................................27
SQ CAFE inadequate..................................................................................................................28
SQ CAFE inadequate.........................................................................................................28
Plan key......................................................................................................................................29
Plan key.............................................................................................................................29
US Key.......................................................................................................................................30
US Key...............................................................................................................................30
Europe.........................................................................................................................................31
Europe................................................................................................................................31
Rollback......................................................................................................................................32
Rollback.............................................................................................................................32
AT: Current rules are enough ....................................................................................................33
AT: Current rules are enough ...........................................................................................33
Auto industry – CAFE key.........................................................................................................34
Auto industry – CAFE key................................................................................................34
Auto industry – alt cause............................................................................................................35
Auto industry – alt cause...................................................................................................35
WNDI 2008 3
7/18/08 CAFE Aff
Economy – labor/jobs.................................................................................................................36
Economy – labor/jobs........................................................................................................36
Ethanol........................................................................................................................................37
Ethanol...............................................................................................................................37
Auto Safety.................................................................................................................................38
Auto Safety........................................................................................................................38
Politics – Bipartisan support.......................................................................................................39
Politics – Bipartisan support..............................................................................................39
Drilling – Permutation................................................................................................................40
Drilling – Permutation.......................................................................................................40
Incentives....................................................................................................................................41
Incentives...........................................................................................................................41
WNDI 2008 4
7/18/08 CAFE Aff
***1AC***
Contention 1 is Fuel Economy: The National High Traffic Saftey Administration’s current
implementation of Congress’s 2007 Corporate Average Fuel Economy mandates are
inadequate and based on a massive underestimation of gas prices as well as the economic
and military value of conservation – the NHTSA’s CAFE standards need to strongly
exceed 35 miles per gallon by 2020, and industry concerns over technology and the
economy are false and based on flawed evidence.
Clean Air Report 7/10/08, “Contentious NHTSA Fuel-Economy Rule may Influence EPA Standard,” l/n
The May 2 NHTSA proposal was prompted by the 2007 energy law, which required CAFE
to be boosted to a fleet-wide 35 mpg for passenger cars and light trucks by 2020. NHTSA
accelerated the phase-in in its proposal, requiring industry to achieve 31.5 mpg by 2015. In
July 1 comments on the NHTSA plan, the Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers
expressed general support for the rule but argued that the technology analyses NHTSA
used "understate the costs and overestimate the benefits" of the proposal, which the
alliance says "exceed the statutory 'maximum feasible' criterion, especially for the earlier
years." Relevant documents are available on InsideEPA.com. Environmentalists, however,
argue that NHTSA, in developing the rule, relied on faulty assumptions in order to set a
weak standard for automakers, and ask the agency to take steps to accelerate the energy
law's fuel-economy mandate. For example, environmentalists say NHTSA assumed that
the price of gas would be less than $2.50 per gallon in 2015, which critics called an
unrealistically low forecast. Environmentalists also criticize the automakers comments,
with the Union of Concern Scientists (UCS) issuing a July 2 statement calling the
comments "a brazen attempt to undermine the intent of" the energy law. UCS issued an
April report saying manufacturers could meet 42 mpg by 2020 with a 25 percent hybrid
market share. Additionally, state air regulators are calling for an escalated fuel-economy
boost. The National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) in June 30 comments to
NHTSA say the 35 mpg mandate "is a minimum goal, not a ceiling," and also pointed out
the faulty fuel price assumptions. "NACAA urges NHTSA to reconsider its CAFE
proposal for 2011 to 2015, using a more realistic fuel price to determine the appropriate
level of the standard," according to the June 30 letter. "We further urge that NHTSA
follow this regulatory action with one setting a CAFE standard well above 35 mpg by
2020."
WNDI 2008 5
7/18/08 CAFE Aff
***1AC***
And, other approaches such as drilling will fail to avert inevitable economic crisis and
won’t alleviate oil demand for decades.
Nelson D. Schwartz, “Asleep at the Spigot,” The New York Times, 7/6/08, p. 1
''We've got to fix it or our standard of living will change within a decade,'' says Senator Domenici, who is retiring this year. ''Oil was too damn
cheap, it's too high now and it's going even higher. I hope I'm wrong, but the problem is, we can't catch up soon enough.'' According to energy
policy experts, it was in the late 1980s and early 1990s -- during the administrations of President George H. W. Bush and Bill
Clinton -- that
things began to go wrong. Before that point, the country reaped the benefits of the first fuel-
economy standards, passed in 1975, known as corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE. Between 1974 and 1989, the
efficiency of a typical car sold in the United States almost doubled, to 27.5 miles per gallon from 13.8. LARGELY as a
result, oil consumption in 1990 totaled 16.9 million barrels, basically on a par with the 17 million barrels
consumed in 1980, even as the economy grew substantially. Oil prices were in the middle of a long downward slide that
would take them from well above $30 a barrel in 1980 to a low of just under $10 in late 1998 and early 1999, interrupted only by brief spike in
1990 after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. In 1990, Richard H. Bryan, a Nevada Democrat, teamed up in the Senate with Slade Gorton,
Republican of Washington, and proposed lifting fuel standards again over the next decade, with a goal of 40
m.p.g. for cars. Amid furious opposition from Detroit, liberal Democrats from automaking states, like Carl Levin of Michigan, joined
conservative Republicans like Jesse Helms of North Carolina to block new CAFE standards. ''It was one of the most frustrating issues in my
Senate career,'' says Mr. Gorton, who left the Senate in 2001. Dan Becker, then a lobbyist for the Sierra Club, still remembers his shock when he
saw Mr. Levin and Mr. Helms, diametrically opposed on most issues, walk amiably together onto the Senate floor to cast their votes. ''This wasn't
East-West, right-left, or North-South,'' he says. ''But had we passed that bill, we'd be using three million barrels less oil a
day now.'' That amount may not sound like much, given total global consumption of 85 million barrels a day, but it's more than
OPEC's spare capacity now. Mr. Levin didn't return calls for comment. (Mr. Helms died on Friday.) But Representative John D.
Dingell, the powerful Democrat from Detroit who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee, argues -- as he did more than a decade
ago -- that tightening CAFE standards unfairly penalizes domestic automakers while rewarding foreign rivals who make more small cars. Mr.
Dingell, who has defended the automakers fiercely during his 52 years on Capitol Hill, decided to support the stronger CAFE standards last year.
But he does not apologize for his longtime stance. ''The American auto industry has sold the cars people wanted,'' he says. ''You're going to blame
the auto industry for that or the American consumer? He likes it sitting in his driveway, he likes it big, he likes it safe.'' A much more effective
approach would be to simply raise taxes on gasoline, Mr. Dingell says, because higher prices are the easiest way to change buying habits. Some
Europeans agree with this, noting that policy changes engineered through taxation can alter consumer choices without impeding economic
growth. Consumers overseas might not like higher taxes on gasoline, but they've adapted, says Jeroen van der Veer, chief executive of Royal
Dutch Shell, the European energy giant. ''A society can work, can function and can grow even at higher fuel prices,'' he says. ''It's a way of life --
you get used to it.'' In Mr. van der Veer's native Holland, for example, gasoline sells for more than $10 a gallon, with $5.57 of that going to taxes.
Even in Britain, which has substantial North Sea production, gasoline sells for $8.71 a gallon. A SUBSTANTIAL gas tax increase was
considered during the administration of the first President Bush, recalls William K. Reilly, who ran the Environmental Protection Agency at the
time. But it was whittled down in 1990 to just 5 cents after Mr. Gingrich and other conservatives in the Republican Party broke with the
president. ''This was a stark lesson and people decided the gas tax was the third rail of public policy,'' Mr. Reilly says. Even as Congress idled
when it came to tightening CAFE standards or substantially raising levies on gas, the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 made offshore drilling yet
another unpalatable option. ''That caused a sea change and after that no one had any sympathy for the oil industry,'' Mr. Becker says. In 1990,
three months before the effort to raise fuel-efficiency standards failed on Capitol Hill, President Bush issued an executive order making large
swaths of the continental shelf off-limits to new exploration. That policy remains in effect today. When Senators Charles E. Schumer, a New
York Democrat, and Frank H. Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, attempted to put together a grand bargain of opening up more of Alaska in
exchange for raising auto efficiency in 1998, the two couldn't persuade enough members of either party to go along. ''It was a no-action policy,''
says Lee R. Raymond, the former chief executive of Exxon Mobil, who has had a ringside seat for most of the energy policy debates of the last 25
years. ''By the time there is panic, people need to realize this: There is no quick-fix on this. By the time you panic, it is way too late.'' Still, many
analysts argue that increased drilling alone is no panacea. They note that many of the oil giants don't drill in areas
to which they already have access. Exxon, in particular, has been criticized as spending too much to buy
back its own stock and not enough on exploration. Chris Welberry, a spokesman for Exxon Mobil, defends the company's
record, saying, ''We are investing in our business at record levels -- around $25 billion this year.'' In any event, added drilling is unlikely
to generate sharply lower prices. A recent study by the federal government's Energy Information Administration estimated that
under the best-case scenario opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would reduce prices by
$1.44 a barrel by 2027. Drilling in broader swaths off the continental United States wouldn't affect prices
until 2030. On the taxation frontier, President Clinton did manage to get through a small tax increase on gasoline -- 4.3 cents -- in 1993, but
with oil prices hovering between $10 and $20 a barrel for most of the 1990s, conservation ended up on the back burner.
WNDI 2008 6
7/18/08 CAFE Aff
***1AC***
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will revise its proposed standard for the implementation of Corporate Average
Fuel Economy rules under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 by raising the standard over the current proposal by at least 50%
and by requiring that the standard go into effect for 2011 and 2012. The NHTSA will also delay the calculation of a standard beyond 2012 and
adjust its analytic framework for the calculation of the standard beyond 2012 to reflect a minimum gas price of $3.40 per gallon. Finally the
NHTSA will abandon the proposed “vehicle footprint” system in favor of an industry wide car and truck standard for all automakers.
WNDI 2008 7
7/18/08 CAFE Aff
***1AC***
Contention 2 is solvency:
The plan will correct the status quo, which does not increase fuel savings, to maximize both
fuel savings and economic value, injecting a minimum of thirty billion dollars into the
economy and conserving 21 billion gallons of gas.
Mark N. Cooper, Ph. D., Director of Research, Consumer Federation of America, “Comments
on National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,”
http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/nhtsa_comments.pdf, 7/1/08
The first standard included is the standard proposed by NHTSA. It stops investment where marginal
benefits equal marginal costs. We call t his “maximum economic value standard” because this yields a high
net economic benefit, but a low level of fuel savings. At the other extreme (“Technology Exhaust”) is a
standard that pushes investment to the point where technology is exhausted regardless of cost. Another standard maximizes energy
conservations at no net economic cost to society by adding fuel savings technologies to vehicles until the point where the total benefit
equals the total cost. We call this the “maximum economic conservation standard.” .NHTSA
also analyzed a standard
that fell half way between the proposed standard and the maximum economic
conservation standard. NHTSA called it “optimized plus 50 percent.” We call this the “50-50” standard because
it splits the difference between maximizing economic value and maximizing economic conservation. We call it the “50-50 standard”
rather than “optimized plus 50%”for two reasons. First the claim of “optimization” is relevant to the goal chosen. NHTSA’s proposal
is optimized with respect to its goal of economic maximization. It is not “optimized” with respect to the goal of maximum
conservation. NHTSA’s decision to optimize economic value is not statutory, but NHTSA’s preference. Indeed, if there is any
statutory leaning, it points toward optimizing fuel economy, based on the need to conserve energy. Second, it turns out that the “50-
50” standard also splits the auto industry roughly in half with respect to the likelihood that manufacturers would be able to achieve the
standard. NHTSA projects that slightly more than half of the manufacturers would be able to add technologies to vehicles to meet the
standard. The other half would have to exert extra effort to catch up with the majority of the industry. Thus, because “optimized plus
50%” standard sets the goal as a balance of the economic and conservation considerations and would be met by more than half the
industry, we call it the “50-50” standard. NHTSA stopped at the “optimized” standard primarily because of the large net total societal
benefit (the fourth column in Exhibit 2, i.e. the societal view: net total benefit). NHTSA would argue that moving to the standard that
maximizes economic conservation would impose a severe hardship on automakers, since over three quarters of them are projected to
exhaust technology and therefore be unable to achieve the standard (the final column in Exhibit 2: % of automakers exhausting
technology). Note, however, that in all scenarios, the fuel economy achieved is lower than the standard, indicating that some automakers
fail to comply with the standard. The shortfall grows as the standard is raised because of NHTSA’s assumptions about the ability of
All of the technologies to reduce fuel consumption in
auto makers to include technologies in their vehicles.
all of the analyses are already being used in the vehicle fleet. They are available; NHTSA
assumes they cannot (or will not) be added by auto manufacturers quickly enough to come into compliance with the standard being
analyzed. The impact of NHTSA’s assumption about the ability to adopt available technologies can be seen by noting the large gap
between the level at which the standard would be set and the level of fuel economy that would actually be achieved. For example, in the
technology exhaust standard, there is a huge gap between the standard and the achieved level of fuel economy (car standard = 52.6 v.
car achieved = 39.3; truck standard = 34.7 v. truck achieved
WNDI 2008 8
7/18/08 CAFE Aff
***1AC***
continued…
Mark N. Cooper, Ph. D., Director of Research, Consumer Federation of America, “Comments on
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,”
= 31.3) because 90 percent of the auto makers are assumed to exhaust technologies they can include in their vehicles. Similarly, in the
maximum economic conservation standard there is a large gap (car standard = 43.3 mpg v. car achieved = 38.8 mpg; trucks standard =
33.1 mpg v. truck achieved = 30.5 mpg). Because 77 percent of automakers are assumed to exhaust the technologies they can include in
their vehicles. The “50-50” balanced proposal does not suffer these two afflictions. The majority of the automakers are projected to
not exhaust the technologies they could add to meet the standard. The market would achieve fuel economy that is close to the standard.
The “50/50” standard would set the car standard 3.8 mpg higher and the truck standard 1.9
mpg higher than NHTSA’s proposed standards. Setting the standard higher for cars would achieve a 2.9 mpg
increase for cars, equal to over three-quarters of the increase in the standard. Setting the standard higher for trucks would achieve a 2.1
mpg increase, equal to over 90 percent of the increase in the standard. Leaving aside some concerns we have about NHTSA’s
assumptions about how quickly automakers would respond to the prospect of paying fines, this analysis suggests that increasing the
The majority of
standard from the “optimized” level to the “50/50” level would be effective in achieving fuel savings.
automakers are projected to be in compliance, and the bulk of the fuel savings are achieved. Setting the
standard at this level could create an environment in which the laggards are spurred to
catch up. The “50-50” standard strikes a balance between the two extremes of economic practicability and the ability of auto
makers to comply with the standard. The value of the increase in savings is substantial by moving from the “proposed” standard to the
“50/50” level. Even under NHTSA’s very questionable assumptions about fuel prices, among other
things, net economic benefits of the “50/50” standard are estimated at $19.1 billion (cumulative
and discounted). This is less than the net economic benefit of $41.6 billon for the “optimized” standard. However, the “lost” economic
benefits have a large fuel savings benefit. Properly balancing the economic and energy conservation goals by setting the standard at the
“50-50” level would result in standards that are substantially higher and save the nation much more energy, at a modest economic cost.
The incremental energy savings would be about 21 billion gallons and the consumer cost
of those savings would be just over $53 billion, suggesting a cost of approximately $2.50
per gallon. With gasoline at $4 per gallon, these additional savings would appear to be a good deal for consumers and the nation,
and when the erroneous economic assumptions are corrected, as discussed in Technical Appendix B, the
net benefits rise substantially. The “50-50” standard becomes the preferred standard both from the point of view of
economic value and fuel savings.
WNDI 2008 9
7/18/08 CAFE Aff
***1AC***
Adjusting the analytic framework for the NHTSA is necessary to insure the
implementation of appropriately higher standards after 2012, future compliance by the
auto industry, and to prevent rollback from future administrations. Implementation of
rules under the current analytic framework will doom all future efforts at gas conservation
in the United States.
Mark N. Cooper, Ph. D., Director of Research, Consumer Federation of America, “CFA:
Administration Fails to Follow Congressional Mandate,” Reuters, 7/1/08,
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS183509+01-Jul-2008+PRN20080701
By relying on a flawed analytic framework and mistaken empirical specifications, this
rulemaking undermines future rulemakings, CFA charges. Three aspects of the proposed rulemaking
would, if not corrected, lock flawed assumptions and modeling into place creating an
unrealistically low ceiling for fuel economy for years to come: -- First, once the analytical
framework is set, it will be difficult to change. Inertia and judicial deference make it difficult to
reverse agency decisions. -- Second, setting a low standard makes it far more difficult for
the industry to meet higher future standards. Requiring large jumps in improvements is
always more expensive than gradual improvements toward a goal, so fixing the mistakes later is harder
because the industry is further behind. -- Finally, as written, there is no need for another proceeding until
2013, when standards for 2016-2020 will have to be written. If the new administration
tries to revisit the order sooner, automakers will complain that NHTSA is switching rules in mid-stream and
take it to court, as they have in the past. "If the rule stands as written, fuel economy
standards will be hamstrung for years to come, providing neither the fuel economy
consumers demand, nor the oil savings our nation needs," said Cooper.
WNDI 2008 10
7/18/08 CAFE Aff
***1AC***
And, the current NHTSA standards will for the first time adopt a sliding scale of fuel
economy targets based on vehicle size.
Harry Stoffer, “Impact of New CAFE Rules: 40% mpg Increase,” 6/30/08, l/n
A big switch from the past: Because different fuel economy targets are being set for
vehicles of different sizes, each automaker in effect will have to meet its own unique
standards based on the sizes of the cars and trucks it produces and its product mix.
Until now, the corporate average fuel economy program, or CAFE, set an industrywide car standard and
truck standard for all automakers.
This “sliding scale” system will uniquely allow American car manufacturers to circumvent
the new rules.
Aaron Bragman, 7/2/08, “BMW responds to new CAFE laws, claims they are not ‘feasible,’”
Global Insight, l/n
BMW has become the first automaker to officially respond to the new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) laws under
consideration by a multi-agency U.S. government panel. In its comments, which appeared online in the government's official docket,
BMW claimed that the rules for the interim period from 2011 to 2015 as they currently stand "are not feasible" for its products, and that
an alternative method of allowing BMW to raise its CAFE rating by 4.5% annually beginning in 2010 would enable it to ensure
compliance. The ultimate goal
is a 40% improvement in fuel economy by 2020; the rules for the
2011-15 period are still being decided. The administration's proposal is to use a sliding scale
based on each automaker's "vehicle footprint", or the area roughly bounded by the four wheels of a vehicle, to
determine each automaker's fuel economy targets. For BMW, it would need to meet an average of 37.7 mpg for its cars in 2015,
compared to an industry average of 35.7 mpg, and an average of 31.7 mpg for its trucks, compared to the industry requirement of 28.6
mpg.
Significance:The sliding scale system would be a boon to automakers such as the "Detroit
Three", a significant percentage of whose sales is made up of large-footprint light trucks
and sport utility vehicles (SUVs). BMW's vehicles are comparably smaller and narrower, and thus come under a more stringent
scale than those of the domestic producers. The effects of such requirements have been the subject of much debate, with some
claiming that they would lead to automakers manipulating the system to create vehicles with
large footprints in order to ensure reduced requirements. Either way, it looks as though imported brands,
which typically sell smaller cars, will find it tougher to comply with the more stringent fuel
economy regulations than their Detroit-based competitors.
WNDI 2008 11
7/18/08 CAFE Aff
***1AC***
Finally, the technology existed in 2000 for automakers to cheaply and easily comply with
the plan; absent the plan, auto makers will continue to damage the economy.
Noam Mohr and Joseph Shapiro, U.S. Public Interest Research Group Education Fund,
“PUMPING UP THE PRICE: THE HIDDEN COSTS OF OUTDATED FUEL EFFICIENCY
STANDARDS,” US Public Interest Group Research Education Fund, October 5, 2000,
http://static.uspirg.org/reports/pumpinguptheprice2000.pdf
American vehicles don’t have to be gas guzzlers. Using existing technology, manufacturers can achieve
sharp increases in fuel efficiency at little cost,3 particularly for the largest and most inefficient SUVs on the
road.4 Passenger vehicles should be getting 45 miles to the gallon,5 yet with fuel efficiency
standards stagnant for nearly a decade, the auto industry has little incentive to translate
new technology into consumer savings at the gas pump. Today, the average vehicle gets just 23.8 miles to
the gallon, and this number continues to fall.6 Drivers are paying the price.
WNDI 2008 12
7/18/08 CAFE Aff
***Advantage – Oil and Warming***

