Wouldn't you think saving money on fuel expense would be good for the economy and good for the environment? That inventing new technologies both creates jobs and new business technologies. Why would you want to go backwards? It would be like deciding to stop space exploration. This is backwards movement by people who are against new technology and economic growth.
5
Well, the US won't be exporting many cars if their emissions standards are lower than the rest of the worlds.
The German car manufactures won't having less competition.
Our "former" President, after decades of scientific research and evidence of future peril, put forth aggressive standards to encourage and challenge industry to come up with solutions to make driving a reality for our kids and grandkids in the years to come. The goal, really, was to eventually remove gasoline powered anything from our future. It is a bending curve that would play out over the next three or four decades. It was an acknowledgement that we are past the tipping point of a warming planet accelerated by carbon emissions, and a nod to the Paris Climate Agreement. The USofA was going to show the world that we would play a significant role in the manufacturing of Eco-friendly vehicles for everyone. The evidence was clear at the recent L.A. car show where car makers across the board had alternate fueled vehicles on display.
This roll back started with the current administration walking away from Paris, and hoping, I suspect, that someone else would provide future solutions while insuring that we Americans would still be able to buy our gas and get to the grocery store -- until ultimately the gasoline engine is banned from the planet. I’ve read about and listened to the administration’s arguments over the past couple of days where the claims are about the economy of the current world. But hey, soon the innovation that we Americans inspire will move elsewhere, and we'll be driving foreign electric cars, and the dollar is no longer the world currency. Sad.
2
If you live long enough you start seeing history repeat itself. Trump is a crude version of Ronald Reagan and like Reagan he is willing to sacrifice the planet for the interests of fossil fuel corporations. The world had a chance in the 1980's to deal with climate change but Reagan and his anti-regulation EPA administrator Anne Gorsuch (mother of Neil) rolled back Jimmy Carter's CAFE standards. Reagan removed the solar panels Carter had installed on the White House as part of his war on solar energy.
President Obama surrounded himself with intelligent people who believe in science and facts who concluded the most pressing issue of our time is climate change.
It's quite likely that it's too late to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere to a point where we avoid worldwide catastrophic conditions. The question now is how soon that will occur?
Given the complexity of the systems involved, and potential bifurcation points scientists have not adequately modeled, it's possible we will see accelerated climate change in the coming decades which make large portions the planet unrecognizable and uninhabitable.
As the lower 48 starts to experience more extreme weather that deal we made with Russia for Alaska is looking better all the time. If Horace Greeley were alive today I think he might say "go North young man.."
3
Uncle Sugar never should have allowed Colonfornia to have its own set of vehicle emissions standards. The results of that seemingly harmless move from 1970 has emboldened Sacramento to shove its agenda on every other state in the union.
1
And the basket of deplorables will now add "pro-polution" and "pro-global-warming" to their "pro ignorance" platform. GOP Elected officials - stand by your man right?
4
So from 2020 forward, our fuel mileage average will be 37 MPG. Let's look at this from a balance of trade standpoint. In 2020, here are the average MPG goals for some of the markets to which we might like to export cars... China 48 MPG; India 49; Japan 50; Canada 55; South Korea 57; and the EU also 57 MPG. It's going to be difficult to sell cars to any of these especially considering their much higher cost of gasoline.
If I drive 20,000 miles a year in my Ford at 37 MPG, that's 540 gallons of gas. If I buy a Kia that gets 57 MPG, that's 350 gallons of gas, or 190 gallons less or at $3.00 a gallon, $570 less money at today's prices. Gas prices have increased about 43% in the past two years, so that saving could be over $800 in 2020.
Point is, not only will the world market for American poor mileage cars virtually disappear, the American demand for 50 MPG cars will increase.
So Trump is not only hurting the planet, he is crippling our automakers and their employees.
3
In the past few days, president Trump has been making attempts to lower vehicle emissions under the guise that lives will be saved. Absent his calculations, which according to articles in NYTs on lives saved is dubious, is his neglect to state other Impacts from lowered emissions. Risks of vehicular air pollution are a serious matter and one–half of all Americans live in areas that do not meet federal air pollution standards. As a result, poor air from vehicles exacerbates respiratory diseases with about 58,000 premature deaths per year–the majority caused by by nitrous oxides. In addition, in, say, 2013 vehicles contributed more than half of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and ozone that caused an excess of 10,000 premature deaths.
1
I am still surprised that Americans don't realize that we are still fighting the Civil War.
They call it the Culture War now, but SSDD.
Liberals, sort yourselves out and recognize that when anyone from the Slave States of the Confederacy is speaking, they are acting from wounded pride, and dearly want to prove that their traitorous behavior in 1861 was justified.
3
The US could close its doors tomorrow and have ZERO impact on global CO2. Obama's regulations were akin to the kid's joke of "Why are you snapping your fingers?"
Reply "To keep pink elephants away."
"Really?"
"Well you don't see any do you?"
This article interested me because I was wondering why anyone would do something like this, and I still don't understand Trump's mindset when making a rule like this. He sacrifices protection against global warming for a diversified auto market? I believe that Obama was taking a step in the right direction to stop global warming, and Trump just cancelled all of it.
2
Auto Makers - I promise I'll not purchase a vehicle produced by a corporation that (not "who", as corps are not a persons in my book) marches proudly and greedily into the dirty past. I expect there will still be environmentally friendlier autos produced by forward looking companies elsewhere on the planet.
2
California has some of the highest gas prices in the United States. I'm not talking about 25 or 50 cents but a dollar or more. And with higher mpg in many cases it means a lighter less safe vehicle. Recently I saw a brand new Mini Cooper that had rear-ended a Toyota pick-up. While the pick-up had only minor damage it appeared the Mini Cooper was totaled with the entire front pushed up against the engine firewall. The driver was lucky she was not severely injured or killed. Are we to trade driver and passenger safety for better gas milage?
These are actual facts not some hypothetical scientific guesses. Lets not allow the government dictate the value of our lives, those terrible eight years are over.
Carl Zuckmayer wrote 1938:
"The underworld opened its gates and vomited
forth the lowest, filthiest, most horrible demons it
contained. The city was transformed into a nightmare
painting by Hieronymus Bosch; phantoms and devils
seemed to have crawled out of sewers and swamps.
[…] What was unleashed upon Vienna was a torrent
of envy, jealousy, bitterness, blind, malignant craving
for revenge. All better instincts were silenced. […] But
here only the torpid masses had been unchained.
Their blind destructiveness and hatred were directed
against everything that nature or intelligence had
refined. It was a witches’ sabbath of the mob. All that
makes for human dignity was buried.”
2
Make Cars Great Again! My word, what a ridiculous government we have.
2
Oil and gas rule. Absolutely. Their money is what keeps in Congress the people who make laws that give oil and gas the right to pollute. Anything. But it's the voters' fault for being so dimwitted they can't see they're polluting their own air and water by electing these people. And the stupidity of the voters reached an all time high when they elected Trump.
The country is going pay very dearly for that in the next few years. Hopefully I'll be living in Canada by then.
3
There's only one habitable planet of any use to Humankind, it's Earth. Nowhere to go.
Think.
1
I believe this to be payback to the Saudis for spending so lavishly on American-made armaments.
It sure looks like the first thought that enters Mr. Trump's head when he wakes up in the morning is, "What can I destroy today?"
I feel for the poor Democrat who will take over after Mr. Trump. The amount of cleaning up he/she will have to do will dwarf the twelve labors of Hercules!
5
Again, not a single mention of the deleterious health effects of air pollution. Are we living in an alternative world here? Reagan is rolling in his grave.
2
@Kk Shields
Trump's appeal is to those in the GOP who believe that science is irrelevant because pollution and climate change can be prayed away, or that the rapture is coming,or that somehow it's only the Democrats who breathe.
People should boycott whatever car manufacturers choose to go along with this.
5
This country will eventually choke on its own smog, its inevitable. No matter wishful thinking of consumers that that day will never arrive, but their grand children will pay the price. And it won’t be who’s in the White House that would be responsible for the devastation but consumers and voters themselves. Oh well.
7
I have very mixed emotions about this. On the one hand I hate to see more actions that derail our response to climate change. On the other, as an engineer, I don't believe the existing goals are achievable in the time frame required nor do I believe that electric vehicles will ever be truly viable for interstate travel and trucking, especially in rural areas largely due to lack of electrical infrastructure to the scale necessary and other factors like battery charge rates.
What I'd rather see instead of our Rube Goldberg C.A.F.E. system is a carbon tax. I believe that would drive us (haha) to a mix of vehicles that would be more appropriate to the purpose and achieve the desired reduction in green house gas emissions.
Since when does Trump care so much about poor folks needs to buy safer cars? And if he does care so much there are lots of people who could tell him how to make it easier for these folks--like tax cuts NOT for the wealthy, access to health care for all, etc. rather than raising the rates of pollution that will cost us and our children and grandchildren so much more.
What is the policy basis for Trump's move? Car manufacturers have already integrated the change to efficient cars into their processes. Requiring them to now undo those changes will have a cost. And nobody I know wants to drive some particulate spouting ridiculous behemoth. Very cool.
There no facts to back of the claims of continued environmental protection and shop savings.
3
I would like to say it again, Donald Trump is a pathological liar - never ever trust a flagrant in your face liar. Never
give them a platform- It's disgusting what spews out of his mouth. Cover the ears of your children, turn the channel quick...
Last night, hypnotizing, and endorphin loading his base of glad glazed eyed followers.
The grifter cannot be trusted, and means Our American heritage harm.
1
Trump plans openly to poison tens of millions of Americans. Literally.
6
Once you drive an electric car you will never go back to gas. Who wouldn’t want to fill up every night in your garage for less than a dollar? No more stopping at smelly filling stations. And the vehicles are blissfully silent. They also require almost no maintenance.
By signing up for you utility’s green energy option, or installing solar panels, you can drive carbon free today.
California is building fast charging infrastructure that will make it as as convenient to travel the length of the state on electricity as it currently is on gas. Other states are following.
The EPA needs to focus on what they can do, instead of what they can undo.
4
Maybe... I think you still underestimate the challenges of scaling up charging infrastructure to support mass adoption of electric vehicles for other than commuting. Even if you replaced EVERY gas pump along an interstate highway and had the fastest charge technology possible it would result in large backups and delays for "refueling" stops. And start thinking about the infrastructure it would it would take to supply that many charging stations and vehicles. It all might seem possible when the Teslas running around amount to .02% of all traffic. But Good luck with that.
I doubt that the inhabitants of Trump's America are capable of appreciating the irony of how poor air quality "fuels" increased health problems which are then further acerbated by a lack of health insurance under which to seek care. Of course they will come up with some twisted logic as to if only the wall would have been built, the air would have been cleaner and their kid wouldn't have asthma.
4
When Obama did this, it was for his standing/admiration at the UN. He thought if he made this HUGE change which has impacted many industries, communities, and workers that the other countries would follow. They did not. So, while the US has been cutting emissions for years, in 2012 it was hit with this mandate and no other county is following. China is the worst and didn't commit to any reductions until 2025; they can and have actually increased emissions since 2012. People here don't seem to know what is going on; anyone read more than the NYTimes?
@Ma
May I remind you that the US by far is the biggest per capita polluter on the planet. And this for many more years already than everybody else. The US certainly never has been a beacon in the world of fighting climate change. Please read your history books before you blame the Other!
TRUMPZILLA Claims that the pollution controls add $2,300 to the cost of each vehicle. The estimate is that the cost of eliminating the pollution controls will be a $1,600 increase in the cost of fuel. So the math is simple--even for the simpletons who propose the rollback. It less than 1 1/2 years, the increase in the cost of manufacturing the high mileage vehicle will pay for itself. After that time, it will result in a net savings of $1,600 per year. So the total change in cost is LOWER over the lifespan of the high mileage vehicle, though the price up front is higher. That's typical for sustainable technology. Solar panels and completely electric vehicles have a high initial cost, but the energy from the Sun costs $0.00. Making the up-front higher cost a decrease in the price of energy required to operate vehicles and other high energy efficiency devices.
Am I the only one who remembers the air pollutions problem of southern CA? Growing up in the 50's & 60's the news was about the smog problems in CA. Auto companies produced cleaner autos for the CA market. What has changed in southern CA is the increase in population, more roads with more autos, expanded businesses and some national regulations on auto tailpipe emissions. Improved capture of effluents from all sources has given southern CA a better air environment. But now we must get rid of these regulations because they cost too much to companies and consumers. Clean air is not important as long as the profits remain high.
1
No logic. Trump just wants to undo EVERYTHING identified with Obama because he despises Obama.
6
American Public: "What seems to be the problem?"
Lying Don: "Well I want to scale back emission rules and she asked me why and I said for spite and now she won't scale them back"
American Public: "That's true. You can't scale back emission rules based purely on spite."
Lying Don: "Well So fine then ..then I don't want them and that's why I'm scaling them back"
American Public: "Well you already said spite so......"
Lying Don: "But I changed my mind.."
American Public: "No...you said spite...Too late."
1
Astonishing. Do any of these people realize there is a heat crisis all over the world including the US. These actions will exacerbate pollution and increase climate change increases. Where is the science? Is this more about repealing President Obama's efforts to save our planet? Where is the conscience of the republican party with one disastrous effort after another? Shameful.
5
If this country and its government were serious about exhaust pollution it would raise the tax on gas. The effect would be very rapid. (Anyone remember the Suez crisis?). Smaller vehicles/engines equals less consumption and pollution.
Truck owners: if you actually wish to carry a real load, hire a truck. SUV owners: when was the last time you went off-road - apart from reversing into a flower bed?
BTW, I don't like Trump any more than you but, despicable though he is, he isn't the cause.
1
It would be refreshing if the Trump team just told the honest truth about their strategies.
1) anything Obama did will be reversed, no matter what
2) we have no concern for the environment
3) business profit is the only thing that is important, but only for businesses that send us money
4) oil and coal companies provide money for our campaigns so we’re going to do whatever makes them happy (see #3 above)
3
Trump apparently misunderstood when Don Jr. told him we need more hummers.
The only hope humanity has is if Obama comes out with a public statement saying he wants to destroy the environment, making Trump move to do something to save it, just to spite him, like all of his other policy decisions...
1
If the administration was a honest player in this issue, it would be eager to publish the rise in deaths,, debilitating illnesses, such as emphysema, that are expected due to increased emmissions, including carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, particulate matter, hydrocarbons, and multiple toxins—including Benzene, acetaldehyde, and 1,3-butadiene.
The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the air toxics emitted from cars and trucks account for half of all cancers caused by air pollution.
2
He can do everything he wants to roll back every single policy of the Obama era, but he will never be as intelligent as Obama, or as classy. Nor will his kids ever come close to that standard, ever. And all the money that he has cannot change that. You can't buy class. Nothing he can do in this lifetime will ever change his private part grabbing legacy.
4
I believed that Obama's mandate, not involving Congress, was an over reach on some items (mandating electric car production, which in the end does NOT impact climate change significantly). HOWEVER, the mandate to hit 56 miles per gallon by 2018 was good for all. And more than possible. Since the 70s car manufacturers have known how to increase mileage far greater than 56 miles per gallon, but have not done so. In bed with big oil?
I was also disappointed that Obama didn't listen to multiple parties affected. Climate change (or pollution and resource destruction caused by humans) is the result of population growth, especially in fragile areas - deserts, mountainous regions, rain forests, coastlines. This mandate did little to affect the root cause of human impact on the earth (or US). Many disagreed with a number of aspects of this huge mandate in 2012, but Obama and the EPA didn't listen or compromise. They didn't need to as this was an executive memo.
Not in bed with big oil..more like consumers don't want high-efficiency vehicles. Trucks and SUVs now outsell cars 2 to 1 in the US
1
remember station wagons?
It is time for all of us to accept that we have a global economy, and sometimes better cars (and other products) are made outside the US. The only way to compete in such a market is not trade wars, it is education, training and creativity.
My Toyota Prius met my needs well for 14 years before I traded it in for another Toyota hybrid.
4
@Adult and former lucky child, unfortunately for the world, in another part of town there’s your counterpart who feels exactly the same way about their giant Ford Excursion. The world could be a nice place if not for them.
1
Some of the fuel economy measures are intrusive and annoying. For example, stop and start, which shuts the engine off at a stop light, and then restarts when you are ready to move forward. Any failure, and the car is left stalled on the.road, likely blocking the intersection. On some cars, this"feature" can be defeated, but on others, it cannot.
Another is cylinder de-activisation, where the engine runs on less than all cylinders at light loads, creating engine stumbles, and possible durability issues. There is nothing sillier than a Corvette, which gets about 28 mpg on 8 cylinders, shutting half of them down to raise that to 29 mpg
@RM
In most sane people’s minds there is nothing sillier than a Corvette.
1
Cause they are not silly...they're sexy...
Lets test every gas powered truck and car just like the VW diesels were tested. Then we can talk about whether or not the existing regulations are actually meeting the requirements in the first place. -- In other words the science is suspect and we need to clear that up first.
the state of California is a very large state and has a very large population. are the republicans now taking the position against states' rights? if the reidents of california want to try and protect the health of its citizens why is Trump against such endeavors? is it greed, stupidity, hatred?? why?
2
In my experience, both parties trumpet states' rights when it suits their needs.
Trump hates Jerey Brown for standing up to him and pushing back the rhetoric. Trump also holds grudges...
So, you are worried about the horrible! terrible! trade deficit.
SO you legislate cars that are unsellable anywhere in the world but MAGA Land.
This helps, how? And hey, it's global warming, pile on!
1
Now Trump is doing more for car pollution for ever way to kill more people has he shown in the world. The US knows to improve more ways to delete pollution.
We need to stay on the forefront of all advanced technologies including alternative fuels and fuel efficiency or the Chinese will do it and leave us behind.
3
How can Trump decide to simply allow widescaled polution in numerous ways of the country he stands for and should love to lead? Which human being likes tot polute his land, country and backyard? How can Trump ignore climate change? How can he allow non-protection of wildlife, water- and airquality and landscapes? And so ignoring the most important quality in living: health, and maybe the todays most important economic point: sustainability. Even my 10 year old son is worried about Trumps behaviour! Trump only counts the short term money for his so beloved filthy industries ("Lets drain the stamp": hilarious!), rich friends and his blinding Obama hate! In his opinion no one is more genius than he is (really laugable!), what an incredible acknowledge of himself... Yes, the US is having a president with the brains of a six year old child, not having a view of the world and what happens in it. Unbelievable that so many US citizens allow this to happen...
3
The car company's should be prepared for a swift backlash from consumers if/when this passes legislation. Their support of these rollbacks is nothing short of "conspiracy" with the fraud PINO Trump (president in name only).
2
When you describe any action by Trump, no matter how ridiculous or awful as "significantly weakening one of President Obama's signature policies" - you know that you are writing within your own bubble.
This qualification alone will make this scandalous act by Trump seem heroic to 40% of the electorate who want to overturn everything Obama did and destroy his legacy.
Please try to avoid this phrase. Try "significantly weakening American car-makers' competitiveness on the global market" or "significantly damaging the environment that your children and grandchildren will live in" or ... anything at all that doesn't mention Obama.
A brave Republican president would keep those Obama policies which are good for the country. But Trump is not brave. He has is fan-base and his simplistic themes, and "the opposite of Obama" seems to be one of them.
4
Wikipedia says :
Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror among masses of people; or fear to achieve a financial, political, religious or ideological aim. It is used in this regard primarily to refer to violence against peacetime targets or in war against non-combatants
3
The idea that California, and all the other states that follow California, have some sort of right to set their own standard is crazy. They were given a waiver from the law that gives the right to set standards to the federal Environmental Protection Agency. Deciding not to grant the waiver any longer is a choice the EPA can freely make.
The Commerce Clause in the Constitution addresses exactly this kind of situation, making sure that there is a common federal standard where needed. Come on, California, either follow federal law or secede. Stop this insurrection now.
(I'm sick of California's government. And it's getting worse, not better.)
1
@John Smithson
Then move to West Virginia. You'll love it: no taxes, no governmemt services, no healthcare and all the coal dust you can eat. Republican paradise!
You won't be missed.
3
In terms of long-term malicious effects on our society, our country, and our world, no act merits impeachment quite like this one. Except his replacement would likely be even worse.
The old saw about costing jobs is finding a safe haven in forty five's administration, even though it is patently false. Let's see: workers will lose jobs because they have to make them more fuel efficient? Will there be fewer cars made? Nope. However, by relaxing emission standards there could be fewer people, since smog will get worse in many metro areas. Guess everyone just needs to get a hummer, lock her/himself inside with the windows rolled up, and ease on down the road.
