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.
But, but what about "enhancing shareholder value", that is what Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics have taught our business leaders is their ONLY ethical concern.
Could it be that our entire business educational system has been corrupted by people who do not care if "people" live or die?
Maybe, Milton Friedman was the real Terminator
I'm thinking that you should have referred to it as a "Poorly regulated industry", or "Under regulated industry"
Even if you don't care about CO2 and global climate change, there's still the localized issue of actual air pollution in cities especially which kills. I drive a plugin electric and notice gas fumes and other nasty things in the air from cars.
Be careful what you wish for: Tesla has cut every corner they could with the Model 3 (worker wellbeing, worker safety, fit and finish, repairability and repair affordability), and they still can't make the darn thing at the promised $36.000 price. Which is a high price for a car already. An all-EV future could be a future in you, average middle class person, cannot afford to drive. Which can be fine if you live in New York City or some other densely populated area but not if you live in a rural or exurban area with crap public transportation.
Because there is no better alternative. If you think EVs will drop down to the $20.000 range to be as affordable as ICE cars, you are deluding yourself. And Lithium is already a rising commodity BTW.
Congress does CAFE because they are cowards. A car with higher efficiency can be driven more on the same gas. It does not reduce consumption by existing cars. If you genuinely believe in the cause, the only thing to advocate is taxation of fuel. A tax increase for the social cost of gasoline is something like $3.80 a gallon, more than doubling the current price. C'mon true believes, don't put off saving the planet for decades, bite the bullet and advocate that tax increase.
I agree with your post, but would go a step further and challenge even the assumption that we need plastics. The beverage industry was around for like a hundred years before plastic bottles. Food can be happily wrapped with wax paper, and electronics used to be housed in wooden cases. I'm not suggesting that we abandon all plastic, but if we were to regress packaging back to around the time of 1970, we would MASSIVELY reduce the problem.