Fuel efficiency standards

Return to 2011, the bailout of the auto industry still fresh in minds. Barack Obama applied pressure as he looked for a show of appreciation from General Motors, Chrysler and carmakers indirectly affected by the rescue operation. Auto executives joined the then-president to announce a shared commitment to increase the average fuel-efficiency standard for new cars and light trucks to roughly 36 miles per gallon by 2025.

The improved efficiency not only would bring net savings for consumers. It promises to ease carbon emissions, transportation being responsible for one-third of this leading source of climate change. The effort has succeeded. In 2007, average fuel efficiency was 20.8 miles per gallon. Today, it is 25.1.

Unfortunately, auto executives now see an opening to ease the requirement moving forward. That is why President Donald Trump traveled to Detroit last week. He is ready to comply with the industry request. The vehicle is a review established as part of the original agreement. It was set for 2018. The Obama team attempted to hustle the evaluation to an early conclusion. It fell short. So the Trump White House has agreed to start the process over.

Automakers argue that getting to the final goal in the next eight years amounts to a steep and costly technical challenge. They project an investment of $200 billion to meet the standards. They add that consumers also have made the job more difficult, lower gas prices resulting in more purchases of less-efficient SUVs and light trucks. Their bottom line? The standards risk higher prices, reduced sales and a darker outlook for the industry.


Because of the law and court rulings, the president isn't in position to back away entirely from the higher efficiency standards. Even an easing would have harmful consequences. Barack Obama set up two paths for meeting this country's part of the Paris Agreement for curbing global carbon emissions — the Clean Power Plan involving coal-fired power plants and the higher fuel-efficiency standards. Lower the standards, and compliance with the agreement is unlikely, diminishing the crucial role of American leadership, not to mention the overall effort, hard to achieve in the first place.

Worth emphasis, too, is that $200 billion investment promises a solid return for consumers. Projections are the expense would add an average $875 to the sticker price of a car — and then deliver three times that amount in savings to those behind the wheel.

—Akron Beacon Journal

Let Libya go

America's commander for its military role in the North African state of Libya calls it a "powder keg." What he doesn't and probably couldn't explain is why the fate of Libya matters to the United States.

Libya has borders on Algeria, Chad, Egypt, Niger, Sudan, Tunisia and the Mediterranean Sea. The only one of these that really matters to the world, although not particularly to the U.S., is the Mediterranean, which permits migrants from the rest of Africa to launch from Libya in rickety boats toward Europe. The only habitable part of Libya is the coastal strip. The rest is almost entirely desert, although Libya does have oil.

The United States joined with France, Italy, Britain and some Arab states in 2011 in displacing the government of Libya's then-leader, Moammar Gadhafi, in power for 42 years since he led the overthrow of King Idris in 1969. Gadhafi was caught and killed. Since then, instead of attaining coherent, democratic government, Libya has ended up in a state of chaos, with three different regimes now claiming legitimacy.

Why the United States feels any need to involve itself in the affairs of Libya, particularly with military force, including recently with B-52 bombers, is impossible to explain to the American public. It seems to be entirely supply-driven, part of the Pentagon's endless appetite for money and arms, in spite of America's needs at home.

—Pittsburgh Post-Gazette