Low-slung station wagons have all but disappeared from American roads, and even sedans are becoming increasingly rare.
Bulky SUVs and pickup trucks, which have themselves grown larger over time, now account for more than four out of every five new cars sold in the US, a significant increase from just over half in 2013, even as the national household size continues to decrease.
The growing size of cars, a phenomenon I refer to as “car bloat,” has intensified a number of national problems.
Consider road safety: Unlike other countries, the US has experienced a sharp rise in traffic fatalities, with pedestrian and cyclist deaths who are particularly vulnerable when hit by a large vehicle recently reaching 40-year highs.
Drivers are also at risk. A 2019 study found that compared to a smaller vehicle, an SUV or pickup colliding with a smaller car was 28 percent and 159 percent, respectively, more likely to result in the death of the car’s driver.
Car bloat also poses a serious threat to the environment. Heavier vehicles require more energy to operate, which results in greater gasoline or electricity consumption, thereby raising greenhouse gas emissions.
The extra weight also accelerates road and tire wear, putting a strain on road maintenance budgets and releasing microplastics that harm ecosystems.
What has caused this shift? Some Americans prefer larger cars, particularly when gas prices are low, due to their abundant storage space, the ability to see over other vehicles on the road, and the perceived safety advantages they offer. However, changing consumer preferences only explain part of the story.
For half a century, numerous federal policies have favored large SUVs and trucks, steering both automakers and American consumers toward larger vehicles.
Rather than combating car bloat through regulation, policymakers have subtly promoted it. This has benefited car manufacturers but proved disastrous for everyone else.
Here are some of the most notable examples.
Why we let bigger cars pollute more
In the 1970s, following the OPEC oil embargo that caused a spike in gas prices, the US government introduced a range of policies aimed at reducing energy demand.
One of Congress’s most impactful moves was the creation of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, which require that the average fuel economy (miles per gallon, or MPG) of a carmaker’s fleet of vehicles stay below a specific threshold.
Due to pressure from auto lobbyists, Congress made a significant decision when establishing CAFE.
Instead of implementing a single fuel economy standard for all vehicles, Congress set two: one for passenger cars, such as sedans and station wagons, and a more lenient one for “light trucks,” including pickups and SUVs.
For instance, in 1982, the CAFE standard for passenger cars was 24 mpg, while the standard for light trucks was only 17.5 mpg.
This dual structure did not initially seem problematic because, in the 1970s, SUVs and trucks made up less than a quarter of new car sales.
However, as gas prices fell in the 1980s, the “light truck loophole” encouraged automakers to move away from sedans and produce more pickups and SUVs, which were also more profitable.
Advertising campaigns in the 1980s and 1990s often featured SUV and truck owners taking family trips or going out with friendsnactivities that could also be done in sedans or station wagons.
The messaging resonated with consumers, and by 2002, light trucks made up more than half of new car sales.
In the early 2000s, federal regulations exacerbated the issue further.
During the George W. Bush administration, CAFE was revised to loosen rules for larger vehicles by tying fuel efficiency standards to a vehicle’s physical footprint (essentially, the area covered by the vehicle when the sun is directly overhead).
President Obama later incorporated similar footprint rules into new greenhouse gas emissions standards, managed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Dan Becker, who led the Sierra Club’s global warming program from 1989 to 2007, told me that he and others warned lawmakers about the risks of adopting footprint-based standards.
“People like me were saying, ‘Give carmakers another loophole and they’ll use it,’” he said. “But we lost.”
These concerns turned out to be valid. The average vehicle footprint grew by 6 percent between 2008 and 2023, a “historic high,” according to an EPA report, which also found that some car manufacturers, like General Motors, had lower average fuel economy and higher carbon emissions in 2022 than in 2017.
To its credit, the EPA recently announced revisions to its vehicle GHG rules that would narrow (but not eliminate) the gap between standards for large and small cars.
However, the rise of electric vehicles may only entrench car bloat. The EPA’s rules assume all EVs, regardless of their design, produce zero emissions a questionable assumption, as EVs do cause emissions indirectly through the production and transmission of the power that charges their batteries.
Larger or less efficient batteries consume more electricity, leading to higher pollution, especially in areas where fossil fuels dominate the energy mix.
The EPA’s policy of treating all EVs the same makes extremely large vehicles like the Hummer EV appear cleaner than they are, encouraging manufacturers to produce more of them.
To address EV bloat, Peter Huether, a senior research associate at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, suggests that the EPA revise its GHG rules to account for emissions from power generation and transmission: “If these standards looked at upstream emissions, it could have a downstream effect on the shape and size of EVs.”