Plan is uniquely necessary to alleviate a global oil and climate change crisis – strong action
by the United States on car and light truck gasoline consumption will spill over into global
energy policy.
on National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,” 7/1/08,
http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/nhtsa_comments.pdf
The United States and the world are facing an increasingly severe oil supply and price
crisis at the same moment that concerns about the serious negative impacts of global warming are
escalating. Domestically and globally, U.S. policy to reduce gasoline and oil
consumption is one of the most important factors that will affect how the energy, economic
and climate change challenge is dealt with. The U.S. is by far the world’s largest
consumer of oil and oil products, particularly gasoline, accounting for approximately one-quarter of the
total oil consumption3 and over one-third of all global gasoline consumption.4 Virtually all
gasoline consumed in the U.S. is consumed by cars and light trucks – the light duty vehicle fleet, with
the overwhelming majority consumed by household vehicles.5 The passage of the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (EISA) and the increases in fuel economy of the vehicle fleet that it
mandates are the cornerstone of the national response. Due to EISA, we have a policy in place
that can address the most important aspect of the U.S. role in the global oil market: the
amount of gasoline the U.S. consumes. Under the law, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) is required to set fuel economy standards at the maximum feasible level.
Unfortunately, through a series of analytical flaws and unreasonable economic assumptions, NHTSA has done a gross
disservice to the American people, choosing to set standards that are far too low for far too long.
NHTSA’s proposed rule does not reflect the severity of the current crisis or Congress’ intent to deal
with it. NHTSA has vastly underestimated the value of conservation and set fuel economy
standards that are far too low. The flaws in the analysis that led NHTSA to set a standard that is unreasonably low are
legion and diverse, but there are two broad categories of flaws in the analysis. The economic assumptions applied
fail to reflect the energy crisis that the U.S. faces and the analytic framework is biased
against requiring automakers to produce more fuel efficient vehicles.
WNDI 2008 13
7/18/08 CAFE Aff
Plan key to warming and oil and impact internal laundry list
The plan alone would significantly reduce global warming emissions and U.S. foreign oil
dependence – plan is key to reduce warming and avoid runaway disease, global ecological
catastrophe, and coastal flooding.
Outdated standards take a heavy environmental toll as well. Low miles-per-gallon standards increase oil use,
causing more air pollution and millions of gallons in oil spills. With transportation responsible for a
third of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions, outdated standards also mean the average
new car will emit many tons of excess global warming pollution. Scientists have reached a virtual
consensus that these emissions have already caused significant changes to the global climate,
and warn of increases in extreme weather events, the spread of infectious disease,
widespread ecological damage, and coastal flooding. Since global warming pollution remains in the
atmosphere for up to centuries, the costs of today’s emissions will be felt for generations to come. New car buyers therefore pay a far
Improving miles-per-gallon
greater price for inefficient vehicles than can be calculated in spending at the pump.
standards would save consumers thousands of dollars, effect large cuts in air and global
warming pollution, while reducing our nation’s dependence on foreign oil. Congress should put
the interest of the American public before the interest of the oil and auto industries, and allow the Department of Transportation to
update fuel efficiency standards.
WNDI 2008 14
7/18/08 CAFE Aff
Warming internal and impact laundry list

