“What lies behind this shift? Some Americans prefer bigger cars, especially when gas prices are low, for their ample storage space, ability to see over other vehicles on the road, and perceived safety benefits (more on that later). But shifting consumer demands tell only part of the story.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For half a century, a litany of federal policies has favored large SUVs and trucks, pushing automakers and American buyers toward larger models. Instead of counteracting car bloat through regulation, policymakers have subtly encouraged it. That has been a boon for car companies, but a disaster for everyone else.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
…<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“After the 1970s OPEC oil embargo triggered a spike in gas prices, the federal government adopted an array of policies intended to reduce energy demand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One of Congress\u2019s most consequential moves was creating the Corporate Average Fuel Economy<\/a> (CAFE) standards, which require that the average fuel economy (miles per gallon, or MPG) of a carmaker\u2019s vehicles remain below a set threshold.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pressed by auto lobbyists<\/a>, Congress made a fateful decision when it established CAFE. Instead of setting a single fuel economy standard that applies to all cars, CAFE has two of them: one for passenger cars, such as sedans and station wagons, and a separate, more lenient standard for \u201clight trucks,\u201d including pickups and SUVs. In 1982, for instance, the CAFE standard<\/a> for passenger cars was 24 mpg and only 17.5 mpg for light trucks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That dual structure didn\u2019t initially seem like a big deal, because in the 1970s SUVs and trucks together accounted for less than a quarter <\/a>of new cars sold. But as gas prices fell in the 1980s, the \u201clight truck loophole\u201d encouraged automakers to shift away from sedans and churn out more pickups and SUVs (which were also more profitable).” <\/p>\n\n\n\n …<\/p>\n\n\n\n “In the early 2000s, the federal government made these distortions even worse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n During the George W. Bush administration, CAFE was revised<\/a> to further loosen rules for the biggest cars by tying a car model\u2019s efficiency standard to its physical footprint (which is basically the shadow cast by the vehicle when the sun is directly above it). President Obama then incorporated similar footprint rules <\/a>into new greenhouse gas emissions standards that are overseen by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Dan Becker, who led the Sierra Club\u2019s global warming<\/a> program from 1989 to 2007, told me that he and others warned<\/a> federal lawmakers that adopting footprint-based standards was a mistake. \u201cPeople like me were saying, \u2018give carmakers another loophole and they\u2019ll use it,\u2019\u201d he said. \u201cBut we lost.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Those concerns proved justified. The average vehicle footprint expanded 6 percent between 2008 and 2023, a \u201chistoric high,\u201d according to an EPA report<\/a>, which also found that some carmakers, such as General Motors, actually had lower average fuel economy and higher average carbon emissions in 2022 than in 2017. To its credit, the EPA recently announced revisions<\/a> to its vehicle GHG rules that would narrow (but not close) the gaps between standards for large and small cars.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n …<\/p>\n\n\n\n “In the early 1960s, Europe raised the ire<\/a> of American officials by slapping a 50 percent tariff on chicken exported from the United States. In retaliation, the US enacted a 25 percent tax on pickup trucks imported from abroad. The dispute is long forgotten, but the \u201cChicken Tax\u201d lives on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although the tariff was initially aimed at Germany\u2019s immense auto industry (Volkswagen in particular<\/a>), it also applies to pickups imported from newer automaking powers such as Japan and South Korea, where carmakers are often adept at building vehicles much smaller than those available to Americans.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n …<\/p>\n\n\n\n “In 1984<\/a>, Congress stopped allowing small business owners to take a tax deduction for the purchase price of cars used for work. But the bill included a giant loophole: To protect those who need a heavy-duty vehicle (think farmers or construction workers), Congress made an exception, known as Section 179, for cars that weigh over 6,000 pounds when fully loaded with passengers and cargo. Today such behemoths are eligible for a tax deduction of up to $30,500<\/a>, while business owners who opt for a smaller car can claim nothing at all.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n …<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Every time a car owner fills her gas tank, a portion of the bill goes into the federal Highway Trust Fund<\/a>, a central source of funding for roads and mass transit<\/a>. That tax rate is set at $0.184 per gallon, a level that has been frozen since 1993<\/a>, when Bill Clinton was less than a year into his presidency. Congressional proposals to increase the gas tax to close a yawning highway budget gap<\/a>, or at least tie it to inflation, have gone nowhere<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Over the last 31 years, consumer prices have risen 113 percent<\/a>, making the real value of the gas tax less than half what it was in 1993. That decline has reduced the cost of powering a huge SUV or truck with abysmal gas mileage”<\/p>\n\n\n\n …<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Car safety rules are laid out in the encyclopedic Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), which touches on everything from power windows to seat belts. But the FMVSS revolves around protecting a vehicle\u2019s occupants; nothing within its 562 pages<\/a> limits a car\u2019s physical design to protect someone who might come into contact with it in a collision. That omission invites an arms race of vehicle size<\/a> \u2014 precisely what the US is experiencing.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n …<\/p>\n\n\n\n “consider who benefits from oversized vehicles. American carmakers like Ford and GM (which are headquartered in Michigan, a crucial swing state) rely on juicy margins from big SUVs and pickups, which are more expensive and profitable<\/a> than smaller models. They enjoy protection from foreign competition through tariffs like the Chicken Tax, as well as favorable policies like CAFE\u2019s light-truck loophole.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The regulatory status quo suits domestic automakers just fine \u2014 and they act as a roadblock to even modest attempts to change it.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n …<\/p>\n\n\n\n “As American sales of big SUVs and trucks have surged, their owners are likely to resist policy moves they see as penalizing them. Many are likely to be unaware of the federal loopholes and policy oversights that have distorted their vehicle choices.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n