The national section of today's New York Times carries an article under the headline "Panel Calls for Higher Mileage Standards." The article reports that a House of Representatives subcommittee has approved a bill "to force automobile companies to improve the mileage of sport-utility vehicles" and minivans.
The article includes one quote from a congressman who favors the bill, another quote from a congressman who says it doesn't go far enough, and one quote from a representative of the Sierra Club. No representative of the automobile industry is named or quoted, nor is any economist or auto-safety expert who could speak to the likely effect of the new fuel economy standards on safety. The closest the article comes is a reference, in a single paragraph, to unnamed "critics."
The Brookings Institution's Robert Crandall and Harvard's John Graham have estimated that the current fuel economy standards on cars could be responsible for a 14 to 27 percent increase in highway fatalities. The smaller cars that are manufactured to meet the standard tend to be less safe in collisions. A recent study in the American Journal of Public Health on "Causal Influence of Car Mass and Size on Driver Fatality Risk," supports the idea that heavier cars are safer, and that the net safety benefits for drivers of heavier cars outweighs the risks to those who are hit by them. The Competitive Enterprise Institute has projected out the Crandall-Graham work to show that the current fuel economy standards can be blamed for thousands of auto deaths each year.
Of course, there are safety risks associated with pollution, too, and if safety were the only issue, we'd all be walking or driving around in tanks. But in a story with so many sides to it, it's just weird that the Sierra Club is the only interest group with a voice in the Times article.