Plan is the most effective means for the United States to check out of control global
warming, which will be responsible for unchecked disease, the death of millions from sea
level rise, and global extinctions.
The additional gas required by inefficient vehicles must be burned in the gas tank, releasing
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is the primary global warming
pollutant. A virtual consensus of scientists has concluded that global warming is real and seriously
threatens the earth’s climate. Levels of carbon dioxide, which trap the sun’s heat in the atmosphere, have reached levels
20% higher than at any time in at least the past 420,000 years. Global temperatures have increased dramatically, with recent years the
hottest ever recorded and rising at an historically unprecedented rate. A comprehensive assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, an officially appointed body of the world’s climate experts, noted a “discernible human influence on global
climate.”42 The National Academy of Sciences recently stated unequivocally that global warming is “undoubtedly real,” and
accelerating.43 Dr. James Baker, director of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has said, “Our climate is now
changing rapidly… Our new data and understanding now point to a critical situation.”44 Today’s greenhouse gas emissions can remain
in the atmosphere for centuries, inflicting long-term damage on our climate for generations to come.
If emissions are left
unchecked, scientists project the past century’s dramatic warming trend to increase three
to seven-fold over the next century. The projected impacts include: • SEA LEVEL
RISE: Thermal expansion of water and melting of continental glaciers have already raised sea levels by 4-10 inches of the past
century, and scientists project global warming will lead to further increases of up to three feet over the
next century, threatening coastal areas and completely obliterating many island nations. • HEALTH THREATS:
Scientists project significant loss of life due to increases in heat stress, deteriorating air
quality, and the spread of deadly infectious diseases associated with global warming. •
SPECIES EXTINCTION: Scientists project global warming to cause widespread extinctions as
species and habitats fail to adapt to rapid changes in climate. • EXTREME WEATHER: Small changes in climate can
produce large changes in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events. Climate
models project increases in heat waves, droughts, fires, downpours, floods, hurricanes,
and El Niños as a result of global warming. The United States is by far the world’s
leading emitter of the greenhouse gases which cause global warming, 45 a third of which
comes from transportation.46 Every gallon of gasoline burned in the gas tank results in the emission of 28.3 pounds of
CO2 equivalent.47 Outdated standards nearly double the emissions of the average car or truck.
As a result, the average model year 2000 passenger vehicle will emit more than 100,000 extra
pounds of global warming pollution over its lifetime.48 The average car will emit more
than 90,000 extra pounds,49 while the average light truck will emit more than 125,000 extra
pounds.50 For large SUVs like the Land Rover, improved standards save well over 165,000 pounds per vehicle.51 If the
American fleet met an updated standards of 45 mpg, the U.S. would reduce its emissions of
greenhouse gases by more than 1.5 trillion pounds (760 million tons) of CO2 equivalent
each year.52
WNDI 2008 15
7/18/08 CAFE Aff
Plan key to US and global oil dependency