A key point overlooked in this article is the fact that the EPA is required to regulate CO2 emissions per its 2009 endangerment finding (the science-based finding that carbon dioxide is hazardous to human health, and EPA must therefore regulate it). The fuel economy standards put in place during the Obama administration were designed to address car CO2 emissions, per this obligation. So, the question is, what type of legal contortions will the EPA now engage in to justify more lax regulation of automotive CO2 emissions? Overturn endangerment? A long legal road. More immediately, if I gather correctly, the government aims for a PR victory by claiming that lighter, more fuel-efficient vehicles are inherently more dangerous. The argument, it seems, is that the greater number of people who will die by driving lighter, efficient, and therefore less crash worthy cars, will more than offset the human cost of higher CO2 emissions from heavy, thirsty cars. See, the EPA is looking out for your health! But science doesn't appear to support the idea that lighter cars are inherently less safe. One could make the opposite argument- if all cars on the road were lighter, crash impact force would be less, and fewer deaths would result. To make roads safer, ban monster SUVs. Sacrilege, that. And talking points carry the day. ‘Lighter is more dangerous’ is easy to communicate and understand in a world where truth is buried and few have the means, time or bandwidth to wield shovels.
2
Every government official and LEO is driving or riding in some giant SUV but the Feds want us to drive micro cars or electric cars.
Let the consumer decide how much fuel economy he or she wants to pay for.
Most powerful man on Earth discovers his greatest of all powers: turning back time.
He must be giddy at the sight of Denver's Brown Cloud, with air quality WORSE than Beijing's, and probably even holds fond memories of the Cuyahoga River fire, since these are signs of a healthy job market at the expense of public health.
With global temperatures soaring, he must also be pleased with how many jobs are being giving to firefighters. "The firefighting business has never been better, and it's just going to keep on growing and growing."
Back to the future, with Trump, if you can see it.
5
This is a great idea to Increase short-term profits for USA automakers.
Its a bad idea for the existence of USA automakers in the future. While we produce Escalades and Suburbans getting 8 miles per gallon. The foreign car makers will invest heavily in fuel efficiency and electric cars and capture even more market share. Basically, the same thing they did in the 70's. But this next round could be the end of the US auto industry.
Oh and another small detail the environment... The air we breathe, the water we drink and the fish and wildlife that will be further destroyed by the added pollution.
2
Emission's controls have run their course and ratcheting them tighter will result in negligible gains.
Trumps freezing of this approach will provide a major boost to engine conversions from gas to ultra low polluting CNG and potentially, battery operated vehicles.
It will also focus on the millions of deteriorating catalytic converters spewing toxic rare metal particles on cyclists and others. With replacement costs of $2,000 since they are welded with other exhaust system components, this is a major expense.....meaning the major means of controlling emissions is no longer as viable, so vehicle emissions from the existing ones will only get worse.
The other shoe is lowering speed limits down to 50 mph, which even the Union of Concerned Scientists will have a major impact on emissions.
Wrong on everything.
It takes some kind of magnificent stupidity to make this kind of decision.
6
It's all about erasing the black man who was in the White House and his imprints, enriching the oil industry, and otherwise compromising the environment for maximum profit for those who only view the planet as a dollar sign.
3
Thanks god! I was getting tired of liberals and their "clean air and water". Polution is a small price to pay to be able to save a hundred bucks on a car.
4
I love the quote from Myron Ebell, “Letting one state make decisions for people in other states makes a bad program even worse, especially since the state is California, which has been pursuing an anti-car agenda for decades,” Mr. Ebell said.
I have driven in California. Mr. Ebell is so right. There are no cars there. Especially near San Francisco and LA. They never have traffic jams anymore. The dance scene in the movie, "LA Story" was totally fake. Supposing cars ever stop on a freeway in California is nuts. They are so anti-car that you hardly ever see cars as people take over the streets for walking and biking.
I also believe in the tooth fairy.
6
I suppose Trump figures that however hot the planet gets, it will be cooler than where he's going.
4
Everytime I hear the phrase "fight climate change," it makes me realize how truly daft and delirious those on the left are.
1
Another stupid grandstand headline to satisfy Trump's base and prove to them that he's keeping a campaign promise. Oh yeah, and divert attention from Mueller. Does anyone really think any car maker will retool/redesign their emissions because of this? They know that once Trump/the Republicans lose the standards will revert.
4
Selling out the people of this planet because of his obsession with President Obama. Again
6
Helping Putin with oil prices ?
4
Hey, he is on a role! No one has stopped him yet!
1
Seriously folks. We need to vote on November 6, 2018. That is 95 days. This is nothing short of a NATIONAL EMERGENCY. We cannot get rid of the Grifter-in-Chief, but lets clear out the FECKLESS CONGRESS to start and then we can begin addressing the trainwreck at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
7
As a kid eon ago I witness lack of regulations. The landscape looked like a moon crater. http://www.appalachianhistory.net/2017/08/acid-rain-devastates-tennessee...
4
Sometimes, even after the last year and a half, it is hard to believe the sheer ignorance and stupidity of this administration.
They are actually willing to roll the dice on the survival of the human race.
5
This is Trump cementing his legacy as the dirtiest (literally and figuratively) President in American history.
7
If YOU actually want to do something about 'global warming', have a talk with the Sun!
I'm in my seventies and grew up with leaded gas, big heavy comfortable cars, and cheap gas, along with normal climate. Today, it's expensive gas, flimsy little cars, and 'climate change'. Better get back to the old ways!
there were far fewer people on the planet then.
A Drastic Reduction in Fuel Consumption, as well as the Air Pollution, Heat and Carbon Emission from our Automobiles, is possible by eliminating those energy killing Friction Brakes, and using Simple Engineering that can Recover most of their Kinetic Energy while Braking; and using that same Energy for powering their Next Acceleration!. ..just like how a simple Energy Mechanism in a pull-back Toy Car does it so beautifully!, ..Trrrr (= Braking Action), ..Vroom (= A Free Acceleration!).
Our Automobiles made a Huge Energy Mistake right from their creation more than a century and half ago. The Mistake of not recovering their Kinetic Energy while braking and using that same Energy for powering their next Acceleration, and instead wasting all that Kinetic Energy as Heat in those Friction Brakes and using Huge amount of New Energy, Engine Power and Fuel for their Next Acceleration. This Simple and Silly but Huge Energy Mistake made more than a Century and half ago has unfortunately remained till date in all our Automobiles, even after a Century of Motoring experience and many Oil Crisis and Oil Wars, as also this huge Air Pollution, and the Climate Change and Global Warming; and is sadly seen being repeated even in our New Energy or Green vehicles, such as the Electric, Plug-in, Hybrid and Hydrogen vehicles (with even the Latest of Electric, Plug-in, Hybrid and Hydrogen Cars are still to be seen with those Energy Killing Friction Brakes!, ..that too on all 4 wheels!).
3
As per the Laws of Motion, the Acceleration is Free!, if most of the Kinetic Energy is Recovered while Braking and reused for the Next Acceleration; and the Velocity is Free if Acceleration is Not required; or only a little Energy or Power is needed for Vehicles to go at Constant Speed (Energy or Power still needed to overcome Air Resistance, Tyre Drag and other Friction). Our Automobiles need only 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5 or Less amount of New Energy, Engine Power and Fuel, by correctly following the Laws of Motion; i.e. by eliminating those Energy Killing Friction Brakes, and adopting a simple energy mechanism like that of a pull-back Toy Car!, ..Trrrr (= Braking Action), ..Vroom (= A Free Acceleration!). If our Automobiles can recover 80-90% of Braking Energy, they would need only 10-20% of Engine or Motor power for their Next Acceleration, with rest of the Power coming from the Energy Stored in a Transmission!. And as for these New Energy or Green Vehicles such as Electric, Plug-in, Hybrid and Hydrogen Vehicles, a Completely Free Acceleration using the Braking Energy Stored in a Transmission, and most importantly without using any of the Battery Power!. (A Unique Transmission Mechanism that can Recover most of the Kinetic Energy while Braking, as also incorporating a rugged CVT for further improving the Energy Efficiency at Higher Speeds was shown at Autoexpo2000, New Delhi. ..18 years ago!).
The trump argument like everything else that comes out of it's mouth is meant to appease the lunkheads that voted for him. The 1978 Datsun F10 had an EPA highway estimate of 45mpg. This was for a cheap, ugly econo box that you could buy for under $5000. Your telling me that the car companies with all there so called technology and average car price of $32,000 can't do the same without even having to try hard in 2018?
3
They can, but not enough of us want to buy such cars. Also, please adjust your prices to reflect 30 years of inflation.
1
How utterly retrograde, and how pathetically unsurprising.
Yet another reason to vote Democratic in November. STOP THIS MADNESS!
6
Trump is trying to win the Koch brothers back. Apparently it’s working.
1
Trump cares more about getting votes from people like auto workers and fossil fuel corporations than he cares about saving the earth! He just helping the earth go down more quickly than it already will be. What ignorance - which in this case means ignoring truth!
2
The Times Video accompanying this piece is SHAMEFUL ... giving only weak voice to the profound reasons (including saving REAL DOLLAR COSTS of environmental damage prolonged and increased) in favor of the regulations in the first place. Seriously, as if it was a puff piece written and aired on Fox News. Bizarre and hard to fathom. This is not fair and balanced, this is collaboration, witting or otherwise.
I live on the coast of Maine and every summer we get air quality warnings due to low level ozone, typically from the incresed traffic that pours into our beautiful State. This anti-Obama rule change will only make matters worse over time decreasing our health. All for this feckless President’s ego and ties to fossil fuels. And it is based on false science that doesn’t pass the straight face test. Shame on you President Trump and your Administration. Maybe American car manufacturers can sell their vehicles to Russia.
3
Because what the people want is to spend more money on gas and breath polluted air.
Trump, the destructor and chief, fails to know that we have to move forward, less we lose the planet and our survival.
In his world, unfettered profits that serve to self-enrichment for him and his cronies truly usurp the need for clean, air, water or knowledge the planet is heating up.
2
Trump's appeal is to those in the GOP who believe that science is irrelevant because pollution and climate change can be prayed away, or that the rapture is coming,or that somehow it's only the Democrats who breathe.
1
American auto makers are the laziest bunch. Innovate or lose. Making a car that is more fuel efficient is a win/win. If you do it right, you’ll even be able to increase exports. Face it. Fossil fuels are becoming scarce. Stop resting on your laurels from decades past and start creating a future.
3
Aren't people just going to buy the car that is more efficient? People want a deal. If American car companies cannot make a car that can drive 57 miles per gallon then they will likely go to the Japanese who will be able to make a car that can go that distance. Once again Detroit will lose.
1
“It could save up to 1,000 lives annually by reducing these barriers.” How does that compare to the lives lost due to reduced access to health care, gun deaths, and cumulative damage from polluted air and water? Altogether a spiteful “pro-death’ agenda.
1
The American auto industry is nothing more than a criminal enterprise. Collectively they are worse than the Columbian drug cartels and the tobacco industry combined. They are fully aware of the consequences of their actions to obstruct the transition to EV's and other low/no carbon vehicles, and yet they focus on short term profits. California should immediately amend its cap and trade carbon policies to make it financially painful to own and operate vehicles that don't meet the Obama era standards. SCOTUS has been busy hollowing out the clause since the Rehnquist Court.
VOLKSWAGEN payed more than 20 Billion to the US Government for violating the pollution rules.
If the the Trump Admin relaxes car pollution rules then the US can pay back the 20 billions Volkswagen payed.
More individual cars on the roads,most of them with one occupant, burning more fossil fuels at a higher rate, causing there to be more controversial, destructive, dangerous drilling and extraction of those fuels, not to mention requiring more roads to be built with greater community disruption and less space for housing and businesses in order for the cars to be able to actually move rather than just sit and idle, which a great many of them spend a great deal of time doing right now, at least in my community, so that more people spend more of their time sitting alone in nasty, polluted air, not moving, stuck in traffic.
This appears to be the Grand Transportation Vision of the Trump administration, based no doubt on some wildly warped fantasy conception Trump has of what it means for ordinary people to try to move around in this country. (Remember, he’s the man who believes you need a picture ID to buy groceries?) Can ANYONE explain why any significant segment of the American population is rolling over and playing dead in response to the nation-destroying nonsense from this man????
1
Any action that increases climate change is a crime against humanity. It condemns the next generation to a life of misery. The heatwaves killing thousands across the world are a clear indication. Let's hope that better sense prevails amongst the electorates and governments.
1
Between budget cuts and Trump appointees to the E.P.A., the name should be changed to the E.D.A.
1
I am amazed at the ignorance of so many in DC. They could not have graduated from grade school let alone high school. Want proof? Well if the population is to continuously go up the demand for vehicles will continue to increase as well, which in turn will lead to an increase in total emissions at a rate which will be greater than the reductions as set by the Obama administration. Now, a 5% increase in total emissions will be greater than a 4% decrease in fuel consumption. Big numbers, right? How can there be so many poorly educated individuals in our capital today?
Heidi says revoking these rules would save 12,000 lives per year since it would allow people to upgrade to cheaper but safer newer vehicles .
Every portion of her statement, in full, is full of many questionable assumptions.
It's like arguing something is done 'for the children', since who in their right mind would oppose anything to protect children? Yet to say it will and show data that it will are two different things.
Another major step, along these same thought patterns, would be to outlaw any vehicle older than say 10 years. The classic auto enthusiasts and those who cannot afford any sort of newer vehicle.
If I were her, I'd have been embarrassed to have to stand in front of cameras and the nation to utter that far fetched idea lives can be saved with relaxing this rule.
Everything Trump does distills down to profiteering. Exhaust or exploit our natural resources for the present. There appears to be no consideration of future generations besides his and his friends personal fortunes.
The rates of asthma and respiratory related illnesses are about to climb a lot higher in this country.
2
"Their new proposal, they said, would “give consumers greater access to safer, more affordable vehicles..."
What makes these new vehicles safer? Why, new technology like backup cameras, anti-lock braking, and collision avoidance. Are they suggesting that all of these new systems don't impact production costs and are free to consumers?
I think they just want to sell more new cars, and the big, heavy, polluting land yachts that are popular right now are money makers.
3
Okay, what we need here is a little bit of 'back-of-the-envelope' math: As I see it, the increase from 30 mpg to 50 mpg will add $2,300 onto the cost of a car. Now, at 30 mpg and $3 a gallon, gas costs 10 cents a mile. If the average car does 15,000 miles a year that's $1,500 a year for gas. The increase to 50 mpg, 6 cents a mile, brings that cost down to $900 a year, a savings of $600 against 30 mpg! So, the added cost is recovered in just four years. Over the life of the car, 200,000 miles is the new norm, the savings are $8,000. Pretty good return on a $2,300 investment, eh. Now pray the cost of gas doesn't go up (and don't be against this).
2
Why are we putting up with this President?
4
I think this is a shameful act yet again by the EPA and Trump. However I have been musing about this lately, if cars get 10% better fuel economy do we use 10% less fuel or drive more? It isn't so much the ratio of fuel to distance driven it is the absolute number of distance driven - the fuel consumed. If my friend has a Prius and drives all the time and I have a Hummer (God forbid) driven infrequently the Prius will use more fuel and emit more noxious gases. Maybe we should go the other way and make all cars get 1 mpg. Now that certainly would reduce driving.
1
Relaxing the rules...really,..Is this the strongest headline The Times can come up with? The Trump administration justifies the proposal with three (hilarious) reasons: first, people who buy fuel-efficient vehicles will end up driving more, increasing the odds that they will get into a crash. Second, the fuel-efficient vehicles will themselves be more expensive, slowing the rate at which people buy newer vehicles with advanced safety features. Third, automakers will have to make their cars lighter in response to rising standards, slightly hurting safety. I can’t decide which is more pathetic the actual reasons or the headline.
1
The Times accompanying video closes with:
Everyone would win.
Except, some argue, the environment.
It should read:
Everyone would win.
Except the environment.
It is settled fact that the environment is already losing...bigly. And it is unarguable that humans will not win in the end if we don't do everything in our power to bend downward the upward curve of global warming.
1
I’m going to start referring to our president as Pmurt, because he is a backwards-looking President. Backwards on progress and all that is good.
1
Hint to car makers, "California standards" is a "brand" that enhances the value of a car, new or used.
2
What's next? Every car should have a smoker and a handgun?
2
There is absolutely no good reason for this. Just more garbage from the Trump administration. I am sick of it.
2
The more damage he does, the angrier I become with his Idiocracy base, that helped him reach the highest office in the land. We are absolutely a laughing stock to the rest of the world.'Sad"
2
I have never considered myself an environmentalist but I nevertheless recognize the value of reducing auto pollution. President Trump is obviously appealing to his supporters. This begs the question, what kind of people don't want or don't care about cleaner air?
5
I recently moved to a large downtown where I don't need my car. I was planning on selling my 2106 Prius, and buying a new one in 3 years so, when I leave downtown. My car gets 50 mpg.
However, between the steel tariffs, and the push to burn fossil fuels, I am keeping it. I suspect that a car this good will no longer be affordable to purchase.
GOP: nice job on tamping down consumer activity.
5
I watched that slick little video. It seemed less like an informative piece of reporting and more like the talking points of the fossil fuel industry. I know that it was titled "Why Trump is...", but it still should have included a robust environmental rebuttal.
3
My used Leaf has zero maintenance costs (ok one pothole induced flat) has fuel costs of about $0.90 / gallon equivalent and set me back $12.5K. ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicles cost more to buy, maintain and - with these proposed fuel standards - to fuel. So just as with uneconomical coal, Trump is trying to bring back last century’s economy. The fact that this is obviously doomed has been completely missed by him and his base.
5
This reporting, while good on details, is entirely missing the 'big picture' --- which is that supporting the ultra-high pyramid of wealth concentration in this disguised global capitalist Empire requires the 'allowance' of making massive and front-end loaded faux-profits through the scheme of dumping 'negative externality costs' both within the metropole of the Empire in our former country and throughout its global peripheral territories.
There is, of course, some fine irony that the "Asphalt Nation: How the Automobile Took Over America and How We Can Take It Back" [Jane Kay] and similar books like "Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power" [Steven Coll], focus around, if not totally on, the economic fact that making huge fortunes by hiding the 'negative externality costs' to society and our world are difficult to bring up in cocktail parties of the UHNWI's here in America as well as abroad.
Essentially, as I wrote in my first internet article for a Vermont web-site in 1995, "Corporate 'Negative Externality Costs' are the Greatest Hidden Tax on Americans".
This is "Why (Emperor) Trump Is Taking On Car Emission Rules" --- to keep the Empire running.
2
Let's not forget Ford is going to stop selling cars in the US and only sell SUVS and trucks. Consumers are buying big vehicles with generally poor mileage. While the environment would benefit from higher mileage smaller vehicles, many people are going for supersized vehicles. To be fair, they may not fit comfortably in a smaller car.
3
@muddyw are they fat ?
1
We'd do more for the environment by keeping cars on the road longer than we could ever do by enacting strict pollution rules. That's why the cash for clunkers program was such a disaster from an environmental perspective.
All those old, serviceable cars destroyed and put into junkyards to decay could have been driven for years, saving all of the industrial and transportation environmental costs associated with new production as well as keeping cheap cars on the market for people without money.
The most environmentally friendly vehicle is a small combustion engine vehicle driven for decades. That accounts for all the mining, refining, generation, and transportation of all the vehicle components to make a new car.
But doesn't this make American autos hard to sell in other countries who do not turn their back on science? Won't this just enable other automakers to get ahead of the US, perhaps permanently? US Automakers would be wise to ignore these directives, and develop their future cars with an eye towards the future. This administration only looks backwards.
5
I remember when cleaning the air was not a partisan issue. Now it is with the Trump presidency. And those who will end up suffering the most from this are the children. But then again when has Trump been concerned about children?
1
When has trump been concerned about anyone other than himself?
1
The win win of course is mass transit. The MPG close to 50 must be met to be able to export cars, but this alone isn’t enough. It is time to build and massively subsidize mass transit. In too many urban areas it is equally expensive to drive solo relative to mass transit and then of course convenience wins out. Weren’t we all going to work together on an infrastructure bill that would include mass transit?
4
Does anyone still remember how Republicans railed against higher gas prices when for an entire year that's what happened under Obama (for reasons that had to do with global markets, not with DC, by the way)?
And now they want to actively use the power of the federal government to force state governments to impose cars where ordinary citizens have to pay MORE rather than less a mile ... ? And even knowing that that makes it impossible to export and sell American cars abroad, except for continents such as Africa, where corrupt dictatorships still accept dirty cars but whose citizens don't have the money to buy new cars anyhow, so who import only second hand dirty cars ... ?
GOP voters, where's the outrage? What are you waiting for to call your Reps. and tell them that you want them to work in order to MAGA, not in order to destroy the recently saved and now finally starting to thrive again American auto industry ... ?
That the GOP opposed Obama's auto industry bailout (= loans, not taxpayer money given away) was bad enough already. Now you want the government to even kill one of the most important symbols of America's greatness (and creator of real, manufacturing jobs), American cars ... ?
What's wrong with you guys? Why don't you wake up and become true patriots again ... ?
5
The POTUS is a grifter who's is using the highest position in the land to erase Obamas legacy, and at the same time ravish our American heritage and sell to highest bidders.
