Slashdot Mirror
The Oil Industry's Covert Campaign To Rewrite American Car Emissions Rules (nytimes.com)
When the Trump administration laid out a plan this year that would eventually allow cars to emit more pollution, automakers, the obvious winners from the proposal, balked. The changes, they said, went too far even for them. But it turns out that there was a hidden beneficiary of the plan that was pushing for the changes all along: the nation's oil industry. From an investigation by The New York Times: In Congress, on Facebook and in statehouses nationwide, Marathon Petroleum, the country's largest refiner, worked with powerful oil-industry groups and a conservative policy network financed by the billionaire industrialist Charles G. Koch to run a stealth campaign to roll back car emissions standards, a New York Times investigation has found. The campaign's main argument for significantly easing fuel efficiency standards -- that the United States is so awash in oil it no longer needs to worry about energy conservation -- clashed with decades of federal energy and environmental policy.
"With oil scarcity no longer a concern," Americans should be given a "choice in vehicles that best fit their needs," read a draft of a letter that Marathon helped to circulate to members of Congress over the summer. Official correspondence later sent to regulators by more than a dozen lawmakers included phrases or sentences from the industry talking points, and the Trump administration's proposed rules incorporate similar logic. The industry had reason to urge the rollback of higher fuel efficiency standards proposed by former President Barack Obama. A quarter of the world's oil is used to power cars, and less-thirsty vehicles mean lower gasoline sales.
"With oil scarcity no longer a concern," Americans should be given a "choice in vehicles that best fit their needs," read a draft of a letter that Marathon helped to circulate to members of Congress over the summer. Official correspondence later sent to regulators by more than a dozen lawmakers included phrases or sentences from the industry talking points, and the Trump administration's proposed rules incorporate similar logic. The industry had reason to urge the rollback of higher fuel efficiency standards proposed by former President Barack Obama. A quarter of the world's oil is used to power cars, and less-thirsty vehicles mean lower gasoline sales.
You are making a wonderful world for my grandchildren.
If that's true then the rules are not too harsh.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
The American auto industry is barely moving forward on EVs -- not that they're the be all to end all, but c'mon. The tech has been around longer than gas-powered vehicles and yet, even with modern lithium-ion batteries, car companies don't offer more than two models each -- most only offer one.
It's going to take regulation to force their hand; that seems obvious. With the current administration kowtowing to big business, though, we won't be seeing any movement on this for at least another two years.
Consider that automakers would have to make an entirely different set of vehicles for Paris accord countries (like Canada) and the U.S.
Then consider automakers would have to make different cars for states with strict standards and cars violating those standards would not be allowed in the state as they would not be grandfather claused.
Then consider that if automakers were to have 6 years to bring new fuel guzzling designs to market before (worst case scenario) Trump leaves office. And since almost universally, republican president = Democrat Congress and vise versa. So, within 6 years, either the executive or the legislative branches will be in opposition to the new regulations.
So, any car company who would take advantage of this opportunity would be run by idiots with no foresight. This would be corporate suicide. I mean I am sitting here laughing my ass off wondering who would invest years of R&D in a new drive train that would almost certainly be made illegal within weeks of it reaching market and could not be sold or operated in more than a small region.
Any leasing company willing to back these cars would be criminally incompetent and any banks willing to finance these vehicles would be suicidal.
I mean, who thinks these things up?
Call me skeptical, but if the automakers had really balked, they'd simply continue moving towards better and tighter emission control standards exactly as if they *had* been legally required to do so, regardless of any legislation that may be permitting them to implement workable solutions at a cheaper financial cost here and now. I know of no law that *requires* cars to pollute a certain minimum amount, after all.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
We have a culture where we tolerate lying when someone is trying to make a quick buck.
Businesses should tell the truth? Why do you hate capitalism? insert other facetious arguments here, etc
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Boy are you going to get it...
My personal perspective is that we need to work on Fusion reactors for electric power generation. It would produce nearly unlimited power for very little environmental impacts and nearly zero CO2 emissions. All we need is more R&D dollars... We KNOW it can be done, we just haven't fully figured out the engineering to make it happen. Also, why are we not shoving up Nuclear power plants as fast as mini-malls until then....
I'm guessing that the idea here is to control folks, not actually fix the stated issue, and THAT's why we are not really serious..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The choice isn't between oil and no oil. There is a middle ground where we regulate industry, control pollution, and use resources in a way that compensates everyone for the damage it causes. Wild west, zero responsibility bullshit isn't a serious business model even if idiots are serious about defending it.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Also conveniently ignoring that there are numerous other things on this earth that were once in great abundance that are now notably vastly reduced, or sometimes gone entirely.
Or do they really think that every creature that was hunted to the brink of extinction, or even wiped out entirely, was never very populous to begin with?
Or, hell... let's just talk about clean freshwater. Sure there's a lot of it, but that doesn't mean that it's always going to be there if we keep polluting the hell out of the supply that we have.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Nice drive-by there! But the "Obama" standards are trivial to meet. But now we overtly let the industry run the government. Unfortunately it is politically incorrect to place the blame where it belongs. Introspection is not a thing to be discussed in mixed company.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
This is called "balance". President Obama leaned way to the eco side and made rules known to drive industry in a direction. The idea is good, which is better fuel economy, but how it is written would make a number of vehicles unable to be made. There is only so much energy you can pull our of gas. President Trump disagrees with how this should be and is changing it.
Why do people think it's so horrible. My opinion is the goal set by President Obama were unrealistic and with no avenue to get there, which I also thought was done on purpose. Just the same as his coal power plant requirements, which would have just shut them all down. Ok, good get rid of coal, that'a a good thing, so what is your solid plan to replace them and future growth? Ah, right. Chant Solar, Wind really loud and power will fall from the sky. In other words, no plan. This is the same. That vehicle has to get super great fuel economy. How do we get there? Make non ICE cars, without a plan for infrastructure and how this will cripple the power grid if rolled out without expanding capacity. Oh well.
There great part is everyone can have an opinion, but I would just like to see a plan. Don't care which president we're talking about.