Oil consumption by U.S. automobiles is at the root of the global oil crisis.
Nearly 70 percent of the 21 million barrels of oil the United States consumes every day goes
for transportation, with the bulk of that burned by individual drivers, according to the National
Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan research group that advises Congress. SO despite the fierce debate over what's behind the
recent spike in prices, no one differs on what's really responsible for all that underlying demand here for black
gold: the automobile, fueled not only by gasoline but also by Americans' famous propensity for voracious consumption. To be
sure, the American appetite for crude oil is only one reason for the recent price surge. But the country's dependence on
imported oil has only kept growing in recent years, undermining the trade balance and putting an
added strain on global supplies.
WNDI 2008 16
7/18/08 CAFE Aff
Plan key to foreign oil dependence

The plan is the only effective means to significantly reduce our foreign oil dependence.
America imported 52% of its oil from abroad in 1998, the highest percent in history. This figure
could grow to 69% in 2020.28 To ensure a steady supply of foreign oil, the U.S. must finance long-
distance transportation of oil, it must constantly negotiate with OPEC and foreign governments to maintain price
stability, and it must pay military costs to maintain stability in petroleum-rich regions. America’s
increasing dependence on foreign oil leaves it vulnerable to worldwide price spikes and supply shortages. The summer 2000 OPEC-
induced hikes in gas prices, exceeding $2 a gallon in parts of the country, make this danger only all too clear.29 Every minute, the U.S.
sends $180,000 overseas to buy foreign oil.30 With six countries supplying two-thirds of U.S. petroleum imports, 31 American
Transportation accounts for 67% of all U.S. oil
consumers are easily subject to worldwide supply fluctuations.
consumption.32 By updating standards to 45 mpg, the U.S. would save approximately 1.3
billion barrels of oil a year, or more than 40% of our annual imports of crude oil.34
Compared to the 900 million barrels imported annually from the Persian Gulf, or 250 to
800 million barrels per year economically recoverable from the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, improving CAFE standards constitutes an enormous step forward in reducing
national oil dependence.
WNDI 2008 17
7/18/08 CAFE Aff
SQ CAFE = no functional oil savings

The 2008 increase in CAFE standards will have no functional effect - far more radical steps
are necessary.
Peter Fairley, ABC News, “The New CAFE Standards: Fuel standards will likely be achievable
but won't encourage innovation,” January 15, 2008,
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/Story?id=4136951&page=1.
The 40 percent increase in the U.S. fuel-economy standard to 35 miles per gallon by 2020,
which Congress passed last month, could be a significant step toward trimming U.S. drivers' increasing greenhouse-gas
emissions and dependence on imported oil. But energy experts say that the new technologies required to
meet the new standards are minimal. Instead, they say that lesser-known provisions in the Energy Independence and
Security Act could have a far greater impact on spurring the development of new technologies, such as plug-in electric vehicles. The
new law tightens Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards that regulate the average fuel economy in the vehicles produced
by each major automaker. The current CAFE standard for cars, set in 1984, requires manufacturers to achieve an average of 27.5 miles
per gallon, while a second CAFE standard requires an average of 22.2 miles per gallon for light trucks such as minivans, sport utility
vehicles, and pickups. The new rules require that these standards be increased such that, by 2020, the new cars and light trucks sold each
Raising fuel economy by 10 miles per gallon
year deliver a combined fleet average of 35 miles per gallon.
nationwide will deliver real benefits. The Union of Concerned Scientists, for example, estimates that it will save 1.1
million barrels of oil per day in 2020--about half of what the United States imports from the Persian Gulf. That should deliver a
reduction in greenhouse gases equivalent to taking 28 million of today's cars and trucks off the road. Nevertheless, Jim Kliesch, a
senior engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists, in Washington, DC, projects that these
savings will be largely
negated in 2020 by increased driving. "Fuel-economy policy in this country had been stagnating for decades, and
getting a minimum of 35 mpg by 2020 is a critical first step, but if we want to achieve a
sustainable transportation system, it's going to take much more," says Kliesch. Analysts like Kliesch do
expect automakers to produce more advanced diesel vehicles and hybrids in the coming decade, both in response to tightening fuel-
economy rules and for strategic and marketing reasons. But reports by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, think tanks, and activists
show that a combination of existing efficiency options, such as continuously variable transmissions and better tires, can cheaply and
easily deliver a 35-miles-per-gallon fleet. Indeed, Europe currently requires 40 miles per gallon average fuel economy and will
soon push up to 49 miles per gallon, while Japan is expected to reach 47 miles per gallon in its
2015 standard. Greenhouse-gas regulations developed by California (and adopted by many other states) may soon eclipse CAFE in the
United States. Last month, the Environmental Protection Agency rejected California's petition to impose its own standards, arguing that
the state rules delivered the equivalent of just 33.5 miles per gallon, but California officials shot back with their own analysis early
this month. They estimated that the state standard would yield 35 miles per gallon from new cars by about
2016--four years ahead of CAFE.
WNDI 2008 18
7/18/08 CAFE Aff
SQ = no functional oil savings and AT: the auto industry can’t comply
The current standard will not actually force the industry to increase conservation – only
the plan achieves both oil conservation and economic and technical feasibility.
In our view, much higher levels of fuel economy standards would pass the societal
welfare test (one of the primary constraints in the proposed rule) if NHTSA balances the
economic and energy conservation concerns. We believe the same is true for the
The proposed standard is at a level where
conceptualization of the supply-side constraint.
only one or two of the automakers would fail to meet the standard. While NHTSA does not
have to push the standard to a level that would cause a higher percentage of the automakers to
fall short, it is important to recognize that even if that were the case; this would not disqualify
the standard. In other words, if
a higher percentage of automakers were likely to fall short,
that would not mean that the standard is economically impracticable. As we have noted, the
“50/50” level provides an example of this. According to NHTSA’s analysis, over 50 percent
of the auto manufacturers would be able to meet the standard because of the phase in
process.38 Those who fail to meet the standard would either have to speed adoption, develop
new technologies that were not considered by NHTSA, or pay some fines until they do.
These predictions on the possibility that a significant percentage of automakers might
fail to meet the standard carry us to the part of the model that is the least well documented and
transparent. As noted in the comments, the projections of the limitation of the ability to adopt
new technologies is based on a very thin body of knowledge about the veracity, relevance and
predictive value of auto manufacturer product plans, recent changes in fuel economy and the
practices of automakers in adopting fuel economy technologies.
There is also a question regarding assumptions about compliance strategies of auto
manufacturers. NHTSA has set out to essentially ensure that automakers pay few fines, under
the argument that when automakers miss the goal and pay fines, society does not get the
NHTSA’s standard does not push the industry. This is
benefit of increased gasoline savings.
evident in Exhibit A-4. NHTSA
has set the rule at a level where only 11 percent of
automakers and 17 percent of truck markets are not likely to meet the standard. Were
NHTSA to refuse to move the standard to a level where half the industry can meet the
standard, it lets the laggards drag the standard down and allows the definition of economic
practicability to dominate the need for conservation.
WNDI 2008 19
7/18/08 CAFE Aff
Plan = 2 million barrels a day

