Everyone’s looking for a solution to high gas prices. Well, here’s a novel concept: we could just use less fuel.

According to a new analysis from the Natural Resources Defense Council, increasing our average vehicle fleet efficiency to 54.5 miles per gallon would save consumers $68 billion per year after 2030 when new mileage standards have been fully met.

By bumping up the fuel efficiency of our nation’s vehicles to that target, NRDC estimates that the amount of oil saved per day in 2030 would equal today’s combined imports from Saudi Arabia and Iraq. The emissions reductions would also be substantial — cutting enough carbon dioxide to equal the shut-down of 76 coal-fired power plants.

Last July, the White House announced a plan to increase fuel efficiency from 21 mpg today to 54.5 mpg by 2025. The targets, which would spur new manufacturing activity in America’s auto sector, had strong support from labor unions and most major auto manufacturers. Over the life of the program, the cumulative savings would be more than a trillion and a half dollars, according to the Obama Administration.

To date, these fuel efficiency standards are one of the most credible policy solutions to addressing high gas prices.

The “drill baby drill” crowd falsely believes that more fossil fuel extraction is the answer. But as numerous analyses have pointed out, including one from the Associated Press, more domestic drilling simply does not correlate with lower prices at the pump.

Excessive speculation is also a key target for many lawmakers. While some economists say speculation in the oil markets has raised oil prices by 15% in the last decade, any short term efforts to crack down on the problem don’t really address the real issue: Investors believe that oil prices will continue to go up, largely because of booming global demand, finite supply, and continued conflict around the world.

Alternatives to petroleum like electric vehicles and advanced biofuels are extraordinarily important and will be a major piece of the solution. However, these two sectors are facing a number of financial, technical and consumer-demand challenges, making the extent of their role still uncertain.

Increasing fuel efficiency standards is a proven, tangible solution that can help us reduce petroleum use and help save consumers money. Although such targets may increase the cost of a vehicle by as much as $2,000, NRDC estimates that the savings in gas use would be as high as $6,400 — netting consumers roughly $4,400 over the lifetime of a vehicle.

And Americans say they’d make the investment. Last year, Consumer Reports issued a poll showing that 58% of Americans were willing to pay more up front for an increase in fuel efficiency. Around the same time last year, the Consumer Federation of America released a survey showing that three quarters of Americans supported an increase in fuel economy standards, with a 65% wanting aggressive targets of 60 mpg by 2025.

With manufacturers, labor unions, and consumers all throwing their support behind fuel efficiency, this should be a policy solution that our nation’s policymakers should be able to agree on.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are hosting the first in a series of national public hearings in Detroit today regarding proposed standards for model-year 2017-25 vehicles that would require automakers to work toward producing a fleet that averages 54.5 miles per gallon of gasoline. Over 100 people are speaking in the marathon hearing. United Auto Workers President Bob King stood united with National Wildlife Federation president Larry Schweiger and Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) in support of the “sensible, achievable and needed” standards.

At the North American International Auto Show in Detroit, which opens to the public this weekend, advances in fuel economy are taking center stage. Thanks to aggressive leadership by the Obama administration, working in concert with the state of California and the unions and carmakers of the American auto industry, fuel economy standards are zooming toward an average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. A Detroit Free Press editorial reports that the new fuel economy standards have breathed new life into American automobile manufacturers, spurring them to innovate new technologies and new styles. Their new cars — which reduce our vulnerability to the whims of Big Oil and lessen dangerous pollution — will be able to compete on the international stage, which has much higher standards for fuel efficiency:

Against the backdrop of the North American International Auto Show, which opens to the public Saturday, anything seems possible, including fuel efficiencies that seemed out of reach just a few years ago. The stylish introductions focused as much on engine and power configurations (hybrid, plug-in, turbocharged, direct injection, etc.) and weight-savings as they did on appearance.

“This year’s auto show proves beyond all doubt that fuel efficiency is no longer just a euphemism for ‘econobox,’” writes the Detroit Free Press. “With the long-term planning horizon offered by the new fuel efficiency rules, automakers can do far more than survive. They can thrive, they can do it with style and — most important to everyone around here — build the cars that people want to buy.”

In a Fox News interview hosted by Mike Huckabee, Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney pledged to overturn existing fuel economy standards that reduce global warming pollution. Responding to a question about the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, Romney said he disagreed with the U.S. Supreme Court decision that carbon dioxide is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Romney also said he wants to kill EPA greenhouse standards for cars and trucks, saying the EPA is used by President Obama to “hold down and crush” private enterprise:

The EPA wants to be able to get in and grab more power and basically try and move the whole economy away from oil, gas, coal, nuclear and push it into the renewables. Look, we all like the renewables. But renewables alone are not going to power this economy. And yeah, I would, among other things, I would get the EPA out of its effort to manage carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles and trucks. Look, that was not a pollutant within the meaning of the legislation that authorized the EPA. It is of all the agencies in Washington, it is the one most being used by this President to try and hold down, crush and insert the federal government into the life of the private sector.

Watch it:

The Massachusetts v. EPA decision, made in 2007, compelled the EPA to set tailpipe emissions standards for motor vehicles. The fuel economy standards were issued in 2010, and are in force for cars being sold now. Prodded by higher standards to make more competitive cars, America’s automobile industry is on the road to recovery after years of deregulatory decline.

(HT: Crooks and Liars)

New fuel efficiency standards set by the EPA to cut greenhouse gas pollution deliver stronger, cleaner technology for owners of pickup trucks used in outdoor and natural resource businesses and recreation, according to Trucks That Work, a new report released today by the National Wildlife Federation. Under the final standard, heavy duty pickup and van owners save over $6,000 over the life of the vehicle – even after accounting for the cost of new technology. “A driver who trades in an ’05 Ford F150 for an ’11 is effectively cutting 75 cents off the cost of every gallon at today’s prices and saving hundreds of dollars a year on gas, that now can be spent at home or in their business.”

Only by considering the fatality risk to all drivers in an accident can an analysis determine the overall impact on safety of efficiency standards, as this Lawrence Berkeley National Lab analysis showed.

If falsely labeling fuel standards as job killers doesn’t work, why not call them people killers? That’s exactly what opponents of new fuel-efficiency targets are doing.  As we’ll see, the transportation community has moved beyond that tired myth with new analysis showing the overall benefit of well-designed standards to drivers, which in turn lead to well-designed cars.

On Fox Business last week, Sam Kazman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and show host John Stossel used outdated figures to claim new fuel standards will kill 2,000 people a year. Kazman — whose organization has received considerable funding from oil companies over the years — compared fuel efficiency targets to killing soldiers in war, saying that “at least we admit we’re putting lives at risk” for access to oil in the Middle East.

Watch it:

Read more