Think about owning a home that is being protected by an electric fire suppression vehicle. #laughable,keepgoing,don'tstop
Trump's base won't be satisfied until every vehicle in America is "rollin' coal."
In case you don't know what I'm talking about:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal
1
No member of this "law and order" administration will care if what they do is illegal.
Every time DJT reads a speech written by Stephen Miller it is reminder of how similar these two men are. Both have led incredibly privileged lives but all they see is that they are not respected, and feel they are victims who have not gotten what they deserved. For Miller take-out is $70+ sushi. His method of flirting in college was to loudly verbally refute what a female student said in class, and then ask same female on a date. Pretty sure his hatred of all non-whites started when someone he liked in high school dated a Hispanic student. It would be possible to have sympathy if these two were not destroying a democracy that has lasted almost 250 years.
3
This blight who calls himself Trump is truly an orange wrecking ball.
Its destructive swing must be arrested . . . must be stopped.
Even a severely conservative milquetoast Pence silently nodding on the sidelines, would be preferable.
[Calculating the damage will be full-time work for historians and assessors.]
2
Sure, let American cars spew more pollution. That's going to make them way more competitive, save a zillion lives (h-h-how??) and send GDP growth sailing past 4 percent from now to eternity.
In reality, it hastens global warming, rising sea levels, cardio-pulmonary disease, deepens the world's dismissal of the U.S. and makes the US auto industry totally uncompetitive.
From under what rock did these brainless salamanders crawl?
4
Lighter cars (and trucks) are already a reality because consumers want more fuel efficient vehicles and it is highly likely that fuel prices are likely to climb, even if there are periods of oversupply that drives down costs.
And the argument that more people will die from vehicle accidents is ridiculous! If everyone is driving lighter vehicles, who is at greater risk?
This is the same kind of protectionist garbage that has led to some states passing laws that protect electricity providers from having to reimburse customers who feed electricty back into the grid.
And this from the people (a party) who claim that government should not pick winners and losers.
That 49% of the electorate swallows this garbage is astounding.
4
Beyond sickening, borderline criminal - With health care less available and more expensive, who helps the people who develop various forms of lung dysfunction, from mild asthma to lung cancer ? Oh, I forgot, that would be the NEXT president, hopefully a democrat. Haven't we seen this before?
3
VOTE BLUE IN 2018.
Our earth, women's rights, and the integrity of our country depend on it.
2
The republic is in peril.
Publish a list of trump drones who've past their freshness date.
Crowdsource the problem...!
1
You can easily tell who is on the right side of this issue. Those that want to protect the Oil and Auto industry, to the detriment of society as a whole, have to make up lame excuses! They may be able to fool some Trump supporters, but the rest of us know a scam when we see it.
3
"Conservatives" are all in favor of states' rights ... until they're incovenient for big oil.
4
dirty air and dirty water are good for you. Clean air and water cost money, more taxes
1
Two words to describe Trumps's environmental policy. "Love Canal"
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal
3
Given that many cars made in USA are exported worldwide would manufacturers have two production lines. One for dirty cars with no pollution controls for local consumption and a clean line for cars for export to countries with sensible pollution laws. The stupidity continues while the world watches and shakes it's head in wonder.
7
It should be obvious to most intelligent people that the law means absolutely nothing to Trump. Never has, never will.
He has flaunted every rule, regulation, and law that didn't suit his tiny brain for decades.
In the process, he has flaunted his distasteful persona to the cheering multitudes.
5
These evil people who laugh about ruining the ecosystem because it upsets we who understand the science of all this need to be driven not just out of office but off the planet. Maybe they all could be put on a space ship and head for Mars to fulfil one of Commandant Bone Spur's promises.
2
By a plurality of almost 3 million, the American voters did NOT choose these reprehensible people and their misbegotten policies.
3
There is a looming crisis in America, a crisis that could see a plunge in the value of automobile and energy company stocks. Mr. Wheeler seems to be determined to hasten this, all in a vain attempt to halt global warming, a warming that could not occur without God's blessing, since not a sparrow falls without his knowledge. God bless. And freedom!!!
1
Every single good thing that president Obama did to protect our entire country from pollution, unfair financial practices and corrupt for profit universities are being destroyed by the worst president and cabinet in the history of our country. it is all being done purposely to trash Obama and liberals. He's basically giving us the finger every day. The worst part of this is that his supporters have no idea that these things are happening because they all watch FOX News who doesn't report these abuses.
The ex Trump adviser who said that he was the meanest person that he ever met only begins to explain what this monster in the White House is. This election coming up is the most important in my 64 years on this planet. Please everyone vote. Our lives depend on it.
2
Wait what? Fuel efficient cars are more dangerous “because are lighter”?! Did I just read that correctly?
Whoever can say that with a straight face, should be committed to a mental institution. But no, only in America (one of the biggest polluters of the planet) these clowns are at high government positions.
It is truly sickening.
3
We have some of the worst people on Earth in charge of our country... And that includes all three branches.
Vote in November!
1
Trump thinks:
Let the cars pollute.
Who cares about the trees?
They can't vote.
2
Ignoramuses fighting each other over something they know absolutely nothing about. It is like watching middle school children argue about relativity. Ignorance is king among the Trump mob.
1
Fuel efficient vehicles are lighter, which will lead to traffic fatalities?
It's a jungle out there, no doubt, populated with all those Ford Exploders and Land Bruisers. So there's just one clear solution. Let's just start driving heavily armored tanks, complete with gun turrets for all of our 'Second Amendment people.' Problem solved, Trump style!
3
Good for Wheeler! Thank you.
1
The question is who are they doing this for, who wants the regulations rolled back? Absolutely no-one, including all of the major automobile manufacturers. So why are they doing it? Because Obama initiated it and to pick a completely unwinnable fight with California. Petty, hypocritical and stupid, the hallmarks of this train wreck of an administration.
What's next, personal tanks for the ultimate in safety? "Close the hatch, we're off to school."
2
Wonder how long Wheeler will last if he keeps opposing Trump.
2
55 was a good law. I know driving thru Texas at 55 is horrible but you use a lot less fuel. Lighter is better because you use less fuel. I wonder if the Saudis have any role in this rollback. The best thing would be to raise gas taxes and let people drive what they want.
2
We all live in several worlds all at the same time. I fear as rules, regulations are being pushed back, we will once again live in a country rich with polluted water and smog. Once again let the corporations pollute and pretend it doesn't matter as we kill off the next generation.
Are we so ruled by greed that we have lost all humanity? Now we are going to Alaska to drill, haven't we destroyed the earth enough already. Historians will look back on us and realize that we are the authors of our own stupidity .
1
Hey Rosen! Can you do something about those pesky shoulder harnesses and those catalytic converters? The auto manufacturers, whose pocket you are in, were right when they said these devices would cost consumers more money. Keep holding Traitor Trump's toilet paper and get rid of these safety and anti-pollution devices.
My 1955 Chevy cost me $2100. My 2018 Subaru cost me $35000.
1
Wow, Wheeler will be gone pretty soon.
1
Average human releases a minimum of 700 grams per day of co2. New cars average under 130 grams/KM so if, in your family of 3 you have one car and drive it 12 miles a day then your family releases more co2 by being alive than by driving!
The solution is obvious.
Without doubt, Trump is the most dangerous man in America. He threatens us with more pollution in our rivers and in our air, resulting in hundreds of thousands of premature deaths a year according to the CDC and anyone with half a brain. ISIS doesn't hold a candle to Trump's death machine. Why?
Trump then out did himself by cutting health care and leaving the least of us extremely vulnerable and resulting in many thousands of premature deaths. The Taliban can also sit back and watch in wonder as Trump policies kill our own far faster than they, ISIS and our own white homegrown terrorists ever could. Again one has to ask, WHY?
The Trump death machine hits home. Trumpian regressive policies are killing us and as usual he wants to double down. Roll back all the progress we have made in the environment? What in the world are these creatures thinking?
1
Let me explain something.. Here's how the Christian GOP thinks ..
The end of the world is inevitable! The Apocalypse, Armageddon -"Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!" is right around the corner- so there is NO NEED to protect or conserve the environment!
Democrats are going down in flames and the GOP will float off into heavenly bliss.
That's why the GOP doesn't care about "saving the planet" -- They are comfortable knowing they have already saved themselves- before the hellfire rains upon us..
Boo-yah!!
Big win for big business!
Just so they keep in mind, after they retool from this insane Obama "We like to breathe, OK?" environmental fluffiness, they'll have one, maybe five years of guilty profits, and then start this whole thing over when the grown-ups take over in DC.
Only there won't be the same "OK, but give us thirty five years to do it" negotiation. Because we'll know who you really are.
So, there's that...
Just when electric vehicles are out selling gas guzzlers. wonder why americans hate the government? simple- stupid moves like this and a top to bottom lack of any thought or moral leadership.
1
While the conservative, religious right await the rapture, they are consoled by Jesus when they die in huge numbers in "Cancer Alley" section of the country. They still vote for Republicans, who have Christian values, the end all and be all of their choices. Yet, these people who exploit these sad sacks are reaping in the shekels from special interests poisoning their land and doing nothing to clean the mess they create. Read "Stragers In Their Own Land" and prepare to be amazed, no horrified, at the minds of these simpletons in the Louisina bayou, polluted beyond hope, emitting deadly toxins into the ground and air. But they have Jesus, and their Republica representatives to get them through the torments they are experiencing.
1
“They argue that more fuel-efficient cars are less safe because they are lighter.”
You have got to be kidding me! That’s insane!
This is all about money for Big Oil. Sorry Mr Koch, you cannot force me to buy your black poison. I have solar panels and and an electric car. Life is good. And no matter how much you try to trash California, you cannot force me to buy what you are selling.
For the GOP .... more pollution is always better .... why are non-smoking women getting so much lung cancer ?
So Trump, you want to kill our children ? Didn’t your bible friends teach you the 10 Commamdments? Do not kill.
Air pollution in California tends to hang around longer than across the Eastern half of the United States, so California has suffered from very polluted air since the middle of the last century. Remember that the weather experienced from the Great Plains to the Atlantic seaboard and from Hudsons Bay to the Gulf of Mexico sweeps across the entire region with little to interfere with it but from the Rockies westward the weather is very different. In California, the weather sweeps down from the Bering Sea and up from the South Pacific and West from the Great Basin. The air tends to hang over the coastal plains and valleys before clearing away. In Los Angeles, that means that the inland areas become highly polluted frequently. The higher pollution standards are necessary to keep the area from becoming very unhealthy nearly all of the time. Since California has been a great market for automobiles and probably will continue to be, automakers have to accept the higher standards or lose a lot of money. This game that Trump is playing is not going to make people in California accept massive increases in COPD as Rosen and King expect. If they cannot get reasonable standards from American automakers, they will get them from other automakers. People may be made to live in hell but they will not choose to live in hell.
107 fewer fatalities from car accidents, but how many deaths due to asthma or cancer?
1
All of a sudden, states' rights are not important?
1
Very interesting. They are not at all worried about what more auto emissions will do to the air, climate, the health of the citizens who live in the US but are only worried that their plan may not pass because it may be deemed illegal if I read the article correctly. This administration doesn't give a hoot about its citizens or the planet and the air we breath. This is as ridiculous as messing with the Endangered Species Act.
Regression seems to be predominant with this no-nothing administration.
So now they are blaming former President Obama for rules that kill people? Preposterous, based on highway safety data from almost a generation ago.
I once saw everything one might need to know about the two political parties, laid out in a simple cartoon: Two politicians are standing at a small stream, watching a boy drink the water.
The Democrat is saying, "What if it's too dirty?"
The Republican is saying, "What if it's too clean?"
Did they bother to count the people who will die prematurely of lung diseases, including asthma? Asthma is now very common even among young people, and one serious attack can destroy a life within half an hour. Living in the polluted air of Beijing is known to damage children and take years off life expectancy. Trump wants to outdo China in pollution too, I guess.
Trump seems hellbent on reimposing outmoded technologies and energy sources. You'd almost think he wanted America to lose...
2
The catalytic converter and fuel injection saved the US car industry and allowed Big Oil to thrive for many more years then would otherwise have been possible. These were tech advances forced on the car industry, but which it now takes for granted. By the 1960's California urban air was killing people by the thousands, portending the possible banning of gasoline burning cars. Instead, things turned out much differently thanks to legislated tech mandates controlling pollution. What ridiculous time-warp are the Republicans living in?
1
How can reducing emissions by improving fuel efficiency be a bad thing? The argument is indeed weak. Lighter cars are made possible by the utilizing special steel alloys (in most cases) and justifiable use of laminated composites (in some cases) at critical load-bearing locations within a car's chassis. If these materials are positioned properly based on an engineering team's sound judgement, they offer better strength and impact-resistance characteristics than an ordinary on-road vehicle chassis.
I strongly doubt whether Rosen and King, the DOT officials have advanced degrees in Manufacturing Engineering, Structural Dynamics or Structural Analysis and Design.
Reducing fuel consumption is the biggest challenge of our collective lifetimes. It is not a partisan issue. It is an issue that projects the humanity and empathy of our nation. This projection obviously is not a positive one at this point in time. The US obviously comes across as archaic, callous and insular with respect to this issue. This is what you can expect from an administration that wants nothing to do with scientific research and knowledge.
Why isn't Elaine Chao being pressed for her comments every single day until she come comes clean about this sorry affair? She seems to be conveniently absent from this entire discussion. I guess being married to Mitch strips one of empathy, concern and "Exercising integrity in public service". Sad.
1
“Her (Ms.King) analysis shows that the Obama rules would lead to as many as 12,000 more traffic fatalities.”
Not only does Ms. Rosen’s analysis remain to be proven, her figure of 12,000 deaths pales in comparison to the number of premature deaths in the U.S. due to air pollution directly attributable to car emissions. People like Ms. King, Mr. Rosen, and Mr. Wheeler belong back in the gas guzzling, environment trashing heydays of the 1950’s and certainly nowhere near the EPA.
The Republicans are all for state's rights until they somehow conflict with their agenda. Make America great again must mean going back to the good old days with the air in LA and many cities
was brown and people with respiratory problems couldn't go out of the house, and days when children couldn't go to school. These officials who favor lowering air quality standards clearly are not interested in people's health or wellbeing.
