為什么美國的汽車廠商不能學習特斯拉？

上周，理查德·塞勒因為在人類所缺乏的理性決策方面的貢獻，獲得了2017年的諾貝爾經濟學獎。當被問到準備如何使用110萬美元的獎金時，他給出了一個完美的回答：“我要盡可能非理性地花掉它。”

這句話從一個72歲的學者口中說出，十分有趣。不過它也讓我想起了美國汽車廠商在應對交通運輸業的未來時不那么有趣而且很不理性的行為。

一方面，幾乎每周都有汽車廠商宣布在三大環保交通選擇：電動、無人駕駛和共享汽車上進行投資。沃爾沃（Volvo）和捷豹（Jaguar）等品牌宣布他們在不久的將來將實現全部車型“電動化”。而大眾（Volkswagen）、梅賽德斯（Mercedes）、寶馬（BMW）和通用汽車（GM）等另一些廠商則似乎開始了創新競速賽。

然而與此同時，這些公司都在抗拒支持上述目標的環保措施。這種對抗如今已經延伸到了2025年輕型車溫室氣體排放和燃油經濟性標準，其中規定屆時的轎車和多功能車的汽油里程數需要翻倍，達到54.5英里。這份計劃是我在環境保護署（Environmental Protection Agency, EPA）工作時幫助擬定的。它于2012年生效，對關鍵的環境需求與行業的擔憂做了平衡。不過這一巨大的成就如今有著崩潰的危險。在汽車業的煽動之下，總統唐納德·特朗普治下的環境保護署如今正在考慮是否需要廢除這一標準或是推延達成時間。

今年10月，是這個歷史性項目誕生的五周年。事實已經證明，對于汽車廠商、消費者、能源安全和我們的地球而言，它是一個多贏的選擇。汽車業首次有了一個統一的全國標準，有了長期規劃和投資的方向——這種監管的穩定性正是環境保護署的行政官斯科特·普瑞特聲稱他將在放松環保要求的同時努力實現的。從那時起，整個行業不僅滿足了標準，而且還走在了前面。2016年銷售的汽車中，有大約17%，即250萬輛，已經達到了2020年汽油里程數大約41英里的標準。

駕駛者成了最大的贏家，他們已經在燃料上節約了超過470億美元。如果我們繼續這一進程，利好也會進一步增長：到2030年，我們每天使用的原油量將會減少240萬桶，駕駛者在每輛汽車在使用壽命期間將節約6,000美元。

汽車業已經從2008-09年的蕭條深淵中爬了上來，奧巴馬政府必須幫助它擺脫困境。汽車業的利潤達到了10年來的新高。這些成功的部分原因，在于如今遵守燃油經濟規定的成本實際上已經低于2012年的估計值。

許多美國人認為需要繼續維持該標準，這毫不令人驚訝。在環境保護署最近的一次聽證會上，近100名不同的發言者給出了證據來支持2025年的標準，并表示其利好遠大于代價。

藍綠聯盟（Blue Green Alliance）證明，清潔汽車技術支撐了48個州超過1,200家機構超過28.8萬個制造和工程崗位。在克利夫蘭的美國鋼鐵工人聯合會（United Steelworkers）Local 970的主席丹·布恩表示，監管推動了創新，進而創造了工作崗位，例如使用輕型鋼來提高燃料經濟性。前海軍和確保美國未來能源組織（Securing America’s Future Energy）董事長詹姆斯·康威將軍談到燃油經濟性標準如何代表了應對國外原油聯盟的“最強大武器”之一。消費者協會（Consumers Union）則證實：他們的調查表明，公眾對實施嚴格的能源經濟標準有著壓倒性的支持。

汽車公司非理性行為最有可能的理由，是董事會會議室的過時觀點，他們認為監管的放松意味著更高的利潤。這些董事會成員需要后退一步，考慮讓公司把握未來。特斯拉誕生于加利福尼亞州，這里的環境標準歷來嚴格，然而在過去五年里，該公司的市值從大約30億美元飆升到超過560億美元，幾乎達到了通用汽車的估值，并遠遠甩開了福特（Ford）或菲亞特-克萊斯勒（Fiat Chrysler）。優步（Uber）讓拼車成為了一種全球現象，公司的市值也從幾乎為0漲到了今年早些時候的近700億美元。

也許前共和黨總統候選人米特·羅姆尼在2011年的話，可以最好地解釋這些公司的行為：“企業是人，我的朋友。”而正如塞勒解釋的那樣，人是最不理性的。我只希望他們能看到，公司以后長期的生存能力依賴于對未來交通的堅定投入——一個清潔、智能、共享的未來。他們沒辦法同時倒車和前進。（財富中文網）

?