6
Here’s what could happen. Foreign manufacturers will continue to produce fuel-efficient cars for world markets and will maintain a technology edge in the process. US makers will be cautious about a rollback out of concern over regulatory see-sawing if a liberal administration comes along and reverses Trump’s reversal. But Americans will buy more pickups and SUVs, and will happily motor along with their gas-guzzlers until ... something causes oil prices to rise again. Tough to predict. Then, those same Americans will be forced to spend a larger share of their income to commute, their trucks will lose value and nobody will buy their exurban homes. And with that, all of those libertarian pickup drivers will beg for a government bailout.
1
Meanwhile, China plans to ban all cars with internal combustion engines by 2040. This administration is dragging our country backward.
5
Eighteen months in, the inclination to quit reading and quit commenting grows stronger and stronger--exactly what this administration and this Congress want to happen. Yeah, life goes on, getting up, going to work, having a beer at the end of the day, mowing, weeding, church on the weekends. Things aren't bad--especially compared to people in some other parts of the world--for us, liberal or conservative.
But there is psychological strain--watching day-in-day-out as these fanatics destroy everything good this country has striven for over the centuries, wondering (silently) just how much hatred resides in this neighbor's or that neighbor's heart, being forced to resign oneself to a frightening future for our children--it gets to you. The constant barrage becomes like aging--unstoppable, uncontrollable, finally succumbing to the inevitable.
Wouldn't it be nice if the American automobile industry defied the administration and said it would stick to the targets? Wouldn't it be nice if just one person in this administration had the guts to call out this hideous insanity.
Can't even escape to the sports page anymore--to kneel or not to kneel...
8
Many obvious retorts mentioned in the comments, chief of which with appeal to conservative/pro-business folks is the lack of faith in the engineering prowess of our American auto industry - an industry is finally investing well and headed in the right direction after two bailouts over the last few decades. But, I'd also add the irony of revoking state's rights. Isn't that a conservative goal? Reduce federal authority and allow the states to make their own decisions? If California and 13 other states want different standards (I only wish Georgia was on the list), why not allow it? (somewhat rhetorical, but it's an obvious question)
4
One can discuss legal standards and the right who gets to say what and to rule what.
But there are two aspects that will be even more damaging:
1.) The fact that highly developed cars cannot be maintained by untrained owners as the more efficient a car has to be the more electronics you will have to use in the car. So Trump votes will not like the idea that they cannot take full control over their vehicles any more. Strangely enough, car owners around the world have no problem to hand over the ability to fix their cars themselves when they get much better mileage out of one gallon of fuel. Some people understand that the deal is better and cheaper for them.
2.) The fact that by downgrading the need for more energy efficient designs, the development of new and better technologies will move away from the US those places that still require more brains. So a technology wise already lagging behind US automobile industry will lag further behind the competition in Europe, Japan, China and Korea.
But then again, when has Trump ever understood the consequences of his or any actions?
3
This move may not only fracture the US car market but it will further divorce US car makers from the remainder of the world. As the US goes one way and pretty much everyone else goes another, American made cars will be less competitive and exports will decrease. Just another example of the Trump administration jumping on a short term sugar high which will ultimately lead to fewer US auto worker jobs.
3
What part of making America great does this fall under?
6
@Dan
Hey, don't forget the Saudis treated him like a king. I'm sure that felt great.
2
Make US cars even less fuel effective will do wonders for the US export.
Over here in Europe, petrol prizes are more then double sd those in the USA and consumers, when buying a car, one of the first things they look at are millage.
So we dirve cars with highly efficient 1.4 litre engines and would not even give a V8 monster a second look (not only because of the millage, size also matters. I had a Ford Mondeo once, my wife refused to try to drive it in our ciies, with good cause.
Try navigating a car like that around the canals in Amsterdam, or, even worse, try finding a parking space it will fit in.
3
The Trump and GOP vision of America's future:
Air we can't breathe!
Water we can't drink, wash, or swim in!
Food that can contain any manner of contaminants!
While they can afford to jet off to some other paradise away from it all.
8
I have a great idea for a kickstarter campaign.
I am going to develop a car that runs on clean coal. And it will be built completely out of steel (including the tires because that will eliminate blow outs and save countless lives) I think I can get the contract to supply the federal government with all their cars.
Would you like to invest? If you do, you can be the first person on your block to own one of my coal guzzlers.
1
No matter what the president, little letters, does, it is wrong. He does not know anything, really. He is not likeable either, If I were he, I would work on that last one. NYT, thank you for being a great newspaper.
6
This is horrible. But he will change his mind tomorrow.
2
It's just hard for me to believe that anyone would think this is a good idea except DJT. There must be something in it for him because it makes no sense. As the rest of the world is moving forward, actually doing something about global warming we seem to be moving backwards. California has their act together and has stood up to DJT so he must punish even though it's obvious he is wrong. Neck deep in the big muddy...
5
The greed and shortsightedness of the fraudulent Trump administration knows no bounds.
3
Why must the automobile companies go along with this idiocy? Do the decision makers in those companies have any moral compass at all? We should be beyond having to regulate car pollution standards by now. And the E.P.A. should change its name to Environmental Pollution Agency. This is a travesty, but the automobile industry does not have to be complicit.
7
@Diane
Actually, as this editorial shows, many of them oppose this decision.
That's because they've already been investing a lot in fuel-efficiency since Obama and the Democrats had the courage to put country before Wall Street, so there's no way to turn back the clock except through losing those investments, whereas IF others are now allowed to continue to launch and sell dirty cars, they won't be able to get the expected return on their interests.
That's why from a purely "profit" point of view, many automakers don't like this either.
So it's just a typical, stupid, purely ideology-based GOP decision ...
5
Seems that 62 million Americans have bought a car that only has a reverse gear! Better get that "vehicle" looked at...
What's that you say? You didnt get the car inspected before you bought it? Oh dear, Oh dear...
I suppose you can get a replacement in 3 yrs hopefully, just don't make the same mistake again!
3
When it all comes down to it it's not about fuel at all. It's all about Barack Obama.
Trump becomes crazier be it healthcare, budgets, global warming, trade negotiations, inauguration size, Nobel Prize....again anything Obama touched. Especially true if it benefits Americans and the world. Blind racist rage & jealousies govern Trump, not common sense or reality.
33
Mac. Great insight.
Taking us back to the 1970's again. Trump truly is the Grinch who stole the Presidency.
19
Trump: Bringing America into the 20th century.
3
This rule change will have no impact on the designs of future cars. The automakers are smart enough to realize that most of these stupid changes are going to be undone in two years. Automakers are not going to change course now only to have to change course again two years from now.
13
Let's make no mistake here: this has little to do with Trump, as it has always been on the GOP's wish list.
For decades already, the only political party still interested in environmental safety are the Democrats.
And the exact same thing goes for healthcare, a decent minimum wage (there are only sixteen counties in the entire country today where when you're working a full-time minimum wage job, you can rent a one bedroom apartment, and NONE where you can rent a two-bedroom apartment), a fair tax system, a solid economic foundation, civil rights, a fact-based, rational and as a consequence effective national security, a decent education system, and strong science and research activities.
The majority of the American people are still well-informed and want a free press.
As long as that's the case, we can very easily stop the destruction of America's greatness, by systematically voting all Republicans out. Yes, today a centrist Democrat is MUCH better than a Republican. There's actually no comparison anymore.
The difference between a centrist and progressive Democrat is that the latter wants to go faster/further into the exact same direction as a centrist wants to go - and often both actually want the same thing, the only question being who's proposing the most realistic strategy to get there.
That is NOT an "identity crisis". That means agreeing on the very essence, when it comes to what separates both political parties - whether a candidate is "likable" or not.
5
After one of the hottest summers on record, he does this?
The man clearly cares nothing for the planet, our children's future and apparently cares nothing for his own family's future. Oh, except they probably all live indoors with air conditioning Or have an underground bunker prepared for the time when we won't be able to breath the air around us.
I'm tired of this, the rest of the world has awakened to the fact that there is global warming. Why can't he?
5
It's not just the man, it's the entire GOP. They would never have tried to unite the world to obtain an international Paris Climate Agreement in the first place. And under Bush too, the EPA started working for dirty industries rather than for ordinary citizens.
In the meanwhile, here in Belgium one of the leading newspapers contains an article today that quotes the local Sec. of Environment (yes, they have something like that here), who's a member of the conservative Christian political party and is promising to "adapt the water system to the warming global climate" as the country is going through a totally unprecedented (= since temperatures were recorded) heat wave that is causing equally unprecedented drought and a lack of water.
The same article quotes a climate scientist working at what is arguably the best university here (belonging to the world's highest ranking universities), the Catholic University of Leuven, who confirms that indeed, global warming and climate change is such that we urgently need to adapt the country's water supply system to those very new conditions.
So there ARE no Christians or conservatives here who are trying to make people believe that anthropogenic climate change hasn't been scientifically proven. This is only happening in the US. And it probably wouldn't have happened in America either if it weren't for Fox News, which decided to spread this fake news 24/7 in order to have something to fire up the GOP base (no Fox News here either..).
7
While this may be a boost for his base and the oil companies. This will not help the car companies and the economy. Because like minded people like me will continue to buy the better cars, more efficient, better mileage and just a bit more green. So note to the US car companies circa 1980's if you want to sell cars you will continue to push for what you buyer want or we will not be buying your cars.
2
Follow the money. Who benefits? Ethanol (corn) producers, for one. Iowa, anybody?
Just a casual glance at tonight's news shows: red tide along a vast west coast of Florida, worst ever / wild fires in California out of control killing over a dozen and destroying a 1000 homes / Pennsylvania flooding / Much of Europe in its worst heat wave ever / Athens fires / Sweden's fires / Finland leaving grocery stores open late to allow people to cool off...
What a great idea...add more pollution to the world and see if it helps!!!
5
Breathtaking perversion of the econometric science that was the foundation of the fuel standards. Did anyone expect anything different from the trump administration? Their economists should be ashamed of themselves, but that's unlikely. Perhaps their peer economists will shame them in the journals and in conferences.
2
This is absurd policy making. It seems like bad satire, but it is representative of the lack of intelligent policy making of this administration. Their policy is ideological driven with an energy bias towards fossil fuels along with climate and environmental protection denial.
This leads to the most fatuous and insulting energy policy imaginable. It is embarrassing and threatens our planet's long term survival. Another reason to impeach this incompetent man and to throw out the entire Republican Party for enabling this dangerous man and his many canards!
2
Unless you're brainwashed by Fox News' fear and contempt of science, you know what single value is driving this decision to make America dirtier again: greed, of course.
So how come that a political party that is THE self-declared warrior of Christianity in this country, can cultivate this anti-Christian value even onto the highest levels of government?
I'd tend to think that there's a philosophical explanation here.
We'll take Pence as an "exemplar" for this kind of explanation.
He wants to respect other men's women, as his religion commands him to do.
But the commandments of a religion actually only have very weak enforcement power. So you need rules that are based on the idea that being a man means constantly wanting to go to bed with other women - whether you're married or not. That rule is then designed NOT to help you live in peace with such a desire, or get rid of it (after all, many men do NOT feel this kind of irresistible urge ...), but to help you avoid situations that will trigger your desire, and that is all that you're supposed to be able to do.
The exact same thing goes for greed. It is supposed to be an inherent part of human nature, philosophically, so being/living differently becomes inconceivable. All that you can do is limit occasions. In economics, however, conservatism supposes that greed and individualism are GOOD things, driving any consumer and CEO (not higher purpose or moral values). So there, you cultivate it as soon as you can ...
Maybe it's time to ban seat belts?
They are so annoying and crease my polo shirt...
Why? For heaven's sake, WHY?
1
Another nail in the coffin
Trump: What a future-sited human! Really gets the big picture about global warning, cancer and other breathing disorders. Wow! Aren't we lucky to have such leadership? Leadership that is rapidly leading up to our own demise...Can't wait for my grandchildren to be coughing up their lungs and drowning in over-flowing seas...
1
By the time Trump’s grandchildren are old enough to drive, there’ll have to wear oxygen masks in order to survive the toxic air circulating in their Hummers.
1
Our infrastructure already is decades behind China and Europe. Now he wants us to go back to gas guzzlers.
24
Why is Trump working so hard to destroy the country and the planet? And why does his gang support this? Is greed the only motivator? Or is it revenge? Or unadulterated hate?
He should be required to read the NY Times forthcoming magazine about the end of life on Earth. Not that he would care...
M.A.G.A.: Make Antiquity Great Again.
Coal, relaxed pollution rules, gas guzzling cars, what happened to American excellence?? I know they're trying to fight China on all fronts, but is the Trump admin trying to claim their spot as the #1 pollutant on the planet too??
And, last I checked, the new 'science guy' Kelvin Droegemeier believes in climate change. Welcome to your new job Kelvin. Have fun w/ your new boss and his other advisors, QAnon.
2
If the USA does not want to make ecologically friendly modern cars, I'm sure the Chinese will gladly manufacture them and probably sell them to you. Once again America is shooting itself in the foot.
5
I thought the Republican party was all about states rights. So much for that!
3
What was the name of the President who helped bail out this industry after the recession in 2009???
2
Have "we the people" in the USA become so stupid that the majority fail to understand that this is NOT a benevolent idea to stimulate job growth. NO. NO. NO. It is exactly the opposite.
Trump wants a dead halt on any innovation. If he can keep us all in giant gas guzzlers, his oil buddies continue to collect big guzzling profits. Real estate will boom with oil leases, and Trump can push for pump jacks in all our national parks. Fracking can race forward unabated until sinkholes swallow us all and no fresh water remains. Pipelines will crisscross our nation, leaking lakes of crude that we'll be assured are no problem because oil is, after all, "all natural." Our air will rival China's for it's particulates and poisons;who needs a trade war when you can compete on air quality (or lack thereof)?
If you think this is a jaded or cynical view, just ask yourself why Trump and his minions are now trying to sell the whopper that cars running on "clean" technologies are not as safe as those that burn fossil fuels (gasoline). It's the Trump falsehood du jour.
Do we want a great USA that is a true global leader and merits respect, or do we want a "'Murrikah" that's great all by it's filthy, polluted, reactionarily regressive self? November is coming.
1
How about putting Trump in a traffic jam in LA, Atlanta or elsewhere, let him stand outside and breathe some of the polluted air from the cars. His logic just makes no sense, people will not buy new cars because they are safer, in fact they will not trade in their present car that gets a certain amount of mileage for a new car that is more polluting. His logic is faulty, his brain does not work properly he is a menace to the free world.
6
Sounds like a win for the healthcare industry and big pharma... more toxins in the air therefore more asthma, cancer, etc to treat.
1
I hereby demand that those in the administration responsible for this effort to increase pumping toxins into the environment to desist from utilizing our air until this issue is resolved. That is all.
6
The Trump administration and the GOP are not healthy for children and other living things.
1
This reminds me of the story about the bully stomping on the ant colony. The ants don't cry and give in, they work together to rebuild what the bully destroyed. Trumtin will not be around forever. Everything he's destroyed, we will put to rights again. I really need to hang onto this long term hopeful view or I just can't read the newspaper anymore.
1
Buy car firm's equity! Someone must be already doing it...?
Anyone really surprised?
This and other outrages are not worth debating over. Certainly not any more. There has been enough debate, we all know what he is, where he stands and who is really running things with Trump as the front-man!
Solution:
Turn House in 2018
Get Trump out in 2020 and Turn Senate
Start reversing and correcting damage.
If there is the least bit of resistance from Trump or the GOP, Nationwide strike, Shut down the country.
Simple? Yes. Enough crying.
I guess this would be OK if you could keep the increased CO2 emissions and associated climate change within US borders. Obviously this is not possible, and it therefore really shows what “America First” is all about: to take short term, irresponsible, uninformed, unitelligent, ultra-selfish decisions and then let the whole world pay.
8
At any moment I’m anticipating Rod Serling to conclude this nearly 2 year episode of the Twilight Zone. The things Elmer Fudd’s human persona does is so blatantly anti-Earth, anti-humans, anti-common sense and PRO-corporations...it simply couldn’t be more obvious to whom he serves. It certainly isn’t the constitution’s “...of the people, for the people and by the people” mandate.
2
@David Why is trump also ashamed of an Asperger child, keeping him hidden, for all purposes. WHY is trump ( not my big letter president)ashamed? It will make HIM look bad?
Ridiculous. If Trump is successful, millions more people will sicken or die. Or, car makers will continue to produce and sell "California cars". Or, the next Democratic administration will restore California's exemption- first thing. I lived in L.A. in the mid-1970's- the air was unhealthy and the sky was brown.
4
@ Shillingfarmer - True. And Trump probably still thinks of oil as "liquid gold".
1
I am becoming so weary of all of the backward nonsense coming out of this administration that for the first time in my life, I am researching emigration options. As an American whose ancestors came here hundreds of years ago, I have no natural home elsewhere. But then again, many Eastern European Jews were in the same position in 1937. I find myself wondering how and when each of them decided whether to stay or go. At what point do those of us who want to live in a modern, safe, and intelligent free society decide that the United States as we knew it is gone and is not coming back?
1
@MKV
A clear majority of the American people has never voted for Trump and the GOP, and strongly reject their "ideas".
So I don't think that something fundamental changed in the US.
All that is necessary now is for ordinary citizens to organize and vote.
And after all, wasn't that what "a government by and for the people" was supposed to be about in the first place ... ?
A democracy becomes dysfunctional when only half of the people vote. That goes for any democracy, whether it's the US or a foreign democracy ... . So with all respect, I don't think that running away is the solution. The solution is to stay and engage, organize, and vote ... !
@MKV
Or you could think about it like this: America has the biggest military in the world.
If all the "good guys" leave, we actually hand over the leadership of the country where most of the weapons are, to the "bad guys".
Doing so will only have one result: nobody will be safe anymore, no matter where you live on this planet ...
@MKV
Me too. There is no longer any hope of a future for the United States--a nation in which all federal policies are made solely based on spite, greed and ignorance. The worst part is that a majority of voters are steadfast in opposition to policies that would be mutually beneficial, both socially and economically (i.e. a public healthcare system, environmental protection laws, publically funded scientific research, etc...). The majority only support decisions that they assume will hurt others but not themselves. That kind of sadistic and selfish behavior has transformed our political system into a collective suicide pact.
Too bad it is so difficult to obtain citizenship in other nations (assuming one doesn't have billions of dollars).
I weep for my grandchildren.
4
Dear Grandchildren and especially Great-grandchildren,
I am very sorry that my generation left you an earth so polluted in sky, land, and sea that it might not recover so you can enjoy what once was its true beauty. We, the baby boomers, were a greedy and very selfish generation. We were told to “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.”, but we chose to place ourselves and our pursuit of more possessions before anything or anyone. We allowed a President to be elected who was an anathema to the precepts for our nation established by the remarkable generation of the founders of our country, and upheld by leaders such as Lincoln. We chose to allow our greed to fester into multi-national corporations eventually pushing our very sick democracy into the diseased state of a plutocratic kleptocracy wreaking havoc upon the health of earth itself. We unfortunately may best be defined in Agent Smith’s soliloquy to Morpheus. We tried at times to hide behind the words of a Christian morality, but our actions were antithetical the altruism of Christ. We knew deep in our hearts and souls that how we chose to treat humanity and our precious home was wrong, deeply wrong. Although our selfish decisions are unforgivable, I do apologize.
1
How does the number of people that will be killed by the more polluted air compare to the 12,700 auto fatalities?
5
The GOP doesn’t care about people, so why would they care about the environment?
5
What's next on the Trump environmental agenda, a return to leaded gasoline?
5
More pollution? But the Earth’s already boiling up now.m! When you start getting grass fires in the Arctic Circle you should generally sit up and take notice.
10
If we keep going down this road to yesterday we won't have to be concerned about China stealing our patents because we won't have any--with Trump's type of thinking there is no need for innovation and progress. Thank goodness President Obama didn't mandate indoor plumbing.
6
Trump is going insist on coal-fueled cars.
2
Yet another give away to the dinosaur industries, i.e. fossil fuels, as if the subsidies aren't enough. The greed of this administration and its cronies knows no bounds and consumers and the environment are left to take it on the chin.
2
Ronald Reagan used greed as the foundation of his policies, snd it remains firmly intact as our guiding principle.
No amount of destruction is too great if there is a buck to be made.
It is destroying the country, but it is giving many a government official a momentary high with each Satanic bargain.
There will be a day of reckoning though.
There always is.
2
The US emissions standards for automobiles are the world's gold standard. Not even the Japanese Domestic Market is cleaner. What a shame to dilute this proud heritage of the Clean Air Act!
Trump is able to push this nonsense as fuel prices are currently cheap and we - US Americans have elected to pick wasteful cars/trucks/SUVs for decades - often in the face of safe, well-built alternatives.