Imagine how important the new Supreme Court justice must feel to know he can be counted on by the team to vote to pollute our air. His parents must be so proud.
So the death rate due to firearms is perfectly acceptable but possibly 12,000 more traffic fatalities is not ok. Also apparently dying from poor air quality are also ok.
I for one don't believe that traffic fatalities will go up. The problem is bigger heavier cars hitting lighter cars. If you reduce the number of bigger heavier cars and increase the number of lighter cars then the odds are you won't have an increase in traffic fatalities. Auto makers have come a long way from the "econo-boxes" they made in the 1980's. Even lighter cars are safer today.
Once again our government is working for the pockets of the corporate world and not working for "we the people".
So the death rate due to firearms is perfectly acceptable but possibly 12,000 more traffic fatalities is not ok. Also apparently dying from poor air quality are also ok.
I for one don't believe that traffic fatalities will go up. The problem is bigger heavier cars hitting lighter cars. If you reduce the number of bigger heavier cars and increase the number of lighter cars then the odds are you won't have an increase in traffic fatalities. Auto makers have come a long way from the "econo-boxes" they made in the 1980's. Even lighter cars are safer today.
Once again our government is working for the pockets of the corporate world and not working for "we the people".
I'm always impressed by careless folks.
Here in VA folks dumped kepone (a powerful poison) into the James River, as if they would never drink the water or eat the seafood.
The pollution standard should include health effects (already demonstrated with leaded gas).
Look at the death/disease rates re both smoking and second hand smoke.
But, the short-term ideologue treasures opinions over life.
Sigh.
Well, it's interesting because in the 70's pollution controls more or less ironically saved the car industry, despite car makers opposition to more costly equipment like catalytic converters and fuel injection. Mandated cleaner running vehicles allowed cars to continue using gasoline -- which also propped the oil industry. Gas-burning cars could just as easily been banned because by the late 60's California [and elsewhere] air was killing thousands--it was not sustainable. Seems like a self-destructive march backwards to reverse that process now.
2
I am confused, why would anyone want to reverse laws that improve the quality of air? Polluted air affects degraded our health.
4
Has anyone noticed that even the Trump administration is advocating STRONGER fuel economy standards than are in effect today?
The debate is about how much stronger they should get, and at what pace. The schedule now on the books was set by people who knew they'd be long out of power before the most challenging standards took effect.
1
What about all the road maintenance being saved by having lighter smaller cars on the road? And it is the large cars causing the deaths. They are unsteady, have very high center of gravity's and are very often driven too fast.
7
It's great that the acting EPA administrator, unlike Pruitt is not aversive EPA regulations, which was started by Richard Nixon and improved further by subsequent administrators.
2
As s founder of a company who has been funded with DOE money, among other federal agencies, to develop lightweight materials for the transportation segment, this is right in my wheelhouse so to speak.
I can unequivocally say that US deviation from fuel efficiency and emissions targets will be detrimental to the auto industry in the US. This is yet another gift to competitive countries who recognize the massive economic potential of these targets. BMW, for example is looking to reduce the mass of their vehicles my ~60% within the next 10 years. A 50% reduction in mass results in ~30%-40% improved fuel efficiency. Whose car would you rather buy when oil prices inevitably rise again?
What this is, is a big gift to big steel. The steel industry is freaking out over incorporation of lightweight metals like composites, aluminum, and magnesium in the automotive segment. They have the potential to lose a significant amount of market share in the auto materials market. I think we've already seen the relationship steel has with this administration.
I would love to see Heidi King's analysis predicting more traffic fatalities. At first glance the laws of physics seem at odds with their study. You know, the whole F=MA thing. Not to mention the fact that carbon fiber composites actually disperse the energy of impact far better than metal alloys. But then, facts, especially scientifically verifiable ones, are irrelevant to an entire administration of ideology-driven corporatists.
59
@chris
Steel was the material that could provide great tensile strength with relatively small masses, a hundred years, ago. Now there are many materials that can improve on it and so steel is being replaced. There is nothing that the steel industry can do about it.
I witnessed the aftermath of a collision between a small Italian car and a small Italian motor bke. The drivers were yelling at each other, furious over the accident. I recall thinking, in California, the auto would have been a lot bigger, the bike would have been too, and nobody would have been arguing. They would have been waiting for emergency services. King's analysis likely presumes that all the light vehicles will be totaled by huge SUV's and trucks.
3
What about the net decrease in lives saved due to less clean air? I’ll bet it’s a lot more than the small increase in traffic deaths claimed by Rosen.
26
This article is a great example of right wing politicians hoping the court will turn "conservative" and make laws instead of interpreting the law. Mr. Rosen assumes a lot in believing a more conservative supreme court will simply overturn decades of principle and multiple court decisions by rejecting the original waiver granted to California. Mr. Rosen may be in for a big surprise.
12
We don't have enough wildfires burning (which by the way is terrible for climate change as more stored CO2 is released into the atmosphere).
Not enough hurricanes causing billions of dollars in damage.
Not enough floods, not enough droughts.
Bring back the gas guzzlers of the 1950s.
Said nobody ever.
Oh and vehicle weights have been falling for decades, yet highway safety data have been improving. Being in a heavier car only protects you if the collision you're involved with involves a lighter car. And vice versa, you're far less likely to be severely injured if the car that strikes you is lighter.
MAGA make America gruesome again. Bring back the smog!
20
So in their zeal to deregulate, they are going to slap on a new regulation that prevents individual states from requiring higher standards. I guess you have to be selective about which state's rights to support, and which to block.
For Republicans it is easy: regulations that benefit corporations are good; those that merely benefit people are bad.
13
Lower fuel efficiency = higher gas sales.
Higher gas sales = higher oil prices.
Higher oil prices = Happy Russian Oligarchs.
23
@jg--Let's put lead back in gas ,since tRump thinks it's not toxic.
It seems like the current administration and GOP led Congress are trying to hurt every effort lSarah Hemminger zzlto deal with climate change. Unfortunately the president seems to relish in always supporting beligerant actions that are harmful to the environment.
4
Ha ha, Trump being embarrassed by losing a court battle! That's a real knee-slapper.
7
I think this "rollback" will be okay, as long as one of those tailpipes is hooked up, by a hose, through the window of the Oval Office.
20
Another trump 'Wheeler dealer'.
6
If they really were concerned about saving lives they would lower the speed limit and provide increased funding for enforcement. With drivers routinely exceeding the speed limit by 10 to 20 mph you have drivers on the highway moving at 90 to 100 mph. More and more crashes are fatal. And hey, they'd also reduce fuel consumption.
7
"...the expectation that by the time any challenge makes it to the Supreme Court, the court’s makeup will be more friendly to a conservative, anti-regulatory policy, according to individuals familiar with his thinking."
When did dirty air become a partisan and/or "conservative" issue?
16
As I posted on the "glider truck" thread, I trust that the beneficiaries of these regulatory relaxations (such as those at the E.P.A.) under this administration recognize that those regulations could snap right back in the next administration and any modifications they make in their practices to take advantage of this new environment might not be grandfathered.
3
President Trump recently told his audience not to believe what they see and hear. Now he is telling us that it's good to see our air in order to believe it's there.
7
It's all about the oil. The petro beneficiaries (including the USA) want to make more money selling oil. With lower gas mileage requirements they can sell more oil. Think Koch, Saudi Arabia, Exxon..... To offer the phony excuse of fewer deaths on the highways due to heavier cars is absurd.
10
MAGA- Magic Against Good Air. Why use wind, solar, the tides when we can cloud our air with good healthy pollutants. I remeber listening to Giant games, New York Giant games, yes, a long time ago. Details a little murky(I don't think I'm writing fiction but over 60 years ago. Anyone confirm?) but if they hit a homer troops would get so many cartons of cigarettes. Healthy cigarettes to cheer the troops. Healthy pollution to make America as great as the fifties.
10
You just have to read those four magical words, "Obama-era pollution rules," to know why the current administration is doing this. That, and as Republicans they care more about money (theirs) than the environment (ours).
8
@Paul Smith interesting that the auto industry is not pushing this. A previous poster says the steel industry might benefit...
The GOP may as well just rename itself the 'short-term economic growth at any cost party'.
9
Lighter cars being more dangerous doesn’t necessarily have to be true assuming all cars were light. In a civilized society there’s no place for monster trucks and cars on public roads. People just need to learn to feed their egos somewhere else.
6
The clash being whether to pollute more, or even more, or even even more, or even even even more. With Trump intervening from time to time to insist on polluting the MOSTEST
9
Driving the auto industry completely away from fossil fuels (despite the hand wringing about the increase in electricity use (it doesn't HAVE to be met by KKKoal, you know)), is the best way to go.
3
It is utterly incomprehensible that any argument at all would be put forth for lowering fuel efficiency standards, when the tightening of standards has cleaned up our air significantly and led to some really fantastic technological advancements in alternative energy sources. But this is what happens when the country is run by people who care more about amassing fortunes than absolutely anything else.
12
Does the current EPA/DOT leadership think that lighter cars cannot be engineered to be as crash safe as current models? Have they no faith in the technical ability of auto engineers?? Their position on this aspect makes no sense.
9
Re: "is confident that the proposal will stand up to legal challenge in part because of the changing makeup of the Supreme Court,"
It is amazing how many parallels there are between the Senator Palpatine and the rise of the Emperor and Empire and Trump and his administration. The other day it was about Liberty dying TJ thunderous applause today it is about "I'll make it legal."
3
Is the NHTSA being shut down? Is that why these officials are attempting to roll back environmental emissions rules by using a focus on safety due to vehicular weight? I might be wrong, I assumed cars would still be crash tested and vetted for safety even with the more stringent emissions standards.
4
As one who was involved in numerous State Implementation Plans for ozone and particulate matter in the state of California for about 30 years, the fact that California was allowed to adopt more stringent mobile source emission standards was and is one of prime reasons that progress has been made in reducing air pollution. Even now, mobile source emissions still account for a significant amount of hydrocarbon, oxides of nitrogen (precursors to ozone and particulate matter) and CO, which will oxidize to CO2, the major greenhouse gas. The reductions that California has enacted, and other states have adopted is necessary to keep making progress. And like almost every rule making I was involved with, the affected party will figure out how to meet the standard, and usually at less cost than they originally estimated. Technology forcing works. And it cleans our air. This is another instance of this Administration moving against the common good.
11
Well, this is something new.
A Trump team member who is concerned with what's legal and what is not.
6
I don't want dirtier air. Why do Republicans want dirty air? Do they want US cities to be as polluted as Beijing? Do they want all our environment to be as polluted and ruined as China's? Please explain.
10
In addition to carrying out Putin's plan to destroy the reputation and international leadership position of the US, apparently this administration also wants to damage Americans' health. Clear now?
6
Plans of the Trump administration include: letting Clean Water be fouled; endangering species already endangered and not yet endangered so that we lose more animal life; and now polluting the air we breathe.
All in the name of capitalism and profiteering by the few.
Remember the studies published by the NYT about the increased experience of asthma in young children who live in areas near highways and other places of car exhaust concentration? Not only do we have compassion for them and their parents, but complete sympathy because now this issue will arise again and parents won't be able to get adequate health care under the new junk insurance policies being foisted upon the citizens of the country.
All in the name of profit.
Remember to look at the interactive 2016 election map. If these issues and that map don't motivate more people to register to vote, especially young people and then GO to the polls, I'm not sure what will.
6
Well, it’s Friday - so time for a “resignation.” Might be Wheeler this time, for not drinking the Trump water cooler Kool-aid.
3
Must we breathe more and more GOP toxins every day? Who in their right mind advocates for more pollution?
Greed and stupidity are recurring hallmarks of this administration from the top down.
8
CO2 is not "pollution" in any normal sense of the word. Smaller vehicles are, inherently, less safe. Obama and his ilk want to take choice away from you and me while preserving it for themselves and their wealthy friends.
Most consumers prefer a larger, more comfortable ride as sales clearly show. Why should the government tell us what type car we must buy? It can be called nothing but what it is, creeping authoritarianism, and the NY Times applauds!
2
Symptoms of high C02 levels - fatigue or drowsiness, becoming tired easily, confusion, shortness of breath, sleepiness, headache.
Causes ocean acidification.
You may want to rethink your opinion on C02.
2
@Steve W CO2 is not all that cars produce. Raising emissions standards, both in MPG requirements and NOx limitations, has dramatically improved air quality in the U.S. and around the world. Driving a tank may make you feel more safe, but the prevalence of large cars and trucks with poor fuel economy overall makes us all less safe.
PS the vehicles that have the largest fuel economy gains from going to a hybrid motor or small proportional reduction in weight are the big, comfy trucks you describe. It's not like they are going to stop making cars and trucks people want to buy. They will figure out how to make them to get 35 mpg rather than 15 mpg, and balance out their fleet with cars with 60-90 mpg.
3
It is not clear how sticking to the more restrictive rules will increase deaths. Please, Ms King, explaind your reasoning.
1
When the last financial crash happened, sales of guzzler trucks and cars from detroit (and others) tanked. Detroit came begging for cash as their inefficient product rusted in car lots. The US taxpayer rightly remember this bailout with widespread anger.
So are detroit going to cozy up to short term cheap profits while every non-US car maker invests in cutting mpg and emissions? China aims to lead electric and Europe is racing to catch-up. US car buyers may like cheaper SUVs-trucks but Detroit (and their workers) will rue the day when US buyers switch again and Detroit asks Republicans for cash or sheds boatloads of jobs and ex-workers crucify Rep in elections. CA will fight this tooth and nail.
Trump's mates just want cushy rewards from Detroit and bigoil post Trump. They will get what they deserve....
4
Anyone who supports this should visit some of China’s more polluted cities to see how this has worked out there. But take a breathing mask when you go.
7
Wow, the second article I read on NYT today and now I see where the term "fake news" comes from. The headline "...Over Plan to Let Cars Pollute More" would seem to indicate to most people reading it that this is about letting cars pollute more than they currently do. However, this is actually about not imposing more stict standards in the future. Cars will not be producing more pollution than they are now but the headline is cleverly used to imply that.
