Few things have contributed as greatly to economic growth and mobility (or, if you will, to costly sprawl and environmental degradation) as our love affair with the car and our reliance on cheap gasoline. Even at today’s costs, inflation-deflated gas prices are still a relative bargain.

But as scientific evidence mounts about global warming, and we observe the ongoing geopolitical miasma in the Middle East, only the most ardent cynic will fail to recognize that the cost of a wasteful reliance on oil is far greater than two or three dollars a gallon.

Perhaps with oil prices approaching $42 a barrel and vehicle fuel economy at its lowest point in nearly 25 years, there is an opportunity to address this issue. That means raising the bar on corporate average fuel economy — or CAFE — standards, which have remained at 27.5 miles per gallon for cars since 1990 and 20.7 for trucks since 1996. (Keep in mind that many common light trucks are exempt from any fuel economy standards.)

It also requires closing loopholes that permit certain vehicles to meet the lax truck standard, something Congress did not envision in the pre-SUV era of the 1970s. And leading that effort, with more than a mea culpa for a past history of self-serving obstructionism, should be the automotive industry — manufacturers and retailers alike.

It should begin with abandoning the intractability that goes back to the original implementation of CAFE in 1975. This includes arguments that any government-mandated fuel economy standards would ruin the automobile industry financially and create increased safety risks while driving up vehicle prices and reducing consumer choice. History and scientific studies have disproved these theories, just as in the past when they were dragged out in opposition to federal mandates for seat belts and airbags.

The irony of such regulations has been that in addition to savings in lives, oil and environmental damage, they have proved to be an impetus for consumer demand and a grudging shove to domestic manufacturers in the competitive race with imports. In fact, increased fuel economy mandates beg the question of whether the additional cost might be but a fraction of the $3,000 to $5,000 the Big Three are currently offering to move gas guzzlers in the face of $2-a-gallon gas for the foreseeable future.

Over the past decades, apologists for inaction on fuel economy have worn all political stripes. Missed opportunities for improved CAFE can be laid at the feet of both the Clinton and Bush administrations. And proponents for a more sensible approach toward fuel economy have included political opposites such as Washington’s then-Sen. Slade Gorton and his successor Sen. Maria Cantwell.

Those who have stood in the way of this clear economic, environmental and national security imperative have been swayed by a daunting onslaught of lobbying and related political donations from both import and domestic automakers and auto-dealer trade organizations, such as NADA.

But encouraging cracks are beginning to form in this alliance, as socially conscious industry CEOs such as Bill Ford and others question whether continued opposition to improved CAFE is in the best interests of society, as well as their own long-term corporate bottom line. In addition, Automotive News, the industry’s leading publication, has adopted a strong editorial stance for a more progressive view. At a local level, many auto dealers, historically a very civic-minded lot, are adding their voice to the call for collaboration on an overhaul of CAFE.

In this election year, it is important that that we all set aside our narrow self-interests and support regulations that will close loopholes for light-duty trucks, SUVs and cars masquerading as real commercial trucks (which should be judged by a more lenient standard). This large classification of vehicles should be required to meet an improved standard that increases over time — somewhere around the reasonable 36 mpg by 2015, proposed by U.S. Sen. John Kerry.

What’s important is an agreement to move quickly to avoid the economic drag of skyrocketing oil prices, as well as the needless environmental damage caused by cars and trucks, which could be addressed by technology already developed by automakers.

On a more selfish note, domestic car companies should be worried lest import manufacturers, prodded by much higher fuel prices overseas, move to quickly implement the available technology that the pocketbooks and growing social conscience of American consumers demand. That would have a catastrophic effect on the U.S. automobile industry.