EPA Prepares To Roll Back Rules Requiring Cars To Be Cleaner and More Efficient (nytimes.com)

Coral Davenport and Hiroko Tabuchi, reporting for The New York Times: The Trump administration is expected to launch an effort in coming days to weaken greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy standards for automobiles, handing a victory to car manufacturers and giving them ammunition to potentially roll back industry standards worldwide. The move -- which undercuts one of President Barack Obama's signature efforts to fight climate change -- would also propel the Trump administration toward a courtroom clash with California, which has vowed to stick with the stricter rules even if Washington rolls back federal standards. That fight could end up creating one set of rules for cars sold in California and the 12 states that follow its lead, and weaker rules for the rest of the states, in effect splitting the nation into two markets.

Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, is expected to frame the initiative as eliminating a regulatory burden on automakers that will result in more affordable trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles for buyers, according to people familiar with the plan. An E.P.A. spokeswoman confirmed that Mr. Pruitt had sent a draft of the 16-page plan to the White House for approval. Further reading: EPA to its employees: Ignore science when talking about climate change (ArsTechnica)

Comments

Disadvantage US manufacturers?

[Midnight Thunder]

Surely this change in regulation would do more to hurt US car companies that help them? If they don't design and build for efficiency, then surely this would limit their ability to export to any market that cares about efficiency or where fuel costs are already high? This feels like another short term action, just like trying to protect the coal industry, that will end up hurting more in the long run, than doing any real good.

Re:Disadvantage US manufacturers?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no, it's MAGA! Making Americans Get Asphyxiated!

Re:Victors

[PopeRatzo]

It is a victory for consumers, who would otherwise be forced to pay much higher prices for automobiles.

In the spirit of Good Friday, I'm not going to call you a dumb sonofabitch.

http://time.com/money/4702421/...

The extreme warming predictions have proven wrong. We are heading into a solar grand minimum. The only people who need to worry about global warming are the alarmists who have staked their careers on it.

OK, you're a dumb sonofabitch.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/rese...

Re:Two Words

[b0s0z0ku]

California already has stricter emission standards that have held up in court (for new cars, you can still bring a "Federal standard" used car into CA if it exceeds 15,000 miles on the clock).

Some counties ban alcohol sale, others allow it year around. Some states allow AR-15s, others ban them from sale. States don't have an obligation to allow a given item to be sold in their state or city.

Re:Victors

[tim620]

You are free to believe whatever you want. However, we all need to worry about global warming. It is really happening and is really man-man. The science is correct. I tend to believe the scientists who have studied this for many years, over conservative politicians and talk show hosts.

Re:"handing a victory to car manufacturers "

[hawguy]

Really? So if Ford was offering a 10mpg car and Honda was offering a 35mpg comparable car, you gonna buy the Ford? How many car manufacturers are out there? You are free to buy from the most fuel efficient car maker. And buying a more fuel efficient car saves you money, so why would you need a law to force you to buy the more fuel efficient model? Why not a law to force CPU makers minimum flops? Or RAM makers minimum Ram speeds? Or hard driver makers minimum terabytes?

That's a strawman.

The choice will be more like a 35mpg Honda and 25mph Ford that costs $2000 less, has a more powerful engine, but also emits a *lot* more pollutants of all types, not just CO2, but the smog inducing pollutants that have a direct link in killing people.

Many people will take the cheap, faster car even if it kills children since that killing is an indirect link, which is why the regulation is needed.

the military budget is maybe 40% of the budget

[whathappenedtomonday]

> the military budget is maybe 40% of the budget, at most.

Phew. The OP almost got me worried. I feel very much relieved now. Thanks a bunch for that!

Tax fuel to mitigate pollution

[Cajun Hell]

Better solution would be to tax fuel at a fairly high rate and let the markets decide what to buy

I totally agree, but then...

Use the tax money to subsidize clean (electric) transport

No, wait, no, stop. Don't subsidize anything with this money. And you can't afford to subsidize things anyway, once you look closer at your true liabilities.

Use this money to mitigate the effects of the pollution. Plant forests with it. Build atmospheric scrubbers. Use it to treat people who are sick from pollution. Use it to build multi-trillion-dollar projects to put our coastal cities on stilts. That sort of stuff.

The goal of the tax should simply be end the subsidy that we're currently giving to everyone who burns things. You won't need to give incentives to cleaner tech, because they'll already have the incentive of their users accruing less tax to clean up after themselves.