3
Now I understand where "low information" comes from. Either that or speciously trying to claim that something says other than what everyone understands it mean.
5
In the past the danger of SUVs was to their owners and passengers. The higher center of gravity resulted in more roll-over incidents. One could count on daily TV news stories showing flipped SUVs after drivers tried to change lanes, got sideways, turned away from the skid and promptly rolled.
"Rollovers are dangerous incidents and have a higher fatality rate than other kinds of crashes. Of the nearly 9.1 million passenger car, SUV, pickup and van crashes in 2010, only 2.1% involved a rollover.
However, rollovers accounted for nearly 35% of all deaths from passenger vehicle crashes. In 2010 alone, more than 7,600 people died in rollover crashes. The majority of them (69%) were not wearing safety belts."
source NHTSA
https://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle-Shoppers/Rollover/Fatalities
2
Rosen and King should be made to sit in a car inside a garage with the engine running for about 3 hours. That should cure them of their love of polluting vehicles I’d think.
8
A quick search of Google Scholar on "vehicle exhaust and health outcomes" brought up 32,700 results and I doubt that anyone one of them would argue exhaust was good for you. So what are the conflicts of interests for Rosen and King to support increasing exhaust levels in the air we breath?
3
@Moses irrational hatred of President Obama's accomplishments?
Wouldn't it be tantamount to corporate suicide if- for example- "FORD" announced they were going to delay cleaner emission vehicles because Trump just rolled back EPA standards..??? They can try .. but I wouldn't bet on any positive results.
4
In fact, Ford has already made just such an announcement, by indicating that aside from its iconic Mustang and a version of the Focus, they are getting out of the market for cars in the US, concentrating instead on trucks.
1
The EPA under Trump, Making America Great Again. You know. When air was visible and rivers burned.
10
Can we please call them protections instead of regulations?
5
Even though if we don't agree on climate change is caused by human activities, what's wrong to cut down carbon foot print, to reduce air pollution so as to reduce lungs disease, asthma, lung cancer etc. From the latest data, California has reduced current air pollution level to 1990 level in 2016, 4 years ahead of schedule by using more alternative solar and wind energy, more efficient automobile etc. In the area I live, I can see more days of clear mountain range around the valley than 30 years ago. It is unconscionable for the current administration to roll back air pollution standard, open sea drilling on the west coast and now open Alaska for more oil exploration. Where is the end before we destroy the Blue Dot ?
6
The opponents of this regulatory roll-back should gather data on the health benefits that would accrue from lower emissions. I suspect that it would more than offset even the inflated GOP estimates for traffic fatalities.
8
For me, a goal of 35 mpg shows how much it takes to get the underperforming auto industry to cooperate. My Toyota Tercel has done 35mpg since 1996. I don't understand why auto makers are not going smaller since less weight results in better mpg. It doesn't mean the car is unsafe. It just means that it is smaller. It amazes me that in this day and age ridiculously large vehicles are still being sold. Auto makers have their profit motive but what's wrong with us that we willingly maintain this unsustainable path?
8
I am becoming impressed with Mr. Wheeler. He seems to have a spine.
Sadly, that means his days are numbered in the Trump Administration.
9
Smaller is not the same as lighter.
In a head-on collision between two road vehicles, it is a consequence of classical mechanics that at the same speeds, the heavier, ie more massive vehicle, with the greater momentum will continue to move forward, while the lighter vehicle will be thrown backwards.
In a collision with a an immovable mass such as a mountain, it's more complicated. Everything else being equal, the go-kart comes off better in that impact than the road train. Luxury, expensive, heavy, large, high, road vehicles may afford more protection, however, than a go-kart even in that scenario because the former vehicle is likely to have more secondary safety built in, such as crumple zones, airbags, dynamic headrests, sophisticated restrain systems etc.
Higher road vehicles may afford the driver better visibility in traffic but are also more likely to roll over.
Lightweight vehicles such as gokarts and racing cars tend to manoeuvre more quickly, brake more quickly, stop more quickly, do less injury to motorcyclists, cyclists, pedestrians, dogs and livestock.
A Porsche driven by a skilled driver will cause less injury to anithervriad user than a road train.
Stopping distance depends upon reaction time, vehicle speed, vehicle mass, tyres, road surface and weather,
40 kph (25 mph) zones protect children and dogs from injury. Almost nobody has been killed in 40 kph zones by drivers observing the limit.
Nothing beats safety tests in the lab and on the road.
5
Since auto pollution disproportionally affects older people they should not rely on conservative judges voting against their health.
1
What's more important: Human health or corporate profits?
Great job Ford. Planning to manufacture only 2 cars and focusing on SUVs and trucks for corporate profits.
I will never buy a Ford for the rest of my life.
9
@Goahead. My husband drives a 20 year old Audi. It is still running well and looks great. I drive a 10 year old Toyota and have no plans to replace it - it also continues to perform well and looks as good as new.
"Profits above all else" - that's the Republican mantra.
It's all about short-term gains rather than looking at the big picture in this world.
With that approach, in the not-too-distant future, there won't BE any world for them to glean short-term gains.
6
Just like every Trump business hoax and disaster for its consumers-purchasers, the only recourse is legal. Which does win eventually.
6
Let's face reality: we're looking at at least one to two generations to repair the damage done to our democracy--not to mention the planet--by Putin, Trump, and the oligarchs.
7
The US auto industry declared war on California, whether it intended or not by asking this schoolyard bully of a president to go after us. I now hope our rebellion cripples the industry once and for all. Even if we lose years from now, its environmental-hating, fossil fuel-embracing, climate change-denying reputation will become socially toxic in blue states. No one will want to be caught dead in noxious red-state symbols of ignorance and greed.
Despite claiming to be all about the Heartland, Detroit brands like Cadillac seem particularly desperate to be seen as hip and cool in blue states. The nonstop beachy ads with Caddies cruising PCH screaming "Great Deals Now!" for internal combustion behemoths always make me laugh. Sure they're selling some cars now but as this fight grinds on, the rest of us will begin to treat US automakers like the greedy pariahs they're becoming and move on to brands that are making what we're buying which is all about environmentally-friendly technology. Freeways here are packed with hybrids and electrics, some are even American like the Chevy Volt and Bolt. What are these executives thinking in defiantly fighting what's already happening on the roads of the world's 6th largest economy?!
Detroit was nearly destroyed by the Japanese in the 80s and played catch-up all through the 90s. Then, for some unfathomable reason, it just threw all of that work out which culminated in its 2009 bailout. One, two, now it's three strikes and Detroit is out!
8
An ardent Trump sheep I work with loves to mock my Prius. I actually shut that down pretty effectively a month ago when I told him I'm a better patriot than him, not asking soldiers to die in foreign wars for oil. Seems there is no come back for that.
30
The "lighter cars, more deaths" nonsense reminds me of the Koch Industries argument that smog prevents skin cancer.
26
Lighter vehicles cause more deaths?
So, should we eliminate compact cars?
Seems we would have to if that's the DOT's principal concern.
So. Everyone will be required to drive a big, gas guzzling SUV.
At what point will we reject these government hacks from destroying the environment?
We have record numbers of people suffering from upper respiratory ailments in large part due to past and present levels of vehicle admissions.
Deaths from those conditions surely outnumber vehicle accident deaths where the proximate cause of death was a 'lighter than usual vehicle'.
Will our government ever start making smart decisions?
Even the auto makers don't want these standards lowered.
Not stated is that foreign competition will pursue the better mileage standards and render American automobiles obsolete.
Just. Plain. Stupid.
4
What is this? More left-over Pruittisms? It is a look at what happens when a horrible administrator leaves a mess behind for others to clean up. Pruitt was a miniature dictator. What size of clean up will be needed will be needed when our fearless leader and his friends leave?
Here's an idea from way back when: We make more fuel efficient cars and clothespin playing cards to the wheels to give those who want a throaty muscle car sound their thrill. RAW
5
Yes the rest of the world is begging to import dirty gas guzzlers from the US. I hope US auto makers are smart enough to ignore Trump's idiocy. Look how popular American pickups and SUV's would be in the really big ones got 25-30 miles per gallon instead of 18. High Tech fuel efficient cars and trucks are the future and technically feasible.
11
I hope so. How can an administration, especially Republican, be touting deregulation while essentially ad hock regulating consumers by propping up bad business practice, creating environmental hazards and subsidizing what is rapidly becoming a state run industry (OIL). Oh right it's the GOP.
5
We are living in trump's bizarro republican enabled world. "Don't believe what you read or see" trump tells US. Only he and Fox tell the "truth". Up is down. Night is day. Lies by trump and supported by PACs pave the way...
for more corrupt deals, gerrymandering, basically whatever it takes to hang on to power.
Incredible. What will it take to WAKE up his delusional base and the remaining ambivalent Americans to the evil and incompetence of trump and his administration.
He's claiming all credit for the economy, which was humming along favorably thanks to Obama. Trump climbed onto an already fast running economic train, and thinks (and tweets) he's the engineer. Wrong.
He's the wrench in the works. How's the trump tariffs working. Uh well, after we throw $12 billion tax payer dollars at farmers they're gonna be "very, very, happy". So much for saving US bigly. Eh, CONald.
What really went on and was said during Trump's performance review with Putin. A strong leader, a man with nothing to hide would want US to know. Wouldn't he? An honest man, not primed for criminal dealings would want US to see his tax returns. Well, wouldn't he.
Fact is, trump is behaving like a man with plenty to hide. Ever more frightened of being found out as the fraud that he always was. Ever more unhinged with lies, denials and misdirections.
The dereliction of Duty Republican Party owns this disastrous travesty... along with their Liar in Chief, Trump. Lock them up!
8
'Mr. Rosen and Ms. King have also justified their proposal with a new analysis concluding that the stricter Obama-era pollution rules would lead to thousands of deaths in road accidents. They argue that more fuel-efficient cars are less safe because they are lighter.'
Stop using weasel words, the ugly sister of fake news. There is no such thing as a road accident. This is the marketing talk loved by Big Auto. The NYT has been duped into using the preferred term of the industry.
Every road 'accident' is a crash. There is no such thing as a road 'accident'.
Every crash is caused by human error: speeding; driving too fast for the conditions, for example through heavy rain, fog or snow; reckless or dangerous driving; inattentiveness caused by alcohol or other drugs; distraction by texting; talking on phones; talking to another passenger; tailgating; overtaking; negligent vehicle maintenance; faulty manufacture; poor vehicle design; poor road design; poor road maintenance.
Words matter. The NYT does a poor job of reflecting critically on the language it uses.
4
Every day in every way, I get the feeling that the American government is being led by nihilists and nutjobs who actually want to implement policies detrimental to the public welfare! Crazy and sad!!!
20
If the Transportation Department really cared about lives, they'd reduce the speed limit back to 55.
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/speed-limit-increases-cause-33...
5
So much for the republicans much claimed support for states' rights and abhorrence of big intrusive central government. At least we can always count on them to be hypocrites
7
Disgusting, the whole lot of them.
7
Emission from cars is only ONE possible cause for polluting the air we breathe. The worst 'Emission' we are now breathing is coming from a 'Loud Mouth" i.e., TRUMP - his tweets, speeches, executive orders, etc.
12
Why?????
Why reduce the standards and allow more pollution? Does he not care for those now living on the planet? How about those to come? What about his grandchildren?
Rolling back just to roll back is nonsense.
And he is doing it because he hates Obama....at the end of the day, it's just racism.
17
The argument that "...more fuel-efficient cars are less safe because they are lighter" is probably correct for tanks. But those non-tank drivers among us may want to have a look at the global statistics of lethal car accidents per 100,000 population, 10.4 for the US, 3.54 for Germany and similar levels for other European countries. Not even comparing apples by apples since Germany does not have a speed limit on most highways. Most of the cars overseas are lighter and much more fuel efficient.
Trump believes that the removal of trade tariffs will lead to higher exports of American build cars, that would possibly work if these cars were affordable to drive, but with fuel prices of approx. $8/gal. in most of the world, I don't see that happening.
6
@DAGVehicle fatalities are measured per billion km driven not per capita as there are large differences in how far people drive each year in different countries.
By this measure there is not much difference between Germany and the US. Other factors far outweigh the differences in the size of cars which is not that great between germany and the US in any case.
It remains a fact that smaller cars, when driven the same number of miles, are more deadly than larger vehicles.
I guess I must value my family more than you do yours if you think this is a good idea!
@DAG, also, to which countries does 'stupid' think he's going to sell them to? Clearly he's never looked at the width of roads in Europe.
Ah, he's going to sell them all to Putin...... Now I got it.
@Steve W You can have the statistics in both ways, per miles driven (its actually per 100 million miles, not billions).
Source IIHS 2016 "There were 34,439 fatal motor vehicle crashes in the United States in 2016 in which 37,461 deaths occurred. This resulted in 11.6 deaths per 100,000 people and 1.16 deaths per 100 million miles traveled."
The miles traveled can just be estimates, because nobody knows exact numbers and most countries do not publish them. However, got lucky to find stats for 2016 on the website of the German DOT and did the math: Germany 0.7 deaths per 100 million miles traveled, that roughly 40 % percent less that the US.
To your last statement: My wife has Asthma and suffers every day from air pollution and not from traffic accidents.
And your point was?
All the time that's wasted on trying to avoid doing the right thing here,manufacturing cars that pollute less, use less gas, improving our infrastructure, could be going to manufacturing better cars, etc. What's wrong with having clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, clean land to live on, and safe food to eat? Why is it that whenever it comes down to safety, it's too expensive?
7
Another false assumption regarding the theory "lighter cars = more injuries" that hasn't been discussed: heavier cars require longer stopping distances and have worse emergency avoidance/stability performance, which can make all the difference between having an "impact event" and avoiding one. I'd rather be in a Mazda Miata than a Chevy Suburban when an 80,000 lb dump truck turns left in front of me...the laws of physics are on the Miata's side.
3
@Rickskes The insurance industry sure doesn't agree!
"Smaller cars have higher fatality rates in car accidents
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) explains that while cars of all types are much safer now than before, the smallest and lightest cars have fatality rates around twice as high as the biggest and heaviest cars. When you consider how car size and weight impact a vehicle's crashworthiness, it's easier to understand why small cars don't do as well at protecting their passengers"
You might want to stop spreading false, and deadly, information.