譯者：嚴匡正

Last week Richard Thaler won the 2017 Nobel Prize in Economics for his work on humans’ lack of rational decision making. When asked how he would spend the $1.1 million prize Thaler had the perfect answer: “I will try to spend it as irrationally as possible.”

Coming from a 72-year-old academic, it was a funny line. But it also reminded me of the not-quite-as-humorous but very irrational behavior of U.S. auto companies when dealing with the future of the transportation industry.

On one hand, not a week goes by without a different carmaker announcing another investment in the trifecta of environmentally friendly mobility options: electric, autonomous, and shared vehicles. Some, like Volvo and Jaguar, have declared that their entire fleet will be “electrified” in the near future. Others, including Volkswagen, Mercedes, BMW, and GM, seem to be in an innovation drag race.

But these same companies are simultaneously fighting against environmental protections that encourage these goals. This battle has now extended to include the historic 2025 Light Duty Vehicle Standards for cars and SUVs, which will double the gas mileage to 54.5 miles per gallon by then. The plan I helped develop when I was at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) came into effect in 2012 and balanced critical environmental needs with the industry’s concerns. But this huge accomplishment is now at risk of crumbling. At the instigation of the auto industry, President Donald Trump’s EPA is now evaluating whether to rescind or delay the standards.

This October marks the fifth anniversary of the historic program, which has proven to be a win-win for automakers, consumers, energy security, and the planet. The industry had, for the first time, a unified national program with a long horizon for planning and investment—exactly the sort of regulatory certainty EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt claims he’s striving forwhile rolling back environmental protections. Since then, the entire industry has been able to not just meet but stay ahead of the standards. Some 17% of the 2016 models sold, or about 2.5 million vehicles, already meet the 2020 standards of approximately 41 miles per gallon.

Drivers have been big winners, saving more than $47 billion on fuel already. If we stay the course, the benefits grow: By 2030, we’ll cut our oil use by 2.4 million barrels every day, and drivers will save $6,000 over the life of their vehicles.

The industry has risen from the depths of the 2008–09 recession, when the Obama administration had to bail it out. Auto industry profits are touching 10-year highs. These successes are in part because the actual cost of compliance with the fuel economy regulations are lower today than was estimated in 2012.

Not surprisingly, a huge cross-section of Americans believe that the standards need to stay. At a recent EPA public hearing, nearly 100 different speakers gave testimony supporting the 2025 standards and describing how their benefits far outweigh costs.

The Blue Green Alliance testified how clean vehicle technology supports 288,000 manufacturing and engineering jobs at more than 1,200 facilities in 48 states. Dan Boone, president of United Steelworkers Local 970 in Cleveland, said the regulations push innovations that in turn create jobs, such as lightweight steel to improve fuel economy. A former Marine and chief executive at Securing America’s Future Energy, Gen. James Conway talked how the standards represent one of the “greatest weapons” against reliance on foreign oil. Consumers Union testified how their surveys indicate the overwhelming public supportfor strong fuel economy standards.

The most likely reason for the irrational behavior of auto companies is an anachronistic belief in boardrooms that regulatory rollback means higher profits. These board members need to take a step back and consider the companies seizing the future. Tesla, born and bred on California’s historically stricter environmental standards, has seen its market cap explode over the past five years from around $3 billion to over $56 billion, roughly the same as GM’s valuation and well ahead of Ford or Fiat Chrysler. Uber, the company that made ride-sharing a global phenomenon, went from a market cap of virtually nothing to nearly $70 billionearlier this year.

Perhaps these companies’ behavior can best be explained by former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s 2011 quote, “Corporations are people, my friend.” And people, as Thaler explained, are perfectly irrational individuals. I can only hope they see that their long-term viability depends on an unequivocal commitment to the future of transportation—a future that is clean, smart, and shared. They can’t shift into reverse and drive forward at the same time.

作者馬戈·歐格在1994年至2012年期間擔任環境保護署交通與空氣質量辦公室的主任。他還是《駛向未來：利用更清潔、更智能的汽車對抗氣候變化》一書的作者。

Margo Oge, who served as the director of the EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality from 1994 to 2012, is the author of Driving the Future: Combating Climate Change with Cleaner, Smarter Cars.