There are few better illustrations of the disconnect between what lawmakers in Washington know and what they do than an incident that occurred during committee debate on the energy bill in May:

Senator Dianne Feinstein offered an amendment to strengthen fuel economy standards for S.U.V.'s, minivans and pickups. When James Talent, a Missouri Republican, opposed the amendment with an argument about potential lost jobs, he drew a sharp response from Pete Domenici, the committee chairman. What's really costing jobs, Mr. Domenici said, is Detroit's failure to make the fuel-efficient cars that can compete on world markets.

Mr. Domenici then voted against Ms. Feinstein's amendment. So did most of his colleagues.

This contradiction between the ability of smart people like Mr. Domenici to recognize an obvious problem and their failure to embrace an obvious solution is traceable to the political influence of the automakers and their unions, to ideological hostility to regulation, and to inertia. Congress has voted so often against improved fuel economy standards that it seems incapable of doing anything else.

That does not make it any less culpable. Soaring gasoline prices, the treacherous situation in the Middle East and the evidence of global warming all tell us that we need to act quickly to cut down on imported oil. While over time the country is going to need a range of approaches to deal with its growing dependency, there is no better short-term answer than a more efficient transportation fleet.

Cars and light trucks - S.U.V.'s, vans and pickups - account for roughly 40 percent of all United States oil consumption, which now amounts to about 20 million barrels a day. The same vehicles also account for more than one-fifth of the country's emissions of carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas. Yet two recent and authoritative reports show that industry and policy makers are headed in exactly the wrong direction.

One is from President Bush's own Environmental Protection Agency. Its main findings - that America's cars and trucks are significantly less efficient, on average, than they were in the late 1980's, and that leaps in technology have been used to make vehicles more powerful but not more fuel efficient - might have briefly discomfited legislators about to vote for an energy bill that would do nothing to improve matters. That might explain why the report was delayed until after the bill was in hand.

The second report, from Environmental Defense, an advocacy group, makes the same points in much greater detail. It notes that even the Japanese - basking in the public relations glow provided by the Prius, Toyota's gas-electric hybrid - are doing poorly on a fleetwide basis. The culprit in all cases was the increasing market share of minivans and S.U.V.'s, which are held to more lenient fuel economy standards than other passenger vehicles.

Where do we go now? The efficiency standards enacted 30 years ago after the Arab oil embargo made a huge difference in consumption (and, some believe, saved Detroit in the bargain). But history clearly means little to this Congress or this administration. Proposals expected later this month, calling for modest improvements in fuel efficiency for S.U.V.'s and other light trucks, are unlikely to make any serious dent in consumption.

Some environmentalists are beginning to think that the best hope for more efficient cars may lie with mandatory caps on global warming gases, like those contained in a bill sponsored by Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman. Once caps are in place, the reasoning goes, every sector of the American economy, including transportation, will be required to do its part to meet the overall goal.

That is essentially the thinking behind rules adopted last year by the California Air Resources Board. The rules will require a 30 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions from cars and light trucks by 2016, a target that will most likely be met by big increases in fuel efficiency.

The Bush administration hates the California plan, and industry has challenged it in court. But George Pataki of New York and other Eastern governors have pledged to emulate it - which means the states may end up carrying a ball that Congress dropped. That would not be a bad thing at all.


	EDITORIAL
	August 21, 2005 Foolishness on Fuel There are few better illustrations of the disconnect between what lawmakers in Washington know and what they do than an incident that occurred during committee debate on the energy bill in May: Senator Dianne Feinstein offered an amendment to strengthen fuel economy standards for S.U.V.'s, minivans and pickups. When James Talent, a Missouri Republican, opposed the amendment with an argument about potential lost jobs, he drew a sharp response from Pete Domenici, the committee chairman. What's really costing jobs, Mr. Domenici said, is Detroit's failure to make the fuel-efficient cars that can compete on world markets. Mr. Domenici then voted against Ms. Feinstein's amendment. So did most of his colleagues. This contradiction between the ability of smart people like Mr. Domenici to recognize an obvious problem and their failure to embrace an obvious solution is traceable to the political influence of the automakers and their unions, to ideological hostility to regulation, and to inertia. Congress has voted so often against improved fuel economy standards that it seems incapable of doing anything else. That does not make it any less culpable. Soaring gasoline prices, the treacherous situation in the Middle East and the evidence of global warming all tell us that we need to act quickly to cut down on imported oil. While over time the country is going to need a range of approaches to deal with its growing dependency, there is no better short-term answer than a more efficient transportation fleet. Cars and light trucks - S.U.V.'s, vans and pickups - account for roughly 40 percent of all United States oil consumption, which now amounts to about 20 million barrels a day. The same vehicles also account for more than one-fifth of the country's emissions of carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas. Yet two recent and authoritative reports show that industry and policy makers are headed in exactly the wrong direction. One is from President Bush's own Environmental Protection Agency. Its main findings - that America's cars and trucks are significantly less efficient, on average, than they were in the late 1980's, and that leaps in technology have been used to make vehicles more powerful but not more fuel efficient - might have briefly discomfited legislators about to vote for an energy bill that would do nothing to improve matters. That might explain why the report was delayed until after the bill was in hand. The second report, from Environmental Defense, an advocacy group, makes the same points in much greater detail. It notes that even the Japanese - basking in the public relations glow provided by the Prius, Toyota's gas-electric hybrid - are doing poorly on a fleetwide basis. The culprit in all cases was the increasing market share of minivans and S.U.V.'s, which are held to more lenient fuel economy standards than other passenger vehicles. Where do we go now? The efficiency standards enacted 30 years ago after the Arab oil embargo made a huge difference in consumption (and, some believe, saved Detroit in the bargain). But history clearly means little to this Congress or this administration. Proposals expected later this month, calling for modest improvements in fuel efficiency for S.U.V.'s and other light trucks, are unlikely to make any serious dent in consumption. Some environmentalists are beginning to think that the best hope for more efficient cars may lie with mandatory caps on global warming gases, like those contained in a bill sponsored by Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman. Once caps are in place, the reasoning goes, every sector of the American economy, including transportation, will be required to do its part to meet the overall goal. That is essentially the thinking behind rules adopted last year by the California Air Resources Board. The rules will require a 30 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions from cars and light trucks by 2016, a target that will most likely be met by big increases in fuel efficiency. The Bush administration hates the California plan, and industry has challenged it in court. But George Pataki of New York and other Eastern governors have pledged to emulate it - which means the states may end up carrying a ball that Congress dropped. That would not be a bad thing at all.

	Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company