@Rickske
It has more to do with structure that with weight.
A properly engineered vehicle will have energy absorbing crumple zones front and rear, and a rigid passenger compartment to resist deformation during impact. Any vehicle in any weight class can be engineered to meet these standards.
The forces at play during an accident are determined by vehicle speed and mass. This is when mass or weight plays a factor. If you have a higher mass impacting a lower mass, the lower mass vehicle will absorb a greater amount of the energy.
Today's vehicles are much safer. Innovations such as lap and shoulder belts, disc brakes, collapsing steering columns, padded dashboards and airbags have saved countless lives in all types of collisions. Engines mounts in vehicles with the engine in front are designed to force the engine down and under the passenger compartment rather than into the passengers lap as they used to. I have seen collisions where people walk away with minor scratches, that would have been fatal 50 years ago.
FYI. The Mazda Miata you mentioned, stands a much batter chance of nose diving under the dump truck and decapitating you, should you be unable to stop in time. The Suburban's airbag and crumple zones would save you life for sure.
When this Trump catastrophe is in the past, and the smoke has cleared a bit, we need to remember just who enabled and promoted Trumpism and ban them from the ranks of good company and acceptance forever. No Micheal Steele or George Will of Billy Kristol perches for these malevolent mimes and retrogrades. Frankly, they only barely clear the bar, but, ok, I guess.
On the other hand, we must remember the few who with great courage and integrity pushed back and attempted to blunt the blows of fascism, corruption and hate.
Wheeler may fall into this category.
1
Let an independent group of scientists review this proposal to determine if this argument about increasing mortality has any validity. I would bet the administration would refuse that, because it is likely this is completely bogus fake science right up there with climate change denial. How many people will die from the higher levels of air pollution and catastrophic climate change? Probably many more even in the best case scenario. These people lack morality, integrity and any sense of public responsibility.
4
They all want children with asthma to wheeze – they just disagree on how to get there the fastest. Unfortunately, those children will not be able to go to Washington and demonstrate for their lives – they can’t breathe.
2
Here's what we can do to avoid accidents with lighter fuel-efficient cars: ban SUVs!
2
Note to car companies: don't take the bait. The next administration will gut Trump's rules in a heartbeat. The vast number of American s do not want to go back to polluting cars. Trump does not speak for most of us, only a greedy few at the top. Don't take the bait.
8
The machinations of this administration remind me of the plot of the Grisham novel "The Pelican Brief".
4
China with a current population of 1.2 billion aims to have 50% of its vehicles run on electricity by 2040 or thereabouts so following Rosen and Trump will just doom the US auto industry to obsolescence
7
We are really a rogue nation now. With the blatant repercussions of climate change evident all over the world, from the unprecedented beat waves in Japan. India and even the Arctic, the torrential rains and the deadly forest fires in Greece, Portugal and the western US, Trump and his amoral staff want to increase the auto emissions, making the situation even worse. Since no one in this country who can stop the madness of Trump is doing so, Trump and his cronies should be tried in the International Court in The Hague for crimes against humanity.
3
This was just another example of Trump wanting to undo an Obama regulation, just because it IS an Obama regulation. That's about the only common thread throughout all of the so called 'accomplishments' for this loser administration. There is no other reason for rolling this back, article states that Trump was looking forward to suing California.....presumably because the state mostly hates him, this is how childish this man is.
4
Is there anything good the Trump administration will not take away? Anything bad they will not do?
I get more and more depressed reading the news.
3
The height of ignorance at the helm by Trump and the GOP/NRA with total neglect for the snowballing inertia of global warming. We are rapidly heading toward the inevitable food and water crisis on the horizon.
The Ocean is so bad that species that were never seen keep heading north in the pacific but it’s all overheated. Coral and sea ecosystems are failing. Mankind is in a death course.
4
All true. The ignorance of this administration is beyond disgraceful.
The planet and of course our precious oceans been neglected for over 50 years.No one will be able to say “we never saw it coming”.
You can'y breath money.
4
The most damaging part of the Trump administration is the irreparable destruction of the environment. They are so stupid that even with data sitting in front of their face, they would rather pollute. The US could lead the world and save the planet, but instead, the climate will get hotter, extreme weather events will rise, and beachfront cities will disappear. Electric cars, solar and batteries makes big, clean vehicles available today. We can have our cake and eat it, too, but not to these corrupt fools.
6
Wheeler could do great things by holding fast on pollution standards already established. He faces moments of courage.
3
Today's gasoline internal combustion engines are more fuel efficient, more powerful and more reliable than they were 50 years ago. And they produce significantly less pollutants than the cars of our parents generation. This has been achieved through good engineering and government legislation.
Did the automakers lose money? No. They passed on the cost to the consumer who in most cases is happy to pay a premium for efficiency and clean air and more power.
Cars are also safer today. And that is not the result of legislation, but due to marketing. It was Chrysler's Lee Iaccoca that used safety as a way to boost the sagging sales of his cars. For years there were attempts to mandate airbags in cars. Automakers and lobbyists fought off the attempts. Chrysler was the first US automaker to voluntarily include driver side airbags in their 1990 vehicles and marketed them as a safety feature. Sales improved and other automakers, not wanting to be left behind, followed suit.
The bottom line is, there is no reason for the automakers not to continue to meet the goals of reduced emissions whether they are are changed or remain the same. It is a fallacy that it is costing them too much money. It is us, the consumer who pay for it, and we are glad to.
The technology wasn't there 50 years ago so Detroit had to invent it. The desire wasn't there 50 years ago so the public had to demand it. Nothing has really changed. There is no good reason to go backwards.
6
The emissions standards are somewhat skewed. Have you ever wondered what ethanol does for your engine ? If you want to increase mileage get rid of ethanol. It burns at a lower combustion rate, it strips a car of 25% of its gas mileage. Ethanol was great when we suffered from an artificial (contrived) fuel shortage, it helped our farmers and extended our fuel capabilities. Yet due to it's lower energy output it effectively taxes our every mile. It is time to stop diluting gasoline with ethanol.
3
@Tom ,Retired Florida Junkman What makes you think artificial contrived gas shortages can't happen again.Even in the US we still import 5-6 million barrels of oil a day. If a large exported sneezed prices jump.
@Tom ,Retired Florida Junkman ---
coal is obsolete, ethanol is just plain crazy. Nit just a matter of money. Might cost a bit less, but it DESTROYS engines real fast. So those cars become unsafe sooner. False economy - even before you count fatalities.
Thanks for reminding me of that aspect too.
1
Wheeler figured out that beyond the inherent net positives tied to the efficiency of lighter vehicles, fatalities could be reduced by reducing speed limits and enhancing safety design standards. Rosen and King figured out that big rock hurt, little rock no hurt. Who's running this circus? Oh, yeah...
3
This fight to return to the emission and efficiency standards of the 50's will die of natural causes. The world is moving to greater efficiency, alternative energy and with that, electric cars. Either the US can lead the way, or we can all buy cars from Japan, South Korea, China and the EU. Trump won't be around to tariff them....thank God.
6
Let's go back to the good old days! Back in the seventies we had SMOG alerts in the LA Basis. Awesome way to get out of class, didn't need to pay for smokes - air, or something like it, was all we needed. Best gift - lung cancer.
13
@UH In urban centers the air is still brown sometimes. Particularly during this record setting heat. Emissions, perhaps?
These policy-makers are the same industry geniuses who resisted seat belts because people would never submit to them, and airbags because people would never trust them.
More pollution and doubling down on fossil fuels will save lives -- give me a break.
27
"Our efforts with DOT have been reflective of a robust and constructive interagency process that the American people expect--and deserve--when agencies are proposing rules of such consequence."
--Andrew Wheeler
No, Mr. Wheeler, what the American people deserve is a policy process where all points of view are taken into account. Have you listened to the scientists who are issuing almost daily warnings about the dangers of climate change? Have you listened to the voices of citizens who want cars that get better mileage?
Or, have you only listened to the demands of fossil fuel producers?
I think we all know the answer to that question and the citizens of this country (and the world) deserve better.
29
Lighter cars are more dangerous? OK let’s build cars out of concrete and lead, fuel efficiency can be measured in feet, not miles. Sure hope you have plenty of money for gas.
13
The advocates in the Transportation Dept. contend that anti-pollution rules will lead to more highway deaths because cleaner cars weigh less. Did they consider the additional deaths and illness due to more polluted air?
34
Since all the car manufacturers export autos, the emissions restrictions that Washington requires really doesn't matter. The states and other countries will have their own requirements which the manufacturers will have to meet. It is too expensive to customize the pollution controls for every state or country.
5
Trump is hell-bent on turning the USA into a third world country.
41
Yeah but this will result in more jobs in the lung cancer treatment business. MAGA!
24
Astoundingly absent from this reporting is the Secretary of Transportation: Elaine Chao, who's not only Rosen's boss, but is McConnell's WIFE. How could this omission have passed editorial muster? What is her position in this matter? At what point does her obvious and highly questionable relationship to the current administration become more relevant, than in this discussion? What's going on here, NYT?
31
The current dispute has nothing to do with letting cars "emit more tailpipe pollution." The amount of pollutants - gases and particulates that are harmful to human health - would not be affected at all by the proposed rule. What would change is the amount of carbon dioxide that would be emitted, and while anthropogenic carbon dioxide may or may not affect the climate, it doesn't harm human health. You could sit in a room with twice or ten times the current atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide and suffer no adverse health effects of any kind. A little more honesty from the Times would be appreciated.
1
@Douglas Levene
"...anthropogenic carbon dioxide may or may not affect the climate."
Decades of scientific research contradicts the point of view that carbon dioxide "may not" affect the climate. Even fringe deniers acknowledge that fact but then try to claim that human industry is a harmless drop in the atmospheric bucket.
A little more honesty would be appreciated by everyone.
It's been known for years that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a major contributor to global warming.
7
@Douglas Levene
If the climate causes more very high summer temperatures in the US, might that not have an adverse effect on the health of some if not many Americans? Scientists are already predicting that some parts of South Asian and Middle Eastern countries may become uninhabitable because of heat and the ensuing destruction of farm land? If that happens here, wouldn't that lead to health problems?
2
"may or may not affect the climate" is quite clear. Unless you are a science denier, it does affect the the climate.
Why is it so hard to do what is right for the world? Why do have many so willing to sacrifice the world, which is already showing signs of stress, for a few dollars that won't mean much in sick world.
13
@LESykora
Because. Gay people--seriously. And abortion. And guns. And because women are too uptight. And bathrooms. Having to make wedding cakes for boys. And people say health care in Canada is bad and that's why they all come here. And this movie I saw about Benghazi. And I'm living off my interest for once which is good because my accountant says the money will dry up when I am 90 because it is expensive to maintain the five bedroom house that I worked hard for.
Forget everything else, those are the things 1/2 of our country thinks are worth fighting for.
Why stop at fuel standards? Next up, revoke regulations requiring seat belts, air bags, side mirrors, anything safety related that costs car companies money to put in.
Make America great by building cars like it was 1950 again, I guess. Sad.
13
Formerly worked for Hyundai, which was found guilty of inflating MPG claims for its vehicles. Enuff said. But lets not forget, while they lie about safety, that they'll be putting more big trucks and more muscle cars on the road, i.e., more danger. And republican cuts to government and taxes have meant fewer police on the roads, leading to more speeding and traffic violations and 40,000 deaths in the U.S.
6
Just another wrong direction from this administration. Unless the House goes Democratic in November we are lost..
13
Just another day of fighting against states' rights, massively increasing the federal debt, bailing out economic sectors hurt by wrongheaded trade policies, tearing down conservative institutions like the FBI and DOJ, and colluding with foreign dictators. Oh wait, these are the Republicans?
I do like how the basic plan now is propose anything, and just assume the future (terrifying) Supreme Court will eventually uphold it. Vote in November or suffer 2 more years of this insanity, America.
11
Only with Trump would polluting the air more even be on the table.
15
Mr. Wheeler is not long for EPA. He has told Trump its illegal, and nobody tells Trump such a thing and survives the next round of termination. Telling the truth in this administration is tantamount to political suicide. Well, it’s business as usual in the oligarchy.
11
@Dan Holton Many others have left with their principles intact, such as Gary Cohn, who tried to point out the dangers of tariffs and trade war.
Trump's plan is to make more $$ for oil producers (now the US is no.1 in the world -- impt to deplete natural resources like water for crops and oil as quickly as possible) and for the medical industry treating pollution related illness. BTW the speed on the nation highways should go back to 55 mph -- aging population out there and also much more efficient energy wise.
Plenty of people to blame -- IMO everyone on Wall Street.
5
I am constantly plagued by the thought that in several generations people will look back at this era and wonder how we allowed the economic interests of a few to condemn them, including children being born today, to a planet inhospitable to life as it has evolved over thousands of years.
That we are still having these conversations as if they is any legitimacy to them only indicates that our entire social-economic system is on the verge of failure.
19
@dolbash: I agree with your sentiments, but just to be clear, that's billions of years, not mere thousands, as some believe.
1
Why is the fact that Rosen has represented Hyundai and GM buried so far down in the article? Look, I don’t expect NHTSA or the NTA to have former Schwin employees in leadership positions but the guy is a car industry guy.
What do car makers make? Profit. Is it expensive to redesign cars, the factories that make them and the supply lines for parts and materials to comply with new regulations? You betcha. Might that eat into profit? It might indeed! Follow the money....
4
Energy efficiency makes Americans safer and richer. Global warming is real and will be both costly and hazardous, witness the increasing heat waves, wildfires, and deadly storms. More efficient cars save consumers money. Technology will continue to improve car safety.
The fossil fuel industry is not much better than the tobacco companies. They'll put the bottom line ahead of America and American lives every time.
14
So cars should pollute more because fuel efficient cars are lighter and will lead to "thousands of deaths in road accidents"? Car accident deaths are tragic. So are injuries. They are also random. Pollute the air and everybody is hurt.
