Sins of Emission

At RealClearEnergy Alan Daley and Krisztina Pusok of the American Consumer Institute explain the new proposed vehicle emissions standards:

NHTSA’s and EPA’s proposed SAFE Vehicles Rule would reduce average vehicle ownership cost by $2,340, reduce crash fatalities by 12,000 by 2029, cut regulatory costs by $252.6 billion over a decade, and cut the number of hybrid vehicles required to meet mileage standards from 56% to 3% by 2030. Those benefits would be made at de minimis increase in greenhouse gas and pollutants over the next decade.

In comparison with the CAFE standards that had been scheduled for effect out as far as 2025, the SAFE Rules would create a 3/1,000ths of a degree Celsius increase in global average temperature in 2100, and 8/100ths of a percent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration in 2100, but no noticeable impact to net emissions of smog-production or toxic air pollution.

I predict that what sounds like a commonsense move will be portrayed in the media as the vile Trump Administration’s plot to kill Americans and fry the world.

We manufacture no small cars in this country. American car companies go through the charade of importing parts from Japan and/or South Korea and assembling them here so their fleets can meet NHTSA’s emissions standards. We manufacture larger cars and trucks here—they’re more profitable. They’d be even more profitable if NHTSA’s mission had not crept from fuel efficiency to reducing carbon emissions over the last couple of decades.

I would not have a problem if Americans were to decide as a country that we didn’t want big, gas-guzzling cars and trucks here at all. If the sales figures are any gauge, we aren’t making that decision. The biggest-selling personal car in the U. S. is a truck. What’s actually happening is that the decision is being foisted on us along with the greater imports and loss of jobs represented by the change.

IMO at the very least those who advocate higher emissions standards and smaller vehicles have a moral obligation to say how they’ll replace the jobs that are being lost. Solar and wind jobs aren’t enough. Think an order of magnitude more.

6 comments… add one
  • steve

    What happens when our 25% tariff on light trucks goes away? Could be a killer for our auto industries. Serious question, if we stop subsidizing our production of light trucks, what do have left of an auto industry? Can they survive w/o subsidies?

    Also, never heard of the American Consumer Institute. Have you? Who funds them? Who are their experts? AFAICT, these numbers are just as likely to be made up to support what the Trump admin has done.

    Steve

  • Gray Shambler

    “In comparison with the CAFE standards that had been scheduled for effect out as far as 2025, the SAFE Rules would create a 3/1,000ths of a degree Celsius increase in global average temperature in 2100, and 8/100ths of a percent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration in 2100”

    How can you make up numbers that accurately predict global temperature changes in the range of .001% of one degree Celsius 80 years out? What kind of cynic would challenge that data?
    Maybe the Trump Administration is only saying, anyone can fund and organize an institution to create data favorable to their position, and put it forward as scientific consensus. Prove it ain’t so.

  • The write-up for it is here at SourceWatch.

  • Andy

    “What happens when our 25% tariff on light trucks goes away?”

    Light truck manufacture and assembly will move out of North America. Light trucks would probably be cheaper meaning more of them will be sold, increasing US emissions.

    Therefore, the 25% tariff is a pro-climate policy! 😉

  • Guarneri

    Andy

    Tee-he-he.

  • steve

    “The write-up for it is here at SourceWatch.”

    So the folks who work for the Heartland Institute think these standard are good? LOL. Hey, guess what? Smoking is good for you!

    Steve

Leave a Comment