3
What rules Trump is his pure hatred for Obama. He continues to do everything he can to destroy Obama's legacy. The problem, of course, is that Obama's legacy was--as much as he could muster with Congressional leaders thwarting him as much as was humanly possible--one of responsible world and Earth citizenship. All Trump can muster is utter destruction and contemptible greed. It is my fervent hope that, come this November and continuing in November 2020, we true patriots can begin to roll back Trump's hideous legacy in every way AND that we can begin to put into place the kinds of legal restraints on the presidency that have, up to now, not been necessary because, up to now, those who have held the office had at least some modicum of respect for the office and the oath they swore to protect and defend the US and uphold the Constitution. It may take decades to undo what Trump "hath wraught."
1
Ok. Good luck in getting market share in exports for your car industry. They'll have to be "modified" or banned in the EU, China, Canada, even Mexico.
And when an extremely innovative solution is found in those countries and imported to the US, it'll either have to be "tarrifed" sparking a further trade war, or it'll probably further kill your car industry.
This is an insane decision. You should be looking to have the highest standards, there is a growing clamour for this all over the world.
6
Question to the Trumpettes of Cult 45... Just how exactly does having to pay for more fuel help the working man or drain the swamp? Serious question. Please my baker friends, find the crumbs and elucidate the meaning of this riddle! Why does the God Emperor want me to pay for more gas and higher prices for all my goods and healthcare? How does this drain the swamp?!?
2
So Trump only allegiance is to himself and money. The planet does not matter, nor does its inhabitants.
Why would Trump want to do this? Let's see:
Undoes something Obama did. Check.
Ignores science and 'climate change'. Check.
More profits for fossil fuel corporations. Check.
Picking winners as only Trump can. Check.
Distracts from Russia investigation. Check.
Annoys liberals, "tree-huggers", while pandering to 'the base'. Check.
Who loses? Everyone who pays more for gas. Everyone whose health is impacted by auto emissions. Everyone, when the impacts of global warming require taxpayers to build levees, and rebuild after fires, hurricanes, and floods. There's no mystery here... this is classic Trumpism at its finest, it hits all the check-marks, and it serves to distract from the Russia investigation for a little while.
237
@Jim Brokaw Trump is classic "make decisions based on just the next quarter". But the planet (plants, animals, humans) need more than ever to base decisions not for the next quarter, but for the next century. Don't count on Don Trump to do this.
1
@Jim Brokaw anyone who believes humans are the primary cause of CLIMATE CHANGE, does not understand the science, and refuses to think critically about ridiculous theories. I was very encouraged when obama would make one of his CLIMATE CHANGE is our greatest security threat speeches to the graduates of US military academies, and they'd all be rolling their eyes. I also enjoyed the golf clap he received at the end of one of his dafft speeches on CLIMATE CHANGE from the graduating cadets and their families.
@Jim Brokaw This is not about auto emissions of the kind that directly affect health. Many new cars are at levels that are almost zero harmful emissions.
This is about the Gospel of Global Warming.
This is, to put it bluntly, war. We need to do everything we can to fight this. I don’t care if they triple my car registration
So we have go full in to electric and hybrid vehicles. We give rebates for these vehicles based on gas mileage— the better the mileage the greater the rebates.
We need to build more charging stations so people aren’t afraid of not finding a station.
The President can change the standards but we can change the market.
Since the official animal of California is a grizzly bear, it is time to show this President our claws
18
What nation gains most from continued use of oil and rising temperatures in northern latitudes? That would be Russia. It has plenty of oil, very little coastal areas to be inundated and drowned and its vast tundras will come to life as temperatures rise.
11
Are they also reducing the speed limit to 55? That saves lives too. Of course not. It's all about undoing every good thing President Obama did, because Obama so effectively mocked Trump at the Washington Correspondents' Dinner.
6
I really appreciate him promoting the all-electric vehicle market via this move.
Very good, sir—I applaud you!
1
Their enthusiasm for abusing the environment is unbelievable.
1
Not to be too gloom and doom, but all of the environmentally positive legislation associated with the Obama admin was way too little and way too late. Sure - there's a 1 in a gazillion chance we could keep temp rise below 2 or 3C, but humans will not get their acts together to do it. We're too selfish. We need to focus on making money and buying stuff and singing the song that GDP growth is awesome.
Trump is a grab and smash nihilist, and why shouldn't he be? We are toast. He's just trying to live large before it finally hits the fan. That seems to increasingly be the unspoken ethos of his supporters. What other explanation could there be? The double cross for his base is that they won't even get the pool in the back yard while the jet stream goes nuts.
1
So much for "states rights!"
2
Please Barack Obama, come forward and state that you now believe that all Americans should drive 1962 Cadillac Eldorados.
1
That's just great. In addition to lots more of my money going to buy groceries and other products for my home due to Trump's tariff policies, now I'll be paying more for gas since cars will work less efficiently than they can.
Oh, also forgot how our health care is being 'fixed', by having Congress and the President taking away as much health care from the lowest wage earners in the country.
Good job Trump....you really know how to make us lower and middle income folks miss out on vacations, and miss out on luxury items such as heading out for family desserts at our local ice cream parlor after dinner.....
We're so glad you gave 62+ % of last year's trillion dollar tax cuts to the upper 1% of income folks here in the U.S., and so glad that you proposed this week to give another huge tax cut to these same blokes (as if they really need the money)....
You're the cat's meow; the crem de la crem, the best thing since swiss cheese was invented...and all that...
3
So much for states rights. The Republicans once again show themselves to be total hypocrites.
3
Memo to GOP and it's supporters:
Enjoying our country's extreme heat, wildfires, water shortages, loss of life, extraordinary and increasing harm to human health and the environment? You own it. And you definitively are not not making America great again.
2
What does Vladimir Putin have against the environment? I can't understand why Trump tries so hard to destroy the quality of the air we breathe. Putin seems to love the outdoors. What gives?
@David Deriso
Putin most of all needed a "non Hillary" non Democratic president, not Trump in particular.
Don't forget that when it comes to climate change, it's Trump alone who left the Paris Agreement. All other nations, Russia included, stayed.
Climate science deniers also only infiltrated levels of power in the US, not elsewhere.
Putin may have dirt on Trump and as a consequence be able to obtain a lot from him, but I don't think that he benefits from the fact that the country in the world with the biggest carbon footprint per capita (the US) will now pollute the planet even more.
Vast parts of Russia's territory are permafrost regions and scientists have shown that with higher global temperatures, those will melt. They contain methane, a greenhouse gas that will exponentially increase global warming once it gets released in the atmosphere.
Putin is much smarter than Trump, so I don't think he's particularly happy about this kind of foolish decisions ...
The Environmental Degradation Agency and the Transpollution Department are just shills for big industry. Commerce and profits come before the health of our citizens and our home (our planet).
Republicans seal their fate as Pro-Higher Gas Prices; Pro-More Toll Roads; Pro-Browner Air; and Pro-Broken Infrastructure.
This article ignores Big Oil who must increase demand or have their fortunes dimmed by continued surplus of oil. Only stooges of Big Oil work against oil surplus and assist gas prices to rise.
Also, high income earners have the money for toll roads. The new ones are especially expensive - more expensive than the gas use of an economy vehicle. Toll Roads already pose a loss of freedom for minimum-wage-earners.
We need to generate funds to fix and build public roads. Gas tax is the best way as it also incentivizes shorter trips and higher-mpg car purchase.
The Big Oil Lobby has fought tooth-and-nail against idea of increasing gas tax, and will launch attack-ads at any gas tax proponent. Our infrastructure replacement and expansion is their hostage.
Big Oil's plan for their higher gas prices must be defeated, so we can insert our gas tax for our infrastructure's future.
Vote Blue Wave, so we can rid ourselves of Big Oil-serving Republicans.
5
This is a *partial* defense of people who buy SUVs and live in cold climates. AWD/4WD is essential for driving at all some days, as is higher clearance from the ground. US auto makers offer very few smaller AWD/4WD vehicles but here are some imports that do.
For most of the last 20 years I drove a Subaru Forester that met those needs and got much better mileage than the large SUVs. The stupidest car mistake I ever made was changing to a Ford mid-size, entirely because it was very hard to find repair shops to work on the Subarus. If I had kept driving my plan for my next car was to get the newest Subaru that I could afford (they keep their value exceptionally well - great if you are selling or trading in, not so great if you’re buying) and pay special attention to preventative maintenance.
There also are *some* people who need a pickup for work or hobbies, and small to mid-sized pickups are nearly impossible to find any more.
Now these practical reasons only apply to a small percentage of SUV and pickup owners. There is no excuse for the ‘mine is bigger than yours’ crowd guzzling their way around town.
7
This is a harmful proposal with the goal to physically, financially and mentally hurt American citizens. The lack of emission controls will contribute to global warming and climate change along with spreading pollution-related diseases among citizens - specially the physically weaker ones (children, old women, old men and those with immunodeficiencies). This proposal will instigate American car companies to manufacture vehicles with deficient and obsolete engines and that will surely motivate car users to not buy American cars anymore - not only in the US but in international markets as well. The car companies will either continue offshoring manufacturing (maybe even accelerate it) and also shut down plants laying off workers which impacts individuals and families financially in a very negative way. This proposal ONLY helps the oil and gas executives - men such as Rex Tillerson and his family and the sheikhs in Saudi Arabia. This is one of the best examples of how this administration is determined to act as the 'Enemy of the American People'.
This effort to roll back important healthy measures to address global warming is boggles the mind and heart.
It is a mistake that we repeat over and over again. The Trump administration proposes a new rule that is motivated by pure greed, they justify it using silly criteria that no one takes seriously, and we all devolve into debates and outrage about their justifications. The White House is not interested in science, not interested in the common good, not interested in making our world a better place. The White House is only interested in money. If the rolling back of regulations increases profits, Trump will support it without considering or understanding any of the consequences.
3
Seems like China is making all the right moves and we're making all the wrong ones.
5
Seriously, this has to stop. Dismantling policies that address pollution, climate change is insanity. Growth and profits mean nothing if we can't breathe the air, drink the water, stand outside in temperatures less than 90 degrees, or live in cities that are flooding. This so-called "administration" is a disaster of the first order.
And, the Russians have garnered control while trump tries to distract. I am grateful my father, a WWII veteran, did not live to see this disaster. It would have killed him to see what this country has become :(
2
Why not let adults buy the cars they want?
3
Let us pause and consider how much filthier air will aid the pharmaceutical industry. Combine this with the systematic crippling of the ACA and there's literally no end of winning that lies ahead. But sadly, not for you.
Ponder this; If Trump were a average U S citizen serving in Army Intelligence or a diplomat in a foreign embassy and he was collaborating with a hostile foreign power and causing the national security destruction that he has clearly
orchestrated over the last two years..... what would have happened to him by now ?
3
Could someone please compare the weights and emissions of West European vehicles, whose fuel consumption is, I believe, lower than the US ones and correlate that to road fatalities rates? Because I think this would just bust all the Trump's administration arguments right there. Not that they ever cared about rationality, but still.
so what I'm reading is he wants to limit states rights.... but I thought Republicans don't want anyone to touch stats rights. oh wait no, that only pertains to states right on gun laws.
8
It's incredible to believe: the nation that put men on the moon in less than 10 years now whines that it is JUST TOO HARD to do what the rest of the world does when it makes small, fuel-efficient, planet-friendlier cars. What happened to you Americans anyway?
2
This is what political and economic entropy looks like.
12
I am looking to buy an electric car, or possibly a plug in hybrid, as gas just isn't going to get any cheaper.
2
Unless the fuel efficiency rules are weakened how could the carbon baron donors be rewarded for their services specially when the ruling dispensation is not averse to any kind of pollution, environmental to political?
1
The cynic in me can just see the ad campaigns for these new cleaner burning cars: Since they’re twice as clean you can buy two instead and drive twice as much to help reduce CO2 emissions. Less is definitely more when it comes to crass Capitalism.
2
Bravo. The fewer regulations the better. This morning I read the Times's heroically endless piece about how and why we lost our chance to stem climate change, back in the 1980s. So here we are in 2018 and we're supposed to believe that strict Obama-type CAFE standards are going to save the day? I'm sorry, Times writers (and readers). You can't have it both ways. Either we lost our chance way back when, or we didn't. If we did, then there is little point in trying to strangle automakers with unrealistic, expensive, and finally pointless fuel economy standards when climate doom is already ahead of us no matter what.
@Eddie It is not just about the environment, although careering headlong to disaster because you think you can't effect change is insanity, but about conserving our limited resources.
@Eddie
This is about the planet's global climate, so of course things are much more complicated than what you're writing here.
Yes, science has proven that it's way too late to end ALL forms of future global warming. That's because global CO2 emissions (and the US has the largest CO2 footprint per capita in the world, remember?) have already reached a 4 million years record, and carbon molecules stay 100 years in the atmosphere before they get absorbed by plants and oceans.
But no, it's not too late at all to finally start acting and prevent things from even getting worse.
The climate has many points of no return, not just one, contrary to what you seem to imagine.
And how could fuel standards be "unrealistic" when so many other countries in the world are already implementing them ... ?
Finally, today it's AUTOMAKERS who are opposing the GOP's decision, as this article shows, so no, the current standards aren't "strangling" the auto industry at all, quite on the contrary, it guarantees that they stay competitive on the global market.
Conclusion: don't start imagining that Republicans know something about saving the auto industry, because they don't. Remember who truly saved the auto industry a couple of years ago? Right, Obama and the Democrats, whereas the GOP was explicitly asking Obama to let it die ...
Lobbying at its finest. Lobby hard enough, give enough money to politicians and you get what you want.
1
If it has anything to do with Obama or Clinton trump will do whatever he can to reverse it.
It has nothing to do with science or any other rational or logical thinking, it is purely spite.
4
And, of course, to prepare for the mid terms.
1
Rhetoric. Nothing more. Angry, mean-spirited and short-sighted individuals who would have made the same argument six years ago. All in the guise to ‘protect’ the American consumer. I do not recall having heard any one complaining over the Obama era regulations until now. Perhaps Trump and acolytes will temper the consternation of reasonable minded consumers and automobile manufacturers and petroleum officials with another proposed tax relief for the uber rich.
11
Sea level rise is the only remedy against those new military islands in the South China Sea. Trump is a visionary.
3
I've worked in the carmaking industry for a while now, and I think the new approach is long overdue. Mary Nichols (pictured here) is the chair of the California Air Resources Board, and as an unelected official has more power over carmakers than anyone else in the United States. It's been a joke.
Everyone shares the same goal -- make better cars. And we do. The technology is already out there for cars that are much more fuel efficient than those on the road. People just don't want to buy them. Putting this problem on the carmakers when it's a buyer problem, not a seller problem, is foolish.
Government regulations and lawsuits like the states plan just add to the problem. It's like the 55-mph speed limit. Remember that? Designed to save gasoline, it was later said to save lives. For 22 years it slowed people down and never really did either. Its main benefit was the extra money it brought in from traffic fines from speeders.
The whole problem was that who was to say that 55 mph is the optimum speed? Why not 60? Or 40? Or 30? You can always justify any number. Just as you can with the mileage regulations like CAFE. People still find a way to game the numbers and do what they want to do.
No one can predict the future. Not Mary Nichols. Not anybody. We shouldn't let them try. A bottom-up approach is always better than top-down. The new rules are wise in that respect. That's good for all of us.
2
Not only does it make no sense, like most Trump double-speak, but it has buried ONE fact drivers notice daily and the President never mentions:
Gas prices are higher now than they have been at any time since at least the pointless Bush Jr. de-Saddamazation and destruction of Iraq, perhaps since the retaking of Kuwait.
My annual summer vacation drive, totaling 1,000 miles will cost me @$75 extra, despite switching to a more-efficient SUV.
Why, exactly, Mr. Trump, have fuel prices soared to @$3 a gallon in New Jersey usually The Land of Cheaper Fuel?
1
New Jersey raised taxes on gasoline. That's why you are paying $3.00 a gallon.
So much brainwashing. Many other countries have more fuel efficient cars yet fewer traffic fatalities. Why would lighter, more efficient cars be less safe? If anything, crash test ratings have become stricter over time and our cars have performed better despite getting smaller and more efficient.
Not to mention, the rest of the world will move on without us. Energy efficiency is the future, creating many well paying clean jobs. With Trump, we'll be stuck with dirty coal and oil, like a third world country, while other countries will assume leadership.
2
I'm not buying a car from any company that doesn't reduce emissions.
2
There is absolutely no doubt that this is a retrograde step on every possible level. Damage to the environment, increased costs for consumers, unnecessary use of limited resources, exasperation of every other government and individual on the planet. It reminds me of a whooping Slim Pickens riding the A bomb in Dr Strangelove. Everything is not going to be alright.
2
This is, ultimately, a strike against blue states, not industry, labor, or the environment. Court appeals will deplete financial resources, which are the only currency this administration recognizes.
2
Vote
It has never been clearer that every vote matters and that only high voter turnout will insure that the public's opinions will be respected by the politicians and the unelected administrators that make laws and make these administrative decisions.
Otherwise, the rabid supporters of various cults and the big moneyed interests will have their way ..
7
Either something is harmful (to security, health, freedom) or it isn't... economic benefit shouldn't even be considered if the answer is "yes, it's harmful..." to any of those three.
This is all empirically wrong... how is this even a matter of debate...
Great business model in a year that may be the hottest ever recorded, lower mileage and emission standards. It will make American cars more exportable than ever.
2
Cars are getting too expensive for working class families. Adding unreasonable regulations will make them even less affordable.
2
@Peter B
The C.A.F.E. Standards are not unreasonable and those same working class families will live longer with far less chance of respiratory diseases if there are lower levels of Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Long term they will pay far less for fuel if their vehicles get higher MPG.
2
@Peter B Well I'm glad you're rich enough to buy some gas guzzling behemoth of a car. Me, I'm lower middle class and I can't afford not to buy a car with really good gas mileage. I have to keep daily fuel costs as low as I can. With a little research, you'll find plenty of decently priced cars with great gas mileage.
3
Clearly, there is nothing in the perspective of Trump that constitutes “legacy”. It seems his primary interest is to see himself and other wealthy supporters obtain the optimal benefit. The rest of us will pick what we can. Climate change has been front and centre for 4 decades and will imperil all life for the coming decades unless we act but it would seem that the Trump folks figure they can make a bundle now and pass the problem to others. Yikes!
2
The Trump Administration’s assertion that lowering the weight of vehicles to make them more efficient compromises safety is scientifically incorrect. What matters most is the integrity of the passenger compartment and energy-absorbing designs of the rest of the vehicle. Modern materials can provide both. Auto manufacturers attested to that before the Obama Administration instituted the 54.4 mpg fleet standard.
Also, in collisions between two vehicles of the same weight, lighter vehicles are actually safer. That’s basic physics.
Trump’s fear mongering is based on fake science. We can only hope when he gets his science adviser on board, real science will hold sway in White House policymaking.
3
This article interested me because of vagueness and clear bias in the article. An example of this is; "...long-awaited proposal to freeze antipollution and fuel-efficiency..." It was never specified why this would "set the stage for a legal clash" in California even though that state has the 1970 Clean Air Act. The decision made by the E.P.A. wouldn't infringe any federal or states rights because it had to go through supreme court, whose job is to make sure the bill is constitutional, (the constitution restricts the federal government from infringing federal or state rights). Therefore if California finds it is unlawful, the state is allowed to not recognize it as a law and may produce whatever car the state wants.
I also disagree with this article because cars don't kill people. Part of the issue here is that Obama's idea would save 100 more lives than Trump's idea, and promoting lighter cars would cause 12,700 more automobile accidents. I believe that if everyone drove safely than there wouldn't be a problem with lighter or heavier cars.
“There is a tension between calling for ever-increasing efficiency standards on one hand, and the obligation to have safe vehicles on the road.” I do not agree with this statement taken directly from the article, there should not be tension between efficiency and the obligation to own safer vehicles. There should be tension between a bad driver and their obligation to own a vehicle that has the ability to cause more damage to others,
The administration's claim that holding the fuel-efficiency standard at 37 MPG will save money compared to raising the standard to 54 MPG is questionable.
In just three years a typical 54-MPG car will use $1000 less fuel than a 37-MPG car--enough to offset a plausible rise in car prices due to enhanced fuel efficiency.
A more detailed estimate that takes into account the full life of the vehicle, financing charges, trade-in value, and gas-price outlook is likely to be more clearly favorable.
[Assumptions: miles driven per year: 12,000; gas price: $3.00/gallon.]
1
This is an unwise proposal. It seems to be built on a projection that lightweight cars crashing into lightweight cars will result in more fatalities and injuries than heavyweight cars crashing into heavyweight cars. I think this turns physics inside out. This is also saying that lightweight cars will cost the consumer more than heavyweight cars. This is also nonsensical, considering the cost of materials.
Think about it. In 2017 alone, highway accidents killed 40,000 Americans and injured 4.6 million. Another 53,000 Americans die prematurely every year due to pollutants emitted from motor vehicles, according to a recent M.I.T. study.
