White House Proposal Rolls Back Fuel Economy Standards, No Exception For California (npr.org)

The Trump administration has proposed a rollback of Obama-era fuel efficiency and emissions standards, while simultaneously taking aim at California's unique ability to set more stringent rules. From a report: Under the Obama administration, the Environmental Protection Agency called for the fuel economy standards for new vehicles to ratchet up over time. The increasingly strict standards were designed to combat climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. On Thursday, the EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released a new proposed rule that would instead freeze the standards at their 2020 levels for six years. "Cars and trucks are just part of the basic fiber of the American economy and the American experience, so we take what we're doing very, very seriously," Bill Wehrum, EPA assistant administrator, told reporters on Thursday. The agencies say that increasing fuel efficiency requirements contributes to an increase in the cost of new cars and trucks, which may discourage consumers from buying new vehicles. Because newer vehicles have advanced safety features, the administration argues, increasing fuel economy requirements therefore harms highway safety, as well as having economic effects.

Comments

"I have friends who own coal mines..."

[Zontar The Mindless]

"...and oil wells."

Re:"I have friends who own coal mines..."

[Joce640k]

I was going to mod this "insightful" but it hardly qualifies.

It should be obvious to anybody with two braincells to rub together.

All those oil billionaires who financed Trump's campaign are getting their payback.

Re:"I have friends who own coal mines..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Your analogies don't hold up because it's a matter of degree, not yes or no. Yes sewers are important, but an absolutely immaculate, perfect sewer system that cleans absolutely everything at the cost of bankrupting a nation is not.

Cars have very good emissions control systems right now. Increasing standards will drive up cost, and will not necessarily result in improvements in air quality; rather it's a ratio of investment. If it reduced air pollution by .1% but increased the cost of cars by 100%, then that's inefficient, whereas if it reduced air pollution by 20% but increased the cost of the car by only 2%, that might be considered efficient.

Your analogies are useless given that they are absolutes when the topic at hand is a discussion of severity vs. increased cost.

Re:"I have friends who own coal mines..."

[Rob Y.]

Funny how concepts like States' Rights lose their importance when you don't like what the States are doing - but are a useful cover when you want to, say, destroy unions - or pander to racist voters.

Re: "I have friends who own coal mines..."

[Barsteward]

That means the USA cars have even less chance of being sold in the EU - i doubt Trump has worked that out yet with all his whining that the people of the EU don;t buy enough USA cars

Re: "I have friends who own coal mines..."

[Anonymous Coward]

but because they hate the utter hypocrisy, corruption, and inefficiency of the standard political class.

So they voted for the hypocrisy, corruption, and inefficiency of Trump?

Remember his capacity for anything but rational arguments. He can't even admit when he makes things up from whole cloth.

Maybe you would do better to consider how other people see your behavior when you embrace and apologize for Trump.

Re: "I have friends who own coal mines..."

[drinkypoo]

This is a dumb argument. If Warren Buffet sends in a gift to reduce the debt, that will just be used as an excuse to borrow more, and they'll hand the money to corporations and/or the military. But if taxes are raised, then rich people who don't want their taxes spent that way will complain about how tax money is spent, and since only rich people really have a meaningful vote in our oligarchy, that may actually result in the money being spent more wisely.

Unfortunately, too many of the poor don't comprehend graduated taxation, so they don't support raising taxes on the rich. And so it goes.

BS...

[b0s0z0ku]

Modern safety features like stability control, auto-braking, and collision warning add minimum weight and don't affect economy. This is a 1980s way of thinking -- build a safety-box that takes a hit well but doesn't prevent crashes.

Re:BS...

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Bullshit. Make a hybrid Fit... 80 mpg and under 20 grand.

If there was enough demand for such a vehicle and automakers could produce it without losing money, why do you suppose they're not voluntarily producing such a vehicle? OH! That's right, there isn't sufficient demand for such a vehicle! There is, however, demand for trucks, SUV's, and muscle cars because people exercise their economic free will and choose to purchase such vehicles.

