And that is the United States, and that is because of Donald Trump. From WaPo:
The Trump administration on Thursday announced plans to freeze fuel-efficiency requirements for the nation’s cars and trucks through 2026 — a massive regulatory rollback likely to spur a legal battle with California and other states, as well as create potential upheaval in the nation’s automotive market.
The proposal represents an abrupt reversal of the findings that the government reached under President Barack Obama, when regulators argued that requiring more-fuel-efficient vehicles would improve public health, combat climate change and save consumers money without compromising safety.
Trump’s plan also undercuts California’s long-standing ability to set its own tailpipe restrictions, most recently in an effort to curb greenhouse-gas emissions.
What is the rational for this? There is only one. Hippie punching. He is showing his base that he has yet another way to make the liberals cry.
But guess what. The liberals will not cry. But they will fight.
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
“What is the rational for this?”
Apparently they have two:
– changes in vehicles made voluntarily over a long period of time do more for driver safety than fuel standards
– Lowering fuel standards will result in increases in the number of people driving and the amount of driving, this increasing the number of highway deaths. Lower standards will reduce the amount of driving, lead to larger (safer) vehicles, and save about 1000 lives per year
Of course, there is no evidence provided for either of those comments (because none exists), but apparently evidence is no longer required when policy changes are made.
Higher fuel mileage leads to smaller and lighter cars and more deaths.
They shouldn’t settle at stopping increase of fuel mileage, they should cancel the previous increase. 35 MPG fleet average is too high, and should be rolled back to 27.5. Lower to 22 would be my preference. We would see more large sedans and less SUVs.
Straight from the debunked ideas of the 1990s mikeN.
https://grist.org/energy-efficiency/2011-08-17-mythbusters-debunking-the-claim-that-fuel-economy-standards-kill/
I’m always amazed at the lack of evidence of harm (i.e., these standards don’t put people at risk, people like trump and you simply say they do) people are willing to put up with.
This why K9 dean drives a F-350; for safety.
Just another fine example of central command planners
telling everyone what to do. Socshevikes, are like goats and
other herd animals.
“Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out”
Nothing in BillyR’s response is based in evidence.
Roll up and look at the debunked troll, folks. He was proven wrong on his original claim, so he doubles down and points at imaginary squirrels by way of deflection.
Mike N
If you want to export vehicles your manufacterers are going to have to be able to produce vehicles that comply with the standards that other countries set. Does it really make sense for them to produce vehicles with one set of standards for the American market and another for eg the European market? Or of course you can continue to lose market share to the countries that produce cars that do comply with the tighter standards, which will be just great for your balance of payments. Way to MAGA!
Yes, it does make sense to produce differently for two markets that have different demands. This is millions of cars and SUVs, hundreds of thousands for different assembly lines and factories.
Would you extend your logic and say it is a bad idea for a car company to produce multiple models?
Let’s focus on the original point:
– Inefficient engines mean higher fuel cost for their owners and produce more CO2 and particulate pollution, which is a known public health risk
– So it is perverse not to opt for fuel efficiency on three obvious grounds
Another WTF? moment.
BillyR doesn’t need facts Bernard. Facts are foe people who vslue education and reality. He values his outdated conspiratorial view of the world.
More efficient transportation also means mass-transit, which the Trump administration and Charles Koch also oppose. Both are interested in promoting the use of fossil fuels. Despite their differences, they sometimes get together and enjoy a bottle of cost-cutting pollution.
But but what about states rights????
States don’t have rights. They have powers. People have rights.
Dean, I was attempting to be snarky and mimicking for sarcasm reasons.
Im perfectly happy with my usage of ” states rights ” in that context.
I’m looking forward to anti federalist pollution deniers ( fuckwits in my view ) defending federal authority against a state that desires less pollution.
Dean, I was attempting to be snarky and mimicking for sarcasm reasons.
Apologies for missing that. No excuses.
The most efficient form of transportation in urban and suburban environments is the bicycle, and bikes with small electric motors enable more people to use them. It would make sense for efficiency advocates to advocate for bikes and bike infrastructure, and it’s encouraging that more cities worldwide seem to be doing that. One might assume that the ability to choose among various transportation alternatives (including walking) was an obvious example of freedom of choice, but, alas, for fossil fuel adherents freedom of choice means a choice between car brands.
Waiting for a push to make bicycles weigh a minimum of 3 tonnes for safety reasons…
That’s the stupid argument as far as I can tell.
Mass equates to safety seemingly.
“Nothing in BillyR’s response is based in evidence.
Roll up and look at the debunked troll, folks. He was proven wrong on his original claim, so he doubles down and points at imaginary squirrels by way of deflection.”