13
It's hard to understand how a vehicle with less mass, all else being equal, becomes more dangerous. In fact usually the opposite is true; lighter vehicles are more likely to avoid the accident in the first place, and those being hit by a heavier object usually sustain more damage.
6
@JJSloc
Agree. In fact the new rules may save lives because those hit by lighter cars will be more likely to survive
5
@walter newman I think they're talking about lighter cars being hit by heavier cars on the highway. The solution is to ban the sale of SUVs.
1
The irony is that this will hurt US auto makers in the long run. If this effort succeeds, I will never purchase another vehicle from Ford or GM, and in fact, I already have not done so for decades. I am not alone.
15
@Matt, right you are, you are definitely not alone in that position. I'll hit 70 later this year, and I've never owned a Ford or GM, and never will unless they up their game to a level I'm sure they'll never achieve, especially with dumkopfs like the ones mentioned in this article in charge of efficiency and air quality.
5
Why does this POTUS want to introduce more air pollution into the country which he swore to defend? This seems treasonous to me.
34
So the people who want to roll back pollution standards are concerned about vehicle and passenger safety? What a sick joke. These are the very types of people who fought seat belts and air bags in the past. Sorry, but I'm not buying their passenger safety "concern".
24
Make America great again by polluting more. It's OK, because what we're seeing and hearing isn't happening. Yeah, right.
14
Another summer of record-high temperatures, floods and wildfires.
Trump and his band of grifters, nihilists and nincompoops aren't worried about the planet of 2018 so why should they care about what it will look like in 2058?
24
"They argue that more fuel-efficient cars are less safe because they are lighter."
What??? This stupidity is getting out of control.
13
@MHV
Getting out of control? Let’s face it: only a deeply stupid people could elect a president like Donald Trump.
6
Yeah, we don't enough Code Orange days, when kids and old people aren't supposed to go outside. Let's have some Code Red, so no one goes outside - except construction workers, letter carriers, landscapers and all the other people who have outdoor work to do, who Trump pretends to care about, but doesn't.
5
I'm visiting in Durango, Colorado. Two days ago, I was walking along College Drive, a major street, when a truck spewing coal exhaust drove by. I thought, It is difficult to see across the lane that truck is in. I tried to read its license plate but there was too much smoke. A few seconds later, I heard a loud noise, but thought it was the engine belching. About an hour later, I learned the truck and another car had collided. The police and many bystanders were on the scene. Both vehicles had crushed-up hoods. I saw the driver of the coal-spewing truck standing talking to a police officer; I don't know what happened to the other driver. Was the accident caused by the coal smoke? I don't know, but it couldn't have helped matters. I felt lucky that I hadn't been driving near the truck spewing dirty exhaust and very angry that this driver was allowed to be on the road, period.
14
They call themselves 'coal rollers,' with perverse pride.
5
So, Mr. Rosen is looking forward to a change in the Supreme Court composition to support his position on gasoline powered vehicles. Is he also looking forward to the development of electric cars? They will be lighter, stronger and less polluting. Given Ford's progress so far, they would be well advised to consider this. GM certainly has. The Europeans are getting ready to eat their lunch.
20
What’s left out of this discussion is the role of sensors and automation. Auto break and lane deviation sensors must have improved the accident and fatality rates already. The weight versus fatality rate argument is specious. The logical argument is that we all drive dump trucks to protect ourselves. Kind of rhymes with Trump trucks!
11
So, rather than follow every scientific analysis conducted on the topic which shows that with the rules there could be an improvement in safety and in more fuel-efficient vehicles, Trump's political cronies opt for following what Ford and GM want - which is nothing.
Thanks for lessening the safety of commuting Americans, Trump.
32
@Ed We're taking names of companies that support the rollback of pollution regulations. We will no longer purchase their products, and that includes automobiles.
1
I wonder how much time, money, and energy we waste due simply to our flailing back-and-forth on policy as we alternate between Democratic and Republican control of the federal government. It seems like a good chunk of the time (1/2? 1/3?) the prudent thing to do would be to stick with the existing approach even if it's not optimal or not exactly what we'd prefer, simply to avoid the transition/uncertainty costs that come with any effort to make major changes.
9
It appears that Mr. Wheeler is reintroducing some rationality to the EPA. In raising the possibility of tortuous litigation of the Trump-Pruitt proposal, Wheeler is instilling reason that would avoid the needless bureaucratic confusion for which Trump is famous.
I question King’s analysis, because automobile safety is a nonhomoschedastic distribution that improves over the years. To simplemindedly attribute car weight to safety ignores the many safety features that are introduced into vehicles, such as lane changing alerts, blind spot sensors, and emergency braking to prevent rear end collisions, and, indeed, autonomously driven cars.
Were Rosen and King’s logic to prevail, then we should bring back the classic 1957 Buick Roadmaster. Given their reasoning, it would be worth it to preserve all of those lives.
“Mr. Rosen and Ms. King have also justified their proposal with a new analysis concluding that the stricter Obama-era pollution rules would lead to thousands of deaths in road accidents. They argue that more fuel-efficient cars are less safe because they are lighter.”
Finally, we see trump fascism at work in its use of a fascistically stacked SCOTUS to rubberstamp trump’s proclamations.
36
@Charles You've introduced a term for which I cannot find a reasonable definition for the non-specialist. Please do not do that again without explanation and connection to the subject at hand.
So their plans might be illegal.
Why is it not illegal for Betsy Devos to devastate the education system? And I could go on and on other cabinet members? Why isn't what they are doing to destroy protections for citizens, and the environment, considered illegal?
41
No one will benefit from any rollback of auto and truck pollution regulations. The auto industry will lose customers if it doesn't stick to the standards set by rest of the world during the Obama administration. The planet and all creatures on the planet, even Republicans, will suffer. A few fat cats may see slightly higher profit margins. But since they've already stolen billions or trillions from the rest of us there isn't much more they can do with all that money. So, roll-backs will hurt Trump more than they will help anyone else.
26
@RLW The automakers will lose international sales if they do not keep pace with Japanese and European innovation. They'll probably lose US sales as well. Japanese and European cars generally last longer and hold their value better than Ford, GM and Chrysler.
Whatever the accident death numbers are I’m sure there are numbers for health effects from air pollution and non-fatal accident health effects. Naturally there are error bars around each number. But I’m ignorant of those estimates.
5
OMG! You mean there's someone at E.P.A. who actually believes in Environmental Protection instead more Environmental Pollution. How novel. But, just how long will he last?
8
@Paul Wortman...so sorry Paul but Wheeler is a traditional Climate Change denier of the highest odor. He just knows that this plan will not survive the Courts. He will do everything in his rather wide reaching power to destroy the planet over the next 8-28 months.
5
Trump will pollute and dirty our country to get another 1% of GDP. Trump is like a rabidly competitive, term-limited CEO of a pubic company.
He will eat whoever he can and cut whatever corner to beat quarterly projections and let future shareholders deal with the fallout.
18
@Marco Philoso He also wants to add one more notch against Obama to his belt. And he also seems itching for a big fight against California.
5
Great headline, btw.
4
They argue that more fuel-efficient cars are less safe because they are lighter.
Haven’t car manufacturers reduced vehicle weight for years to improve gas mileage yet maintain safety standards?
I argue that more air-headed EPA officials are less safe for America because they are infinity stupid.
21
And just think how lighter vehicles inflict less damage to our roads and bridges... they very things Republicans claims we don't have the money to maintain.
8
@Gazbo Fernandez Actually safety standards have increased over the same period that fuel efficiency standards have been forced on the auto industry.
2
"The acting administrator of the E.P.A., Andrew K. Wheeler, has expressed concern that a planned Trump administration rollback of auto-emissions rules might be vulnerable in court."
We can only hope. November can't come soon enough. I feel like Indiana Jones when he saw Nazis, "God, I hate these guys."
15
What assumptions did they use for their 12,000 lives saved claim? Who paid for the analysis?
Heavier cars are safer? For whom? If I get hit by one of the many idiots texting while driving his heavier car aren't I at great risk of dying than if he were driving a lighter car?
I'll believe they're concerned about safety when they outlaw phones in cars. Every day I take my life in my hands because of all these distracted drivers on their phones.
13
Is there some way we can appeal directly to Vlad Putin?
10
So much for federalism.
7
“They argue that more fuel-efficient cars are less safe because they are lighter.”
Good God these people are from the Stone Age. Doesn’t anyone remember the 60’s, “huge” cars, big engines, fast as “all get out”. And most of all “deadly”. We were killing 50,000 a year with auto accidents with a population of 195 million. Today we’re killing about the same number with a 320 million. They need to do some math and read their history. Lighter is clearly safer.
The dumb just get dumber.
16
The word "illegal" has never stopped Trump before.
14
The consequences of global warming are becoming
more and more evident practically on a daily basis,
and these fools want to lessen pollution regulations.
They're either in denial, don't care, sold out, or who
knows what. One thing is certain though, and that's that
they're knowingly destructive, and that's just evil.
5
So Trump’s goal is to save lives???
Tell that to the children sequestered by home security, the families of children killed at a school and those who will lose health insurance.
7
Vote with your pocketbook. Do not buy a polluting vehicle. Let them rot on the dealers fields. But efficient, economical low cost vehicles. Your children and grandchildren will than you.
6
@Gazbo Fernandez And your car will hold its value better if you decide to sell or trade it!
Trump making America Great again by dialing back clean air standards. He would rather kill thousands with dirty air and climate change than risk the few deaths that may be attributable to lighter cars (proof?). Progress is the act of moving forward Donald.
4
Remember the old days - when one of the Republicans' mantras was "states rights'?
8
The proposed emission changes are again based on lack of scientific rigor in assessing the cons of the Obama era mandates. If the DOT was really concerned about saving lives they would have to include the consequences of air pollution on the health of the public. It is not just carbon dioxide, but rather the complex organics released from tail pipes that are still health risks and need to be reduced by increasing the mileage standards, not freezing them in 2020.
The argument that lighter cars are less safe is also absurd. Safety depends on properly engineered collapsible structures made from high strength materials, not necessarily heavy materials. For example Kevlar, a light organic polymer, when properly designed as for a bullet proof vest can stop a bullet. The Obama rules also favor the development of electric cars, which are far more efficient. Relying on he extension of fossil fuels only benefits the oil industry, perhaps that is the fundamental reason for this ill-conceived roll-back of the mileage standards.
Should Trump prevail in the long run after all legal challenges, California and the other states in favor of the Obama standards can probably achieve their present goals by dissuading their inhabitants from buying low-mileage cars through either higher gas taxes or registration fees based on mileage standards. States could also give tax breaks to those buying electric cars.
9
California has already surpassed it's 2020 goal of lower fuel emissions standards. We are ahead of the curve and now you can even see the mountains surrounding Pasadena. Our economy was not hurt by our forward looking fuel standards but has grown steadily.
3
I wonder how many people are killed every year by air pollution? How many additional deaths will be caused by climate change. Why are we still subsidizing oil extraction with depletion allowances? Perhaps the best way to get people to buy more fuel efficient vehicles would be to raise the gas tax so the cost of burning fossil fuels would be commensurate with the real cost. Hey, we could use the extra tax to rebuild our crumbling infra structure and provide lots of good blue color jobs. Oh, forgot that raising any tax for any reason is an anathema to our Republican Congress. First things first; have to get rid of the Republican Congress.
8
@W.A. Spitzer
While I agree, in substance, with you comment. I would like to comment that the Republican Congress is only against raising taxes that are visible to their base.
They have no trouble with increasing tariffs, which are in reality sales taxes on imported goods. (They also have no problem designing tax cuts which disappear for the middle and working class after a set number of years.)
5
Electric vehicles can be much safer than gas powered cars. The heavy battery can be under the seats providing a more stable platform. The front has no engine and can provide a much better crumple zone in the event of a crash. They are cleaner, so less deaths from air pollution. The claim of12000 more deaths is bogus.
14
The reason that Obama bailed out the auto industry was that consumers were buying cars with better mpg made in Asia. I remember Romney saying they should be allowed to fail for their poor business decisions. Does the GOP really want to go there again?
Our car is a plug-in hybrid that gets 90 miles per gallon. We will not be going back to cars that only get 30. Because of time of use billing from the electric company the electric bill is not very high. It costs a dollar to charge the car instead of 30 dollars to fill the tank with gasoline. The oil companies are behind this push to roll back emissions. The EPA is on the side of the oil oligarchy.
40
Rolling back emissions requirements will save lives. Cars are already highly efficient. Further advances would require smaller and lighter vehicles, which are inherently less safe. Of course the increased mortality and morbidity would not be experienced by the wealthy politicians responsible for a dangerous policy, since they and others who could afford to would still drive expensive and heavy luxury vehicles.
2
@RC. There is nothing factual in this comment. There is no evidence that rolling back emissions saves lives. Higher car mass does not necessarily have a correlation with safety, other than perhaps that heavier cars generally handle less well in emergency situations. Interesting that this "new" analysis contradicts earlier studies and appears totally driven by doctrine.
1
@RC Where is the evidence that more fuel efficient vehicles are less safe? That's been a talking point of the pollution industry for years. Cite the actual evidence please.
3
Save lives. I'm not so sure that is correct. You have to balance the potential for lives lost because of smaller cars against those lost because of increased pollution. Which includes lost to lung and heart disease and increasing climate change. And there is at least one study that says larger cars are not necessarily safer.
http://www.thedrive.com/news/10069/are-large-cars-safer-than-small-cars-...
4
We have to get off of hydrocarbons for commuter fuel. I volunteer with a group that installs solar systems for low income people, non-profits, etc. We probably lower the cost by 30%. Your own solar array, charging your electric car, is the clean transportation future. California is even mandating the installation of solar panels on new houses, condos, and apartments up to three stories, starting in 2020. If you’re after an average of 54 miles/gallon, with a rapidly growing segment that uses NO gas, aren’t we going to get there naturally? Leave that standard in place and keep federal and state tax credits for electric adoption! Even lower cost plug-in hybrids, like the Prius Prime and Hyundai Ioniq, have enough pure electric operation for most commutes to work or running around town. Businesses are installing more charging stations in their parking lots, many with overhead solar arrays. That also becomes an attraction for customers. If you need a heavy pickup for work, or a Chevy Subdivision to haul a huge family, balance that with an electric car for all the other stuff. Even those metal monsters are going to have electric versions soon.