Agreed, the economic costs of highway accidents are staggering. Economic losses due to medical expenses, property damage, insurance, lost wages, and productivity are $836 Billion dollars per year, according to a 2010 study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. This does not include the costs of health damage from vehicle pollution. Based on OECD studies, the cost of premature deaths from road transport in the US is about 250 Billion dollars per year. Total economic costs from accidents and atmospheric vehicle pollution are about 1 Trillion dollars per year, about 6% of annual GDP.
Considering greenhouse gas emissions and the enormous cost of wilding weather, forest fires, flooding of coastal cities and misery associated with global warming. The proposal is flawed.
The answer is electric transport. www.magneticglide.com
3
Once again, this administration's assertions are not backed by facts. Cars in western Europe are smaller and probably more energy efficient since they have to go through a 'physical' on a regular basis to be allowed to stay on the roads. Yet, the traffic related death rate there is half the USA's: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_dea...
Switzerland, which enforces very strict controls of older cars and has a very efficient police force has 2.6 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants compared to the USA's 10.6. The country is small, the roads are narrow, the parking spaces are small, so, yes, the cars are mostly small too.
Then again, of course, the Swiss have a pretty splendid train network. That's safe and low-emission but obviously that's not something that America wants to make great again.
5
I'm currently in the market for a new car; whatever I buy, it will be small and fuel efficient. It is a commuter car. I'm also planning on purchasing another vehicle 4 years from now. It, too, will be a fuel efficient vehicle. Whichever car manufacturer builds these cars for me gets my consideration and business. Those who don't, won't. Whatever the clown show in D.C. decides won't affect my decision. At the end of the day I have no brand loyalty only a commitment to purchase a product that best suits my needs/wants.
8
Foreign car makers will continue to increase the mpg. The consumers will opt for the foreign cars, and the domestic car makers will be in the same position they were in a few years ago. In big trouble.
10
Will someone please explain why the Trump proposal "would set the stage for a legal clash that could ultimately split the nation’s auto market in two", or why it is an argument against that proposal that "no one wants a two-car world where there are one set of cars on one side of the country and one on the other"? What we have now is precisely "a two-car world" where cars meeting California standards are required in some states and cars meeting weaker federal standards are required in the other states. The "legal clash" would do nothing to change that.
It's very unfortunate that because carbon dioxide is invisible to the human eye most people don't believe it exists. However, many people are willing to have faith that some invisible god exists despite any evidence. If the billions of tons of carbon dioxide coming out of tailpipes were visible to the naked eye the situation might be different.
12
If fuel economy standards are forcing automakers to develop more expensive cars (which is undeniable -- now even Jeeps have high tech weight-saving components), then how about we mandate limits on engine output?
So the fuel savings will come from generally smaller engines, not smaller cars (which could actually be less safe, all things being equal) or high tech engineering solutions (which do push safety features out of reach for some).
I don't think we all need 250+ hp acceleration just to go from traffic light to traffic light.
2
For every person saved in a car crash how many people will be killed because of high temperatures, fires, flooding, loss of land because of oceans rising. Please, give me a break. When we are baking here in England, there are fires north of the Artic Circle, Japan is having record breaking heat related deaths, etc. does the death of a fewer number of people killed annually by gun violence really matter?
If they cared about the 1000 extra deaths annually, a simpler solution would be an assault weapons ban.
14
Remarkable that in the week the NY Times publishes "Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change" Trump comes out with yet another way to accelerate warming. Unfortunately the physics behind global warming is oblivious to politics, so the heat and fires will continue to worsen. Someday the threat will become clear to all, and suddenly we'll all want fuel efficient vehicles. But if Trump gets his way, US manufacturers will be building relative gas guzzlers while those outside the US with a clear view of the future will be offering 55 mpg and better, causing a major decline in US auto jobs. And before you think 55 mpg is a pipe dream, my 5 start safety rated 2017 Toyota Prius gets 68 mpg!
12
New car prices have skyrocketed over the last decade owing to anti-pollution rules. It is unfair, however, that small compact and subcompact car prices are affected. I don't drive a huge SUV or sports car. Why should my car be more expensive? The rules dictate that a manufacturer's entire lineup needs to be more efficient. Instead, they should put an upper limit on MPG (say a reasonable 35 MPG).
15 years ago I bought a 22/26 mpg Subaru Outback for $22k. last year I bought a 25/32mpg Outback for $24k. 10% over 15 years is hardly "spiraling out of control"
11
@Edward Demonstrably not true about "skyrocketed".
An upper limit on gas mileage? Why on earth would anyone want that?
2
The price of gasoline is too low. That is why consumers continue to choose inefficient vehicles.
13
@Scott L
Don't worry, the price of gas will increase once less fuel efficient cars are manufactured.
1
When I go through all the changes that Trump made at various agencies such as the EPA, I begin to realize how much Obama was a progressive and how much he did during his administration when it comes to things such as environment, health care, education (for profit), trade policy (trans pacific), gay and lesbian rights etc.
Trump on the on hand will lead us down the road to where soylent green is people.
21
Of course, one way for the auto industry to avoid the paralyzing uncertainty of protracted litigation is for them to voluntarily adhere to the California standards, so they have no stake in the legal outcome.
2
If the VW Jetta I drive now were modified to a mild hybrid configuration that could store and recycle the momentum and potential energy I currently dissipate by downshifting, its fuel efficiency might equal that of the diesel it replaced.
Great ! Now that the Trump administration is truly concerned about the theoretical 12.7 K deaths/year from lighter vehicles, I'm confident it will ensure better gun control to curtail the actual 33K+deaths/year from firearms
10
I welcome this proposal.
Not so much as to whether there should be an mpg standard or what level.
But this process will give rise to a healthy debate and perhaps, folks might understand that not all wisdom regarding clean air comes out of California.
Like in any negotiation, it's good to take a position from where you can retreat - not lose it all.
Under the 44th who told us that seas would stop rising amongst other red line statements - it's good that we hear from the other side.
And let's face it ,- the auto industry is a big time lobbying machine and so, I expect a compromise would be found.
If this proposal had come from anybody but this POTUS - perhaps, California would not be so strident.
But California should remember that they might be economically powerful today. But their influence is beginning to wane with reducing population - on account of high taxes and regulations.
And other states are beginning to recognize that what's good for California is not necessarily good for others.
So, I welcome this debate to understand pros and cons of this regulatory relief.
sorry, it's too late for debate. We are are experiencing the start of catastrophic climate changes. fuel efficiency standards are 1 important way to stem the tide. This is another nasty action on the part of the Trump administration.
6
I write from northern California which, for the second straight year, is on fire. The president's new initiative is like something from a dystopian fantasy. It is, frankly, amazing. His contrarian commitment apparently is not simply to destroying the USA, it is to destroying the planet.
7
Methinks that fuel consumption, under the proposed tRUMPIAN diminished fuel economy standards will actually result in less fuel consumption and pollution because a lot of existing and future drivers of gas powered vehicles will be either of such poor health that they can no longer drive or become dead due to the poor air quality, or drowned by the flooding of their cities caused by the resulting rise in ocean levels. Not desireable. Car manufacturers can increase mpg and not loose out in the long run.
5
As I said before, It's too bad that Trump and (most of his) cronies will not be around to need a Boston Whaler to get out the front door of the White House. Washington will be flooded. It's a low level (sea level) city. With current policies, you'd better abandon it by mid-century. Building high-rises in downtown Jersey City (a flood zone to say the least)? How long will those multi-million buildings last? I wish they would last. Talk about building for short term profits. Billion dollar building projects that won't last for mass transit users unless you replace light rail with light marine - well, you get the picture. How long are we going to put up this massive irrational and un-scientific thinking (and politics) in this country before we are all (and our children) going to suffer miserably before we stop using belief systems and magical thinking as substitutes? Knowing the trends (political and economic) in this country these days, good luck on that one.
3
if I were an automaker, I would sit with the Democratic leadership and ask for their plans after they return to power and factor them in now, because they will surely have to later. Better to ignore Trump now and make efficient cars, than to have to scramble to comply with the reasonable regulations most of the world will have in place after Trump is history.
24
While I deplore this, at some point people have to step up to the plate and change their habits. It's not just about fossil fuels, it's also about garbage, plastic, water, chemicals, food etc.
2
On a purely commercial note, we've seen this movie before:
Step 1: Vehicle standards are lowered in the U.S. to relieve a modernization cost burden on U.S. based automakers (and their shareholders).
Step 2: European & Japanese/Korean automakers continue with their more ambitious plans for fuel standards - plans, in some cases - subsidized and/or incentivized by their governments.
Step 3: It doesn't make sense, from a production efficiencey standpoint, for European/Asian automakers to use different specifications for their home country vs U.S. plants, so they incorprate the higher standards in their U.S. production anyway.
Step 4: The higher fuel efficiency (and underlying technology) of the foreign automobiles is touted as an important basic marketing feature (i.e. not as a costly option, because the costs are sunk anyway), and U.S. automakers lose further market share.
5
I'd like to know which businesses and lobbyists have been pushing these changes.
It could be the Auto manufacturers. Lower MPG (CAFE) requirements will allow them to sell bigger 'trucks' with bigger engines. Ford is dropping ALL automobiles EXCEPT the Mustang and will focus exclusively on big trucks.
These beasts are gas guzzlers (more profit for Exxon) and have higher markups (more profit for auto manufacturers).
7
The polluting and not very energy effective engines of US cars are the reason they are not selling in Europe, not tariffs. This will make them even less popular.
29
Even if the auto fatality canard was true, heavier cars would presumably require additional steel or aluminum, both of which are increasing in price as a result of Trump's tariffs, so, where are the supposed savings? The only sector that could possibly benefit from this travesty is the petroleum industry, which is why they're the only ones keeping mum.
4
What's so GREAT about making America's air, water, soil, foods more polluted? Thank goodness Trump unveiled his short-term health insurance, that will surely help those dealing with cancer and other illnesses caused by increased pollution. Oh, wait, pre-existing conditions won't be covered. As the late great Emily Litella used to say, "Never mind."
14
Follow the money. Which segment of the US economy would be aided by the lowering of fuel economy standards for cars and trucks? I guess that would be the fossil fuel industry.
Isn't that where a large percentage of the Koch money comes from? Aren't consumers happy with cars that get 25 MPG or more?
So our President chooses to put the skids to both the average consumer and a major Republican donor.
This will certainly make American great again.
3
Here's the thing, though -- the current rules allow automakers take the average MPG across their entire fleet of vehicles. So car makers that want to continue selling gas-guzzling pickup trucks need only make a high-MPG hybrid or electric car and voila--they've met their standard. It doesn't matter how many of each car they actually sell, mind you, so ultimately, companies are wasting a bunch of money on R&D for a car their customers don't necessarily want. Furthermore, any regulation that makes gas cheaper (and raising fuel efficiency standards effectively does this) indirectly leads to people driving more miles, so that's an inefficient way to approach the problem. A gas tax would be effective, though very unpopular. Another way would be to set stricter tailpipe emission requirements for greenhouse gases. That way, you'd still get some reduction in emissions, regardless of the price of gas. Of course, this is all pie in the sky stuff because the GOP is obsessed with the narrative that climate change regulation is too costly and bad for the economy. The problem is, the effects of climate change are enormously costly (e.g. Hurricane Sandy, Houston flooding, CA wildfires, etc)--the only difference is who pays for it and when.
3
Looking forward to the car manufacturers' commercials advertising their All Not-New Models!
2
54 mpg vs. 14 mpg.
3
Last week trump wanted to sell cars to Europe. This week he wants to make cars that are the opposite of european demands...???
So much about this president makes me think of the Dunning-kruger effect, and how i might be an idiot.
3
With the fifth largest economy in the world, California knows something about whats best for California.
The California AG, and the courts will neutralize this petulant p..........of a president until he is either voted or thrown out of office.
9
I’m glad the auto industry is now in a pickle of their own making. Regardless of the outcome of this issue in the courts or in negotiation, the emission standards in CA and other states can still be enforced, either directly at the point of sale or by later regulation of the car owners. You can bet on that.
The US auto industry will be the loser if they don’t conform to mileage standards that will be adopted throughout the world and will be enforced within the most prosperous states. They will either join the club or they will fall behind world standards.
If they fall behind, they can go scratch the next time they fall on hard times and need a bailout. They and their auto workers will not get much of a hearing from those of us who pay the lions share of the taxes but are being victimized by these knuckle-dragging, Luddite policies.
6
I've heard that whale oil is a useful product, elephant ivory makes good collar studs and children working in mines could benefit the USA of DJT ....
8
When I moved to CA in 1968 smog clousure days were a daily ritual. TV and print media announced current smog figures. High levels brought school closures. There were NO BLUE SKIES IN LA. Facts. Look it up. Then, elected official like Jerry Brown started fighting and getting new regs. People whinned and grumbled and shouted about government 'TAKE OVER' but CA is not Delhi or Bejing and we have those blue
skies back. Come to CA and see.
10
Why is it that all those rugged outdoorsmen who view hunting and fishing to be expressions of their American freedoms and liberty vote for Republicans who are determined to sell off our lands and allow the air and water to be polluted beyond use? The logic defeats me.
8
California burns and the east floods, but never mind...Trumps really stable genius brain has it all covered.
Global warming? Na! But it it just maybe was, look at all those great firefighting and rescue jobs I’ve created!
5
The lengths to which this misadministration will go in its attempts to undo Obama-era legislation and undermine the middle class in favour of the plutocracy are astounding. No one but the fossil fuel industry wants to reduce fuel economy. There is no benefit to anyone else. Presumably the end goal is to funnel money to Russia in return for their oil. I am a dyed in the wool car nut. I own multiple sports cars, and we track them frequently. The consistent improvements in fuel economy standards have
only improved vehicles in real terms since the mid-1980s. Engines are cleaner and more efficient, materials sciences have
provided lighter and stronger cars, tire technology has improved by orders of magnitude. Cars are faster, safer, and cleaner than ever. What possible benefit can there be to going technologically backwards? It is as if the president was a foreign agent seeking to undermine national security by damaging the already retarded US auto industry. If he wants to improve things on the roads...improve the roads! The infrastructure is falling apart. Improve the drivers! American drivers are by and large unskilled and careless, a danger to themselves and others because standards are so low and no real training is required. Instead, we are getting a moronic suggestion from an apt source.
9
When will Trump get over his anger about a few jokes that his better predecessor made at a dinner?
Oh, and it makes no sense to require residents of California and other states, and DC, to buy less fuel efficient vehicles, just to prove some point that flitted through Trump's brain.
At least the EPA will ignore the likely worsening air quality.
Lose-lose.
4
Just another day at the office. Trump and his minions do something stupid and destructive. We lament like a Greek chorus. Tomorrow will bring something else to cause mass lamentations. Our lamentations do about as much good as "thoughts and prayers." It is imperative that we find a way to get rid of these people. It's almost too late. Our biggest hope is that enough of his followers realize that Trump is a madman and their Congresspeople are just worms crawling on their bellies.
6
My wife had a prang this winter when she hit a snow bank in our Toyota Yaris. The front bumper was cracked, and to my surprise I discovered the bumper was made of plastic.
Can't car makers make fuel efficient cars that are also safe?
1
These are futile efforts of fools and liars at reviving the moribund corpse of the dirty, disease causing, fossil fuel economy.
8
Lets make cars like 1950s
No seatbelts, no airbags, No abs, no injection, no active road control.
Let me introduce 2019, 1956 chevrolet belair.
5
When this incredibly foolish (if not criminal) Administration ends, how many more years will it take to wipe trump off the history books and restore America?
7
Warning:
This is a classic attempt by 45 to distract from his real problems with his 5 deferments, tax returns, election results, Russians, extramarital affairs with women, and obstruction of justice. Focus, America.
9
Come on, Trump. Bring it on. We will fight you every step of the way.
8
It takes a special kind of malicious idiot to dream up a plan like this.
7
Excellent new, more government control removed.
Now remove the gas guzzler tax on muscle cars!
1
The safety thing is just an other canard. This is really a triple win for Trump. He gets to trash an other Obama achievement, please the anti-government intervention crowd and guarantee more sales to Big-oil. All with just a stroke of the pen.
7
Perhaps Trump could figure out how to burn coal in cars.
6
Wait.....
......no seed money or R&D for a coal powered vehicle?
1
Yeah, yeah, yeah - he is wasting our time again. Make coal great again. There is the Trump world of fiction and then there is a real world. The EV is here and if your next car isn't one, the following one will be.
The real world with a) his new high gas prices even with opened up leases (blame that on Obama even?), his higher interest rates (Obama's fault here too or that an overheated economy with unneeded tax breaks and trillion dollar debt?) and new tariffs on still (Obama was a one of those conservative free tradrers) will, like water, find a way around him until he is impeached or resigns. Most likely he will start to get the picture that he needs to resign once both his son and son in law are indicted.
This sideshow presidency will end soon and we will all move on. Good riddance. He can go live with his base wherever he is welcome.
3
The incredible stupidity of the trump administration is in stark contrast to that which we as a nation should be doing.
What fools.
3
Another step by Manchurian President Trump to undermine American democracy, health and well-being.
7
I am okay with going back in time to have cars that emit fumes that are bad for our environment, if and this is a must, I want the price of gas to go back with it, as I do recall 25/30 cent a gallon. just saying if your going to damage my lungs with the car emissions I will need the extra money to pay my medical bills when my lungs go bad. Okay I am just kidding about the above, but really we are going to stop making better gas mileage engine;, so we can at least get better gas mileage, cause we know the prices at the pump are going to keep going up. The democrats really need to when the house for sure in November, and if by any lucky measures the Senate. then we can send trump somewhere back in time for the next 2 years.
5
So, does this mean that VW can dump those thousands of cars that failed emissions testing, on the US market? Google what the US looked like before the Environmental Protection Agency. Trump and his ilk are cancer causing.
4
With Trump already breaking through 50% approval, he's already way ahead of his brethren at this point in their fledgling first White House years. But what is still to come will shake liberal heads while invigorating conservatives: fair and reciprocal trade, peace with Korea, a destruction of Iran's mullah's in favor of Iran's greatest asset: her people, and a new-found respect all across the world for a man who means what he says. And then dammit does what me means!
1
Talk about fake news. He is nowhere near 50%. He has 80% approval among the 30% or so that identify as Republicans. Some polls have given him 40% overall, briefly. Nice try. How's the weather in Petrograd?
Good idea, Trump! Only snowflakes need clean air. As for global warming, what global warming? The wild fires raging worldwide, receding ice caps and rising oceans are more examples of fake news.
2
The future holds the greatest promise for us! Our best ideas are completely related to how we love and respect one another, the compassion we have and our willingness to live sustainably on our great planet. Trump and his ilk are afraid of the future because it means that they will have to share. But alas, to get there, we are going to have to navigate this "wild west" mentality and Tea Party overthrow of the "deep state" adherents that are just too stupid to recognize that they are being manipulated to maintain the power and wealth of the one percent. I know people who think that raising the fuel efficiency standards are a conspiracy to take something from them. They apparently don't care about the society their grandchildren will be living in. How can you argue with that?
3
So when are we voting these people out of office? Not soon enough.
4
No thoughtful, reasonable and informed American can still support this amoral, un-American con man any more. It's that simple. And that tragic.
6
We have Trump and a spineless Congress what else can be said?
3
Hey, clean air is something that LIBERALS like!
1
The only thing that gives me solace in these dark days is knowing that DJT has ruined his, his family's, and his company's tacky legacy.
In the meantime, we have to vote Democratic merely to save our republic. Because the REPUBLICANS aren't doing it.
8
It goes without saying - obviously - that this is yet another catastrophic and scientifically illiterate proposal from the most environmentally and socially destructive administration ever to lead the USA.
But what stood out for me were the crocodile tears embodied in the following: "The Trump administration contends that, by promoting the manufacture and sale of lighter cars, the Obama standards could lead to about 12,700 more auto fatalities."
That's almost certainly a lie, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say it's not. They're prepared to increase emissions and speed up climate change to save 12,700 people a year.
According to the Everytown project, nearly 13,000 Americans are killed every year by gun violence.
And the response to that?
Crickets.
Please America - vote in November, and vote for science, decency, and for recognising who your allies are.
8
I am so sick of this man and what he's doing to our country. He's obviously on a tear to destroy anything Obama did, whether that was good or bad. He's on this tariff kick now and obviously not thinking through what the implications will be to American consumers. He's a walking talking disaster. Are we going to be able to survive until we can get rid of him? Will there be a country left?
6
This regime will only take notice when #45's golf courses go up in flames.
3
In the end the customer decides. I wouldn't buy a gas guzzler.
It may be cheaper, but the total cost of ownership will make it an expensive experience. Just driving off the dealer's lot costs you a fortune, because you will bleed when selling it later.
The car industry, if it wants to stay in international business, has no other chance, with regard to emission standards, than to build cars with state-of-the-art motors.
Another non-exiting problem created to be solved by dirty Donald.
