Skip to main content

Trump Wants Dirty Air

August 16, 2019

The Trump Administration is proposing a freeze on federal fuel economy standards at 2020 levels. The state of California has reached an agreement with four automakers that would call for average fuel economy of 51 miles per gallon by 2026.  Automakers are siding with California, because they don't want to have to build two different cars to meet two different standards. In fact, 17 car companies informed Trump by letter in June that the weakening of fuel economy standards could destabilize the entire auto-making industry.

The good news? More and more states support California's higher standards. States like New Jersey, Connecticut, Washington, Vermont, New York, Maine, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware. The District of Columbia also backs California's clean air standards, and Colorado, an oil-producing state, has just joined this farsighted group. They are what is considered a "Section 177 state," in reference to the section of the Clean Air Act that allows California's stricter measures. New Mexico, another oil-producing state, plans to rejoin California's supporters after leaving while under the guidance of Republican Governor Susana Martinez. (Arizona and Florida did the same thing.)

Eight senior House Democrats and thirty Senate Democrats called on 14 other automakers to join Ford, BMW, Honda and Volkswagen in agreeing to adhere to California's standards. The letter from Senate Democrats reads, in part, "In the absence of an agreement between the Federal government and states, the California agreement is a commonsense framework that provides flexibility to the industry to meet tailpipe standards while also taking important steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and save money on fuel for consumers."

Environmental and public health experts say the effects of lower standards would be swiftly realized. Research released last week by the group Energy Innovation found that lower standards could cost the U.S. $400 billion through 2050. Worse still, U.S. transport emissions would increase by as much as 10% by 2035. States are aware of these forecasts and can, environmental groups predict, be expected to adopt California's more exacting measures.



With thanks to ThinkProgress.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Time to be Scared

November 26, 2018 You've heard by now that the US Global Change Research Program released its Fourth National Climate Assessment last Friday. Scientists are, at last, confident enough to say that climate change is the new reality. How very much I wish they had published this bold assertion many years ago, rather than always being hesitant (" . . . we're 73% sure this could happen . . ."). While I know the politics involved cannot be allowed to sway them, and that scientists are unaccustomed to speaking for the masses, their inability to convince the scientifically uneducated of the value in climate change hypotheses has hurt us all. In any event, they have now spoken up loudly and clearly. According to NOAA, one of the 13 government agencies responsible for the Assessment, we can expect the following, should mitigating actions not be taken immediately: - Human health and safety, quality of life, and economic growth will all suffer.        The 2014 Assessment c...

A Rock and a Hard Place

October 8, 2012 - Such a pickle: we have the coal, but no longer want to burn it.  China wants the coal, but shouldn't burn it because of the resulting air pollution.  Coal mining companies in the U.S. are ready and waiting to ship their coal to China.  Citizens of the U.S. living on its west coast are adamant they want nothing to do with exporting coal.  That includes Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber.  Kitzhaber's April 25 letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar expresses his profound skepticism about shipping coal by way of Oregon's ports.  He has requested that a programatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) first be conducted for all five of the export projects currently being considered, as well as a comprehensive policy review.  Here is part of a press release announcing his letter: "I have concerns about proceeding in this direction [exporting coal to China via Oregon ports] in the absence of a full national discussion about the ramif...