Say Goodbye to Fuel Economy Standards
As expected, the Environmental Protection Agency delivered its proposal to scale back fuel economy standards to the White House yesterday.
Now might be a good time to think about what this means. Who benefits from the consumption of more gas and diesel?
Well, let’s rule out a few groups of people. First, let’s lose the American public, who will be paying more at the pump, breathing more polluted air, and ultimately suffering from the effects of climate change.
That leaves three groups: automakers, oil companies, and the Trump administration.
Automakers have 407 lobbyists working for them, who are collectively paid $69 million annually.
Oil companies employ 565 lobbyists, who receive $125 million annually.
Trump, of course, is on a mission to dismantle all aspects of progress made during the Obama era, whether they’re banking regulations, healthcare for all, international peace treaties, or especially environmental restrictions, as noted here by none other than Fox News.
Transportation is the largest source of climate-changing greenhouse-gas pollution in the United States, and the biggest share of that comes from cars and trucks, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration and the EPA. But when concerns like this run up against Big Money and a bloodthirsty White House, they lose every time.
Craig,
Let’s try to put aside all the hyperbole and hysterical ranting and look at the future of transportation fuel with some degree of objective logic.
Let’s look at the choices the Office of Management and Budget will be reviewing.(a process required by law).
The Obama administration mandated that cars light trucks must achieve a minimum 50 miles per gallon by 2025. This was considered a necessary measure to achieve climate-changing emissions from automobile exhaust.
Definitely a noble ambition, but how practical and realistic ?
During the 2016 election candidate Trump claimed this was an unrealistic target and if elected would review the measures to ensure all targets were more realistic, subject to the legal review process.
Once elected, the Trump administration carried out it election pledge and announced that subject to all the stages of the review process, a target of roughly 30 miles per gallon by 2025. was more realistic for the Auto-industry. In a speech loved by Detroit automakers, auto employees and petrol heads in everywhere, President Donald Trump delightedly poked the outrage of his opponents by announcing he would “get Motor City revving its engines again.”
Political point scoring aside, the debate is crucial since the USA is a very important market and a rollback in U.S. fuel-economy could impact the global automobile industry.
Opponents of lowering the targets argue (with some justification) any lowering of targets could weaken efforts to curb pollution and climate-changing emissions.
IHMO, there is also the danger of lessening the incentive to develop better automotive technology.
However, I also understand the pressure on the administration to implement realistic and economic policies, not cripple the US auto-industry and the US economy by imposing impractical and unrealistic targets driven by ideological passion.
The real question, (once all the hysterical political commentary is removed) is fairly simple.
As I see it the administration must consider a number of issues :
1) Can 50 mpg be achieved by 2025 with vehicles remaining competitively priced ?
2) Can the US auto-industry develop technology by 2025 to meet the 50 mpg target by 2025?
3) Is the proposal to remove pollutant emissions by other technology rather than simple fuel consumption more viable ?
4) Will the US consumer accept compromises in the types of vehicles they purchase in order to assist the environment ?
The environmental activist occupying an ivory tower set atop the high moral ground, can safely ignore the mundane practical considerations, but the administration can’t. At risk are millions of jobs, economic prosperity and electoral realities.
It’s not a simplistic contest between “good” and”evil”.
Transportation is one of the most important factors in any nations economic planning. the ramifications are extensive and far too important to allow emotive, political rhetoric to influence long term strategic planning.
EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has defended it’s review stating any standard must “allow auto manufacturers to make cars that people both want and can afford, while still expanding environmental and safety benefits of newer cars.”
Hmmm,…. the difficulty with such a statement is obvious, how to achieve the right balance ?
(ranting won’t help ! )
Craig,
One of the solutions to cleaner automotive transportation is the development of electric vehicles. The IEA confidently predicts:
1) The number of electric vehicles on the road around the world will hit 125 million by 2030,.
2) The world’s fleet of electric vehicles grew 54 percent to about 3.1 million in 2017.
3) Government policy will continue to be the linchpin for electric vehicle adoption.
Although the IEA is invariably over optimistic and often just plain inaccurate (3.1 million assume EV’s have no natural attrition rate, and includes even mild hybrids in China), nonetheless it’s obvious the old fashioned ICE must at some stage lose dominance.
If this occurs it’s reasonable to assume Solar-storage will become even more prevalent, but unlikely to fulfill the rise in demand.
Which is why I find it very hard to understand why some environmental advocates are so determined to oppose or ignore the tremendous strides being made in Clean(er)Coal technology.
As Brigham A. McCown from Aii.org, observed, “Imagine a world where ‘clean coal’ was no longer just rhetoric. A world where coal was not just low emission, but no emission ?
This seemingly far-fetched idea is to many, nothing more than science fiction. However, researchers at the Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio are about to change that perception.
Through a process called chemical looping, researchers believe they have found a way to use coal without generating significant amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2). According to Dr. Liang-Shih Fan, distinguished university professor in Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, he and his team have been able to use a process called coal-direct chemical looping to burn coal without emitting pollution “.
The full report can be found at :
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brighammccown/2018/05/31/could-clean-coal-actually-become-a-reality/2/#7fcee0c268bb
Nor is Dr. Liang-Shih Fan alone. All around the world thousands of scientists, engineers and researchers are making truly astonishing strides in developing different methods of Clean(er) Coal technology.
So, the question must be asked, why do so many environmentalists either remain opposed to any coal research or adamantly refuse to acknowledge what’s occurring ?
I suspect the answer could be partly political (admitting Obama’s War on Coal was a mistake) or maybe the adoption of renewable energy became an objective in itself, rather than environmental concerns. Whatever the reason, I can understand how hard it must be to admit that what you screamed to everyone was an “evil” wolf, may turn out to be a friendly and useful household pet!