The president could not have been more correct when he spoke of the need to strengthen CAFE standards. The average fuel economy of the fleet of new cars and trucks sold in the United States in 2006 was lower than in 1986, and current fuel economy plans in the U.S. fall far below our major economic competitors.

However, this does not have to remain the case. Studies by the National Academies of Science (NAS), the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) all show that existing technology can easily improve fuel economy by 4% per year (to 34 mpg by 2017), as the president proposed, while providing the same acceleration, the same size, and the same or even improved safety compared to vehicles sold today.

In other words, we have the technology to make a 41 mpg family car, a 37 mpg minivan, a 34 mpg mid-sized SUV, and a 30 mpg pickup. These are the vehicles that the NAS report, requested by Congress, shows are possible with existing technology. The fleet the NAS analyzed would average 37 mpg. Over the life of these vehicles, savings at the pump would more than pay for the cost of the technologies, saving a net of $2,600 at $2.50 per gallon, essentially paying consumers to cut our oil dependence and global warming pollution. UCS analysis indicates that we could even exceed 40 mpg in 10 years.

In 2002, the NAS noted these technologies could be widely available within 10 to 15 years, or 2012 to 2017. Taking the most conservative scenario, if we started in 2010, a 5% per year increase in fuel economy would take full advantage of the NAS technologies by 2017. This approach could continue past 2017 given auto industry innovations like high strength materials, diesel engines, and hybrids. In fact, Paul Portney, chair of the NAS committee, noted that, “It might be possible to meet more stringent fuel economy standards at lower costs than the committee foresaw in 2001.” (February 9, 2005 press release from Resources For the Future)

While a 4% per year path would still leave us 7 years behind Australia, 9 years behind China, and more than 15 years behind the European Union, it would cut oil dependence, slow global warming, and save consumers billions at the pump.