Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Government Transportation United States

White House Proposal Rolls Back Fuel Economy Standards, No Exception For California (npr.org) 607

The Trump administration has proposed a rollback of Obama-era fuel efficiency and emissions standards, while simultaneously taking aim at California's unique ability to set more stringent rules. From a report: Under the Obama administration, the Environmental Protection Agency called for the fuel economy standards for new vehicles to ratchet up over time. The increasingly strict standards were designed to combat climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. On Thursday, the EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released a new proposed rule that would instead freeze the standards at their 2020 levels for six years. "Cars and trucks are just part of the basic fiber of the American economy and the American experience, so we take what we're doing very, very seriously," Bill Wehrum, EPA assistant administrator, told reporters on Thursday. The agencies say that increasing fuel efficiency requirements contributes to an increase in the cost of new cars and trucks, which may discourage consumers from buying new vehicles. Because newer vehicles have advanced safety features, the administration argues, increasing fuel economy requirements therefore harms highway safety, as well as having economic effects.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

White House Proposal Rolls Back Fuel Economy Standards, No Exception For California

Comments Filter:
  • "...and oil wells."

    • by Joce640k ( 829181 ) on Thursday August 02, 2018 @01:00PM (#57057978) Homepage

      I was going to mod this "insightful" but it hardly qualifies.

      It should be obvious to anybody with two braincells to rub together.

      All those oil billionaires who financed Trump's campaign are getting their payback.

      • Clearly. What I find particularly infuriating, besides the obvious environmental impact, is the fact that it doesnâ(TM)t do the U.S. any good to address imbalanced auto tariffs in other markets if we arenâ(TM)t going to manufacture vehicles that they even want.
      • by Rob Y. ( 110975 ) on Thursday August 02, 2018 @01:52PM (#57058398)

        Funny how concepts like States' Rights lose their importance when you don't like what the States are doing - but are a useful cover when you want to, say, destroy unions - or pander to racist voters.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      "...and oil wells."

      Cute, but that has nothing to do with this. The price of oil is dropping already mostly due to supply side; consumption is actually quite high. The effect on oil supply and demand would be very small with these emissions standards, but it would increase the cost of the car.

    • So that the main champions of thwarting and reversing attempts to combat greenhouse gas based global warming can be prosecuted in the International Criminal Court in the future?

      Many legal tests are based on "what a reasonable person should have known" and "what action a reasonable person would take, given this knowledge."

      Criminal negligence, fraud (in communication about the issue), criminal conspiricy (between fossil fuel industry and corrupt politicians acting on their behalf). etc. etc.

      Let's start this e

  • BS... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by b0s0z0ku ( 752509 ) on Thursday August 02, 2018 @12:55PM (#57057936)
    Modern safety features like stability control, auto-braking, and collision warning add minimum weight and don't affect economy. This is a 1980s way of thinking -- build a safety-box that takes a hit well but doesn't prevent crashes.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      A 2018 Honda Civic is 500lbs heavier and gets worse mileage than a 1998 Civic.

      • Re:BS... (Score:4, Informative)

        by jitterbug ( 38915 ) on Thursday August 02, 2018 @01:49PM (#57058370)

        The EPA millage of an old car can't be compared directly with a new one as the EPA standards have changed.

        As an example, I found that 1998 Honda Civic 1.6 L, 4 cyl, Automatic 4-spd Original combined EPA rating 32 mpg.
        From this web site: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/comparempg.shtml
        The new EPA rating is only 28mpg

        New 2018 Civics get better than this.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The administration was not talking about the weight of the safety boxes. Instead they were saying that if the cost of vehicles increases due to improved fuel efficiency, new cars will cost more. It so happens that new cars have all these great new safety features, yet if they cost more, less people will buy them, and we will be stuck with more old-tech cars on the roads.

      • Bullshit. Make a hybrid Fit... 80 mpg and under 20 grand. It's about not building as many 300 hp trucks, muscle cars, and SUVs. Yep. We need more "wimp" cars -- wimpiness is nothing to be ashamed of.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Bullshit. Make a hybrid Fit... 80 mpg and under 20 grand.

          If there was enough demand for such a vehicle and automakers could produce it without losing money, why do you suppose they're not voluntarily producing such a vehicle? OH! That's right, there isn't sufficient demand for such a vehicle! There is, however, demand for trucks, SUV's, and muscle cars because people exercise their economic free will and choose to purchase such vehicles.

          We obviously can't have people deciding for themselves what they want, right? Far better for the government to tell them what

          • US is getting the Fit Hybrid in 2019-20. Other countries where the price of fuel accurately reflects costs to the environment already have it.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

      Modern safety features like stability control, auto-braking, and collision warning add minimum weight and don't affect economy.

      All wrong. Adding minimum weight does affect economy. However, once you have ABS (which does add weight... to the tune of maybe twenty pounds of pump/valve unit and longer lines, and five pounds or less of control box) it takes very little additional weight to implement ESC, or AEB. And you can do collision warning with the same hardware that does AEB.

      This is a 1980s way of thinking -- build a safety-box that takes a hit well but doesn't prevent crashes.