Blocking smaller cars from abroad
What does a 60-year-old trade dispute have to do with car bloat? More than you might think.
In the early 1960s, Europe angered American officials by imposing a 50 percent tariff on chicken exports from the US. In retaliation, the US imposed a 25 percent tax on imported pickup trucks. While the “Chicken Tax” is now largely forgotten, it still affects the market.
Originally aimed at Germany’s auto industry (particularly Volkswagen), the tariff also applies to pickups from newer automaking countries such as Japan and South Korea, where manufacturers excel at building smaller vehicles than those available in the US.
For example, the Toyota Hilux Double Cab pickup is several hundred pounds lighter and about half a foot shorter than a 2024 Ford F-150 Tremor or Lariat. However, Toyota does not sell the Hilux in the US due to the 25 percent tariff, making it cost-prohibitive.
“The Chicken Tax has prevented competitive Asian or European truck makers from entering the US market,” said Jason Torchinsky, co-founder of Autopian, an auto industry outlet.
“American manufacturers have really never had to compete.” John Krafcik, former CEO of Hyundai, called the Chicken Tax “one of the most important determinants of how the [auto] industry looks today and how it operates today in the US.”
The tax has drawn criticism from sources across the political spectrum, including the Libertarian Cato Institute, the center-right American Enterprise Institute, and the left-leaning Tax Policy Center.
“Tariffs in general hurt consumers, and the Chicken Tax is no exception,” wrote Robert McClelland of the Tax Policy Center.
Additional protectionist policies also block smaller vehicles from overseas. Chinese car manufacturers, a rising force in the auto industry, face a 25 percent tariff imposed by Donald Trump.
This prevents Americans from purchasing small Chinese electric vehicles, like the BYD Seagull, which costs around $10,000 just a fifth of the price of an average American car.
Even those hoping to import a kei truck, a small Japanese pickup, face a maze of federal and state regulations.
(Even Afghanistan seems ahead of the US in offering mini-pickups, as noted by Dion Lefler of the Wichita Eagle in a 2023 satirical column: “In the land of the free, why can’t we have mini-pickup trucks like the Taliban?”)
These policies have created a regulatory barrier that benefits US automakers, whose profits are heavily reliant on large, expensive SUVs and trucks.
The Hummer Tax Loophole
In 1984, Congress ended the tax deduction for small business owners buying vehicles for work. However, they included a major loophole: Section 179, which allows a deduction for vehicles weighing over 6,000 pounds when fully loaded with passengers and cargo.
Today, such heavy-duty vehicles are eligible for tax deductions of up to $30,500, while owners of smaller cars can claim no deduction.
This loophole, initially targeting heavy-duty vehicles used by farmers or construction workers, now applies to many massive cars, such as the Hummer 1, which weighs around 10,300 pounds (leading to Section 179 being dubbed the “Hummer Tax Loophole”).
Other large vehicles, like the Chevrolet Suburban and Ford F-250 Super Duty, also qualify.
“Few folks at EPA know about Section 179,” said Becker, the former Sierra Club executive. “But every auto dealer does.” Some dealerships even provide guides to Section 179 on their websites.
The tax incentive is powerful enough to sway decisions of buyers, such as real estate agents, who use their cars for both personal and business purposes. As cars electrify, the added weight from batteries will allow more models to qualify for favorable tax treatment.
Freezing the gas tax
Whenever a car owner fills their tank, part of the cost contributes to the federal Highway Trust Fund, which finances road construction and mass transit.
The gas tax rate is currently set at $0.184 per gallon, a level that has been unchanged since 1993, when Bill Clinton was president. Proposals to raise the tax or link it to inflation have consistently failed.
Over the past 31 years, consumer prices have risen by 113 percent, making the real value of the gas tax less than half of what it was in 1993.
This has made it cheaper to operate large, inefficient vehicles like the 2024 Cadillac Escalade, which weighs 6,270 pounds and averages 16 mpg.
A 2018 OECD study found that the US has the lowest average gas tax (including both federal and state taxes) among wealthy nations, which typically charge $2.24 per gallon four times the US rate.
“Why are European cars so small?” McClelland from the Tax Policy Center asked. “One reason has got to be the much higher gasoline tax.”
Federal policy ignores crash risk for anyone outside a car
A vehicle’s design impacts not only the safety of its occupants but also those outside the vehicle, such as pedestrians and cyclists. This simple truth has been overlooked by federal regulators for decades.
The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), which detail safety rules for everything from power windows to seat belts, focus primarily on protecting a vehicle’s occupants.
Nowhere in its 562 pages does it limit a vehicle’s physical design to protect those who might be involved in a collision.