3
Republicans think it is too costly to fight global warming so just go with the flow. States' Rights to set their own standards? Not so much. Like state concealed carry rules being put aside for the right of crazy white people to defend themselves against perceived threats, air pollution rules must be set aside so the Koch Bros can make more money. A sad slide downhill.
6
Money, money, money, that's all Trump bases his decisions on. No amount of money will save anyone when this planet is destroyed.
9
I can’t believe how stupid this is. Why would you take away regulations that is good for the environment AND the competitiveness of the car industry?
9
This is the very definition of regressive.
6
Yes, because who doesn't want to go back to driving a car that only gets 23 miles to the gallon? I though the GOP was all about states rights, too, small federal government and all that. Guess it was just another one of their lies.
2
When the last tree is cut down, the last fish eaten and the last stream poisoned, you will realize that you cannot eat money. Cree Indian prophecy.
9
If all the unregulated gas emissions could be funneled into Mira Lago and Trump Tower, then this latest Trump idiocy wouldn't be so bad.
1
This administration not passing a single day just peacefully. That guy in the white house is just running a reality show. Unfortunately, that is the only experience he has.
2
Trump somehow thinks that by reversing all of Obama's accomplishments he will erase Obama's legacy. No, Mr. President, it doesn't work like that. Obama will be remembered as the thoughtful, articulate, and visionary president he was. You, sir, will be remembered as the unqualified, ignorant, inarticulate, and hate-filled man who set the country back decades.
9
It's one more knee-jerk, completely uninformed "decision" put forward by an ignorant, completely brainless fool who knows nothing about the world and cares less. The man is a danger to the world. Everything he does is geared to erase President Barack Obama's legacy. Plus he does nothing but spend money--always has, always will. He is bankrupting this country just the way he bankrupted all of his so-called "businesses." Trump steaks, anyone?
3
Never mind record setting heat from carbon emissions. Let’s put our heads in the sand till we all bake to death, or drown.
Outrageous. Shame Shame Shame.
8
This will permit a battle for California to engage in the utterly destructive and selfish policies of Mr Trump and his EPA minions. Bring on California!
2
Here's the plan: lower fuel efficiency so that gas guzzlers will be on the road again. Then...the big coup! Raise gas prices and uncork the champagne with your oil billionaire buddies.
Don't fall for it, America. Buy high fuel efficiency vehicles then stand back and laugh when it all happens.
4
Why can't we impeach Trump on grounds of his making every effort to destroy the environment with his uneducated ego centric
policies? When is the American public going to admit Trump has only one interest and that is to become a dictator. Every new policy he proposes is more detrimental to the US than the next.
3
I live in California. We've always been on the front lines when it comes to protecting the environment. My hope is that our state government, and those of the 13 other states who got behind us, stands up to these morons in Washington and keeps our standards high. Like we're planning on living past the 21st century.
1
every day he remains in office is a testament to how stupid this country has become. If anyone has any ideas on how we to explain this to our children I would love to hear it.
1
There is so much trump accomplishes here: dismantles Obama policy, kowtows to the oil and gas industries, offsets increased car prices due to his tariff policy, sticks it to a (burning) blue state. The infantile president wants a fight when every other player, including Wheeler, wants adult solutions. Are any of his supporters getting bored with this nonsense?
2
The enemy of the people? Here they are: Donald Trump, Transportation Secretary Elaine L. Chao and Andrew Wheeler, the acting administrator of the E.P.A.
8
The only answer for me is buy a Tesla. Made in California. Powered by the sun. It’s an anti-republican, anti Koch, anti Trump, anti flyover country vehicle. Deposit down and awaiting delivery.
3
You had a decidedly prejudiced president who despised capitlism in general and large American companies in particular. Of COURSE he went overboard in using the government as a hammer on these companies.
So WHAT if he endangered people by forcing companies to resort to mini-cars? So what if workers went unemployed because production dropped in related industries?
We had EPA field ''reichsmarshalls''competing with each other to see who could burn the energy companies the worst. His plans for cars was the big luxo-boats for his guys and Yugos for the rest of us.
Can there be any doubt which constituency Trump seeks to please?
3
The US Auto Industry stood behind Trump. Now they want him to pull back on the "Trumpness" they cheered on and supported. It doesn't work that way. You cannot release a bull in a China shop then say "be gentle".
California is the largest car market in the United States. I believe California is behind China re: largest car market in the world. This change will definitely hurt if not kill the US auto industry. I get 45mpg. When it is time for a new car, I am looking at electric. I am not going backwards.
Mr. Trump. who owns you? You have the anti-Midas touch on everything you do.
Man, the campaign talking points for the Dems just keep on coming. Its like Trump and Cronies want to lose this fall and in 2020.
"Okay folks....over here we have a candidate that wants to protect your health, your childrens health, community health, and environmental health. All of which helps you work better, live better and generally feel better. It helps when you take a vacation and go someplace to visit nature. The benefits are immeasurable. Plus, there is zero reliable science to support the claim that lessening the parameters on fuel efficiency and emissions standards will improve safety, lower prices, etc."
"Over here, we have a candidate that could care less about your health, children's or that of your community or that nature place you love. In fact, all he cares about is that an auto, energy producer, etc, makes more profits on you! And he will not show you any real research to support his silly claims about cheaper this, or that...as it will only be specious promises from industries that have never lowered prices when they gain some sort of alleged efficiencies. We have food producers storing foods, instead of distributing them to lower prices. Better to hoard them to create false shortages."
Which one? Knee-jerk deregulation, based on a profit matrix for Corporations? Or a cleaner, more healthy environment, where safety and prevention are the primary cause?
3
This really sounds like a way to Make American Vehicles Obsolete Again - and artificially drive up the cost of gas.
Foreign car makers are not going to decide to go for less-efficient cars as a result of the US moving backwards.
No wonder trump needs those tariffs.
5
Dear Fellow States: with our rock solid economy, progressive laws and common-sense emissions, we'll help out here...
...in exchange, please vote the clown out.
5
One more superbly clear demonstration that the amoral GOP only make decisions that are in their own best interests (and those who finance their continuing run for congress). The rest of us either do not exist, or do not deserve to exist, for these monsters. Their greed and idiocy will only hasten the end result of climate change--the extinction of all life on earth.
It is probable that it is too late to stop climate change in its tracks, but we can do the extreme to significantly slow it down--but we can't even accomplish the minimum if we allow these unscrupulous and inhuman dregs of the earth to continue to ignore the will of the people. We must VOTE THEM OUT in November because our lives and the lives of future generations depend on it. Please, please do everything you can to stop this Trumpster dumpster fire.
4
This article was the most interesting this week. As I was scrolling through the different articles about our country’s economy, I came across this one, “Trump Unveils His Plan To Weaken Fuel Efficiency Rules” by Coral Davenport. Right off the bat, my interest levels spiked as I read the title. Of course I read it, and found it to be extremely interesting for multiple reasons. I was left with many opinions and questions on the whole matter. Without doing much research and further reading, many might feel as though his plan to weaken the fuel efficiency rules are a good idea, as did I. However, after this article I’m left uncertain on where I personally stand. While his plan has many potential pros, they also have many cons as well. Other businesses that did not agree with this definitely brought up great points that helped me see the bigger picture. The intentions of this plan may be good, but what will happen because of it may not be. Personally, I think they should wait and see if a compromise can be made to ensure that more people are on board. It just seems like too many big business and important people are against it. With that being said, this article also interested me for a personal reason. Being 16, this is when you start looking for cars, and with this possibly happening, it can affect a lot of things during the process. All in all, the article shed light to an event and problem that I wasn’t even aware of. It was useful to me in more ways than one.
4
Let's not forget local and regional governments continue to approve infill development projects adding to traffic congestion and hence additional emissions. Higher fuel ecomony means zippo in traffic, unless one's driving a hybrid. Apart from needed infrastructure improvements, there is no smart growth, only growth. The DC area normally experiences code orange days (poor air quality for some) each summer and recently had code red days (poor air quality for all). I support the highest air and mileage standards possible, but don't expect too see improved air quality and reduced environmental impact unless growth and infrastructure are also part of the equation.
2
I hate to say it but a global climate disaster is now inevitable (and has already begun). Not saying lowering fuel economy is a good thing. But better gas mileage won’t bend the trajectory. We would have to transform the entire global energy system almost overnight to do that. Not going to happen.
1
When Obama was president, it felt like we Americans were finally going to catch up to the rest of the world in terms of forward thinking and innovation, and that we would start moving into high speed rail and other forms of less-polluting transportation. It felt as if we were finally allowing our best minds to blossom and start doing what needs to be done to bring this country into the future. Then the battles started, with the dinosaur industries like fossil fuel and coal lumbering forth from the depths of their caves. Enough powerful people were behind progress to defeat them then, but now the dinosaurs are back, with Mothra as president to back them, and they are determined to drag us all backward into their version of the world, where might makes right and human intelligence and ingenuity count for nothing.
11
Solution: Don’t buy the less fuel efficient cars. And while I’m at it, I like driving a car, especially ones with stick shifts. I don’t want a self driving car. Has anyone considered that once the self driving cars are out that the insurance companies will make it prohibitively expensive to buy insurance for driving your own car and thus forcing everyone to buy new self driving cars????
1
@Ozma Don't buy less fuel efficient cars! Are you being sarcastic? I hope so, for your sake.
1
@KLC I thought I wrote don’t buy the less fuel efficient cars - meaning only buy fuel efficient cars. I hope I worded this correctly. In fact I am against all gas guzzlers, SUVs and all that and I love Canada!
1
Major US cities had severe smog problems until the passage of the Clean Air Act. More recently, emissions policies have become politicized and improvement has slowed or reversed. We are doing much better than we were in the 1970's, but recent policies have been deceptive or downright harmful.
The Obama 2012 reform, touted as setting a 54.5 mpg standard, actually set a 36 mpg standard after the fine print was factored in. And Obama's overall emissions goals used 2005 as the starting point, because that was the worst year on record. So Obama's goals were almost achieved when his reforms went into effect.
The Clean Air Act made a huge difference. Obama pulled the wool over our eyes. Now, along comes Trump, and tells us that we'll be better off with dirty air.
The Clean Air Act is the hero here. Obama was the shfity lawyer heavy into deception. And Trump is an out and out disaster.
After 40 years of progress, the last ten have reversed the trend. Fossil fuels used to be the greatest source of greenhouse gases. Now, it's auto emissions. Large car manufacturers these days can buy credits to remedy their bad emissions ratings. The high-end Chevy Silverado gets 12 mpg on ethanol fuel. It is second to the Ford F150 in full size pickup sales. And it is endorsed by regular people in countless Chevy commercials.
2
Um, auto emissions are from fossil fuels.
2
This is wonderful news for continued American growth and prosperity. American business know how to best handle environmental concerns, and American ingenuity best knows how to deal with both positive and negative effects that could result.
2
Your comment is laughable. Uncontrolled American business is what gave us the environmental catastrophes that we all saw in the 1970s. To think for a second that somehow industry will behave and sacrifice profits to protect the environment demonstrates an astonishingly ignorant understand of how big businesses operate. As somehow that’s worked in multinationals for over 20 years, I can tell you they really don’t care about much other than maximizing profitability.
5
Time to slap on the sanctions, global community. This move, yet again, clearly indicates that the Trump Administration is willing to protect corporate gains over long-term American prosperity. Regardless of statistical validity, using the 40k motor vehicle fatalities as a reason for gutting fuel emission standards instead of improving safety standards is self-defeating and myopic; in the long-term climate change will take far more lives and displace many others. Then again, we can't expect sound reasoning from this administration.
7
I don't know any of these people can voice these "improvements" with a straight face.
They must really need their jobs.
4
How is this plan able to compete on the worldmarket, where increases in environmental efficiencies are the standard? In order to sell in the EU for example, cars need to have a certain efficiency. He cannot deregulate himself out of a car crisis. The world is upward regulated. US will become laggard
14
@T. Car makers will go on building low emission vehicles because people want them.
Why does the goverment not recognize the pollution threat to future generations. Do our goverment officials not have children or grandchildren? How can we look these children in the eyes in 10 years and tell them - we really didn’t realize what we were doing when we made the air less healthy for them and their familes. I thought the principles of life was to make the next generation better than the one we grew up in - progress and innovation are not dirty words - they are the wave of the future and we should embrace new technology. I really think that Trump has an agenda to end ALL Obama initiatives regardless of the harmful effects.
14
While this is clearly embarrassing for the US, I'd love to know what the impact of this regulatory change will be on climate goals. While every little bit counts, what's the net impact on carbon and the resulting temperature change due to Trump's policy? That data point is critical as we think about this in the context of broader environmental policy.
7
More damaging decisions from our know-nothing president. In his maze of a mind, nothing is valued so much as his ability to create confusion and consternation. To him, this enhances his position in the pantheon of great leaders. He needs to have a new coin struck, one which has engraved upon it, "Always keep them guessing." I'm guessing how much longer we must endure this pretender.
14
@Diogenes, somehow, I read 'pretender' as 'predator'.
Oh well.
1
Hopefully California will not be alone in the fight against pollution, ignorance, and greed. Other Blue states should join CA in a coalition opposing this most basic of quality of life and health issue.
Those of us who experienced the plague of smog in American cities of the 1960's and '70's will remember the stinging eyes and burning throats that came with it.
All that bad air has been forgotten by beneficiaries of the Clean Air Acts of the '60's and '70's that Congress, when they still legislated for the benefit of their fellow citizens, passed to mitigate the foul air that brought death and discomfort to rapidly growing urban America.
Trump's America will regress to the 1950's before a new generation is forced to alleviate their suffering by starting, all over again, to repair the damage that Republicans are determined to inflict in the name of.....money, money, more money for the few and suffering for the many.
21
Trump and Republicans keep fixing things that don't need fixing and not fixing the things that need fixing.
33
I’m guessing a great majority of Californians are spoiling for a fight too. Bring it on, and this will get tied up in court until 2020. Nothing further required.
6
If consumers want fuel efficient cars the auto makers will build them. How many people complaining about this decision go out and buy a gas guzzler anyway?
3
Which is why we often need smarter people to make the right decisions for the masses. Too much freedom has its limits.
10
Yeah, I bet they said that as,e thing right before the Japanese exported their fuel efficient cars to the US market and nearly wiped out the US auto industry.
2
@TonyZ — Actually, too much freedom does, indeed, have its limits — that's why we have laws, regulations, and norms. The question is "How much is enough and how much is too much?"
He's secured the coal-roller and COPD-roller (ultimately the same guys) vote on this one. Look at it this way, the folks supporting this will spend less time on social security!
2
Weaken fuel efficiency and you weaken American automobiles as a product. Given a choice between a car that costs $1000/year in fuel and one that costs $1500/year, frugal buyers will buy the more efficient vehicle. Environmentally conscious consumers will continue to buy the most fuel efficient/green vehicles.
Frankly, it's hard to see how this benefits anyone.
Weaken emission standards and you weaken the health of all Americans, but especially children and the elderly, particularly those with respiratory/pulmonary issues. Result: higher health costs coupled with lower quality of life.
Without addressing Trump's insane crusade to erase Obama, it's hard to see how such a plan will benefit anyone in America, though it may be argued that foreign auto makers will be jumping with joy as their car sales skyrocket.
16
I look forward to the next President erasing Trump forever.
3
This rises to the level of gross criminal negligence given that there is so much data that the planet is dying from burning fossil fuels. It really sickens that this is still happening. When I think of billions of deaths and collapse of ecosystems, I weep.
10
'Obama-era standards would "impose significant costs on American consumers and eliminate jobs". - Andrew Wheeler
So do tarriffs...
I'm curious if they included in their study about traffic fatalities caused by fuel efficient cars any factor for deaths related to polluted air and water.. I doubt it.
11
By gutting fuel and emission transmissions on his mission to deny science and climate change, Trump has forgotten 30-40 years ago American automobile industry went into a slump and led to massive bailouts of the auto industry and closure of some of the companies leading to the rise of the Japanese automakers globally. American industry had to fight very hard to compete with Japanese automakers to regain quality and innovation. Turmoil in the Middle East and rise in gas prices can lead again to the precise scenario. American automakers will be extremely stupid if they have forgotten the lessons of the past and follow Trumps retrograde and foolish diktats which will be a loss in innovation and future demise of the industry itself. Those who don't learn from history are bound to fail.
7
I CAN'T HELP IT!
Moments after reading the story, Woody Guthrie's "Let's Go Ridin' In the Car" song popped into my head and I've been humming it all day - with emphasis on the sound effects...
PLEASE, MAKE IT STOP!
5
Thank god and the Republican Party for States Rights! Go California! CARB forever. California as always leading the way!
7
Europe is demanding to have cleaner less polluting cars on their roadways. Who does Trump and the GOP think is going to buy those log burners. When you are born rich people are living in a bubble like Trump and the GOP your policies will only be for the rich. Our Pope Francis said recently to oil men if you harm the planet with more fossil fuels and coal you are harming humanity. To deliberately undo President Obamas executive order to protect our environment and humanity is a disgrace and the religious groups who support Trump are going to reap what they sow in this life and the next.
7
Rolling back fuel efficiency standards is a mistake of historic proportions for anyone with even a passing knowledge of how climate change is rapidly changing our world. But when it comes to Donald Trump, his love affair with oil points directly to the man who put him in the White House. Vladimir Putin's economic plan—besides taking the lion's share for himself and his inner circle—is based almost entirely on oil. This and other Trump decisions favoring Big Oil is just this simple. Putin's return on his American investment continues to pay enormous dividends.
9
I thought Republicans are all about states rights. So how could they advocate taking away the states' right to have their own laws?
As ever, "states rights" means whatever anyone wants it to, and usually it means "the right to ignore regulation" and rarely the opposite.
10
Bought and paid for by Trump's Saudi allies. there's a quid pro quo behind every one of his rollbacks.
12
This is a sure way to reduce our automotive exports. Other (more sensible) parts of the world are not going to reduce their mileage (and hence, pollution) standards, so American vehicles will no longer be legal in most of the world. China, in particular, is emphasizing electric and hybrid low emission vehicles. And that is the largest growing auto market in the world. Really smart to cut off the largest potential market.
7
@BigFootMN
So you are saying that the government is better at determining what cares to build than the the people who work in the auto industry? If it makes economic sense for car companies to manufacture fuel efficient cars, they will.
1
@It isn't working You will take notice that the auto makers have come out against this proposal.
2
@It isn't working The auto industry didn't ask for this, fyi. They would be foolish to request this since it will just mean job eliminations and dirty air and water for their children and grandchildren.
So happy to become a third world country with no regulations, Thanks Mr. Trump. Let's just burn it all up, coal, oil, gas instead of sensible (if funded) renewable energy.
My eternal question, starting with Bush 1 and 2, is what does Trump think his kids are inheriting, or even himself at this point? No clean air, no health plans for the people that really pay their taxes, no economic growth, no nothing. One can hide in a golf course, but the air is the same as those suffering near it.
Here's an interesting thought that I have had for a while, and may very well be true. For all those companies and corporations that are profiting by Trump's Executive Orders, who profits and how? Qui Bono? Always look into who benefits. Always look at that.
8
The super rich will go to Mars just before they render the Earth uninhabitable.
1
This is nonsense. I have a 2018 car that gets nearly 40mpg on the highway, is a five star safety pick, and steers and brakes itself using cameras (as a backup, not main system). I had the same car brand and model in 1995 and 2008 and it got 25mpg and had none of the safety systems.
Going backwards once again.
18
@juan . I look forward/backward to the days when cars don't have seatbelts!
2
There is NOTHING forward thinking about this government.
7
The man is utterly and completely repugnant just like his ideas. It will be up to the states to regulate and move forward into the future, without their foresight and careful stewardship we are all doomed under this administration of science denying grifters.
5
I'd put my money on Jerry Brown over Donald Trump any day of the week.
This is just another attempt to distract from Russia anyway.
11
Scary. Does our present condition seem eerily similar to Gotham City having been taken over by The Joker? Seriously. Really? What's fueling his engine?
5
Time to saddle up the horses and enjoy excellent mileage and no pollution. Triump is wandering in the desert...
4
The Europeans are gonna love the American cars! (sarcasm)
1
In 2011, Dr. Andrew Weil was interviewed by the NYT on 'what' I'd do if I was president' - ANDREW WEIL Founder of the Arizona Center for Integrative Medicine and author of “Why Our Health Matters”
I’d tell the nation that I was powerless to control the war machine, Wall Street, big oil and the other interests that run the country, and I would urge Americans to form a new political party not beholden to them.
3
What pure evil in this world would put more poison in the air and kill endangered species?
9
I don't know what is more ridiculous, nay obscene: the "arguments" coming from Trump's EPA or the comments applauding his actions.
The former EPA administrator says: this change will increase gas consumption in the US by one million barrels a day. And auto manufacturers didn't even ask for this change: they know the science, the math, the economics vis-a-vis imports, the value of innovation, and were a full partner at the table when the Obama regulations were put together.