An increase in CAFE standards would match Europe and save 2 million barrels of oil per
day over current proposed increases.
Mortimer Zuckerman is the editor-in-chief of U.S.News & World Report, “Stop the Energy
Insanity,” U.S. News and World Report, p. 118, July 21, 2008
Consumption. The first fuel economy standard law, known as Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, was passed in 1975--
a mandate that doubled the fuel efficiency of the typical car sold in the United States between 1974
and 1985 from 13.8 mpg to 27.5 mpg (even though these measurements took place in favorable controlled conditions rather than on
actual highways). It has flattened out since then, in contrast to Europe, which now demands 44
mpg. An effort here in 1990 to lift the fuel standard to 40 mpg for cars aroused furious opposition led by
Democrats from automaking states, like Michigan's Sen. Carl Levin and Rep. John Dingell. Had that bill been passed, we would be
using 3 million fewer barrels a day. Only in 2007, with gasoline nearing $3 a gallon, did Congress
approve the first major increase in fuel efficiency in 32 years, requiring the fleet average to
reach 35 mpg by 2020--a measure that would save only 1 million barrels a day by then. Attempts
to raise taxes on gasoline to reduce consumption have essentially failed, except for a small tax increase of 4.3 cents per gallon in 1993.
WNDI 2008 20
7/18/08 CAFE Aff
Plan key to save industry – consumer demand

Plan is key to save the auto industry from total collapse – consumer demand proves.
Lea Radick, Medill News Service, “Catching up on CAFE standards,” 7/3/08,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11504.html.
The federation thinks NHTSA should recommend higher standards for model years 2011 and
2012 and wait to set standards for 2013 through 2015 when better data is available. By setting initial fuel economy
standards higher than what was proposed, Cooper said CAFE standards could reach 33 mpg or
34 mpg as soon as 2016. Motorists are “ready, willing and able” to pay more for fuel
efficient cars, based on public opinion polls commissioned by the consumer group, Cooper said. “Consumers
today have a good sense of gas and how much they are willing to pay for vehicles with fuel
economy — a better sense than NHTSA.” The auto industry isn’t pleased with the proposed fuel economy standards
— but for different reasons. “We believe some of the assumptions made by NHTSA in setting standards through model year 2015 are
overly aggressive,” said Charles Territo, spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. “We understand, probably more
than any other industry, concerns consumer have about the high price of gasoline and are working hard to bring more fuel efficient
technology to market,” Territo said. “But the fact that consumers value fuel economy more than ever before doesn’t make the time
necessary or the amount of money necessary to research and develop new technologies any faster or any less expensive.” Cooper,
however, thinks
the auto industry would be “committing suicide by refusing to improve the
fuel economy.” The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had no immediate reaction to criticism from the Consumer
Federation of America and other groups. The period for public comment on the proposed standards expired Tuesday.
WNDI 2008 21
7/18/08 CAFE Aff
Plan key to save industry – supply side and consumer demand

Absence of fuel economy standards has been primarily responsible for massive auto sales
losses – only the plan can save the industry from inevitable collapse.
Although NHTSA has built its entire analysis around the narrow view of market failure, it was confronted with conclusions in its own
analysis that contradict that assumption. NHTSA discovers that there
are fuel savings technologies that pay for
themselves, but have not been moved into the vehicle fleet. Since this cannot be explained by the
externalities market failure, there must be other market failures operating. If some fraction of fuel economy
improvements (as perceived and valued by vehicle purchasers) is large enough to exceed the increased vehicle cost (and result in an
increase in vehicle sales), then what would be the nature of the market failure such that those levels of fuel economy would not exist but
for a CAFE mandate? To better understand this issue, NHTSA seeks comment on the following question: What evidence or data exists
that indicate the extent to which consumers undervalue fuel economy improvement? Under what circumstances is it reasonable to
expect that a mandated increase in fuel economy would lead to an increase in sales? NHTSA’s pro-industry view of the world blames
the market failure on the consumer, when, in fact, the problem is the automakers. This is one of several reasons that
NHTSA’s reliance on auto industry plans and data and the extreme efforts to which it goes to “protect” the automakers from discomfort
are misplaced. The cars that are sold
in the marketplace reflect not only what consumers want to
but also, what automakers want to sell. Automakers spend millions on advertising and promotions to move the metal
that makes the most profit for them. It is simply wrong to claim that all the advertising and marketing has no effect (see Exhibit A-5).
Failing to recognize the imperfections on the supply-side leads NHTSA to an over reliance on automaker product plans. Thus, it is a
much better representation of reality to say that the
auto market undervalues fuel economy. The problem is not
If automakers are required to
just the consumer. Indeed, the automakers may be a bigger part of the problem.
produce and sell more fuel efficient vehicles, they will have to change their advertising and
marketing focus. With the automaker resistance to more fuel efficient vehicles dampened, the apparent market
valuation of fuel economy will rise quickly. It is the automakers who have been at least as large a drag on fuel
economy as consumers. Auto makers prefer to sell certain models because they are more profitable. They prefer simple technologies
that are less demanding to produce and maintain. They have a first cost bias, seeking to keep the sticker price low. They seek to
influence the public to purchase the vehicles that best suit their interests. On the supply-side there is an agency problem – a separation
between the builder or purchaser of buildings and appliances and the user. Suppliers may not choose to manufacture or stock efficient
vehicles if they are less profitable, hoping that advertising and showroom persuasion can point consumers in the direction the
manufacturers want them to go. Consumers are influenced by advertising and my not perceive quality properly. The priorities
afforded to any particular attribute are difficult to discern in a multi-attribute product. They lack the information necessary to make
informed choices. The life cycle cost calculation is difficult, particularly when projections about future gasoline prices and vehicle use
are necessary. Even when they do consider efficiency investments, they may not find the more efficient vehicles to be available in the
marketplace. We view the apparent high discount rate attributed to consumers as the result of other factors not the root cause of the
demand-side problem. We do not accept the claim that consumers are expressing irrational preferences for high returns on efficiency
investments; irrational because they appear to be a return that is so much higher than they can get on other investments they routinely
have available. Rather, we view the implicit discount rate as a reflection of the fact that the marketplace has offered an inadequate
range of options to apparent market valuation of fuel economy will rise quickly. It is the automakers who have been at least as large a
drag on fuel economy as consumers. Auto makers prefer to sell certain models because they are more pro consumers who are ill-
informed and unprepared to conduct the appropriate analysis and who lack the resources necessary to make the correct actions. There
are two implications for NHTSA’s analysis. First, CAFE
standards correct market failures and therefore
can result in economically beneficial outcomes (increases in sales). Second, CAFE standards address important
supply-side market imperfections. They counter the tendency to want to produce low cost, energy inefficient vehicles that generate
CAFE standards also give automakers an incentive to advertise and market
higher rates of profit.
more fuel-efficient vehicles. NHTSA’s framework needs to fully reflect this alternative, more realistic view of the auto
market. Unfortunately, NHTSA has structured it analysis to put the automaker resistance to fuel economy increases in the driver’s
seat in several ways. The product plans of the auto manufacturers play an important part in the overall outcome because they set the
baseline from which NHTSA determines what the auto manufacturers can accomplish over a seven year period. Yet, those product
plans reflect more about where they would like to drive the market with their advertising and marketing campaign than what they and
the market are capable of. Over the past several years the plans of many of the automakers have been rather bad predictors of the
market outcomes, at least judging by the numbers of unsold units piling up in the showrooms and lots and the large discounts the
automakers have been forced to offer to move the metal. NHTSA presents no analysis of the fit between product plans and market
behavior. Automaker strategic reaction to the prospect of fines also plays an important role in the analytic framework. NHTSA allows
the historical desire of automakers to avoid paying fines to pull down the level of the standard, by assuming that setting standards at a
<CONTINUED>
WNDI 2008 22
7/18/08 CAFE Aff
Plan key to save industry – supply side and consumer demand

