Addicted to absurdly large, high-profit and fuel-hungry SUVs, the American automotive industry forfeited the high-efficiency car market to Japanese car companies and have reflexively fought increases in CAFE standards.

This unsustainable cycle of inefficiency was preventable, requiring only minimal foresight and painless regulation; increasing CAFE standards by a small percentage each year since 1975 would have our fleet of vehicles already averaging 40 mpg. Moreover, gargantuan SUVs, a threat to anyone driving a modestly sized car, would never have become an American obsession.

Market forces disregard negative externalities imposed on society at large. Long-term issues like air pollution, fighting wars for oil or global climate change aren’t calculated in the price of gas or vehicle efficiency standards. Addressing such public and international problems requires policy choices.

Clearly, most people will not willingly conserve a relatively inexpensive commodity. Incredibly cheap gas, by international standards, resulted in gluttonous over consumption and absurdly inefficient vehicles.

Average fuel economy in the United States pathetically trails the rest of the developed world, with our CAFE standards requiring only 27.5 mpg for cars. In contrast, the European Union’s average will be raised to 44.2 mpg next year, and Japan already achieves 45. Even China, a major environmental polluter, has significantly higher car efficiency standards than the U.S.

The relatively modest Senate bill requires cars, trucks and sport-utility vehicles to achieve a mere 35 mpg by 2020. If it becomes law, more than a decade from now we’d still be conspicuously behind the efficiency standards other advanced countries enjoy now. The good news is that a July 2007 poll revealed that almost 90 percent of surveyed voters favor requiring the automobile industry to raise fuel efficiency to 35 mpg.

Also, there are no technological barriers to the proposed CAFE increase. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, off-the-shelf technologies could “increase the fuel economy of the average car and truck to 40 mpg over the next 10 years, without relying on hybrids.”

Of course, efficiency gains would be easier and potentially more dramatic by taking advantage of hybrid and other advanced technologies. As the tree-hugging liberal I am, I’ve been driving a 2007 Honda Civic Hybrid for a year and can testify to the amazing performance of the technology.

During warm weather months, which hybrids love, the Civic never finished a tank averaging less than 52 miles per gallon, and several tanks averaged over 56. During the frigid and slushy winter months, the average was closer to the mid 40s, still significantly better than my previous Civic.

As evidence that safety needn’t be sacrificed to achieve extraordinary efficiency, in 2006 the new Civics were awarded “Top Safety Pick — Gold” by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Hybrid battery technology is a major contributor to overall efficiency but not the sole reason for the mileage gains. Other factors are a highly aerodynamic design, low rolling resistance tires, light alloy wheels, automatic engine shut off at idle and a transmission optimized for efficiency rather than acceleration.

Also, a real-time mpg display functions as a behavior modification device, training the driver to adjust his or her driving for maximize mileage. All these technologies could be added to most cars.

Bottom line: Current technology is capable of delivering far more than 35 mpg, but at least the Senate’s bill represents a step in the right direction.

John Bice is a State News columnist and MSU staff member. Reach him at bice@msu.edu.