Send Trump and his team of know-nothings who, apparently, have zero shame when it comes to the garbage they're willing to attach their names to, on an around the world drought, flood and fire tour: they won't be able to do it in 180 days.
Well, let the law suits fly. Trump's Obama Derangement Syndrome is beyond noxious.
17
Once we've brought back smog, maybe we can get to work on polio. It's due for a comeback and Trump is just the guy to make it happen.
1
For what purpose? Who wins? Trump, nothing in it for him personally. Make a point that they are in control, possibly. Increase the cost of medicare and healthcare, almost certainly. Add the increased healthcare costs to the bailout for the farmers, somebody has to pay. Send clouds of air pollution to our ( former ) allies in Europe and Mexico, almost certainly. Stunt the brains of our children from breathing dirty air, certainly. Who wins? What is the point?
5
Science and facts are out the window with Trump/GOP. Better fuel economy will save lives and save fuel.Proposal will be put up for a period of comment; it will be just like net neutrality was. Trump will ignore the people and do it Trump's way. The good news; states will sue and tie Trump's plan up for years. Hopefully mid terms will wipe out GOP advantage. Vote out GOP for health care; jobs and a living wage. Ray Sipe
8
Will car manufacturers really want weaker fuel efficiency standards when they know that consumers like fuel efficiency? Better gas mileage is not only good for the environment, it saves drivers money so who wants a car with worse fuel efficiency? Only big oil and gas companies benefit from worse fuel efficiency and of course that means Saudi Arabia and Russia-Trump's buddies. This is a corrupt plan from start to finish.
5
Apparantly the Administration is touting a study which says that if fuel efficiency standards increase people will drive more and have more accidents.
But honestly why do so many people buy gas guzzlers?
The 13,000 more crashes is just a fig leaf, something that tRump sycophants can wave around as justification for what they know is a bad policy. It shares that with the "Canada is a security risk" fig leaf, and the "middle-class tax cut" fig leaf and countless others.
4
So what Trumpy saves is his own behind. Try counting all those folks who will die prematurely from smog related illness and it becomes a zero-sum game. We lose.
4
Trump is just introducing outrageous changes that clearly do not have the support of auto makers, environmentalists, and other policy makers. The only groups that may be supporting that change would be Russia and other oil producing countries such as Saudi Arabia. So is there another thread of "collusion" that we are not aware of?
2
This is the same administration that has compared detention complexes for migrant families to summer camps. It is hardly surprising that we would also be told that a policy to block lighter, more fuel-efficient cars will save lives.
Vote in November to stop this administration in its tracks. Vote as if your life depends on it.
3
Trump's entire life is about lowering standards. What he's doing to the EPA and the environment is what he's done to the White House: lower standards and debasement.
11
I don't understand the surprise and dismay about Trump's continuing march into dystopia...he repeatedly said "I love the uneducated."
Of course he does -- they make him feel right at home.
10
Since the rest of the world, including China, also follows California's standards, I guess this will ultimately be the end of the US auto industry. And as specious as the administration's claims that bigger and bigger vehicles increase safety may be on its face, why doesn't the administration introduce stronger safety requirements, lower speed limits or consider how many people will die from the increase in climate change if everybody drive huge vehicles. This policy will kill jobs, harm the US auto industry, harm the environment and like many other Trump policies will put the US even further behind the rest of the world.
No amount of tariffs will save the US auto industry from this self-inflicted setback to its global competitiveness. The question is will it be 5 years for 10 years before they come around again for a bailout because of their addiction to massive gas guzzlers.
11
Yeah that will help American automakers sell their cars and trucks around the world.
2
So with a trade war, Trump damages auto companies doing business in the U.S., and then extends them a helping hand by reducing emission standards? Isn't it clear to people of all political parties that clean air and clean water benefit humans as well as economies?
1
The United Autoworkers and the auto parts workers should think about what lies down the road in terms of future sales of "Trump Quality/Mileage Efficiency" cars. The rest of the world (as is true for their universal healthcare systems) will motor on. The Trump cars will become like the Detroit cars of the 1980`s when compared to what Japan & Europe where making at the time. This another con by Trump & his abettors.
America , when will this Trump-GOP nightmare end ?
5
"Unless the Obama administration’s punishing standards are changed, consumer choice will be limited and the cost of vehicles will skyrocket." Give me a break. The real punishment is just beginning. Dumping more carbon into the environment will increase the punishment in an accelerated manner.
4
Over the years, fuel efficiency has increased. If the number of accidents have increased, maybe someone should look at increased cell phone use and texting. It is a good thing that the President uses a limousine. Trump can't tweet in traffic. Truly tragic.
7
Where do we get an advantage from this? Reagan did part of this, so letting the CAFE standards lag behind the times. But in the end, when Florida is an archipelago, and Lake Mead dry, will conservatives say they were wrong?
5
Californians want to breathe clean air and stave off the impacts of climate change, which represents a grave risk for our coastal state. For decades, we have elected state officials who have responsibly imposed restrictions on a variety of sources of pollution, including automobiles.
The federal government should not have the right to impose limits on our ability to use regulation to protect our air and protect the global climate - and our shores - at the same time.
The GOP loves to talk about "states' rights" but supports this principle only when it serves their greedy interests. As a Californian, I can only say, "Don't Tread On Me!"
12
Does anyone still believe this administration is promoting policy for the greater good of US citizens? This is yet another in a long string of initiatives that are so clearly being done to satisfy large donors and industry lobbyists that is followed by barely plausible, contortionist logic trying to justify why it is good for everyone.
9
The US rules won't mean much if they want to sell cars outside of the country. They'll have to live up to global standards.
8
I thought the US stood for a free economy based on the twin foundations of innovation and efficiency.
Now it appears Trump stands for a comand economy like in Communist Russia. He will force us to use gas guzzlers until the only cars available are from Europe and Asia and the US car industry becomes a bit player. The same will happen in energy generation. In the end, the world will embargo us and we will become as irrelevant to it as Spain in 1900 after being the greatest power in 1600. It took Spain 3 centuries to do it, but I think Comrade Trump can do it in less than 3 decades.
10
If auto manufacturers want to avoid the "worst case scenario", they should just proceed along the 2012 guidelines set out by Obama. It's entirely do-able, it would eliminate a fight with California and would give consumers what they overwhelmingly want: cleaner, more efficient vehicles and a cleaner environment to boot. All of this, while rendering the Trump Administration's whining totally irrelevant.
Car geeks will recall the moaning that accompanied the emissions standards of the early '70's The horsepower wars were over, they said. Fast forward to today's cleaner, safer and ridiculously faster cars, and it's easy to see why refusing to meet the challenges of tomorrow is such a bad idea.
If the auto makers need any more incentive, they should remember that foreign auto manufacturers will still have to meet the standards required by other, more enlightened governments. Those foreign cars will be available to America's drivers, too.
3
The Big Three are vigorously working to catch up with the production of electric and hybrid vehicles made by Tesla and the Japanese/Korean manufacturers. Are the Big Three (as opposed to the oil and gas people) really lobbying for relaxed emission standards, which would likely drive customers to the foreign dealers? Or is Donald, with usual knee-jerk provocation, simply and once again opposing an Obama policy on principle?
7
This latest regressive act by the Trump Admnistration does not belong in a democracy or a republic, but in a fascist (or Communist) state. Obama could (marginally) justify his executive actions by virtue of having won a far bigger popular mandate in two elections than Trump did in one, and in response to implacable Republican opposition in Congress. Here is Trump with majorities in both houses, and he doesn't even put this latest outrage before his own party. Not to mention riding roughshod over the emission policies of many states. (So much for the GOP's vaunted belief in states' rights.) This is government by fiat. It must not be allowed to continue.
8
Bet California with its second year of horrendous wildfires and loss of life and property is really going to be in favour of this latest Trump administration initiative - not!
6
Trump's ridiculous stance on climate science is just irresponsible. Our plant is sick - it took 100 years from the Industrial Revolution start to the 1970s for the increase in carbon dioxide to increase global temperatures by 1 degree. At that time - we recognized we had a world crisis - and made plans to ensure we never went beyond 2 degrees. Forty years later we blew through 2 degrees - and are essentially in a mode of predicting when doomsday will arrive for the planet. Each degree increase brings exponential change in climate - at 2 degrees we already see the drastic impacts through melting ice caps, drought, increased frequency and intensity of storms. SO despite the obvious...we have Trump laughing at the facts....and doing everything he can to unwind logical responses to slowing doing the inevitable. Irresponsible hardly covers it.
8
Once again Trump doesn't get it. These regs to lower MPG will be a moot point in 20 or 25 years. The world is moving to emission free vehicles while Trump will be running his car on "clean coal." Clueless man.
4
Once again Trump administration officials are basing policy decisions on FAKE SCIENCE. The statement that higher fuel efficiency will “impose significant costs on American consumers and eliminate jobs,” and that the Trump proposal would “give consumers greater access to safer, more affordable vehicles, while continuing to protect the environment" is not true. In other words, lies. The safety issue is a "red herring."
If enacted, the proposed rules WOULD allow other countries and automobile manufacturers to develop new technology and manufacture vehicles that are more fuel efficient, safer, more durable (last longer), and more desirable to purchase and own. Trump's proposal is essentially encouraging China and other countries to take the technological lead in building future vehicles that customers want. In other words, these proposed rules would put the jobs of American workers at risk.
4
Why isn’t this administration worried about the loss of lives & property, so far this year, caused by global warming? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I haven’t seen Trump tweet out a “thoughts & prayers” on the current California wildfires.
I hope the states have some common sense and stay with the higher standards. I can’t see how the car manufacturers would go along with this either. The rest of the world is working towards higher standards & their consumers don’t want US gas guzzlers.
2
Are we surprised ? One of Trump's first moves as president was to approve the contested pipeline in North Dakota - The owner was one of his major donors ... Trump is just a grotesque exaggeration of republican policy which has suppressed development of alternate fuels for decades -The U.S. could have been a leader and created employment with modest investment but congress members on both sides of the aisle receive too much money from the oil industry, screaming against any sort of 'subsidy'- Pure hypocrisy: the oil industry has been subsidized since the 19th century from simple graft and highway construction up to and including foreign policy.
Along with this backward looking policy is the threat of a health care system which promises to treat less and less people - When people have breathing problems from mild asthma to lung cancer due to pollution who pays?
The combination of these two policies is not just short sighted; it borders on criminal neglect.
1
Is there anything this fool touches that is not harmed or made worse? Has he helped make things better for anyone, other than those who profit at the publicist expense?
2
Yes, by all means let us just pollute some more! Who needs fresh air, clean water, green spaces and prestine National Parks anyway. We might as well wreck this planet and have people die rather sooner than later of lung cancer, and other illnesses caused by or related to contaminated water and soil and polluted air. Before we know it humans will go extinct secondary to climate change and because we fouled our own nest.
Way to go Republicans! I am in my mid seventies and hopefully I will have mercifully passed on before it gets too bad.
3
Let innovation and engineering do their jobs.
Oh wait he has some serious lobbying from companies who wish to lower regulations so that gas guzzling cars can make them more money (wink wink more jobs created). Short term gains....will lead to long-term losses across all aspects of life.
This move is not about saving jobs, much like the rest of his policies (pressuring amazon, tariff hike, mouthing to Harley D, raising the debt ceiling etc etc) its a ticking time bomb offering a lame blast of a future to our kids. I hope sincerely people can see through the nonsense and elect a sensible candidate.
5
No surprises here. We've known this would happen since November 2016. Think about that this November when your first choice candidate is not on the ballot and you're upset.
Then vote with all these issues in mind. Or just sulk and fill out online petitions for 6 more years.
1
For a President whose supposed claim to fame is that he likes to "tell it like it is"...it is stunning how he feels the need to cover a policy in a bunch of phony arguments that no sensible person believes. Why can't Trump just say: We simply don't care about pollution. That is all this is. Instead he needs to pretend as if he really wants to limit pollution but after careful scientific consideration he decided the safety cost is too high. If anyone believes that for one second they are fools. This seems to be the GOP playbook on most issues:
Tax breaks for companies are designed to help working class families (not to enrich the wealthy).
Unfettered access to guns is the best way to stop gun violence (rather than admitting that they are happy to live to gun deaths because people like guns).
1
So much for states rights. My oh my how this Republican Party has changed under Donald Trump.
1
On every single issue, without exception, Trump and his Republican door mats are on the wrong side of history and generally the wrong side of American values and principles.
2
Trump has ensured that the market for American cars will shrink further as global consumers look for more efficient alternatives which comply with laws in their countries to combat climate change. Meanwhile, more Americans will suffer from air pollution combined with hotter temperatures from global warming. Wasn't Trump supposed to be the smart businessman who would get the best advice on how to grow the American economy?
4
It's wrong. It's wrong. It's wrong. It's wrong.
4
In the future, Trump will be thought of as a criminal.
3
I’m sitting here with ash on my car. Everyone is complaining of cancelling vacations because of smoke. People with asthma all of=vernthencountrynare suffering. Apocalyptic fires. Paralyzing heat. Not just in California. Is this president simply insane? Look out the window! Climate change is happening. Bad!
5
I guess the Republicans can't claim "states' rights" any longer.
Platform: Greed is good.
2
I live in the East Coast about a half block away from the ocean. Do you want to know what is really hitting me a few thousand dollars extra each year, the flood insurance policy I have to buy because eventually where I live will be flooded.
So even if I paid an extra $5000-$10000 for a more fuel efficient car, it would still be way cheaper to do that than to continually keep paying a few thousand dollars a year for flood insurance, which by the way keeps rising each year.
We already have the technology (Tesla) to have fully electric cars that can go 300 miles on a charge. I get the economic argument, that oil workers and some car parts manufacturers will go out of business, since you wont need gas and electric cars require less maintenance, but other industries would pop-up and create more jobs in other areas. I am sick and tired of industry protecting their interests over that of the planet's. What does it matter if you have a job if you are then too sick to enjoy the fruits of your labor later on in life.
It would make so much more sense if we had transitional training and help for displaced workers instead of trying to just keep things the way they are. If Trump were president during the early 1900's he would have probably banned Henry Ford's cars from displacing the horse carriage industry back then. I have no respect for this man's (Trump's) stupidity.
10
The Trump administration's folly has reached monumental proportions.
Trump cozy's up to dictators, alienates our allies, denies the existence of interference with our elections from Russia, denies anthropogenic climate change, closes the doors on resolving the Israel- Palestine Gordian knot by moving our embassy to Jerusalem, increases the US debt by trillion dollars, creates tariffs to endanger global good will and create potential unemployment in the US, stays in bed with the NRA...and has 45 million devoted followers.
Folks, do you see the 'END' coming under this deranged administration?
3
why not? They wish to degrade our air and our healthcare coverage so that we can die.
1
My father worked in the auto industry for forty years. I worked for thirty. A lot has changed sin the industry since my family became involved. We build better cars, more fuel-efficient cars and labor-management relations are much better. A lot of that has been because the industry has just naturally evolved with the times. A lot of it is because the government had to prod the automakers to do things which needed to be done.
Along comes Trump on his high horse, undoing so many things that have made the companies of today ultra-competitive in a global market. The automakers in America are competing globally and in markets where American standards aren’t the same as elsewhere. We have to build globally. If Trump, in all of his delusional glory, thinks taking swipes at Obama via deregulation is going to change things for the better for automakers, he’s even stupider than I thought. There’s 1.4 billion Chinese, 700 million Europeans and 325 million Americans and we build for them all here and elsewhere. We can’t dictate standards anymore.
Trump is just... a moron.
13
Solid plan Brownie! Can't wait to pay more @ the pump and inhale all that clean air
1
Because all of us can't wait to spend more money on gas........?
1
During the 70s oil prices spike made it practically unaffordable for Americans to own large gas-guzzling American-made cars. American car companies almost went bankrupt because they could not compete with the more fuel efficient, smaller Japanese cars.
Right now, gas is somewhat affordable making it ok to purchase the less fuel efficient trucks and SUVs. However gas prices in Europe, parts of Africa and Asia are much higher and the streets are more narrow; making the purchase of the gas-guzzling SUVs impractical.
At some point gas prices will increase in the US and once again, American car companies will be at a major competitive disadvantage in the US, if they follow Trump down this rabbit hole.
Why set American car companies up for long-term failure?
It seems that this is the story of the Trump lifestyle and probably the Trump era: Make decisions for immediate gratification, angle to make a quick buck and then follow that up with long-term economic and moral bankruptcy...
3
Fact is, Obama era emissions regulations never reduced emission levels by even 1%, which is why President Trump said enough is enough. Good call.
@Joe owens
You know your comment makes no sense at all. aye my friend.
1
Mr. Wehrum: "No one wants a two-car world where there are one set of cars on one side of the country and one on the other. That makes no sense.”
Sir, we already have that, have for years and it's working just fine. The middle of the country needs to wake up and follow the lead of coastal states. For their sake and their children.
7
Not that it's any surprise. But a reduction in aggregate fuel efficiency and the corresponding increase in fuel consumption would benefit a certain cold country that gets most of its revenue from petroleum exports.
2
It's just so weird that all those Western European nations with their fleets of small cars have such dramatically lower rates of road accident deaths than the U.S.. Of course they have smaller cars because of the high rates of fuel taxes, which is also how they pay for such excellent roads and transit infrastructure, which I'm sure has nothing whatsoever to do with lower rates of fatal traffic accidents.
7
If car companies can sell a great fuel efficient car and make money, they will. The thing is, most people don't want those cars. Ask Ford or GM what their money makers are, it's the SUV's and trucks. Most U.S. consumers are willing to sacrafice a little climate change for a nice, big, safe vehicle.
@Melissa M. "Most U.S. consumers are willing to sacrafice [sacrifice] a little climate change for a nice, big, safe vehicle."
Granted, the top selling three of ten are American trucks but the following seven are not. They are Toyota, Honda and Nissan.
https://www.businessinsider.com/best-selling-cars-and-trucks-in-us-2017-...
1
I’m sympathetic to the freedom of choice argument but not the freedom to pollute. Including CO2. So, as has been suggested, the states can tax higher emissions vehicles.
1
Economy and emissions standards haven't kept European car companies from remaining competitive with one another. Technological advances easily allow Detroit to make more efficient and cleaner cars. They just don't want to. Oil companies don't want them to. Do Americans really prefer to buy twice as much gas than they really need to? Do Americans really prefer to breathe dirtier air (set aside whether its a global warming issue)? Do Americans want to increase dependence on foreign oil again over time? Do Americans not want those entrepreneurs who can provide Detroit with the technology for cleaner and more efficient cars to succeed?
This policy is not for you, John Q. Public. It is for Mr. Trump's corporate campaign donors. Its what makes America great, except for the Americans who live, breathe and drive here.
5
the President's alleged critique of the Koch Bros is a huge smoke screen. His energy and his transportation policies are obviously designed to increase our car dependency and increase gas and oil consumption. It is an #AmericanShame, as the rest of the whole world is moving #BeyondOil to more sustainable and more social ways to get around.
5
Donald hates his predecessor Mr. Obama so much.
9
Another cynical and ill-conceived decision. Trump should read Nathaniel Rich's current article in the NY Times Magazine. The damage Reagan did is nothing compared to what Trump intends to inflict on the globe. It is mystifying that seemingly intelligent members of the administration can align themselves with such idiocy.
7
Oh, no. I’m just one person, how can I fight this?
1
Just another example of Trump decision-making process. The planning equivalent of....
{BANG} "Stop, or I'll shoot!"
2
So this is Trump as Nero? Playing the lute as the environment runs out of control.
4
"States rights!", bellow Republicans. Except when it's inconvenient for them.
2
"The evil that men do dies with them; the good men do lives on". Trump can do all the evil he can think of to wipe out Barrack Obama's legacy, but when Trump is gone he will be forgotten. The Obama solutions and legacy will roar right back and be better than the originals. And guess which man will be historically noted as a 'great' President?
8
Trump and his rich corporate buddies must be planning on living in bunkers or flying to Mars, because they aren’t taking the lives of the future offspring of the rest of us with their greedy backwards policies. The climate has already changed,and the world is quickly getting a lot more crowded. Wiser heads are needed asap.
3
Striving backwards for the best EPA money can buy.
6
Now more than ever with the rising prices of gasoline, the American driver is just itching for less fuel efficiency. Trump may want to gut the rules but the automakers are not stupid.
Note to US automakers: If you fail to produce efficient cars of the future, those who care about the planet will not be buying your cars.
4
Stated plainly. This is not about the cars. This is about the oil.
6
Love how the GOP is always against the environment in general, and states rights when it suits them and their pocket books.
2
This is insane in so many ways, US autos will not be able to be sold in Europe and China is also moving in that direction so this house of cards is about to come crashing down on Trump, not that he would have any clue as to how business will be done in the near future. Unfortunately for Canada where I'm from, we will have to follow in lockstep this insane policy since we are to small a market and so integrated with the US economy to do any different.