I am a Bernardist! If I deflect, you infect, Hector Vector. The Petro Police
are here to save plant diversity. Just little cars, for folks with little minds,
putting your vehicles in chains, by of course, none other than our
collectivist, big bother. How much helf did we receive from our much vaunted
Department of Energy, in ending our energy drought? Worthless and a
disgrace but lauded by enviro freaks.
Goo, is an extremely useful bi-product and its use should not
be wasteful. Those driving around heavy-metal, simply for the sole
purpose of safety and comfort should be admonish via higher and
higher petro prices. (1st to whine, 1st to dine)
Unlike the Fabians, I do not need nor compel others to my line of
thinking thru governmental unit fiat. I do not need mandates nor
sanctions, nor an ineffective bureaucracy, whom only real mission
is to feast on the worker bee. I can do so at a minimal cost and change
any terms on a dime; without the machinery of CONgress or their agency
trolls or clown passe supporters.
The Fabians can not do anything buy themselves, requiring someone to
care and guide their every need. You will find them in day care, night care
and 24 hour care. They are known as the Dole Corps.
Frankly, we need institutions for those whom need institutions. They are
incapable of acting individually, unless of course it is in the form of a gang. They are
the preverbal examples of girlymen, whom require company when entering
a washroom.
The Institution for the Institutionalization – controlling your lives for betterment of all
Bernard, we are waiting for you. Bring your entourage, advisors and your
council on social carbon justice and pack the room. If you sense you are losing the
debate, do what comes so natural for your klan – shout, scream and shriek (to a peak) until your opponent goes into a fetal position.
There are two ways of debunking the credibility of Trump’s revocation of the planned fuel efficiency standards. One is to examine the administration’s plan. Experts who have done that find that the government’s plan won’t accomplish what the administration claims.
“”To establish a statistical relationship you have to show it beyond a reasonable doubt that higher fuel economy impacts safety,” and in the absence of hard data, the EPA has had to “contrive these things through modeling,” DeCicco said. Additionally, he says, the US has regulated fuel economy for decades. Every new regulation has been costly, and yet fuel economy standards have not been shown to affect safety.”
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/08/epas-rationale-for-slicing-fuel-standards-rife-with-logical-fallacies/
https://newrepublic.com/article/150366/trumps-plan-scare-americans-supporting-car-pollution
A second is to see whether the concerns the administration is expressing in this particular case are in line with the rest of its policies. Has the administration shown a similar interest in consumer or worker safety? Have safety (i.e.health) concerns been a factor in its regulatory rollbacks or its promotion of dirty energy? I think that any reasonable observer would be forced to conclude that the stated interest in safety is at odds with the Trump agenda and that there must be other reasons why Trump is trying to reverse Obama’s policies. Here are a couple of suggestions: One line in Trump’s policy has been, if Obama was for it, I’m against it. Another has been the enactment of policies that in general enrich the rich and that specifically remove hindrances to Trump’s allies in the extraction industries.
Trump’s attempt to block Obama’s fuel efficiency standards has nothing to do with traffic safety, but much to do with his vindictiveness and his support for the fossil fuel industry.
Completely so. There is nothing close to valid about the “arguments” put forth for this change. The notion that vehicle quality (from American manufacturers, at least) improve without requirements is no and has always been empty.
The one thing that will be interesting to watch is this: all of the big manufacturers have stated their intent to make a significant move to electric vehicles over a rather short period of time. Whether they’ll stick to that given moves like this relaxation free them up to go back to the shoddy products of old is anyone’s guess.
But yeah, the excuse that “these regulations make cars far too expensive” isn’t one that should be believed by anybody.
Mike N, two systems for all of those models is still more costs, what manufacturer increases their costs if they don’t have to? Besides how many people on the right will really want to spend their own hard earned money on pissing off ‘liberals’? Sure there are the smoke heads, but most people given the option are going to choose the car that costs less to run. Especially as that doesn’t preclude owning big cars, my 2002 estate (station wagon) does better than 38mpg and certainly isn’t a small car by anyones standards. At the end of the day you are expecting people and businesses to waste money on an ideological point, good luck with that.
If people are going to buy these cheap to use cars anyways, then there is no downside to removing the regulation. The MPG will go up even without it.
The safety argument being used by the government is different from ‘lighter = deadlier’.
They are saying
1) New cars are safer than old cars
2) MPG requirements increase the cost of cars
3) Higher cost for new cars means consumers are more likely to use old cars than new cars.
4) People will be driving cars that are less safe.
Such a load of shite. A few years back my wife switched to Skoda Rapids with a 1.2 and now 1 litre petrol engine (!) which goes like a train and is astonishingly fuel efficient and relatively cheap. Much cheaper than the diesel Golf it replaced.
You are bullshitting again.