<CONTINUED>
Mark N. Cooper, Ph. D., Director of Research, Consumer Federation of America, “Comments on
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,” 7/1/08,
level that might cause automakers to pay fines does no good. NHTSA spares the rod and spoils the child. Fines are not only
punitive; they are motivational. If NHTSA continually sets standards that are easy to meet
to avoid the threat of paying fines, the automakers are never challenged to achieve much
higher levels of fuel economy.46 On the consumer side, the evidence from the past several years is that the consumers
are out ahead of the automakers. The automakers failed to anticipate the shift in demand away from
gas guzzlers. This is clear not only in sales, but also in public opinion polls. When recently asked in public opinion polls what
they would like the mileage of their next vehicle purchase to be, respondents gave a median value of 30.6 miles
per gallon.47 The automaker product plans reviewed by NHTSA put the estimated fuel economy of
the new vehicle sold in 2011 at slightly below 27 miles per gallon rising to slightly more than 27 miles
per gallon by 2015. Over one quarter of the respondents to the survey said they want get over 35 miles per gallon, but only 1 percent of
the models available achieve that level of fuel economy. These observations are suggestive of underlying market patterns that are not
reflected in the fabric of NHTSA’s model. NHTSA recognizes that there might be other market failures, but it does not explore them or
let them enter into or influence the structure of its
analysis. NHTSA claims that the proposed standard “pushed many of the manufacturers in their applications of technology. NHTSA
is proposing standards that it estimates will entail risk that some manufacturers will exhaust available technologies in some model years.
However, the agency has tentatively concluded that the additional risk is outweighed by the significant increase in estimated net
benefits to society.”48 We do not see it that way. In fact, there is very little push here. On average, only one car manufacturer and
one truck manufacturer are projected to run out of technology under the proposed rule,49 but these are technologies that the majority of
manufacturers actually can implement.
NHTSA’s proposed rule is a lot closer to the “least capable
manufacturer” standard than an “industry average” capability standard. Similarly, NHTSA
claims that “the agency evaluated the costs and benefits described above and ensured the standards were achievable without the
industry’s being economically harmed through significant sales losses.’50 NHTSA has gotten it backwards.
It is more likely
that the absence of significantly increasing fuel economy standards in the past half decade
has led to significant sales loses, than vice versa.51 NHTSA’s timidity in proposing higher standards to protect the
industry is misplaced. The industry needs tougher standards to be protected from its own, self-
destructive tendency to under produce fuel economy.
WNDI 2008 23
7/18/08 CAFE Aff
***Advantage – Refineries***
Plan is key to significantly reduce refinement of gasoline, which is responsible for tens of
thousands of deaths each year from pollution.
Refining the billions of gallons of additional oil required to run inefficient vehicles
produces large quantities of air and water pollutants. Emissions into the atmosphere from
petroleum refining facilities typically include volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides
(SOX), nitrogen oxides (NOX), particulates, ammonia (NH3), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and numerous toxic organic compounds. 37
These pollutants create smog, soot, and acid rain, and cause respiratory disease and cancer, each
year sending hundreds of thousands of Americans to emergency rooms and causing tens of thousands of
premature deaths. While refineries are not the only source of these pollutants, petroleum refining is a
pollution-intensive process, producing more than three times the average number of
releases per facility compared to other industries.
WNDI 2008 24
7/18/08 CAFE Aff
Plan key to stop oil spills

The plan would prevent more than 3.2 million gallons of oil spillage annually – equivalent
to one Exon Valdez every three years – as well as many more millions of gallons of oil
spilled worldwide.
Transporting the excess oil needed to accommodate low mileage vehicles contributes to the
danger of oil spills. In 1989, when the Exxon Valdez spilled almost 11 million gallons of oil into Alaska’s Prince William Sound,
Americans saw how environmentally devastating oil spills can be.38 Yet while the Exxon Valdez received widespread media coverage,
oil spills are hardly unusual events. Every year, the U.S. alone experiences thousands of spills, amounting to millions of gallons of oil.
Oil spills kill wildlife and release vapors which cause cancer and respiratory disease. By
reducing the amount of petroleum that must be stored and transported, updating CAFE standards would prevent
more than 808 oil spills on average each year in the United States, amounting to more than
3.2 million gallons of oil spillage annually.39 This is the equivalent of preventing an Exxon
Valdez disaster about every three years.40 As the U.S. imports half the oil it uses, the
number of oil spills worldwide resulting directly from outdated fuel efficiency standards is
likely far higher.
WNDI 2008 25
7/18/08 CAFE Aff
Marine extinction impact 1/2

Unchecked oil spills will destroy ocean oxygen production, causing unchecked warming
and melting the ice caps, and will also destroy vital ocean biodiversity and global fish
stocks.
Paul Stephen Dempsey, Professor of Transportation Law and Director of the Transportation Law
Program, University of Denver College of Law, “Compliance and Enforcement in International
Law -- Oil Pollution of the Marine Environment by Ocean Vessels,” Northwestern Journal of
International Law & Business, Summer 1984, l/n, 6 NW. J. INT'L L. & BUS. 459
Although large amounts of oil remain on the surface, much of it is mixed into the water column, either through wave action or the use of
dispersants applied to oil slicks. Unfortunately, as the spill breaks up, the environmental hazard does not disappear; it increases.
Dissolved oil and oil globules fall through the water column, growing more toxic as they
approach bottom. Concentrations of dissolved oil from 0.2 to 1 part per billion, a harmful level already found in
coastal waters near many cities, can skyrocket to as high as 250 parts per billion. n26
[*467] High levels of dissolved oil increase the concentration of toxic chemicals in commercial fish
and severely disrupt the marine food chain. Oil pollution reduces the ocean's
phytoplankton in coastal areas, where most of the world's commercial fish and oxygen are produced. Sea beds, an
essential source of food for bottom dwelling commercial fish, become contaminated and
sterile.The ramifications of introducing such high concentrations of petroleum pollution into the oceans are severe. Oil pollution
disrupts phytoplankton, the microscopic plant life in the ocean that forms algae and serves an important function in the ecosystem. First,
oil interferes with phytoplankton photosynthesis. Such interference may eventually reduce the
oxygen output and the carbon dioxide uptake of ocean. Moreover, increased carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere may cause a "greenhouse effect," such that heat will not be allowed to
radiate into space, causing an increase in global temperatures. As a long term effect, the ice caps
could eventually melt, causing the sea level to increase up to 200 feet, submerging most
coastal cities. n27 The second function of phytoplankton that is disrupted by oil pollution involves its contribution to the food
chain. Oil slicks poison and smother the smaller organisms at the base of the food chain, such
as phytoplankton and zooplankton. Those organisms that survive absorb oil components that mix with sea water. In this way, oil
components are introduced into the food chain. These components can cause cancer and mutations in living organisms. A study by
Massachusetts Institute of Technology found 100-200 pounds of known carcinogens in every 10,000 tons of oil spilled. n28
Through the process of bio-accumulation, the situation becomes more dangerous to life
forms higher on the food chain, including home sapiens.1000 1bs. of phytoplankton are consumed by 100
1bs. of zooplankton or shellfish, which in turn feed 50 1bs. of anchovies or other small fish. These are consumed by 10 1bs. of small
carnivores, which is eaten by one 1b. of large carnivore which is caught and eaten by man. The one pound of carnivore eaten by man
contains essentially the same accumulated pollutants as the 1,000 1bs. of phytoplankton. n29Evidence of oil components actually
entering and adversely affecting the food chain exists through the many reports of tainting. Some fish and shellfish caught in areas of
chronic oil discharge take on an oily taste, making them difficult to market. n30 In addition to the deleterious economic [*468] impact
of such taste spoilage, the oil also contaminates the food web. n31 Of course, this presumes that members of the food chain can survive
the toxic effects of petroleum long enough to pass the accumulated contamination to man.The tragic impact of oil pollution on living
organisms is aptly demonstrated by observing different species, and understanding the extent of their suffering. For example, it has been
noted that coral reefs in the Red Sea suffer from a nearly "complete lack of recolonization." n32 Oil pollution has caused the coral to
produce fewer and smaller gonads, as well as creating abnormal behavior in offspring. Additional consequences are reduced rates of
growth, tissue damage, and interference with feeding of coral. Similar effects have been noted in sea anemones where one study
concluded that ". . . numbers of surviving young fell to zero, and ovaries were found to be regressed and lacking ova. . . . The response
to food offered to the tentacles was slow or absent." n33
WNDI 2008 26
7/18/08 CAFE Aff
Marine Extinction Impact 2/2

