Automakers Send Letter to EPA Chief Asking To Lower Emissions Standards

That should make you furious

Apparently following the logic of the Fast and Furious franchise—that smoking cars are super sexy—chief executives of 18 carmakers sent a letter this week to newly confirmed EPA administrator Scott Pruitt, lobbying the agency to relax efficiency and emissions standards. These are the same standards that the automakers agreed to without protest after lengthy open negotiations with the EPA and the Department of Transportation early in President Obama’s first term—ones that they’re already on pace to meet.

The letter from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers echoes a nearly identical one sent to Trump days after the election. The CEOs of Ford, GM, and Fiat Chrysler made the plea for weakened standards to the president himself in a White House meeting last month. Despite agreeing with Obama that working within these rules was well within their technical and economic reach back in 2011, the carmakers claim that current restrictions “threaten future production levels, putting hundreds of thousands and perhaps as many a million jobs at risk.”

Wait, what are these standards, anyway?

In what turned out to be his first major climate policy victory, President Obama convinced the automakers to endorse new greenhouse gas emissions standards and a doubling of fuel economy standards from 2012 through 2025. Technically, these are two distinct sets of standards governed by two different agencies (the EPA and the DOT, respectively), but were formally and administratively linked in the national program unveiled with the auto manufacturers’ support in 2011.

[quote position="right" is_quote="true"]Ford can sell all the F150s it wants, so long as they burn less fuel.[/quote]

The EPA had never before regulated global warming pollution from cars, but a 2007 Supreme Court decision (Massachusetts v. EPA) essentially forced the agency to consider carbon dioxide emissions from cars under the Clean Air Act. After exhaustive environmental and economic review, the EPA released greenhouse gas emissions targets for various vehicle classes that the automakers would have to achieve.

These emissions standards were then aligned with fuel economy goals. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE standards) were originally introduced in the aftermath of the Arab Oil Embargo and resulting energy crisis when lawmakers realized that maybe gas guzzling wasn’t the most sound economic or national security practice. First enacted in 1978, the original CAFE standards were intended to roughly double the average fuel economy of a new car fleet to 27.5 miles per gallon by 1985. And there they stayed for more than two decades, until Congress increased them again in 2007 (to a target of 35 mpg by 2020), which the automakers fought tooth and nail in their quest to sell every suburban family a grossly outsized SUV that delivered greater per-car profits and required more maintenance from factory-qualified service departments.

Then the economy fell apart and Chrysler and GM nearly went bottoms-up. After tens of billions in taxpayer-funded bailouts (the first $17.4 billion of which, conservatives like to forget, was granted unilaterally by President George W. Bush), Detroit was in a position to play a little nicer with government regulators.

[quote position="left" is_quote="true"]We’ve come a long way as an industry and we need to keep going forward.[/quote]

The current program calls for a roughly 5 percent increase annually in fuel economy standards starting in 2012, reaching 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. The agencies and carmakers agreed to a “midterm review” that was to occur “no later than 2017,” but after the election Obama’s EPA hustled to expedite the review and firmed up and finalized the rules for the final compliance period through 2025. The EPA’s report—backed by an independent scientific review by the National Research Council—found that thus far the targets have been reached or exceeded in every automotive class, including efficiency improvements in cars and trucks using plain-old internal combustion engines. The assessment also found that the 2025 targets can be met on time and at reasonable cost, with existing technology.

The auto execs, however, aren’t satisfied with the prospects of only selling some of the pricier SUVs and trucks, and would rather not have to worry a lick about lighter, cheaper, more fuel efficient options. They claim that consumers aren’t interested, and sure, it’s certainly true that cheap gas like we’ve been experiencing the past couple of years makes fuel efficiency less marketable.

But the rules actually take that into account already. The CAFE standards are sales- and class-weighted based on the size and footprint of the models, so every class of vehicles—from spritely subcompacts to big honking pickups—is pushed to boost efficiency by the same percentage. This is exactly what Detroit asked for when agreeing to accept the rules. Ford can sell all the F150s it wants, so long as they burn less fuel. What’s more—manufacturers get extra credits and can more easily reach their targets (and, thus, sell even more pickups) by selling the hybrids and plug-in vehicles that they breathlessly promote and uphold as examples of their innovation and technological leadership.

