Polls show that most people want cleaner-burning, more-fuel-efficient vehicles. That’s hardly surprising given the high cost of gasoline, worries about reliance on foreign sources of oil and the effects of carbon dioxide on the climate.

But change frightens the auto industry, which has opposed catalytic converters, seat belts, air bags and fuel mileage standards. Automakers are still in that rut. Disturbingly, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is starting to parrot the industry’s talking points.

The agency recently released a statement saying that it favors pollution-control efforts that don’t include increased regulation of tailpipe emissions. The comment clearly was aimed at the efforts of some states, including Washington and Oregon, to mandate “clean cars.” Clean-car legislation has been adopted by eight states. Washington passed such a law contingent upon the participation of Oregon, which appears likely.

EPA, which could torpedo the states’ efforts, says that such rules limit consumer choice and increase the price tag for new cars. Those same arguments were made more than 30 years ago when American cities were choking on smog.

A byproduct of improved emissions is increased mileage. Strangely, the EPA makes that sound like a bad thing, noting, “The only way to cut emissions is through a drastic increase in fuel economy.”

Bring it on!

As for higher vehicle prices, we suspect the auto industry, as usual, is inflating that. It says clean cars will cost, on average, $3,000 more. Independent projections are closer to $1,000, which would be recouped over the life of the car because of lower fuel costs.

Some opponents of clean-car legislation complain that California would dictate standards for the rest of the country. But it would be impractical for automakers to design cars differently to meet each state’s specifications.

The debate should be whether the California standards are sensible. They call for a 30 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2016. The rules would be phased in, starting with 2009 models. Automakers already have signed onto a deal with Canada that calls for about a 25 percent reduction in emissions with a much tighter 2010 deadline.

Do we really want a situation in which Canada gets the clean cars and the United States gets the rest?

If the EPA or the courts don’t intervene, one-third of the North American auto market would require clean cars. This could provide the tipping point for automakers to produce only the cleaner version.

It would be better if the feds passed significant changes to fuel and pollution standards, but they consistently have failed to do so. Now that states have stepped up to the challenge, the feds should stay out of the way.