Destruction of ocean oxygen production causes extinction.
Donald A. Bryant, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, The Pennsylvania State
University, “The beauty in small things revealed,” August 19, 2003,
http://www.pnas.org/content/100/17/9647.full
Oxygenic photosynthesis accounts for nearly all the primary biochemical production of
organic matter on Earth. The byproduct of this process, oxygen, facilitated the evolution of complex eukaryotes and supports
their/our continuing existence. Because macroscopic plants are responsible for most terrestrial photosynthesis, it is relatively easy to
appreciate the importance of photosynthesis on land when one views the lush green diversity of grasslands or forests. However, Earth
is the “blue planet,” and oceans cover nearly 75% of its surface. All life on Earth equally
depends on the photosynthesis that occurs in Earth's oceans.
WNDI 2008 27
7/18/08 CAFE Aff
***Plan Actor***
Congress has already demanded an increase in fuel economy, but doesn’t specify the
number – the National Highway Traffic Saftey Administration is responsible for
implementing final CAFE standards.
Greenwire, Business, Finance and Technology section, “Transportation: Auto Saftey Chief to
Step Down Ahead of New Fuel Economy Rules,” 7/16/08, l/n
The head of the government agency that sets new fuel economy and safety standards will
step down next month, before a series of key decisions are made. Nicole Nason, administrator of the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration since May 2006, announced her decision yesterday. She has overseen the agency's efforts
to boost fuel economy rules as ordered by Congress last year. Deputy administrator Jim Ports will most
likely oversee the agency for the remainder of the Bush administration, as the agency is expected to release final
rules for corporate average fuel economy standards through 2015.
The NHTSA as an administrative agency has discretion in its implementation of the
congressional mandate.
Citing the mid-point between economic value maximization and economic conservation maximization and the mid-point of
performance of automakers as the point where a standard is feasible and practicable may seem obvious, but it leads to the fundamental
legal question. In line drawing exercises, under
the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), an agency
has a great deal of discretion and its expert opinion will be given a great deal of deference
in writing rules. The rulemaking discretion is not a blank check, however. It is bound by constraints – rules must follow the
intent of Congress, be based on the facts in the record before the agency, and not be unreasonable. If the rules violate any of these three
parameters, they can be found to be “arbitrary and capricious” and be set aside by the courts. NHTSA knows this well because just last
year its proposed fuel economy standards for light trucks were set aside as arbitrary and capricious by the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals on several grounds. As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stated in overturning NHTSA’s light truck rule:
WNDI 2008 28
7/18/08 CAFE Aff
SQ CAFE inadequate
Current increases in CAFE standards doesn’t require changes until 2020.
John Neff, “NHTSA announces new CAFE standards through 2015,” Autoblog, April 22, 2008,
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/22/nhtsa-announces-new-cafe-standards-through-2015/.
Last December, President Bush signed a new energy bill into law that requires automakers to
achieve a Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard of 35 mpg by 2020. This historic stiffening of
CAFE standards set a lofty goal, but left plenty of time to get there and new standards of any kind
won't begin until the 2011 model year. Today, which happens to be Earth Day, U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary
E. Peters laid out the first set of new CAFE rules that will be implemented for passenger vehicles and light trucks from 2011 through
2015.
WNDI 2008 29
7/18/08 CAFE Aff
Plan key
1AC solvency extension:
Lea Radick, Medill News Service, “Catching up on CAFE standards,” 7/3/08,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11504.html.
WASHINGTON — A consumer group added fuel to the fight over rising gas prices when it recently criticized the Bush administration’s flawed
response to the 2007 Energy Act. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, responsible for carrying out improvements in the
nation’s fuel economy standards under last year’s energy bill , has fallen short of the law’s goals, according to the Consumer Federation of
America. “Never in the history of this country has it been more important, both domestically and globally, to reduce gasoline
and oil consumption, which is why Congress mandated that automakers make cars and trucks that run on less gas,”
Jack Gillis, director of public affairs for the nonprofit federation, said during a teleconference Tuesday. “Somehow the Department of
Transportation didn’t get the message,” Gillis said. With gas at $4 a gallon, he said, the department used $2.45 at the pump
for its analysis. The Consumer Federation believes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or NHTSA — a branch
of the U.S. Department of Transportation — proposed new fuel economy standards based on “inaccurate assumptions, lack of
data and unreasonable economic considerations.” The nation’s fuel economy standard, known as Corporate Average Fuel Economy,
or CAFE, is calculated by measuring the average miles per gallon of a manufacturer’s fleet of passenger cars or light
trucks, according to NHTSA. Fuel economy standards, expressed in miles per gallon, apply to vehicles manufactured for sale in the U.S. for any
given year. Standards for passenger cars and light trucks (gross vehicle weight of 8,500 pounds or less), were established under the 1975 Energy
Policy Conservation Act. In the 2007 energy law, Congress called for NHTSA’s adoption of fuel economy standards at the
“maximum feasible level.” The agency was to consider technological feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of other standards on
fuel economy and the nation’s need to conserve energy. In answer, the traffic safety administration set a combined industry-wide
projected average for all passenger cars and light trucks at 27.8 mpg for the 2011 model year vehicles — up slightly from the
present standard — increasing to 31.6 mpg for 2015 model year vehicles. “The proposed rule is a far cry from the ‘maximum feasible’
fuel economy standards because NHTSA’s model and assumptions are hostile to the very energy conservation it is
charged with providing,” said Mark Cooper, director of research at the Consumer Federation. The maximum feasible standard
called for under the 2007 Energy Act should drive the fuel economy standard higher than 35 mpg by 2020, Cooper
argued. The federation thinks NHTSA should recommend higher standards for model years 2011 and 2012 and wait to set
standards for 2013 through 2015 when better data is available. By setting initial fuel economy standards higher than what was
proposed, Cooper said CAFE standards could reach 33 mpg or 34 mpg as soon as 2016.
WNDI 2008 30
7/18/08 CAFE Aff
US Key
For any reduction in oil consumption to have a global impact, action by the United States is
key.
Although Asian consumers have begun emulating America's love affair with the
automobile, with the commercial booms of China and India playing pivotal roles in increased oil demand, the largest
energy appetite in the world is still found in the United States. Home to only 4 percent of the world's
population, the nation slurps up about a quarter of the planet's oil -- and Americans' daily use is
nearly twice the combined consumption of the Chinese and Indians, according to an annual energy
survey published by BP, the British oil giant.
WNDI 2008 31
7/18/08 CAFE Aff
Europe
Europe proves that much stronger efficiency measures are possible and desireable.
Oil industry insiders say they remained on the sidelines during Congressional debates over CAFE standards, although legislators from
oil states tended to vote against more rigorous rules.
In 2007, with oil at $82 and gas nearing $3, Congress finally approved the first big increase in fuel-efficiency standards in 32 years,
requiring the fleet average to reach 35 m.p.g. by 2020. That will save one million barrels a day by 2020, but onetime CAFE opponents
like Mr. Castle now say they wish that Congress had acted sooner. Since
the 1980s, fuel efficiency has flatlined
at 24 m.p.g., while vehicle weight has jumped more than 25 percent and horsepower has
nearly doubled. In Europe, on the other hand, fuel efficiency currently stands at 44 m.p.g.
and is slated to hit 48 m.p.g. by 2012.
WNDI 2008 32
7/18/08 CAFE Aff
Rollback
Absent the plan, the new rule changes will be struck down by the courts.
Citing the mid-point between economic value maximization and economic conservation maximization and the mid-point of
performance of automakers as the point where a standard is feasible and practicable may seem obvious, but it leads to the fundamental
legal question. In line drawing exercises, under
the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), an agency
has a great deal of discretion and its expert opinion will be given a great deal of deference
in writing rules. The rulemaking discretion is not a blank check, however. It is bound by constraints – rules must
follow the intent of Congress, be based on the facts in the record before the agency, and
not be unreasonable. If the rules violate any of these three parameters, they can be found
to be “arbitrary and capricious” and be set aside by the courts. NHTSA knows this well because just
last year its proposed fuel economy standards for light trucks were set aside as arbitrary
and capricious by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on several grounds. As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
stated in overturning NHTSA’s light truck rule: Even if NHTSA may use a cost-benefit analysis to determine the “maximum feasible”
fuel economy standard, it cannot put a thumb on the scale by undervaluing the benefits and overvaluing the costs of more stringent
standards.21 The standards by which the actions of the agency are evaluated are broad, as the Ninth Circuit Court noted: The agency
must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection between the facts
found and the choice made. An agency rule normally may be arbitrary and capricious if it: “offered an explanation for its decision that
runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product
of agency expertise.”22 One additional legal standard that is important is the fact that the agency must adopt rules that follow the will
of the Congress – “the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute… We
must reject administrative constructions which are contrary to clear congressional intent.”23 NHTSA recognizes that it has been put on
notice by the court that the balancing exercise must, indeed be balanced. As the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis states: In
Center for Biological Diversity v. NHTSA, the Ninth Circuit Court recognized that “EPCA gives NHTSA discretion to decide how to
balance the statutory factors – as long as NHTSA’s balancing does not undermine the fundamental purpose of EPCA: energy
conservation. “ 508 F. 3d 508, 527 (9th Cir. 2007). The Court also raised the possibility that NHTSA’s current balancing of the
statutory factors might be different from the agency’s balancing in the past, given the greater importance today of the need of the
nation to conserve energy and more advanced understanding of clime change. Id. at 530-31 Unfortunately, neither
the ruling
by the Appeals Court nor the passage of landmark legislation – the Energy Independence and Security
Act of 2007 – seem to have convinced NHTSA to repair its approach to setting fuel economy
standards. We believe that the fuel economy standards proposed are, once again, unreasonable, fail
to implement the will of the Congress, and do not reflect the reality of the severe energy
crisis in which the United States finds itself and which led Congress to pass and the President to sign the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007.
WNDI 2008 33
7/18/08 CAFE Aff
AT: Current rules are enough

