Therefore, according to the EPA’s peculiar logic, raising fuel economy standards will kill motorists. Lowering them will save lives.

“[The new fuel efficiency proposal] is anticipated to prevent thousands of on-road fatalities and injuries as compared to the standards set forth in the 2012 final rule,” the EPA wrote in a press release about the announcement. The EPA said the proposed changes would save 1,000 lives per year^[11].

Wait, what?

I asked the EPA for clarification on these points, and they referred me back to their press release.

Here’s the problem, though:

Yes, newer cars are safer^[12]. But efficiency has been advancing in tandem with safety, and average fuel economy reached a record high^[13] this year. Americans are driving farther than ever^[14], but the fatality rate has fallen drastically over the past four decades:

National Highway Transportation Safety Administration^[15]

The EPA said the Obama rules would add an additional $2,340 to the overall ownership costs of a new vehicle. Given that the annual cost to own a car^[16] is around $8,000, an additional $468 per year over five years for a more efficient car or truck isn’t a deal breaker for most buyers.

The other part of the EPA’s safety argument is that more fuel-efficient cars tend to be lighter and therefore more vulnerable in accidents. And people with fuel sippers^[17] would be inclined to drive them more, thereby increasing the likelihood of getting into a wreck. So heavy, dirty cars are good because they use so much gas that people will drive them less, according to the EPA.

On the other hand, air pollution from vehicles is responsible for 30,000 premature deaths^[18]. It stands to reason that the lives saved by improving efficiency and reducing air pollution outweigh the lives saved by potential car buyers on the margins upgrading to safer cars. Also, one of the biggest reasons new cars became so safe is because of sweeping federal regulations^[19], so if saving lives is the goal, this is the better way to do it.