Why fight now?

Now may not seem like the time to engage in a Zoolander-esque gas fight between automakers, the EPA, and the American public. But as Roland Hwang of NRDC notes, over the past two years, fuel economy levels and vehicle sales have both hit historic highs, and the industry is wildly profitable. Since American taxpayers bailed Detroit out in 2009, more than 700,000 jobs have been added in the automotive sector, and, according to Hwang, “the fuel efficiency supply chain stretches across 1,200 factories and 48 states.”

Indeed, others in the auto industry are speaking up to defend the Obama-era standards. The CEO of Borg Warner, a Michigan powertrain parts supplier that makes $8 billion a year and employs more than 18,000 workers, sent a message to Trump at the Detroit Economic Club last week.

“Do not slow down the pace on CAFE standards,” he said. “We’ve come a long way as an industry and we need to keep going forward.”

via Real Time with Bill Maher / YouTube and The Late Late Show with James Corden / YouTube

A controversial editorial on America's obesity epidemic and healthcare by comedian Bill Maher on his HBO show "Real Time" inspired a thoughtful, and funny, response by James Cordon. It also made for a great debate about healthcare that Americans are avoiding.

At the end of the September 6th episode of "Real Time, " Maher turned to the camera for his usual editorial and discussed how obesity is a huge part of the healthcare debate that no one is having.

"At Next Thursday's debate, one of the candidates has to say, 'The problem with our healthcare system is Americans eat shit and too much of it.' All the candidates will mention their health plans but no one will bring up the key factor: the citizens don't lift a finger to help," Maher said sternly.

Keep Reading Show less

There is no shortage of proposals from the, um, what's the word for it… huge, group of Democratic presidential candidates this year. But one may stand out from the pack as being not just bold but also necessary; during a CNN town hall about climate change Andrew Yang proposed a "green amendment" to the constitution.

Keep Reading Show less
Me Too Kit

The creator of the Me Too kit — an at home rape kit that has yet to hit the market — has come under fire as sexual assault advocates argue the kit is dangerous and misleading for women.

The kit is marketed as "the first ever at home kit for commercial use," according to the company's website. "Your experience. Your kit. Your story. Your life. Your choice. Every survivor has a story, every survivor has a voice." Customers will soon be able order one of the DIY kits in order to collect evidence "within the confines of the survivor's chosen place of safety" after an assault.

"With MeToo Kit, we are able to collect DNA samples and other tissues, which upon testing can provide the necessary time-sensitive evidence required in a court of law to identify a sexual predator's involvement with sexual assault," according to the website.

Keep Reading Show less

Villagers rejoice as they receive the first vaccines ever delivered via drone in the Congo

The area's topography makes transporting medicines a treacherous task.

Photo by Henry Sempangi Senyule

When we discuss barriers to healthcare in the developed world, affordability is commonly the biggest concern. But for some in the developing world, physical distance and topography can be the difference between life and death.

Widjifake, a hard-to-reach village in northwestern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) with a population of 6,500, struggles with having consistent access to healthcare supplies due to the Congo River and its winding tributaries.

It can take up to three hours for vehicles carrying supplies to reach the village.

Keep Reading Show less
via Keith Boykin / Twitter

Fox News and President Trump seem like they may be headed for a breakup. "Fox is a lot different than it used to be," Trump told reporters in August after one of the network's polls found him trailing for Democrats in the 2020 election.

"There's something going on at Fox, I'll tell you right now. And I'm not happy with it," he continued.

Some Fox anchors have hit back at the president over his criticisms. "Well, first of all, Mr. President, we don't work for you," Neil Cavuto said on the air. "I don't work for you. My job is to cover you, not fawn over you or rip you, just report on you."

Keep Reading Show less