21
If we in California refuse to replace our cars with vehicles with lower emissions standards, then I hope the market and auto makers would respond to our requirements and continue to make efficient vehicles.
30
"They argue that more fuel-efficient cars are less safe because they are lighter."
Is there no end to their cynicism in pursuit of favors for their friends in industry? Seriously?
73
@Jim Demand that "they" show the data that x miles driven in fuel efficient cars results in higher injury rates than same distance in polluting vehicles..
3
@Jim This is not cynicism. Their "safety" argument is just a made up lie. Lies are the basis of the entire Trump administration, starting at the top with the liar-in-chief.
6
@RLW By cynicism I meant "willingness to lie, whatever the real-world consequences to other human beings." I think that qualifies.
This is just the beginning of the Trump Administration's plan to mandate that the auto industry develop and market lines of coal-powered cars and trucks.
57
@Edgewalker
Are you referring to Teslas?
1
"Her analysis shows that the Obama rules would lead to as many as 12,000 more traffic fatalities."
Has this "analysis" been evaluated by independent reviewers.
36
Since when did unethical laws like illegality, lying, bribing, threatening, racism, foul mouthing, philandering, and others came in he way of Trmp's pleasure hunt? As long as he can afford to "create clean air for himself", why wold he care about polluting public air? For hi, everything is fair in chasing personal gratification.
4
At the end of the day this is a poster child for American Corporate greed. It would not be happening if they weren't pushing for it. Somehow, we need to bring these CEOs and Boards to a day of reckoning and it must happen soon. Sooner or later some people will look on moves like this as a reason for violent and disruptive tactics aimed at reform of American business ethics.
21
What timing -- during this killer global heatwave
46
Doesn't the GOP claim to be the party of less Federal oversight and smaller government in general? States' rights ring a bell? How does telling a state that it can't manage its own regulations fit with this?
It would be great to see some decision by this administration that wasn't motivated by greed, a desire to be as combative as possible, or outright stupidity.
57
@Jeff, PhD
The issue is more complicated than you are representing. The EPA has determined requirements for the country.
California, and most of the other states that have adopted the California standards, have air quality issues if they use the federal standards, because they have non-auto related air pollution factors, like atmospheric conditions that mean they need to reduce pollution from autos more in Los Angeles and NYC, for example, than in Salt Lake City.
The "California waiver" makes California entitled to set national standards to California requirements. Absent the waiver, nothing prevents California from using financial incentives and other mechanisms to make Californians meet a 54 mpg standard in 2025, even if the federal regulations are set at 35 mpg. There are autos available today that meet the 54 mpg target.
They could increase fuel taxes, which would push purchasers of new cars toward more fuel efficient cars.
They could get the economist Gruber, of Obamacare fame, to build a model to price annual auto registration fees to shift market preferences. If you legislated that someone buying an EV in 2025 would pay $50/year in annual fees, someone buying an ICE gasoline auto rated at 60 mpg would pay $100/year and someone buying an SUV that got 20 mpg would pay $4,000/year, there would be a shift that would achieve their objectives.
The waiver defeats states rights by allowing California to dictate to the rest of the states.
1
@ebmem You are obfuscating the issue: The states who follow CA's state EPA auto regulations due so via state-enacted legislation which is the very definition of "states' rights". The Fed. gov't. nor anyone else is "forcing" the other states to follow CA.
The fact that the waiver is built into the '70 EPA law is irrelevant (other than to make it a stronger case for CA's ability to set its own rules). Really, if you take "states' rights" as the rule, the waiver isn't necessary.
As far as CA using "other methods" to enforce its own regulations, thanks for the advice for achieving something (stronger emission rule) you don't actually agree with.
Mr. Rosen & Ms. King are feather weights in their facts & statistics. Their right wing fanatacism is straight from a Koch "think tank argument training's. in the real world, these two are traitors to protecting the earrth and America. They are fossil fuel operatives like trump & putin
43
Heavier vehicles use more metal, propping up US steel and aluminum industries. Yet another attempt to 'tax' consumers to help ailing industries.
12
Wait - someone at today's EPA is fighting to protect our environment? Does he want to lose his job??
32
"...emit more tailpipe pollution..."
I instantly got the image of the rear-end of a 1960 Chevvy (or maybe a Ford) with gargantuan tailpipes and duel mufflers, and standing within the cloud of smoke, smog, filth, was the vague outline of a man.....
And then the smoke clears and it's not Pigpen - it's Donald J Trump, Senior!
There he stands and the grin on his face is that same one he wears when he holds up his new bill and shows you his wonderful signature! "See? I can write my name! And this new bill I just signed will collapse all laws for the past 70 years! Take that you hippies!"
This man won't be happy until the world has a coal-fired Caddy on the roads and a slave-caddy on his golf course!
19
GOP are polluters. They won't be able to sell cars in Europe or Asia if they pollute so much . The Europeans and Asians now are demanding cleaner cars. They at least care about our planet the GOP catholic /evangelicals supported groups don't.
23
People who live in the less urbanized areas of the West will not and can not drive electric cars and do what they want or get safely where they need to go. We're talking seven years from now. This is ridiculous. Without hiring bad accountants and lawyers no one could make the case honestly that the US could meet the average 35 mpg goal much less 54. Cars and trucks today don't meet their stated mpg goals as it is. It cannot and will not really happen.
@Mike I have a 2015 Toyota Prius and average 50 mpg so it is certainly possible and it is actually more convenient in less urban areas since I don't need to stop at a gas station every few days for a refill. And the 54 mpg standard applies to passenger vehicles - not trucks.
8
I drive a 2011 3/4 ton diesel truck that gets 20 mpg unloaded on the interstate. Let's see 20 50 is 70, or 35 mpg average. I think however we both know neither of these numbers are our average mpg but for the sake of making you feel good let's go further. Dang it we made it. Except I can't do anything with a Prius except be pious. Have a nice day.
@Mike It can happen and it will. Have some faith in American engineering and ingenuity.
3
Detroit has relegated "Passenger Cars" to the obsolete parts bin. Our collective fantasy with big SUVs and trucks is fueled by the EPA's efforts to motivate the automakers to sell trucks.
Regardless that most of the gas guzzling SUVs are regularly used as passenger vehicles, trucks get a break on gas mileage regs. Only passenger vehicles are subjected to the "Gas Guzzlers Tax". Put a big V8 in a car and they get dinged, compared to the same engine in the same weight Truck. The result has been to move our population to trucks, promoted aggressively by the manufacturer's advertising, drive train and pricing strategy. Meeting the CAFE - Corporate Average Fuel Economy is job-one. What better way than to eliminate the "passenger vehicle" from the equation.
My household has never owned an SUV. We are fans of wagons, like the Audi A6 Avant, not marketed by Audi in the USA since 2011. Customer demand, you say? The A6 Avant outsells its sister sedan in Europe.
Want to reduce fuel use in this country? EPA should rescind its free pass to any truck that is actually marketed, sold and utilized solely as a passenger vehicle.
The Plymouth PT Cruiser was an early response. Regardless of its diminutive size and clear role as a passenger vehicle, this was considered a truck by the EPA and yielded a break in Chrysler's CAFE goal for each one delivered in place of a similarly-sized passenger car. BTW, the "PT" nomenclature was derived from its design code name "Plymouth Truck".
23
"Let them eat SMOG!"
Trump, the corrupt, arrogant, thoroughly evil bull in the china shop is trying to see how many things he can destroy before he is shown the door. Unfortunately, there are just as many greedy, insolent politicians and business persons ready to join him in the evisceration of the gains we've made against pollution.
If there is a Hell, I hope it's polluted beyond imagination and these self-serving, horrific individuals have to live there.
22
The Federal agencies responsible for regulations that protect people and the planet have been taken over by anti-regulatory lawyers and lobbyists.
Andrew Wheeler might have a callous disregard for the human and environmental toll of the coal industry he lobbied for, but unlike his predecessor Pruitt, he isn't stupid.
Scott Pruitt blindly tore apart Clean Air and Clean Water rules that were built on extensive science, ensuring years of legal challenges, losses and regulatory chaos.
That is why industry leading companies are generally well ahead of the regulatory schedules while the laggards struggle with compliance. US automakers have historically lagged foreign ones in fuel efficiency but are catching up with models like the 36 mpg Chevy Equinox SUV.
8
Republicans are the best at adding connotations to words and conning people into believing their interpretations. Regulations are protections. Protections are good things, not bad. The GOP has managed to convince enough people, other than corporate America--who needs no convincing--that regulations are bad for business and therefore, bad for America. When a corporation is defined by profits, it will do anything to improve its bottom line, even at the expense of it consumers. Dirty air and water hurt us, but help the profits of corporations. No company voluntarily does anything helpful for consumers unless A. it's forced to or B. it will help them make money. I want the government to protect me from the greed of Corporate America. Please.
16
I think that when a large tractor trailer truck hits a car head on a fatality will occur in the car, no matter how fuel-efficient. The reasoning behind the argument that lighter cars will kill more people is faulty in every way, typical of what the morons who have proposed this idea.
We are currently in France on vacation and every car here is small and light, the majority manufactured by the French. Maybe if the big cars manufactured in the USA were imported to France lots more people would be killed in the small French cars. Big cars kill people and stupid ideas kill even more.
Follow the energy company money.
97
By ignoring science, dismissing inconvenient economic data, and violating their constant advocacy of states’ rights, Republicans have been able to produce a policy that rewards their corporate backers in autos and energy. If automobile manufacturers succumb to the allure of short-term profit, it will also sentence them to obsolescence as the rest of the world progresses toward higher efficiency transportation.
16
@ChrisM
The EPA has been ignoring economic data for decades. When the Obama regulations were hurriedly issued ahead of schedule in late 2018, after Hillary lost the election, the EPA announced that the new standards would mean that consumers would spend some x billion less in fuel costs over the life of the vehicles. What they omitted from their announcement is that the consumers would pay two times x in higher auto prices. Because of the increased capital cost that had to be paid up from or financing, adding costs, people would delay replacing old vehicles, which means the improvement in air quality the EPA was calculating would not take place.
Naturally a president that flies around in his own airliner-sized jet couldn't care less about pollution. One trip to Mar-a Lago for a round of golf probably uses more fuel and produces more pollution than all the cars in a town of thousands.
On one hand, American consumers have spoken: most of them probably DON''T care about pollution or gas economy. They want big, macho vehicles, even in today's high gas prices. So they're the ones who will pay for the poor gas mileage Trump wants, especially in rural areas that voted for him.
Conservatives don't want increased minimum wages. They don't care if rural voters get health care. They don't care if their gas bills go up. They don't want them to have the latest clean energy. This country is falling behind.
46
@Scott Cole
When Republicans took control of the Senate in 2016, they restored funding to rural hospitals that had been deleted by Obamacare, and also reinstated SCHIP, which was eliminated under Obamacare.
Democrats had stripped funding for the most vulnerable.
Rural hospitals in both expansion and non-expansion states because of the elimination of supplemental payments that had been paid by Medicaid to facilities that served a high proportion of Medicaid payments. It was many of the defects of Obamacare that Republicans warned of and why no Republican voted for it.
Republicans believe that taxpayers should support those in need. Democrats created an insurance program to benefit big medicine that had premiums so high that households up to four times the poverty level needed subsidies to afford them.
@Scott Cole They also didn't want slavery to end, women to vote, or to end the practice of children working in factories. I don't understand why any sane person votes republican.
The reversal of this one regulation shows the difference between a president who takes his job to the American people and the Constitution seriously and one who is in it for himself. The regulations proposed and adopted by the Obama administration came from a belief that Climate Change/Global Warming was real and based in science. The regulations were part of a global plan to try to stop the damage we are inflicting on our planet. Trump on the other hand believes that Global warming is a Chinese hoax and isn't real. That regulations are bad in any form because they strangle big business. He wants to show the world that America is back in business at any cost. We, the American people and the entire global community will suffer if the EPA continues down this path. Public health is more important then allowing car manufactures to pollute more. If we are all dead or can't go outside what good is a car?
46
@Manuel Lucero
The residents of California, and the other eleven states that have adopted California standards, want to raise the prices of automobiles. They voted for Hillary and are enraged that the voters of the rest of the states, who do not want Obama standards, won the presidency.
The higher standards improve public health in California and other population dense areas that have air quality issues, but not in the nation overall.
@ebmem Why not let the states set their air quality standards re autos? Some highly populated states such as New York and New Jersey, have adopted California's standards. Others such as say Wyoming do not have our pollution challenges.
Looks like we will have to leave it up to consumers to demand energy efficient cars. Hopefully trump won't manipulate the market to make them too exorbitantly priced. Next he will promote gas guzzlers on his stump speech along with his accomplishment list of extinct species and dwindling protected land.
On a serious note, aren't there some conservatives who value clean air and water, pristine land and thriving animal and plant life? Of course there needs to be a balance between development and conservation, but why the sledgehammer approach to destroying the environment? (I know, because he can.)
It will be priceless to see the "conservative" Supreme Court rule in favor of the federal government over California.
10
@AJ
Air quality varies nation wide. California and much of the highly populated north east coast have hideous air quality, and should probably completely eliminate the use of automobiles that are fueled by fossil fuels.
People who visit NYC from the heartland are stunned that people can live with the poor air quality as well as the polluted waters. They are stunned at the incessant road and mass transit noise.
Conservatives who live in polluted cities believe air and water pollution laws should be tightened and enforced.
Conservatives in fly-over country enforce the laws, have clean air and water, and do not understand why the polluting states want to tighten regulations where the air and water are clean, instead of cleaning up their own states.
The California waiver gives California the power to force its regulatory regime on parts of the country that have clean air and water.
@ebmem Lets see credible sources on your claims, adjusted for population density, since far more people live in and far more economic activity takes place in California, New York and the blue states you claim are polluting so much more.
Whoever thought of this rollback deserve reincarnation as a lab rat exposed to noxious smoke to see how fast they develop cancer.
But what can you expect from the Putin/Trump GOP? Chaos for hire, to destroy the U.S. and its alliances. (Think of the insurance TV ad featuring a character named "Mayhem.")
