IN OUR SUVS
Guilt-tripping
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (1-19-03)

It's fun and easy to bash drivers. But if you want Americans to save gas, says John Valenti, tell the government to insist on higher fuel economy averages

This is Walter Locke. This is the Hummer H2 he is going to sell for $57,555. It's big. It's sunset orange. It weighs 6,400 pounds and gets 10 miles to a gallon of gas in a stiff tailwind. Locke considers himself a good American. He has a wife, kids. He pays his taxes. He has a brother-in-law who was in the Army, another who was in the Navy and another, the Marines. His father was in the U.S. Army Air Corps in World War II. And no matter what pundit Arianna Huffington and three of her Hollywood cronies from The Detroit Project say in a new anti-sport-utility vehicle campaign, Walter Locke does not support terrorism.

This is Paulina Gonzalez. This is her Dodge Durango. It is big. And black. It uses a lot of gas. . . . She has four kids and just turned 30. She doesn't support terrorism.

This is the copy for one of the advertisements in the controversial national advertising campaign The Detroit Project launched this month to make Americans consider that buying SUVs is unpatriotic:

"This is George. This is the gas that George bought for his SUV. This is the oil company executive that sold the gas that George bought for his SUV. These are the countries where the executive bought the oil, that made the gas that George bought for his SUV. And these are the terrorists who get money from those countries every time George fills up his SUV.

"Oil money supports some terrible things. What kind of mileage does your SUV get?"

This is what Huffington said about the ads: "The goal of the campaign is not to demonize people who drive SUVs. We want to point out how our driving habits are fueling oil money to Saudi Arabia."

This is the translation: Americans drive a lot of SUVs. Those SUVs waste a lot of gas. A lot of that gas is refined from oil that comes from the Middle East. Which means we are dependent on foreign oil. Because of that, we might invade Iraq. We will do so under the guise of waging a war on terrorism. We do it to protect our interests -- i.e., our access to oil.

What Huffington does is make a good point with a bad argument. She uses terrorism because it is controversial. She did this to get our attention.

Which she did, maybe for the first time since the last Gulf war. Maybe for the first time since we had odd and even days and mile-long lines at gas stations around the nation during the 1973 gas crisis.

Which is good.

What the real argument is is this: Politicians in Washington have refused to tighten the CAFE standard, which stands for "Corporate Average Fuel Economy." That means the average miles-per-gallon for every vehicle we drive in the United States. The average was 22.4 miles per gallon in 1988. The number has been in decline since, as we buy more light trucks and SUVs. It is now around 20 mph.

Then again, we are Americans. We grew up thinking bigger is better. We buy big cars and trucks because they make us feel more comfortable. Safer. More important. We buy them because we can.

Because, as Walter Locke said, "The Hummer H2 says 'testosterone' right on the side. Doesn't it?"

Automakers have the technology to make these vehicles more fuel-efficient, too. They have the ability to make so-called "hybrid" vehicles -- cars and trucks that use minimal amounts of gasoline and produce electricity to drive their engines. Ford will introduce a hybrid SUV in 2004. Lexus has one on the way. Other manufacturers will follow soon.

But, change will be slow because there is not as much profit in building hybrids. Because the federal government -- President Bush -- could demand the CAFE standard be raised to 30 miles per gallon, something most advocates believe is reasonable. Because the federal government won't.

It won't because it is bad politics. Because, despite its recent economic struggles, Detroit car manufacturers still fuel the economy of our nation.

As do the oil companies.

This is Jim Motavalli. He wrote two books. One is called "Forward Drive: The Race to Build 'Clean' Cars for the Future." The other is "Breaking Gridlock: Moving Toward Transportation that Works." Both were published by the Sierra Club, the environmental watchdog group.

He is the editor of E: The Environmental Magazine and argues that Americans don't need SUVs. Motavalli says that if everyone who drove an SUV or light truck drove a car instead we would no longer need foreign oil.

That is dubious, because foreign oil is still cheaper than domestic -- and we are capitalists.

Still, an estimated 45 percent to 50 percent of all new vehicles sold are SUVs or light trucks, accounting for 39.3 percent of all vehicles on our roads. So, a change would certainly reduce our reliance on foreign oil.

"Our rate of consumption is the highest in the world," Motavalli said. "We have 5 percent of the population, but consume 30 percent of the natural resources. . . . I think the ads are strategically smart, because unless you sensationalize an issue like this people will basically ignore it. Now, we're not."

My name is John. I write a road column for Newsday. I own a Jeep. It gets about 15 miles per gallon. One of my grandfathers served as deputy commissioner of public works for New York City. He built roads I've driven on. My other grandfather built parts for the lunar module that carried Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin to the moon.

I do not support terrorism. No more than any other driver of any other vehicle here.

Still, I wish car manufacturers would give me a sport utility vehicle that got better mileage. So I wouldn't use so much gasoline, but could still be protected in an accident, still get to where I need to go in rain, sleet and snow. One that still had horsepower, so I could still have fun behind the wheel.

I know for that to happen Washington will have to demand we tighten the CAFE standard, will have to demand changes in thinking in Detroit.

Hello. Is anybody listening?