Dealing a Blow To Clean Transportation Won’t Be a Piece of Cake
From my colleague Jon LeSage’s Green Auto Market:
The Trump administration’s proposal to cap federal fuel economy rules at 35 mpg, instead of the original level around 50 mpg by 2025, has set off opposition from state governors and other leading stakeholders. California and 18 other states promised yesterday to fight Trump’s proposal to weaken fuel efficiency and emissions standards — and California will use every legal tool to fight back. Gov. Jerry Brown pledged to, “fight this stupidity in every conceivable way possible.”
“This is a huge setback for the industry, especially suppliers that create two thirds of all U.S. auto-related jobs. Automotive suppliers are making billion-dollars bets in high-efficiency vehicle technology. Today’s announcement is likely to provoke a long battle in the courts and create a tremendous amount of uncertainty. Meanwhile, suppliers in other countries will be racing ahead to help the rest of the world meet their obligations under the global climate accord,” said John Boesel, CEO of CALSTART.
Plug In America will be joining a lawsuit to defend the electric vehicle from the “devastating effects this proposal will have — not just on the EV market, but on clean air, national security, public health and the global climate.”
Where this will go is anyone’s guess. Given the political and legal inertia associated with the macro changes in the auto industry, it’s very likely that Trump and his team of (sub)human environmental wrecking balls will be gone long before the challenges can be resolved. Having said that, it does, in fact, create uncertainty, and this may, as Boesel suggests, result in some level of pull-back from the automakers’ nine-figure commitments to the technology associated with clean and fuel-efficient transportation.
There is an uncanny consistency to the policies we see coming from the White House. Whether they concern the environment, healthcare, consumer protection, education, taxation, or human rights, each one is cruel, and incredibly destructive to the vast majority of Americans, as well as to those living elsewhere around the world. At the same time, they’re wonderful for Trump personally, and that’s all he really cares about. His support base generally lacks the knowledge required to understand the harm associated with regressive policy-making. In their world, if their hero can kill anything that liberals and environments like, that’s Making America Great Again.
Craig,
You are quite correct, this change in policy does hold ramifications for the global auto-industry.
As an early EV adopter, investor and pioneer of electric vehicles, I recognize how this change in policy will present difficulties and confirms a general trend against developing fuel efficient vehicles at any cost.
Hysteria, followed by rhetoric and emotive political abuse will not assist in maintaining momentum, quite the opposite, it will only further serve to detract from any sort of rational development.
Idiotic, ill-conceived litigation to reverse government policy decisions are doomed to failure and will be counter-productive. No one elected “Plug-In America” to office and Courts don’t have power to pass legislation. These are largely administrative decisions and quite within the power of the Executive branch to implement, modify or change within the terms of the enacted Congressional legislation.
IMHO, the State of California does have some merit in arguing State versus Federal rights to regulate issues that affect the State of California. I don’t believe in this instance it’s a strong enough argument to win on Constitutional grounds, but that depends on the strength of the Federal and the strategy advanced.
The courts have already ruled against intervention on things like the EV market,clean air, national security, public health, global climate etc, stating these are matters for the elected branches, not litigation.
If all the gratuitous hyperbole and emotive hysteria is removed, what are the issues, and what realistically can be done to mitigate against adverse ramifications ?
A proper analysis is needed into both sides of the debate. Such an analysis should be kept rational, factual and unemotional. Nothing will be gained by passionate rhetoric, political abuse, assumptions based on ideological doctrines or moral assumptions of how other people should behave.
As I understand the administrations case on fuel economy, represents the opinions of the Auto-industry, oil industry and consumer demand.
Put at it’s best case, the Administration advances a number of key propositions;
1) Obama era fuel policies were largely driven by the belief oil was n increasingly scarce commodity, largely imported and “peak oil” was a reality, those circumstances no longer exist.
2) Obama policies were largely driven by a “globalized World”, and America must adhere to the dictates of other nations on ‘Climate Change’ ‘Global warming’ etc.
3) Obama (and previous administrations allowed the State of California to dictate national Auto policy thus unfairly abrogating the rights of other states and federal jurisdiction. California may have problems with smog in over-crowded and poorly planned Los Angeles, but why should that affect a resident of Varmit Creek, New Mexico (pop. 122 including varmits).
4) Auto regulation should only comply with a national code set by the Federal Administration.
6) US consumers are being forced to pay for gratuitous and dubious technology which has proved unpopular, unreliable, inferior and in some cases non-existent.
7) Consumers are being forced to pay unnecessarily high prices for vehicles they don’t like. “American consumers shouldn’t be denied the ability to purchase a car or truck that meets their needs and their choice.”
8) The result of 50mpg policies means older vehicles remain on the road longer, prompting safety, environmental, concerns including additional fuel consumption.
9) US auto-makers employ less workers due to falling demand for new vehicles.
!0)In the present circumstances, added gasoline revenue assists the US economy.
11) Increasing U.S. oil consumption by 2-3% would only boost the global average temperature by 3/1000th of a degree Celsius by 2100.
12) The strongest advocates for 55 mpg live in major cities and don’t even own cars, or at least American cars.
13) EV sales, even with billions of dollars in government incentives, subsidies and grants have failed to penetrate even 1% of the US car market.
The administration probably has other reasons, but I think the above seems to sum up the rationale behind reducing the target to 35 mpg.
Those opposing the administration and advocating keeping the Obama era 50 mpg target argue;
1)50 mpg is technically achievable at an affordable cost
2)Consumers are demanding small cheap mass production economical fuel efficient passenger vehicles.
3) Consumers will be forced to buy more gasoline.
4) Massive environmental damage will occur.
3)300,000 manufacturing jobs will be lost
4)California has an obligation, and right to regulate auto-mobile complience which has always been a State responsibility.
5)Lower regulations will increase gasoline prices.
6) Massive increase in smog, asthma and environmentally harmful emissions.
7) Will retard, if not destroy, the development of EV and fuel efficient vehicles.
8) Completely reverse Obama era landmark efforts to curb climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions.
9) Make foreign manufacturers more competitive than American auto-makers as consumers would flock to buy Paris accord complaint vehicles instead of American auto models.
10)Encourage the less affluent to purchase cheap vehicles with large engines instead of public transport or bicycles.
11) Send the wrong signal to auto-makers and consumers to ignore the environment.
12) Losing moral leadership in the global auto-industry.
Again, I may have missed some items, and I hope someone will add what I have missed, but I think that sums up the issues involved accurately.
So where does that leave the future of fuel efficient vehicles ? Some of the issues are matters of fact, many are conjecture or just contradictory nonsense.
The issue is of great importance and needs careful thought, especially in light of the upcoming November elections.
The EU has fleet average target of 95g of CO2 per km. Roughly 59 mpg (US gallon) on Gasoline by 2021. That is nearly 20% tighter and 4 years earlier than the now abandoned US target.
Many other countries are adopting their own targets on similar lines with many EU countries, as well as India and China aiming to end the sale of fossil fuel vehicles altogether between 2030 and 2040.
The US risks looking very out of step, with US car makers building models nobody outside the US wants, and which will rapidly begin to look ‘old tech’ even in their home market.