By the way, one must recall the matter of Anne Gorsuch (Burford), Reagan's EPA Administrator. She was basically appointed to destroy it. Think of this when you consider her son sitting on the Supreme Court. Blood tells.
23
I want to see blue sky. I want to breathe clean air. I want to swim in clean water. I could not care less if the company you work for would pay you an extra dollar an hour if it were allowed to pollute the environment that surrounds all of us.
The cost of environmental damage to our planet by business — which is entirely incapable of self-regulation — should never be socialized. We ALL eventually lose if pollution controls are weakened. If you think otherwise, please hop over to New Delhi or Beijing, where pollution is so bad you can’t see the sky, and people are dying from the pollution in rising numbers every day.
24
@ALB
Move to a red state. We have clean air and water.
Get the blue states to stop polluting.
Truly shameful that someone would want more pollution.
Pure and simple, this will kill people.
Please sue to end these policies immediately.
This administration is pure, unadulterated EVIL
71
Trump/GOP main priorities are money/power and hate.No controls on pollution means cheaper cars which means more profits. More pollution means more people will die of complications. Money is king with Trump/GOP; people are at the bottom.Vote out GOP for change. Ray Sipe
15
Stupid idea, people want fuel efficient cars and most of us are looking at hybrids and electric. Why is America looking at the past instead of looking to the future? Electric cars and alternative energy? China will eat everyone's lunch by doing this. America could be the winner in these areas if it would get its head out of the sand. America needs to look ahead and plan for the future now. Plus it would create jobs that last into the future.
31
It's unbelievable just how stupid Republicans are. Here we are in world-wide heat wave directly attributable to man-made climate change and those idiots would happily do away with emission standards to save a few bucks. I used to worry that extinction of life on the planet might come from a US-Soviet nuclear war. I don't worry about nuclear war much any more. I worry about Republicans pandering to corporate greed all while convincing themselves that God controls the weather.
53
Mr.Trump, allowing more pollution while denying the science, and the evidence, of climate change, sounds awfully stupid, don't you think? Are you listening, or are you deaf by choice?
25
@manfred marcus Your main problem is that you rhetorically asked trump the question "don't you think" to which the answer is a resounding NO!
2
The far right politicians like to cloud issues up and use smoke and mirrors to distract people from believing in factual news, factual claims, factual science.
What irony that they like the approach that saves pollution.
3
"Zeal to undo federal regulations" is being debated versus public health and climate change — another sign of the neo-Luddite infiltration in DC. California should be able to maintain the stricter regulations for many legal and states-rights reasons, but the science tells us these emission control requirements have worked to clean our air significantly. The state is on track for 100% renewable energy in the next 10-20 years, again leading the way for the rest of the nation. Do Americans really aspire to live in Beijing-type pollution for a lifetime versus paying a few hundred dollars more for that giant SUV used just to drive to the Walmart?
25
The gas mileage on a 2018 Toyota Prius is 54 mpg highway and the year previous models have an excellent safety record. I agree it will take a lot to reduce trucks, SUVs and the other large luxury cars to meet this kind of gas mileage but the argument that it will make the vehicles unsafe does indeed seem false.
24
@Dawn: I recall an auto executive declaring that meeting the higher standards would be "too complicated." Huh? We went to the moon and back ... more than once. I say reglations create jobs but, because of the political climate, I'm usually met with slack jaws, blank stares or an admonition to read the bible.
Industry could achieve a fleet avenge of 54 miles per gallon with EV’s. I’ve been driving one (first a LEAF, now an i3) for a while here in Trump country in Western PA. EV’s are awesome. I cut through traffic like a knife and haven’t had to worry about fuel or any real maintenance except for tires in ages. The problem is that folks in “the country,” otherwise known as 10 minutes outside a city, love their trucks. Maybe if we didn’t have the chicken tarriff on trucks there’d be more competition and perhaps even have some electric light trucks. The thing is, you know who is pushing for EV dominance? Yep, China. So if they can make them good enough to pass US safety standards - and they already vehicles that do, hello Volvo, Buick, etc. - guess who’s poised to sell some cars?
Detroit doesn’t want to compete with China so Trump is giving them a handicap.
12
The Trump administration’s focus on undoing the progress of those that came before them makes me think it is only a matter of time before it bans the wheel.
29
I recently bought a full size truck that is getting 20mpg on average, and I can see the coastline from 40 miles away without the brown haze, pre EPA emission guidelines.
The marketplace has already adapted, and air quality has significantly improved; this "busy work" of the Trump administration, once again, has a vindictive and backwards component, foremost.
21
Regulations enacted by the executive branch must be authorized by the statutes enacted by the legislative branch of government. Said regulations cannot go beyond the statutory intent, nor can said regulations restrict the statutory intent. Of course the Trumpies want to disable the statutory intentions, and this is not allowed by the Constitution.
3
@tbs
The regulations issued by the Obama administration in late 2016 after Hillary lost the election exceeded what the legislation authorized and did not conform to the law.
Obama expanded the reach of the executive branch beyond statutory authority. Obamabots were unable to get the laws passed that they wanted. So their dictator illegally imposed regulations to achieve what Obamabots were unable to get the democratic process to achieve.
Once issued, it is tricky to get regulations reversed, but Congress has done so through the Congressional Act. For regulations that have not taken effect, it is well within his Constitutional authority for Trump to use ink eradicator on Obama's overreach.
The part you missed in the process is the extent to which Obama issued regulations not authorized by the legislative branch.
It is distressing to bullying leftists that Trump has returned to the rule of law.
This anti-regulatory and anti-environmental roll-back proposal is driven by right-wing ideology along with fossil fuel and some automotive special interests. It has nothing to do with traffic fatalities. The Department of Transportation's attempt to rationalize it on those grounds is spurious, and designed to conceal the real reasons behind the proposed scheme.
Of course, under current conditions a lighter vehicle colliding with a larger and heavier one is at a disadvantage. But over time, under existing fuel economy projections, there will be fewer heavy road monsters and more and more lighter vehicles. Thus the weight and size disparity will considerably diminish. In any case, encouraging increased production of large, heavy vehicles will further contribute not only to an unhealthy environment, but to worsening road congestion, and that too is already a major safety and health hazard.
41
Am I the only person who likes getting better gas mileage? And why wouldn't we want to lessen pollution? Remember what LA looked like years ago when when our cars were burning leaded gas?
Can't say I understand this return to the past. What's next? Trains burning coal? Women covered in "dusters" and passengers removing cinders from their eyes (yes, my grandmother used to tell me about the unpleasantness -- ie. the dirt -- of train travel).
212
@historyprof, that's exactly what these intellectually vacant people want. For some bizarre reason they think it will increase jobs, and make everyone so very happy.
Do they not realize how coal miners suffer with Black Lung, and it is getting worse with more cases being reported.
All these immoral people see are $$ signs.
Every single one needs to be voted out. You vote Republican, you are complicit in bringing this nation to third world status.
6
@historyprof
I was a child in LA during those smoggy early-70s years of brown pollution hanging over the city. In the evening after a day spent playing outside, I'd experience pain deep in my chest when I took a deep breath, even though I had no childhood respiratory issues whatsover. Then in the early 80s, after a day of particularly vigorous outdoor activity I hadn't undertaken since my childhood, I remembered those old smoggy days and inhaled deeply. No pain!
The elimination of leaded gasoline and introduction of catalytic converters changed the atmospheric landscape of LA within a decade and we Angelenos definitely noticed the difference.
8
@historyprof I am 73 and loved the coal fire trains of my youth. They are wonderful in a museum, and on the tourist lines in places like the mountains of Colorado. My Dad worked for the Association of American Railroads in their research department and we could travel free on many trains in the 50's and early 60's. Most were even then no longer steam power. Dad used to tell about visiting the shops of the C and O - a major coal hauler and seeing steam engines less than 3 years old being cut up for scrap in 1951,
I last rode behind steam in China in 1995. It was the middle of the night and in only in one area. The Chinese would not admit that it was steam, because they considered it so backward. 23 years later they have some of the fines passenger rail in the world - way ahead of the USA. Technology moves on -- either get with it or get out. Right now were are in the getting out mode and being left behind.
5
While I realize headline-writing is challenging, I think this one misses the mark and sets up the Times for deserved criticism for loading the dice. Text of story says even those who want more relaxed rules would allow increasing fuel economy standards to be imposed in subsequent years, but then freeze them at lower levels than existing proposal. So it sounds to me like cars would pollute less (than they do now) in future years even with the worst possible outcome. Such hysterical stories tend to discourage civil discussion.
@jim jaffe
Nothing in the rollback of the regulations arbitrarily imposed by Obama prevents anyone from buying a fuel efficient vehicle.
@ebmem
It is not about being able to buy a fuel efficient vehicle. It is about allowing more cars being put on the roads of America that are polluting the environment. All cars should be fuel efficient and non polluting.
@ebmem: Were you among those once claiming that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) requiring incandescent bulbs to be as effient as CFLs was an unnecessary Executive over-reach and dictated which light bulbs (much less commodes) we could buy??? Hypocrisy is so declasse.
I am old enough now, not to die young and have seen a lots things.
In regards to the automotive industry they are very compertive lazy reactive. That is when given a challenge they will want to do it better and faster than their competitors. But if they do not HAVE TO, they will do nothing, except reshape the body of the car.
Anyone who looks to future knows we fossil fuel is not forever, so why not extend its time.
In regards to contribution to global warming, at the very least we should accept Pascal’s theory (adjusted)....if we accept global warming and are wrong we will incur a finite loss, if we do not accept global warming our loss is infinite.
America has been great by pushing bar higher, lower the bar will be the 1st step to our demise.
The question of states rights, interesting this will be, this will be a precedent for the administration advocating central government over state, of course this depends on the issue.
22
Where's the proof that lighter cars lead to more fatalities? Seems as though rolling back the emission standards will bring back more giant, Hummer, Expedition and Excursion-type vehicles, and those will really result in more deaths and injuries when they smash into other vehicles, or people. At least where I live, there are almost no more of those ridiculously giant SUVs to be seen. Bringing them back so they can clog up streets and parking lots, belch out their emissions, and pulverize smaller cars when they ram into them is not something to look forward to.
214
@Ms. Pea Nevermind that testing has shown them to be more dangerous than normal cars, more prone to rollovers and loss of control in collisions. Indeed, they're also more dangerous to others in most collisions, and they likely cause more pile-up collisions as they block other drivers' views of the road ahead.
"Your children will die so that mine may prosper" is the obvious attitude of SUV owners.
2
@robert b: Yeah, and good thing for those lighter, much more highly efficient airplanes, too, huh?
@Ms. Pea My guess is that there is no "analysis" that was done, just like the much vaunted "analysis" of the tax bill done by Trump's treasury dept turned out to be fiction
I'm not an expert here, but it used to be the law that federal statutes set a floor, not a ceiling. So states are free to pass more restrictive laws, but not those that would legalize conduct prohibited by the feds. As to preventing more deaths, setting aside the doubtful estimates, the best way to lower accident deaths is to reduce speed limits. When national speed limits were reduced to 55 mph on interstate freeways in response to the middle east oil embargo, the death toll from accidents was reduced significantly. This is another con job designed to help only corporate America.
142
Traffic deaths have been on a decline for decades. They have recently moved up a bit, likely due to cellphone use while driving.
They did not decline more during the 55mph limit period.
2
@Eero
I agree and so will almost every highway patrol officer and traffic expert in the nation. Speed, alcohol and not using seat belts are the major causes of traffic deaths and injuries.
Everyone who has taken a driving course knows these things, but it seems the policy makers in the current administration haven't a clue. Studies show an advantage to the occupants of the heavier vehicle in any crash, and that reductions in gross vehicle weight results in a modest but measurable increase in vehicle to vehicle auto accident deaths.
But the same studies show 10,000 or more of the 40,000 people killed on our roads annually are because they didn't buckle their seat belts. This despite signs on most every major highway in most every state announcing "click it or ticket" penalties for seat belt scoff laws.
It would seem if the Administration had any real concern for the safety of its motoring citizens, it would be investigating methods of increasing seat belt use rather than proposing emitting more air pollution from the nation's tail pipes.
2
@Fred p
As I said, I'm not an expert. But according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration report of 1978, the 55 mph speed limit reduced fatal accidents on national highways by at least 4,500 in its first year of application. I'll rely on them.
The public has every reason to deeply suspect the claim by this Administration that the "Obama rules" would cause more motoring fatalities. On its face, counter intuitively, it would seem that lighter vehicles would result in reduced impact forces. There is little doubt that this is the most anti-scientific Executive Branch in modern American history. It would be useful if there was a follow-up article setting forth any scientific bases for this bold assertion that thousands of deaths would occur.
100
As a postscript, I failed to mention that the recent equipping of new vehicles with a range of safety/collision prevention devices should have a significant impact on the reduction of deaths. Was this factor part of any analysis?
13
@John Grillo Especially as the article notes at the end that millions of dollars worth of complex analyses were done on this issue under the Obama administration, and they found that the regulations would actually save lives.
1
@John Grillo My guess is that there is no "analysis" that was done, just like the much vaunted "analysis" of the tax bill done by Trump's treasury dept turned out to be fiction.
There are actually two proposals. The first one does not rely on the second one being implemented. The first proposal is to roll back some of the Obama regulations and then freeze them. If the EPA follows the same type of process this time as before, it will pass muster in the SC, and Trump will win on this issue.
The second proposal is to strip California of the right to implement its own stricter standards. This right was granted by Congress and signed into law by a president many years ago. Therefore, the Trump administration can not unilaterally undo it, and Trump will lose on this issue.
This means that the US will have split standards, which we used to have, and is no big deal.the real question is whether consumers in states where there is a choice will prefer to more expensive, better fuel economy cars or not. That is the $64 question.
9
@Luxembourg
You are missing a significant point.
The California waiver grants California the right to impose its desired standards nationwide.
In effect, the federal government cannot set the national CAFE standard at 35 mpg unless California agrees, as long as the California waiver is in place.
This exists despite the fact that if the federal standard is 35 mpg, California could still provide sticks and carrots to induce residents of California to meet the 54 mpg standard. There are cars available on the market today, that if consumers in a free market chose higher cost vehicles in exchange for higher fuel efficiency, would result in an increase in average fuel efficiency.