The current rules are based on such massively flawed data and assumptions that they are
not even legally viable – only the plan corrects this.
We reach this conclusion not based on a “difference of opinion” about what the agency should or could
do, but on the fact that NHTSA’s analysis is fundamentally flawed, so deeply flawed that it rises to
the level of “arbitrary and capricious.” NHTSA has systematically and repeatedly undervalued
the benefits of increased fuel economy and reduced fuel consumption. In spite of massive
uncertainties and gaps in its knowledge, it has rushed to write rules for as long as allowed by the law, when the public interest
and the intent of Congress would be far better served by writing rules for the shortest
period possible. Shortening the period covered by the propose rule would have allowed
the agency to educate itself about the many important features of the fuel economy
landscape about which the agency admits it is ill-informed. Raising the standard for the
first two years to the “50-50” level will balance the statutory factors properly and bring
NHTSA into compliance with the law.
WNDI 2008 34
7/18/08 CAFE Aff
Auto industry – CAFE key

Failure to provide more than weak energy conservation with CAFE has ruined the auto
industry economically – much stronger standards that are still profitable are
technologically feasible and necessary.
Palm Beach Post, “Opinion: Produce Conservation to Cut Oil Dependency,” 7/9/08, p. 10A
In 2001, a report from the National Academy of Sciences concluded that, by exploiting technology,
automakers could build efficient cars that didn't need SUV weight to be safe. Vice President Dick
Cheney, however, dismissed conservation as a "personal virtue." Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., who for decades opposed conservation on
the grounds that it would hurt Detroit automakers and union auto workers, didn't give in until 2007, when Congress
passed
a weak update of the CAFE standards. Cars make up nearly half of the country's oil
consumption. And where has this resistance to energy conservation left us? General Motors
faces talk of bankruptcy. Ford lost $12.6 billion last year. Both are retooling to make the
sort of cars they spent years resisting. That nearly 20-year stall on conservation cost the
country dearly. More stalling would be more costly.
WNDI 2008 35
7/18/08 CAFE Aff
Auto industry – alt cause

Multiple alternate causalities for auto industry decline and failure.
Given the rather dramatic market failures in the auto market in recent years, market failures that
have little to do with the cited externalities, we suspect that there are other sources of market
failure, like information problems, agency problems, perverse incentives, etc. Moreover, the
problem is not limited to the demand-side of the market. There are imperfections in the supply-side.
WNDI 2008 36
7/18/08 CAFE Aff
Economy – labor/jobs
Much stricter CAFE standards are necessary to preserve American jobs.
Charles Davis, “STEELWORKERS LAUNCH PUSH FOR CO2 CONTROLS TO PROTECT
JOBS,” Carbon Control News, 6/30/08, l/n
Desirable climate change legislation that doesn't harm domestic manufacturing, Gerard argued,
would focus "on eliminating carbon emissions by creating jobs retrofitting buildings,
bringing in new technologies, expanding renewable energy, reducing the use of fossil fuels
by having clean coal technology, and by . . . having a CAFE [corporate average fuel economy] standard that is much
higher than the CAFE standard we have now." The union lobbying campaign follows a June 20 Capitol Hill
briefing for congressional staff held by officials from foreign and U.S. steel companies. At the event, steel industry
representatives argued for a global, sectoral approach to mitigating climate change as a
way to avoid the shift of steel production to developing countries. In contrast to the union officials,
however, industry representatives did not stress the need to enact domestic measures aimed at reducing emissions before proceeding to
an international agreement.
WNDI 2008 37
7/18/08 CAFE Aff
Ethanol
A decline in corn-based ethanol production is inevitable.
Robyn L. Minor, The Daily News, Bowling Green, Ky, 7/16/2008, “Fuel made, hard to find:
Hopkinsville boasts ethanol plant, but it's also the nearest place to find a pump for E-85,” l/n
Many government leaders have acknowledged that the development of corn-based ethanol has probably
reached its peak because of the ripple effect it has had on the food market -- farmers have pulled
wheat out of production to grow corn, driving up the price of wheat and eventually wheat products, and corn has skyrocketed, making it
difficult for livestock farmers to buy what they don't already grow. Now,
Kentucky and the nation are turning
their efforts to develop cellulose-based ethanol, which would take such things as wood
products and switchgrass and turn them into fuel.
WNDI 2008 38
7/18/08 CAFE Aff
Auto Safety
Technology exists to build safe and efficient cars.
Palm Beach Post, “Opinion: Produce Conservation to Cut Oil Dependency,” 7/9/08, p. 10A
In 2001, a report from the National Academy of Sciences concluded that, by exploiting
technology, automakers could build efficient cars that didn't need SUV weight to be safe.
Vice President Dick Cheney, however, dismissed conservation as a "personal virtue." Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., who for decades
opposed conservation on the grounds that it would hurt Detroit automakers and union auto workers, didn't give in until 2007, when
Congress passed a weak update of the CAFE standards. Cars make up nearly half of the country's oil consumption.
WNDI 2008 39
7/18/08 CAFE Aff
Politics – Bipartisan support

There is wide bipartisan support for almost any conservation measure like CAFE.
PRESS CONFERENCE WITH SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), SENATE MINORITY
LEADER SUBJECT: GAS PRICE REDUCTION ACT LOCATION: SENATE RADIO-TV GALLERY,
U.S. CAPITOL, WASHINGTON, D.C. TIME: 11:41 A.M. EDT DATE: WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 2008
You know, clearly,
any bill to have any credibility would have to deal at least in part with the
supply issue. And as Senator Corker's pointed out, we -- you know, most of our members are okay
with almost all the conservation measures that have been suggested. Just last year, on a
bipartisan basis, we passed a bill to increase the Corporate Average Fuel Economy for cars for the
first time in decades. The area where we've had a tough time getting bipartisan support is to expand domestic production. But
I think the American people are now demanding it. And we are, as an institution, a democratic institution, not unaware of public opinion.
WNDI 2008 40
7/18/08 CAFE Aff
Drilling – Permutation
The reality of global markets means that our oil strategy must focus on a combination of
drilling and conservation.
Mortimer Zuckerman is the editor-in-chief of U.S.News & World Report, “Stop the Energy
Insanity,” U.S. News and World Report, p. 118, July 21, 2008
The fundamental fact is that oil prices are set in the world markets. Sharply rising demand has met
sluggish growth in production, so there is minimal slack in a market already at the mercy
of small disruptions, be they bad weather in the Gulf of Mexico or political clouds over the Persian Gulf or the Nigerian delta.
China and India between them account for about 70 percent of the rise in global consumption over the past couple of years, and oil-
producing countries themselves account for much of the rest. In these markets, regulations and subsidies hold down prices, and their
economies are growing so fast that even steep price rises in fuel are seen as affordable. The
clear implication for the
United States is that the age-old standoff on whether domestic drilling or conservation is
the solution is now irrelevant. We must have both.
WNDI 2008 41
7/18/08 CAFE Aff
Incentives
CAFE is incentives.
There are two implications for NHTSA’s analysis. First, CAFE standards correct
market failures and therefore can result in economically beneficial outcomes (increases in
sales). Second, CAFE standards address important supply-side market imperfections. They
counter the tendency to want to produce low cost, energy inefficient vehicles that generate
CAFE standards also give automakers an incentive to advertise and
higher rates of profit.
market more fuel-efficient vehicles. NHTSA’s framework needs to fully reflect this
alternative, more realistic view of the auto market.
Regulations like CAFE are a standard means of increasing incentives for alternative fuels.
Jayetta Z. Hecker Director Government Accountability Office, 7/10/08, CQ Congressional
Testimony, “Transportation and Infrastructure Issues,” Statement to the Committee on
Sentate Finance, l/n
As CBO has previously reported, the existing fuel taxes could be altered in a variety of ways to address this erosion, including increasing
the per-gallon tax rate and indexing the rates to inflation.15 Some transportation stakeholders have suggested exploring the potential of
using a carbon tax, or other carbon pricing strategies, to help fund infrastructure investments.16 In a system of carbon taxes, fossil fuel
emissions would be taxed, with the tax proportional to the amount of carbon dioxide released in its combustion. Because a
carbon
tax could have a broad effect on consumer decisions, we have previously reported that it could be used to complement
Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, which require manufacturers meet fuel
economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks to reduce oil consumption.17 A
carbon tax would create incentives that could affect a broader range of consumer choices as
well as provide revenue for infrastructure.

Aff CAFE 39

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aff CAFE 39

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WNDI 2008 1

7/18/08 CAFE Aff

Advantage – Oil and Warming

Warming internal and impact laundry list

Plan key to US and global oil dependency

Plan key to foreign oil dependence

SQ CAFE = no functional oil savings

Plan = 2 million barrels a day

Plan key to save industry – consumer demand

Plan key to save industry – supply side and consumer demand

Plan key to save industry – supply side and consumer demand

Plan key to stop oil spills

Marine extinction impact 1/2

Marine Extinction Impact 2/2

AT: Current rules are enough

Auto industry – CAFE key

Auto industry – alt cause

Politics – Bipartisan support

You might also like