Anonymous
August 4, 2018 at 3:00 pm
2) MPG requirements increase the cost of cars
Such a load of shite. A few years back my wife switched to Skoda Rapids with a 1.2 and now 1 litre petrol engine (!) which goes like a train and is astonishingly fuel efficient and relatively cheap. Much cheaper than the diesel Golf it replaced.
You are bullshitting again.
Generally it is true, no name poster. The biggest gains are made
do to weight reduction, which in most cases requires the use
of exotic and unconventional materials. Yes, matey, it will cost
more.
Anonymous
August 4, 2018 at 3:00 pm
2) MPG requirements increase the cost of cars
Such a load of shite. A few years back my wife switched to Skoda Rapids with a 1.2 and now 1 litre petrol engine (!) which goes like a train and is astonishingly fuel efficient and relatively cheap. Much cheaper than the diesel Golf it replaced.
You are bullshitting again.”
It is true, no name poster. In order to increase mileage, it generally
requires weight reduction (axe Oprah). This means the use of exotic
and expensive, unconventional material. Example would be the American
F-150, version of an all aluminum lorry.
Even energy efficient appliances, cost more than their lesser
efficient standard rival. Keeping your boot and bonnet up while driving,
will cause drag and also increase the use of petro.
https://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/29/greenlings-how-does-weight-affect-a-vehicles-efficiency/?guccounter=1
Sorry, I forgot to fill in the field. It’s BBD 🙂
I understand the basics of automotive design and the cost argument is bullshit in 2018. See ‘Skoda Rapid’ and all the other affordable high efficiency cars on the market. The cost argument is counterfactual bullshit.
First off, I think this is bullshit in 2018. Second, it ignores the higher energy cost to the user over the inefficient product’s lifetime, which typically exceed the price premium (if any, in 2018). Third, it ignores externalised costs of energy inefficiency – climate change and particulate air pollution.
So just all bullshit, really.
BBD, there are two possibilities
1) With the higher MPG mandate, people will buy the same cars they would have bought without the requirement.
2) People will buy a different mix of cars.
If 1) then the mandate is not needed.
If 2) people are buying different cars than they want to buy.
The car companies are not going to eliminate every model that people want to buy. Some will be because it will be too difficult to fit them in under the MPG mandate, just as station wagons were largely disappeared.
However, other models will have their price adjusted to reflect demand. Higher mileage cars sold cheaper, while the cars people want are sold at a higher price.
There will also be some technology changes that will add to price, like the aluminum alloys.
There is a third: that you are bullshitting again.
I’ve already demonstrated that you are, so further typing by you is redundant.
It’s true that the Trump administration has made certain claims, but repeating them like a lobotomized parrot doesn’t make them true. The claims being made now have proven to be false in the past and are being rebutted by experts today. The only thing left is a reflective, “My side says it, so it must be true.”
My second argument was: Is a concern for public safety consistent with the policies and values of the Trump administration? The answer is an unequivocal no. The threats Trump presents – marauding bands of immigrant killers and rapists – are made up to appeal to racism and xenophobia. Real threats to public safety are ignored and exacerbated. While the lives saved from increased traffic safety are illusory, the increased number of premature deaths from pollution are real. The contribution to climate change is real.
Trump claims that he supports coal miners. The truth is that he sees them as easily manipulated, expendable tools for corporate profits. At a time when the incidence of black lung disease is going up, the administration is considering undoing regulations that impose costs on coal mine owners, but that protect miners.
https://thinkprogress.org/as-black-lung-disease-makes-comeback-trump-seeks-to-weaken-coal-miner-protections-3c802d50eaab/
Trump’s pollution enabling initiatives will kill people while raising corporate profits. Opioid-related deaths continue to increase. Gun violence is another public safety issue.
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
Has Trump done anything to stop the “carnage?” Communicable diseases, epidemics, and antibiotic resistant bacteria is another public safety issue. Trump has responded by proposing to cut funding, both nationally and internationally. Meanwhile, people are dying from climate change related causes – heat, wildfires, floods. Trump’s response has been to call climate change a hoax. His response to Hurricane Maria was to ignore the problem, underestimate the number of deaths, and praise himself.
Trump shows no sign of being concerned with public safety, and the sanctimonious show of concern for the safety of motorists is a cover-up for less commendable motives.
Mike N
Funnily enough station wagons or estate cars as we call them have not disappeared in Europe, the car maufactuers manage to make them to meet the MPG requirements and they continue to sell well. And just for your info my 2002 estate wasn’t cheap, but then it was high spec and Volvos retain their value because they last for ever. Ok not for ever, but for far longer than many other makes. Oh and the less than 38mpg is round town driving, it goes down on long trips and that milage hasn’t increased because the car is well maintained. If you Americans were all driving vehicles at least as efficient as mine you’d be doing ok as well as saving a lot of money.