Proposed changes to the country’s fuel economy standards fall far short of what’s possible and could prevent states from adopting tougher requirements. Like doctors do, major changes in environmental rules should follow a simple rule: First, do no harm.

With the announcement this week of a revision in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, the White House presents the rhetoric of moving forward. In reality, President Bush’s plan would do little to improve overall fleet performance, increase fuel economy or reduce pollution. And a provision, buried deep within the plan, could retard regional and state efforts at reducing carbon dioxide emissions from cars and trucks.

The National Highway Transportation Administration has developed a plan that would divide automakers’ fleets of vehicles into six separate categories, each with different fuel economy standards. While light trucks would be forced to meet higher standards, other, heavier vehicles – large trucks, minivans and many SUVs – are given a pass. Currently, there are only two categories: passenger cars and light trucks, which includes everything from the Subaru Outback to the Hummer.

The proposal is seriously flawed. The United States uses more than 20 million barrels of oil a day. About 45 percent is turned to gasoline and pumped into cars and trucks. The American affinity for large vehicles has translated into brisk sales for the minivans, SUVs and pick-ups, which make up about more than half of the cars on the road. Under the president’s proposals, those same behemoths are largely exempt from increased fuel economy standards.

According to Sen. Olympia Snowe, who’s challenging the administration on its plans, closing the SUV loophole could save more than 1 million barrels of oil a day by 2015 while also reducing carbon dioxide pollution by 240 million tons.

Also included is language that could stop state efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to climate change. It’s an underhanded effort to undo the progress that has been made by California, which Maine and other states are beginning to emulate.

Proponents of the changes argue that states, acting alone, aren’t as effective at combating pollution or climate change as the federal government. On this, they’re correct. It would be much more effective for a comprehensive national policy to be developed that would improve fuel economy and reduce vehicle emissions, but the federal government has refused to move forward. In its absence, states have been forced to do the job themselves.

At some point, national political leaders must realize that energy and environmental policy affect national security. By reducing the demand for oil, we can reduce the power and influence of the despots that sit on the majority of the world’s reserves.

The United States is spending billions of dollars fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we’re spending billions to purchase oil from the regimes most directly responsible for funding the terrorists and insurgents. Increased fuel economy is one significant way the country can reduce the flow of petrodollars to our enemies.

When it comes to extraction industries, the Bush administration has a blind spot that we’re all paying for at the pump.