1
I see, the anti-big government Republicans want to make a rule that the states have to follow. States rights only pertains to discriminatory policies. Now I understand.
4
Who even would buy cars that get lower fuel mileage? Who even wants to go to the gas station more? Who wants dirtier air? Maybe those people who use their IDs while buying milk?
14
that's what's great about this country. we have choices to buy a vehicle that gets less MPG for performance, work, whatever or you can buy a car that gets good MPG so you can help the planet.
president Trump is evening the playing field in support of all Americans
the free market and technology should decide where we go on energy efficiency, not the government and special interest groups
2
@Brasto No, I disagree. We cannot rely on the private sector to do the right thing - not when the quest for profits is involved. We need government oversight to ensure the private sector refrains from raping the planet.
5
Another unacceptable policy that wreaks havoc with our energy and climate policies, harms the auto industry and the health of Americans, and will likely reduce the competitiveness of American auto manufacturers in comparison the Europe and Japan. Unsound, policy, based on bad science and fraudulent statistical analysis. This needs to be stopped.
10
This year's heatwave and extreme fire season should finally put to rest any doubts about global climate change and warming, and the effects on people, the economy and the environment - and the clear link between automobile exhaust emissions and greenhouse gasses. Moving backwards on the economy and emissions of motor vehicles only serves to deny this clear link. In a global economy, to manufacture the least efficient, least economical cars appears to put our manufacturers at a distinct disadvantage - MAGA? Bottom of the rung with the least competitive product? Sort of like bringing a sword to a gun fight? When was the last time you made a $30K plus car purchase based on which car gets the WORST fuel economy? As an automotive engineer, I can assure you that smaller and lighter enhances safety - better braking, less stopping distance, better acceleration, sharper and more nimble handling with less weight and bulk to push around. Our engineers are (or at least were) some of the finest the world has ever known, give them the challenge and let them do their thing - THIS is what will make us great and prosperous and safe - not clinging to outdated thinking and technology. Does this administration remember the toxic clouds over the cities of the '70s? Love Canal? Lakes in urban areas that could not provide safe drinking water and glowed in the dark? If this is what tRump thinks is great, please let him be great somewhere else...
12
If affordability of new cars is the main reason for loosening the EPA rules on auto emissions, what about increasing minimum wage? Coming up with a health plan that covers everyone and doesn't force anyone into debt for a stubbed toe?
With more cash on hand, logic would indicate that Americans could afford more, right?
2
California will continue to lead the way, by holding to their emissions standards and fighting this backward approach through the courts. And, the auto industry will respond by aligning themselves with the California standards, for the benefit of both the consumer and their own franchises. Those manufacturers who move backward with Mr. Trump will be gone in short order.
9
This is article is worth reading.
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/if-automobile-fuel-economy-hitting-dead...
I hate to be a pessimist, but i think climate change, assuming it is for real and has the proportions we are told it will have, will not be impacted in any material way by the changes Trump proposes to make. In fact, the greater harm may lie in allowing the regulations to stand as a "signature achievement", thus lulling the general population into thinking they will actually make a difference. World populations are growing, standards of living are going up, carbon emissions are increasing inexorably. Accepting regulations like this as sufficient to make a difference is barely above climate change denial; one might argue that in some ways it may even be less honest than climate change denial.
It is ridiculously naive to think that the solution to this problem will be solved by simply ordering an industry which accounts for 20% of the US economy and employs millions of people producing things (vehicles) that virtually everyone uses, to double fuel efficiency in a few years, so the rest of us can then say, okay that's done, now we can go on living our lives, and driving our cars. The government provides an apparent solution, which is not a solution at all, so people can feel action is being taken.
A collective approach is required, where everyone has an obligation, and no-one bears a disproportionate burden.
2
Evil policy of the day. It is as if they brainstorm each morning to think of an Obama initiative to dismantle, ignoring the common good that led to the course taken by the previous administration. Reprehensible! Can't wait for the day the door slams behind this administration and all those who have enabled it.
16
The GOP is blatantly the “troll the liberals” party. If Obama had privatized Medicare and social security, eliminated Medicaid, and started 20 wars, we would be in a socialist utopia with world peace by now under Trump and republicans.
These are empty, cynical people who couldn’t care less about the policy in their politics. They use politics for cheap thrills to fill their tv screens and inflate their egos.
7
I know why! The trumpmobile will have a coal burning engine!
5
Air pollution in the US leads to many premature deaths, as well as early dementia, weak bones, asthma, and countless other suffering (especially among kids and the elderly). Even if it was true that lighter cars cause more deaths than heavier cars, I would put $$$ down on the fact that more people die and suffer from air pollution each year as compared to fakenews 'light car deaths'. Also, fact is fossil fuels are a finite resource, so not seeking effeciency is illogical.
Trump's logic: 180 backwards + harmful to the American people. Conclusion is that he hates us all and wants our children and grandparents to suffer and die early for the benefit of (?). PATHETIC.
https://nyti.ms/2BwGp2m
https://nyti.ms/2kEFO9g
https://nyti.ms/2cYV5y0
7
Are seat belts next?
6
This is another example of Trump's twisted world view. He wants a weakened America and democracy, especially if he can tear down anything Obama did. That makes him feel powerful. Trump wants to create chaos and set the world on fire. He wants to weaken everything he touches -- and, unfortunately, he wants to touch everything.
The reason I keep pointing out that he is "disordered" (I'd like to use the psychological term but it won't get published) is because the reaction of the media and normal (neurotypical) people to Trump's behaviors has been to attach normal human emotions to him.
But Trump is not a normal functioning human. Among his many impulse issues is his drive to control everyone and everything -- the result of which is always destruction of the people and things he's targeted. And that is that is exactly what sociopaths do -- they enjoy both the act of destroying and the result. They enjoy it as a passive activity, as an active engagement, and as something set in motion that originated with them.
I think it would be wise for the media, especially, to stop portraying Trump (the man) as a normal human. The only way to fight him is to relentlessly attack his lies, behaviors and actions. Words and the game of semantics are his weapon. Contrasts (eg, he acts like an idiot man-child but commits crimes against humanity) are his tools. Media plays into this by adopting Trump's particular lexicon and then presenting that playbook through a lens of norms.
7
After Trump was elected, I hoped that even though he seemed by all measure to be a bullying, misogynistic, lying and vulgar man, he might somehow, inadvertently, end up mixing a few progressive policies into what would otherwise be an ordinary Republican administration. After he put together his Cabinet--stocking it almost to a person with an appalling choice--I realized he was an out-and-out shill for corporate America who had suckered millions of voters to believe in him. After he began undoing every Obama executive order he could get his hands on in what amounted to a mad frenzy to obliterate his predecessor's accomplishments, it became clear to me that he has a severely disturbed mind that borders on being mad. But now, today--just now!--when I add together all of the things above with his Charlottesville, the separation of migrant children from their parents, his groveling at the feet of Putin, and now the weakening of automobile pollution rules, I have concluded Donald Trump is evil.
6
The Trump Admin's policy is a danger to humanity but their concern for American lives is a joke (they say the policy will save 12k souls). Their number was clearly pulled out of...somewhere. I'm still waiting for them to be concerned about the 35,000 annual lives lost to gunfire. I guess the ability to poison our planet is now a constitutional right in Trump's deranged mind?
6
Is there no end to the foolish and destructive policies emanating from this administration? Is there any anyone in the Trump White House willing to stand up for the welfare of the citizens of this country...and the world in general? I throw up my hands in despair at the self-serving, short-sighted and, frankly, greedy members of this so-called "government". November elections can't come soon enough.
7
Since trump is so concerned about lives maybe tell him that coal kills about 13,000 people a year.
6
This seems a great way of wiping out the entire US car industry.
10
Who asked for this anticompetitive rule change? Big oil, who by the way still gets federal subsidies(aka corporate welfare). Oh, and Obama did it, the only thing that Trump is for (besides himself) is to undo anything Obama did.
3
The earth is heating up, unprecedented wildfires are burning in California, extreme weather conditions are becoming commonplace and Trump wants to make all this worse by weakening car pollution. Since Trump believes he is a genius the only conclusion to make is he is an evil genius.
2
Short term gain for the very few, long term destruction for ALL.
3
Our wallets and purses will do the talking, Mr. Trump. No matter what foolish ideas you may try and impose, we will purchase what we want to purchase. The way of fossil fuels is declining rapidly because we, the consumers, want it that way. Any manufacturer that refuses to acknowledge this is doomed to fail. Capitalism should be allowed to work its magic without influence nor interruption from you, Mr. Trump.
6
Another lie and step forward into the past.
More fuel efficient cars save consumers money and reduce our damage to the planet. The demand for greater fuel efficiency and alternative energy sources is growing, in the US and across the world. Does this administration want to reduce American competitiveness? Is that the end-game here?
We should be investing in R&D for MORE fuel efficient technology and alternative, renewable energy for ALL of our energy needs.
This ridiculous proposal is simply for greedy fossil fuel industry short-term gain and, mostly, to undo President Obama's policies because, well, they are President Obama's policies, as with NAFTA, TPP, Paris Accords, Iran Policy, coal and so much more.
Let's hope American auto makers ignore this foolish proposal and continue working toward cars of the future.
2
US leadership is not MAGA. It is taking it backwards and making it more and more isolated. We should be leading the world in innovation, solutions and technology. Many of his decisions simply pander to his constituency which IMO are ignorant and demonstrate a lack of understanding of how the world works. In Europe, the consequences of trying to sell a product that does meet local standards implies no one will buy - and no one will buy a car that doesn’t meet emission standards.
2
The Trump Administration engages in an aggressive war on our environment and the climate. Even the most uneducated person will know by now that this boneheaded policy will ruin not only America, but the planet. This reckless Administration needs to be stopped by all means. All of us who know better must vote Democratic, because the Republicans have given up on guiding our country to a prosperous future.
2
Trump is destroying american industry , rather than finding new technology and solutions to many problems he feels we should just go back to the old days , Make America Great again like it used to. This is much like not having splinter proof glass, no seat belts and no catalytic converter. And we are letting more methane out of our fracking and gas production we could be capturing for usage. He is very backward thinking.
To bad for US>
8
My gut tells me that this is another "Mexican's will pay for the wall" fiasco on Trump's part, and it's not going to happen.
Remember the claims in the early going that the Trump administration would retract the CO2 endangerment finding? Remember the nonsense about "red team, blue team" ... how they were going to prove that mainstream science was wrong?
They made loud noises for awhile, and then they shut up and slunk away.
But in doing so they really admitted that CO2 is a pollutant, scientifically and legally. And the Clean Air Act (yes, enacted by Congress) requires the EPA to ameliorate it.
1
Yet another proposal to lessen the impact of the Obama era.
@Southern Boy You really should look into this:
https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/education/2018/02/15/tennessee-rec...
He's systematically trying to destroy everything good about the US... just like a Russian leader would do. It probably won't be long before he tries to reduce the sanctions against them...payback for helping him get elected.
2
I'm sometimes skeptical of climate-change extremists--and I despise Ethanol--but this absurd act is just another malignant effort by Trump and his fellow extremists to slave the safety and economic power of the American people to his infantile passion for vengeance on his enemies.
Is everyone who joins the Trump administration required to take a reverse Hippocratic Oath?
3
This is nonsensical 'policy'. But, it's not like automakers will suddenly stop doing what they do. It takes years. I think this is more of a play to the base.
1
With each passing day, Trump does more to ensure that future generations (depending how long we are here) will view his presidency as the ultimate failure, and Obama’s as visionary. If only he understood the irony that his relentless quest for fawning adulation from a minority will end up consigning him to the ash heap of history.
5
If I were CEO of GM, or Ford or Chrysler, or any automaker for that matter, I'd publicly tell Trump to pound salt. The optics are all in favor of the manufacturers pushing back, arguing that the horse of improved fuel efficiencies is already well out of the barn.
Guess I'm naive . . .
1
Trump has a tendency to appear kind of scatttershot. First he's here, then he's there, then he forgets what he did yesterday, then he does something different, then he discovers a new shiny toy and gets distracted, and so forth.
Yet--if you look closely enough, there is an organizing principle at work. Sort of. Let's call it sheer perversity. It's painfully obvious as well as extremely painful to be a witness to the extinction of species, increasing frequency of devastating floods, hurricanes, and severe drought. What to do? Why--double down of course--deliberately promote spewing as much CO2 into the atmosphere as possible--that oughta do it.
The fabric of our nation is being torn to pieces because of the pernicious growth of income inequality. Trump response? Serve up an enormous tax break which will balloon deficits and insure that those who hold the wealth get a larger share while impoverishing everyone else. Wait six months and then propose another tax measure narrowly focused on improving the lot of 10% of Americans--the top 10% per cent.
So perhaps there is a "method" to this madness.
1
As my colleague Jeff Bortz has noted, "How will future historians explain America's new goal, dirtier cars for dirtier air? Of course, if the air gets dirty enough, there won't be any future historians, so there's that."
2
Everyone knows that Trump is in Putin's pocket, and yet, somehow, amazingly, we all keep allowing him to break laws like the Clean Air Act, which allow states like California to set their own environmental standards. No car manufacturer wants this; no voter really wants to bring back the smog and pollution of the 1960s and 70s and all the respiratory problems caused by them. Why are we letting Trump get away with this?
4
This is not just Trump. He couldn’t come up with a policy himself.
This is the entire GOP.
The transportation Secretary Elaine Chao is Mitch McConnells wife.
We need to rid our government of Republican control, if we want to live healthy equitable lives and create a world worth saving.
10
The governor of California, Jerry Brown, said his state was prepared to fight. “For Trump to now destroy a law first enacted at the request of Ronald Reagan five decades ago is a betrayal and an assault on the health of Americans everywhere,” he said. Yay, Jerry. But isn't sad that we need to waste resources of re-fighting battles all ready won instead of moving forward? This is not progress.
3
Wendy Banner As a state we have Road Power. We can,
as the Driving Public, boycott those manufacturers who
buck our California Tailpipe “standards”.
No Comply -
We don’t Buy.
3
Isn't it bad enough that Trump continues to pollute many a mind with his nonsense and "alternative facts" but now he wants to add to this overall pollution problem by scaling back on greenhouse gas emissions as well? He is proving to be more toxic to the country and the environment on a grand scale.
5
Forget the future, Donald. Make as much money as you can now. Use all of the petroleum reserves as quickly as possible, them find more oil sources along the coasts and in the parks. Then, kill as many endangered animals as you can along the way. Pollute the air as much as possible so that we can spend more on healthcare. When the poor die at faster rates, you can achieve your long-term goal.
3
“The Obama-era standards would ‘impose significant costs on American consumers and eliminate jobs’
Just what are these jobs that are so important that justifies jeopardizing the entire planet for generations to come, possibly irreversibly?
4
As a citizen of California I keep looking for reasons to stay connected to the U.S. Other than our obvious affection for our fellow citizens around the country, this exercise is getting harder and harder. The direction of the federal government with the environment, human rights, immigration and healthcare as a priority all seem to be counter to what the vast majority of Californians believe. To compound the problem this administration has taken a selective approach to states rights, a long standing Republican value. If the 2018 midterms don't net a Democratically controlled House, I for one would give serious thought to a secession vote in the state. Enough of this severe turn to the right. It's disgusting.
2
At least in hindsight, many Americans will now understand that Mr. Obama implemented good, sensible policies meant to benefit posterity. If this happens, it will be the silver lining in Trump's sick obsession with his predecessor.
4
How much havoc will trump wreak on our economy? It is up to us, the voters. Turn out in overwhelming numbers on November 6 and in 2020.
1
State governments can just levy a huge tax on vehicles that don't meet a better/higher standard. Economics would take over and car companies would race to meet those standards so they can sell their cars at competitive prices. The Federal government cannot prevent a state from levying taxes.
2
Regardless of climate change (which I do believe is happening), I prefer a fuel-efficient car also for financial reasons. Remember $4 a gallon gas? It was a true hardship on so many people.
1
It's interesting.... The world's biggest polluter is China. They are more than double the U.S. on statistical charts. They way these pollutants are measured is by inputs - the amount of fuels burned. They do not measure the outputs and the positive/negative effect pollution control systems have on the actual pollutants going into the air. If the outputs were analyzed, I believe the U.S., with it's regulatory regimen, would have a drastically lower output in comparison to world norms.
With this in mind, why do outlets like the Times find such fault with America and why do they want to pit and penalize our population against world players who are actually far worse polluters than we will ever be?
Moreover, when Trump proposes policy, like Chinese tariffs, that will limit the amount of pollution intense Chinese production being sold into our markets and replace it with far, far cleaner American production adhering to American standards... Why does the Times rail against this?
Why can't there be some semblance of truth telling other than Trump is "always bad" and anything that opposes him is "always good?"
I thoroughly believe that global warming is happening. But I credit the rise in emissions far more to our trade policies than our domestic policies but you never write about that.
1
I work for one of the Big Three. Our cycle plans stretch nearly a decade. Why, after investing three to four years in designing fuel efficient vehicles to meet these standards, would we abandon all of that work? It's tens of millions of dollars of work wasted, and won't help us in the international market or long term. I doubt Detroit will reverse course in the longterm
15
@Angry, Even if these idiots do manage to repeal emission standards that doesn't mean that auto manufacturers have to roll back higher standards. Actually, auto makers that continue improving emissions will probably sell more (and better) cars because the public cares about the environment and their health.
I personally would never buy or even rent an SUV because they're not as safe as my little Honda Civic (Which saved my life & well-being in a head-on collision with a Ford Bronco) and they pollute more by virtue of lower emissions standards and the need to use more gas.
The change in legislation does not prevent the US auto industry from adhering to its most stringent requirements. The industry can simply stay the course. No need for their hand-ringing.
1
As the out party, I wish the Democrats had enough unity of vision to take a position beyond just "no" on this and other issues, and particularly standards that require a long lead time and technology development to implement, such as pollution and energy standards.
Instead, put a stake in the ground that the current and future standards as they now exist will absolutely be reinstated at the first opportunity regardless of whether there is any interim rollback. You're a carmaker and you're going to bet your company on relaxed standards that this administration implements? Prepare to be left behind when the next administration (or Congress) comes aboard.
Within reason, industry has responded well to safety and public health regulation that has not only improved practices, bettered lives, and propelled technology development--but has helped industry remain competitive in the world marketplace. Rolling back these standards is an invitation for US companies to make substandard products that can't compete against better worldwide--in such huge parts of the economy like cars, transportation technology and energy generation.
6
The standard 2018 Toyota Prius is a "top pick" by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. It's average fuel economy is 52MPG, according to the EPA and DOE (other Prius models can get higher averages). Clearly, fuel efficient cars are not safety hazards, and the latest argument put forth by the Adminstration to justify a weaking of the current law is "fake news."
24
@Robert Thank you. We just bought a 2018 PriusC hybrid. It was $23 500 which was less expensive than our previous gas model car - a Subaru. Yes, the Prius has excellent fuel economy AND we are not driving any more. That argument they are making is silly. Other thing people will bring up is the battery replacement. It will not need replacement until 150 000 to 200 000 k's. New batteries go for $1800 to $2500. (We replaced our Subaru's clutch and transmission at 9 years and it cost more than that.) In terms of safety, the new car ranks highly.
Again, what is Tr*mp et all trying to do? Sell more oil at the peril of our children, to line their greedy pockets.
2
@Robert
The IIHS rating is a meaningless metric that measures the car hitting a wall head-on. In real life if the Prius is hit by F150 pickup truck with twice the weight very likely the Prius and it’s occupants are totalled. This is not an argument for larger cars but let’s not argue against physics. I drive a tiny VW Golf, which is consistently rated as Top Safety Pick, and accept the risk that comes with making that choice. If I have an accident with a truck or SUV then very likely I will be the one to suffer serious injury or death.
@Andy Well then it would seem that there should be less large SUVs and trucks on the road. They seem far more dangerous based on emissions and potential auto accidents than a Prius.
I’m a life long resident of California and the air pollution was just terrible when I was growing up in the late 60’s and early 70’s. I remember walking home from school experiencing chest pain and watery eyes, with the smog so thick it looked like fog.
Tighter regulations on automobile emissions (among other things) made a world of difference here in Los Angeles. Trump lost his mind a long time ago but he still never ceases to amaze and shock me with his destructive proposals.
34
What the Trump administration is saying about the emission standards is statistically true. There is no getting away from that; people will die in automobile collisions because of Obama's changes in the regulations.
However, under the Obama regulations, fewer people will die from respiratory conditions and heart conditions which are exacerbated by breathing problems.
It is easy to identify many of the highway fatalities that will be the result of the changes. It is not so easy to identify who did not die because of cleaner air.
Everything is a trade-off: Some will live who would have died and some will die who would have lived; we just don't know whom.
Protecting our planet should also count for something because people will die from other situations which clean air may alleviate.
2
I would never trust this administration’s statistics.
2
@Colin: The statistics are verifiable independent of this administration.
Keep in mind that statistics do not lie, but liars use statistics.