Trump rolls back Obama-era fuel economy standards, reducing fight against climate change
On Tuesday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency announced a new rule which would weaken Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, permitting more carbon emissions and reducing the nation’s fight against climate change. Originally, the Obama administration required automakers to produce vehicles which average nearly 55 mpg by 2025, but the new Trump rule would lower that number down to 40 mpg by 2026. Essentially, the rule would relax the push for more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Surprisingly, this rule is already a compromise from an original version that would have required automakers to make zero changes to fuel efficiency. However, even automakers balked at the aggressive rollback, citing that even without regulations, they could create more fuel-efficient vehicles.
In their justification, the administration stated that the rule would encourage automakers to produce cheaper cars, stimulating the economy and encouraging people to upgrade to new vehicles with better safety features. Furthermore, Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao claims the rollback will save automakers $100 billion in regulatory costs. The savings could help the companies withstand the current virus-induced economic shutdown, but exacerbate air pollution and climate change long term.
“This rule reflects the Department’s №1 priority — safety — by making newer, safer, cleaner vehicles more accessible for Americans who are, on average, driving 12-year-old cars. By making newer, safer, and cleaner vehicles more accessible for American families, more lives will be saved and more jobs will be created,” Chao said in a statement announcing the rule.
However, this new rule is riddled with faulty logic and a gross disregard for the fight against climate change.
Firstly, while the administration claims that drivers will save money by buying cheaper cars, the EPA’s own analysis has shown that they will likely have to spend more money on gas, netting a general increase in spending. An analysis from Consumer Reports found U.S. drivers would spend $300 billion more on gas over the lifetime of the vehicles because of the decrease in fuel efficiency. Furthermore, while automakers may save money initially, they will likely face closed doors from overseas markets that have stricter emissions policies. Therefore, in the long run, no one saves money, and the environment deteriorates as the change is expected to result in releasing nearly one billion more tons of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.
Especially during this health crisis when those with respiratory illnesses are especially at risk, this change will only increase the dangerous air quality during the warmer months when ozone and other dangerous emissions are trapped through temperature inversions. Earlier government analysis found that while 600 to 700 Americans might be saved by better safety features, nearly 1,000 might die prematurely given the increase in smog and air pollution from vehicle emissions, according to documents obtained by Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.).
Thankfully, the rule already faces a barrage of lawsuits from environmental groups, California, and nearly two dozen other states.
“Gutting the clean car standards makes no sense. It will harm the air we breathe, stall progress in fighting the climate crisis and increase the cost of driving,” Natural Resources Defense Council President Gina McCarthy said in a statement issued before the expected release. “We’ll be seeing the Trump administration in court.”
Furthermore, states like California already have more stringent carbon emission regulations in place, which the federal government has been aiming the strip. However, that conflict will likely not be resolved until next year. Meanwhile, Volkswagen, Ford, Honda, and BMW each struck a deal last year with California to commit to 3.7 percent year-over-year increases in average fuel economy. It is expected that these companies will stay true to their promises unless California is stripped of its power to regulate emissions. On the other hand, Toyota and General Motors have generally sided with the Trump administration.
Overall, given the false evidence supporting the new rule and the major environmental setbacks, it is critical that the rule does not go into effect. Hopefully, due to the weak cost-benefit analysis and the fact that multiple automakers have claimed they will continue to make more fuel-efficient vehicles, the rule will not prevail in court. However, transportation will remain the largest source of carbon emissions in the United States and will likely overwhelm emissions made from electrical facilities. In the end, the only foolproof way to ensure that cars tailored to these new lax regulations do not make it into buyers’ hands is to ensure that Trump will no return for a second term.