We obviously can't have people deciding for themselves what they want, right? Far better for the government to tell them what they want and force them to accept it, right? Forget that whole "freedom" thing! You're obviously too stupid to know what's best for you, therefore you must be dictated to by an elite group of government busybodies, people who won't be discommoded in the slightest by such decisions because they exempt themselves from them.

Physics, you asshole

[Anonymous Coward]

The quest for better fuel economy ultimately comes down to physics.

To get even more economy, you need to reduce weight. Take away weight and you ultimately take away strength (unless you can afford a $500,000 carbon composite car.

Hypocrites

[CohibaVancouver]

while simultaneously taking aim at California's unique ability to set more stringent rules

Trump, his Republican cronies, and their voters, are such a collection of hypocrites.

For decades, all Republicans do is bleat "STATES' RIGHTS!" - But when those states actually exercise those rights (emissions / drug policy / guns) the Republicans do everything in their power to stomp all over them.

Hello Malaise Era, we meet again...

[GameboyRMH]

Soon the US could be building gas guzzlers nobody outside the US wants to buy...and then when gas prices go back up, nobody inside the US will want to buy them either...remember how awesome it was last time that happened around the OPEC oil crisis? #MAGA!

Re:Fuel economy doesn't equal less emissions

[neilo_1701D]

... when lawn mowers, leaf blowers, construction vehicles, etc, all spew out a lot more pollutants per minute than the hugest SUV or pickup truck.

True... but how long do you run your leaf blower for? Purely in terms of hours per week, most cars run longer than the leaf blower by a huge factor.

Re:Fuel economy doesn't equal less emissions

[bill_mcgonigle]

spew out a lot more pollutants per minute than the hugest SUV or pickup truck.

Don't forget that the big transition from cars to SUV's was a direct response to fuel economy standard increases, because they effectively banned family station wagons but "light trucks" were in a different class, so people who needed station wagons now needed SUV's, which got worse mileage.

Re:Fuel economy doesn't equal less emissions

[admiralh]

How many leaf blowers, lawn mowers, construction vehicles, etc. are running simultaneously vs. cars/trucks?

Since the answer is orders of magnitude more, a 0.1% reduction in car emissions is much better for the total environment then if all emissions were eliminated from leaf blowers, lawn mowers, construction vehicles, etc.

A slight bit of critical thinking would do you a world of good.

Can we drop the ethanol requirements now?

[pecosdave]

Regular gas engines do better WITHOUT ethanol - I would say it was actually worse for the environment due to decreased efficiency and decreased life-span of other parts in regular gas engines. Also, gas doesn't keep as long with Ethanol. I have a big gas can for my lawn mower, I use it for a couple of months, then dump what's left in my car and go fill it up again. If it were just plain gas I could just keep it until I emptied it through the lawn mower - could take a couple of years.

I recently rented a flex-fuel vehicle, and I ran it with both E15 and E85. That vehicle probably did produce less pollution running E85, enough to justify the decrease in efficiency, but making us run it in our normal gas engines isn't helping anyone but the corn lobby.

Yawn

[drinkypoo]

Bawack Ubama Isn't godking anymore. That may come as a shock to California.

California had its own emissions standards before Obama. That may come as a shock to racists looking for a way to pin all America's problems on him.

Re:Yawn

[drinkypoo]

California had its own emissions standards before Obama. That may come as a shock to racists looking for a way to pin all America's problems on him.

Yes, because people aren't allowed to have differing policy opinions anymore. If you don't like something Obama did you're RAAAAAAAAACIST!!!!

That's not what's happening here. What's happening is someone trying to pin something on Obama because Obama. And I can tell they're racist because their misspelling of his name in that particular way functions as a dog whistle.

Seriously, is this the best you can do in a debate? Namecalling? No need to be correct or have facts on your side or anything like that.

Seriously, the best you can do is ignore facts while shouting facts?

Why not both?

[rsilvergun]

the huge spike in car costs is largely down to expensive new safety features. Cars don't kill you when they get in a fender bender like the Tsuru did in Mexico. Fuel economy improvements largely paid for themselves on a month to month basis, especially when you take into account that most people have a car loan. Not sure about you, but I factor the cost of gas into my overall car & driver budget.