The free market today is not generating CAFE of 54 mpg because of economics. Consumers, on average, do not like the tradeoff and prefer autos with lower mpg. As a consequence, auto manufacturers discount the high mpg cars and charge a premium for the low mpg vehicles. This socializes the cost of the government's desire to reduce fuel consumption.
The reason California, and the other 12 Democrat controlled states who use California standards, are fighting to allow California to dictate auto standards is the money. If 13 high population states were coerced by their state governments to buy a fleet with a 54 mpg fleet average, it would increase demand for high mpg vehicles and the auto makers would no longer have to discount the vehicles. California, et al would lose their red state subsidy.
Back in the days when Detroit auto makers were engaged in a competition to see who could build the biggest SUV, regardless of the cost to buy, never mind feed, Ford leaped into the lead in the early aughts with its new Chevy Suburban-dwarfing Excursion. Humorist Dave Barry joked at the time that in response General Motors was rushing a new leviathan, the Chevrolet Subdivision, into production. While advertised as having fuel economy in the low teens, in actual use, single digits per gallon were the norm.
Were these behemoths safer for their passengers? Absolutely, in much the same way that up-armored Humvees better protected our soldiers in Iraq. But the unfortunate occupants of any normal-sized automobile involved in crashes with them were proportionately more at risk of injury and death. More than one unit of these vehicles was purchased as a form of self defense rather than as basic, necessary transportation.
Trump's plan will bring back this bizarre selling point.
87
Actually the Detroit auto manufactures have said current sales are good with newer standards--and that they will continue to manufacture the better standard vehicles.
1
@Glen
Although you would like to paint a picture of auto makers being evil actors, it is CAFE standards and automakers desire to stay in business that drives their marketing strategy.
It costs a baseline amount to build a car, let's call it $13,000 for the sake of argument. The technology to effect high mpg costs an additional $4,000. So a hybrid, costs $17,000 to build. An SUV costs $13,000 plus an additional $3,000 for the extra materials. Each of the two has the same labor cost. Sales commissions, inventory and distribution, warranty support, overhead, R & D, etc. add another $6,000 per car, [ignoring the cost of elective upgrades like sun roofs and leather upholstery.]
The auto maker sells the base hybrid for $20,000 and the SUV for $40,000, with the hybrid costing $23,000 and the SUV costing $22,000.
The reason the building of high mpg vehicles has moved to Mexico is to reduce labor costs.
Eliminating the unwarranted Obama CAFE increases brings the market closer to rationality.
Remember how industry kept putting asbestos in sheetrock and a ton of other building stuff even though it was known to kill people, how it still turns up all the time when people do renovations in their homes?
Remember how industry kept putting lead in housepaint and sodder for drinking water pipes, how lead still contaminates a lot of our drinking water and will for a long time?
Remember how industry spread PCBs...
Remember how the tobacco...
Remember how...
This is why we need deregulation of course. Regulations hold industry back, hold our economy back. Its about the economy, right?
309
@George
You nailed it on the head.
Perhaps, it is 'Making America Great, Again'- by doing what provides instant gratification and letting the future generations face the music.
@George
Well said George. This should be brought up by democrats during the next presidential debate!
Market forces are going to deem this argument moot soon enough. Electric vehicles are going to make combustion engine vehicles obsolete soon enough. Electric vehicles are faster and much more efficient. The only reason electric vehicles have not already taken over the market is because of the immense power of the oil & gas industry. Of course a Shell gas station is not going to put in a Tesla charging station and that is where the problem is right now. As soon as the infrastructure for electric vehicles is big enough, they will overtake gas vehicles in no time. That will then make this argument pointless as folks will buy the better electric vehicles and gas vehicles will be relegated to the junk pile of history.
95
@Mike L, especially with the price of gasoline climbing, more people will switch to electric vehicles. This roll back is ridiculous! Most people want better gas mileage as the cost of gas takes a big chunk out of their wallets.
5
I have an electric now (a Leaf), and I love it!!
4
Is this statement accurate? (My boldface)
"HER analysis shows that the Obama rules would lead to as many as 12,000 more traffic fatalities."
Heidi King's BA in Econ and Math and a little more Econ from Cal Tech is about enough to be both overconfident and seriously naive. If this is truly about HER analysis I want to know a whole lot more about it and the various other analyses mentioned at the end. And I even have a long-standing sympathy to concerns about tendentious or conflicting EPA regulation.
Science in the service of prior belief is a very slippery hill to sit on, but many do.
10
Oh come on...just let them completely trash the environment, increase air pollution till it kills most of us and let acid rain kill the rest and while we're at it let's put the lead back into paint and gas, use more carcinogens and poisons in our food chain, get rid of the VOC restrictions, get rid of wind and solar and anything else vaguely "clean", use ultra dirty burning coal, kill off all endangered species, use the last of our clean water, deplete all waterways of water, etc. not only will you get an increase in short term profit, but there is the added advantage of having fewer people in need of social security, medicare, obamacare, VA benefits, etc. then they can incarcerate the rest (including the hypocritical machiavellian christians) on a trump disloyalty charge and offer them a chance to work in a prison sweatshop at $0.25/ hour (see they're paid so it's not exactly slavery).
MAGA? Uh, no, not like that. Resist.
269
@SW, the absolute worst administration I have ever seen in my lifetime so far.
Bar none.
1
I can't help but notice -- with considerable disgust -- that Wheeler's argument against rolling back emissions standards has everything to do with how this administration looks after the inevitable courtroom proceedings, and nothing whatsoever to do with the environment!
The EPA, established by a Republican president, has a clear mission. And everyone on Team Trump seems content to disregard the mission of his/her department in the interest of serving other masters. I wish there were such a thing as political bulimia, so the nation could purge all the new, conflict-laden personnel populating our agencies and replace them with qualified individuals who understand that drawing a publicly-funded salary demands that one serve the public weal.
140
How could anyone in heir right minds (nevermind one who has sworn to protect the nation) intentionally open regulations TO MAKE OUR AIR LESS SAFE. They are derelict of their duties and should be fired. 2018 and 2020, here comes We The People stronger than before.
136
What did we do to deserve such unmitigated ignorance and corruption in our government? Has anyone in this benighted administration noticed that the world has become a blazing inferno? There is absolutely no valid reason to roll back auto emission standards.
206
@CW What we did to deserve such unmitigated ignorance was to elect Donald J. Trump and this Republican led Congress. We can begin to correct our unmitigated disaster by electing an opposition Congress in 2018 and a more intelligent POTUS in 2020.
6
@CW. Sadly, 63 million voters found Trump’s racism and financial corruption somehow appealing.
1
Every federal environmental law on the books - most of them originally enacted during the Nixon administration - expressly allows States to impose more stringent pollution standards than the Federal ones. This was a Republican gesture in favor of States' rights. In 1970, when the Clean Air Act was passed, Cal already had a groundbreaking air pollution law in effect, and the Federal law was written expressly to allow California to continue its program to deal with what was then some of the worst smog in the world. The California air pollution control program has been hugely successful, and has never been questioned by any administration, Republican or Democrat. But now we have a vindictive President surrounded by a bunch of buffoons. Yes they will lose in Court.
240
@David
Conservatives are all for states rights, except when to pursue some liberal agenda. Then they are bad.
The safety argument is ridiculous. Formula One and Le Mans cars are extremely light weight, get in very high speed crashes all the time, and most of the time the driver gets out of a thoroughly mangled car by himself. If the designers design to make them safe, they are safe.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety offset head-on video with a much heavier Chevrolet Bel Air vs a 2009 Chevrolet Malibu would have resulted in a dead Bel Air driver, while the 2009 Chevy driver would have experienced limited injuries.
https://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/a-2009-chevy-malibu-destroys...
1
What evil cartoon character would increase pollution from cars and kill endangered species?
245
@Armo “Our Cartoon President” ?
3
@Armo
could it be Donald J Trump?
2
The level of stupidity displayed by senior administration officials, and transportation department heads, on car emissions seems mind boggling.
It’s one thing to ease into new regulation and stricter emission standards, but who in their right mind would oppose cleaner cars and trucks?
Who are these people that are fighting against pollution control?
Do they get in their cars in the morning, drive to work at an air cooled office and drive home again? Never exposed to exhaust pumping buses and trucks, on busy city streets, where the average person works and lives, in most cities?
And how about kids and infants, in particular? Ever considered what they breath when walking, running, or being pushed around in strollers, while buses and trucks pass by?
The USA was in the fore front of emission standards, California in particular, and set a standard for the world to follow. The USA should show again that it is willing and able to tackle the enormous challenge of both air pollution and carbon emissions!
260
@Andrew B. The following states have adopted the California standards and would also be affected: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico (2011 model year), New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and District of Columbia. Colorado is due to adopt the CA standards in 2018.
Yeah, in the US we get to have more pollution. Meanwhile in China they will be making one million electric cars per year, powered by solar panels.
Not a good time to be breathing in the US.
186
@CC While I agree in general, perhaps you haven't experienced breathing in Beijing or Shanghai anytime in the past 15 years. Not fun
@CC It's interesting that China, a country famous for outrageous pollution, seems to be on the cusp of being the new environment tech leader. We're stuck with a poorly educated oaf who wants us all to heat our homes with coal and drive '56 v8 engines,
As a Californian, I see Trump's plan as contemptible and nauseating.
Los Angeles, in particular, has been fighting air pollution caused primarily by transportation for many decades. In the 1960s and 70s the air was a deep brown color in summer, could be tasted, and gave me and others headaches. The improvements created by air pollution standards on automobiles has yielded stunning improvements in our air.
In spite of the improvements, LA still has some of the most unhealthful air in the nation and still needs work.
Automobiles are the biggest contributor to our smog!
Trump's plan is no less than a deliberate slap in the face to California in an attempt to affect our health. He believes he can shoot someone on 5 avenue and get away with it and feels he can poison California.
Thirteen states and DC share California's concerns about the air, representing a substantial fraction of the country's population.
King Trump needs to take his authoritarian punitive whims back to his golden apartment in Manhattan and let states determine for themselves what they need for maximum air pollution standards. If the Feds want to set an overall minimum standard that is different, let them. The fact that California standards may in fact run the auto manufacturing standards for the nation is irrelevant. Let the folks in small states modify their cars to barf out smoke if they want, just keep those cars and their poison away from us.
201
@dpaqcluck Yes I grew up in LA when freeways started to grow and the LA basin was a dark brown color. I remember when factories also had to adopt air pollution controls, my father's plant being one of those, He complained about the cost, but managed to comply and still do well.
Health and safety count for something in a world where Trumps only see money and the bottom line, I'm proud to be a Caifornian standing against him
3
The problem for the retrograde Luddites of the GOP is that technological development in all areas is what leads to economic growth and stability. So, while they like to be loyal to those who pay for their campaigns, the actions they take to do so weaken the US relative to the rest of the world. Invention and progress will not stop simply because the GOP is into protecting old failing industries who just so happen to retain big piles of money. Clean efficient energy sources, alternative vehicles, and pollution reduction are not just good for the health of the people, it is good for the health of the economy. Those who say otherwise are simply a cult of ignorance.
224
@Chris The truth is that the septuagenarian oligarchs are more than willing to sacrifice the next five hundred years so they can line their pockets for the next ten or fifteen. This has nothing to do with science or ideology- just greed.
God help us!
1
@Chris,
An example of protecting old failing industries. . .
There has been for decades a 25% tariff on light trucks coming into the USA. As a result of this free-market distortion, the light trucks sold in the US tend to be huge, fuel-guzzling behemoths which when driven aggressively and get out of control, cause a disproportionate number of injuries and fatalities to the drivers of smaller, fuel-efficient vehicles. This light truck segment of the auto industry is also the most profitable for the "Big Three" and sales of F-series Fords, Ram-series Dodge, and Silverado and GMC trucks are in that most-profitable category, so much so that for instance Ford is pretty much ceding the sedan to the Japanese and Germans in the US market.
A further glimpse of the market distortion caused by this protection of the US light-truck market is that US trucks used by trades people are so different from the smaller, lighter, and more fuel-efficient trucks one sees when in Japan and Europe: the carpenters, locksmiths, electricians, plumbers, and home-appliance repair workers who come to business and residential locations to do their work *all* drive smaller vehicles than their American counterparts. Why? Well, look no further than that 25% tariff.
Right now, we have the technology to almost completely electrify our transportation system and power it using solar, wind and other renewables. It would require a huge investment and some learning on how to run & manage a more diffuse grid.
1
As a (proud) Californian, I find these efforts by the current administration reprehensible but expected. Nothing is off-limits in their race to the bottom, but, hopefully California can continue to pursue the stronger environmental policies that the population here supports.
From the excellent NYT 2016 interactive voting precinct map, I discovered that, in my neighborhood, Donald Trump was the third-place candidate garnering only about 3% of the vote, trailing Jill Stein.
Trump is not our president. We support our excellent governor's efforts to defend us from these rubes in DC.
187
@robert b
Yes, he's not. That's the key. I know everyone knows it, and that I'm preaching to the choir here. But really, we could do a lot better at putting the imbecile on notice that most of the people: don't consider him to be the president; don't want him to be; never did. A large majority despises him. That's most of We the People, in America. He is not wanted. No respect. Every real reporter's every question should preamble that way, e.g. "Given the obvious circumstances of your minority occupation of the executive branch of the people's government...". Or, "Given that you're only here on a technicality that clearly subverts the will of the people, as with your GOP antecedent imposter..."
I know, we're tired. But we could do better. They could be embarrassed, even if it's without their knowing it.
And thanks for being you, California.
I grew up in Pennsylvania, and I can remember when we would go into Philadelphia for the day, I'd get home and feel dirty all over, craving "clean air" to breathe. This was in the 60's and 70's. Just recently, I was in Philadelphia again for a conference, and I marveled at the difference. I didn't come home feeling like I needed to take a shower just because the air was disgusting. Why in the world would we want to return to those days? The roll-back of regulations, and the attack on state's rights to implement their own, stricter, level of regulations is mind-boggling to me. What is the point of all that?
33