      AEB does prevent crashes, some of them anyway. So does ESC, since it helps drivers maintain control of vehicles in slippery conditions. You really got it comp

  • by Anonymous Coward

    "Because newer vehicles have advanced safety features, the administration argues, increasing fuel economy requirements therefore harms highway safety, as well as having economic effects."
    Really now ?

  • HAW HAW! (Score:4, Informative)

    by Thud457 ( 234763 ) on Thursday August 02, 2018 @12:56PM (#57057954) Homepage Journal
    Enjoy your world burning to death stupid Earthicans!


    oh. wait. crap...
  • Hypocrites (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CohibaVancouver ( 864662 ) on Thursday August 02, 2018 @01:08PM (#57058022)

    while simultaneously taking aim at California's unique ability to set more stringent rules

    Trump, his Republican cronies, and their voters, are such a collection of hypocrites.

    For decades, all Republicans do is bleat "STATES' RIGHTS!" - But when those states actually exercise those rights (emissions / drug policy / guns) the Republicans do everything in their power to stomp all over them.

    • For decades, all Republicans do is bleat "STATES' RIGHTS!" - But when those states actually exercise those rights (emissions / drug policy / guns) the Republicans do everything in their power to stomp all over them.

      What? When has the federal government done anything to stomp on states' gun laws? Most states have unconstitutional limits on bearing arms, for example. The feds have done nothing substantive to attack California's various other gun laws, either. If California actually banned guns entirely, then yeah, they'd be upset, because their constituents (gun manufacturers) would lobby to have the problem addressed because we Californians actually buy a whole lot of guns, and that would cut into their profits. But Ca

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      States rights are a dog whistle, it has nothing to do with the actual rights of the states.

  • World Follower (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 02, 2018 @01:11PM (#57058048)

    World standards do not follow US standards. All vehicle makers have to conform to worldwide standards, not just the US. Besides, California standards are not the most strict when compared to international standards. Also California standards have been ratified by 12 other states. Since this is a proposed bill, it will not get out of committee without providing states the ability to set their own limits.

  • "Cars and trucks are just part of the basic fiber of the American economy and the American experience, so we take what we're doing very, very seriously," Bill Wehrum, EPA assistant administrator, told reporters on Thursday

    What does that have to do with your job at the EPA, Wehrum? You're not a cultural ambassador.
    This is just "we don't want to have to change, whaaaa!" wrapped in a flag.

  • At this point, I'd really welcome some robot overlords.

  • by GameboyRMH ( 1153867 ) <gameboyrmh.gmail@com> on Thursday August 02, 2018 @01:14PM (#57058066) Journal

    Soon the US could be building gas guzzlers nobody outside the US wants to buy...and then when gas prices go back up, nobody inside the US will want to buy them either...remember how awesome it was last time that happened around the OPEC oil crisis? #MAGA!

    • by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

      I doubt that any manufacturer would remove fuel efficiency improvements from an existing car model. It's not worth investing R&D time just to make a car worse. The most that could happen is it could slow the pace of fuel efficiency improvements, or maybe result in a few low-end cars that are slightly less efficient.

      • I also wouldn't expect a decrease, but rather a near-total lack of improvement, while the rest of the world continues to push ahead, including with EV models that get 3-digit MPGe.

      • I doubt that any manufacturer would remove fuel efficiency improvements from an existing car model. It's not worth investing R&D time just to make a car worse. The most that could happen is it could slow the pace of fuel efficiency improvements, or maybe result in a few low-end cars that are slightly less efficient.

        I'm guessing manufacturers will start to program car computers for power, instead of fuel efficiency. It's a cheap programming trick with no hardware changes required.

      • I doubt that any manufacturer would remove fuel efficiency improvements from an existing car model.

        As written, your statement is true, but nonsensical. First, as a sibling comment points out, you can simply reprogram cars to burn more fuel. This is a common thing to do now. Any electronically-fueled vehicle can typically be tuned to make more power, at the cost of emissions and efficiency. That means any gasoline engine since the late eighties, or pretty much any diesel since about 2003-ish, which is about the time they all went to electronic common-rail. But second, automakers already make a variety of

    • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

      Soon the US could be building gas guzzlers nobody outside the US wants to buy..

      Soon? Ford has already said from now on they would only build pickups, Mustangs, and 1 EV. And these days even the small pickups are the same size as a full size pickup was 15 years ago.

    • Soon the US could be building gas guzzlers nobody outside the US wants to buy...and then when gas prices go back up, nobody inside the US will want to buy them either...remember how awesome it was last time that happened around the OPEC oil crisis? #MAGA!

      It could be argued that this is the case, right now. Dear Leader says we buy Europe's cars and that he doesn't want to see BMWs in New York, but he's misplacing the blame - the reason for the imbalance isn't some brutal Euro-tax on our cars, it's simply our cars still being huge, heavy, inefficient and ill-suited for life in europe.

      Do WE make anything like a BMW? Or an Alfa Guilia? (small-ish, light-ish, rear-drive, fun to drive) No, we don't... the closest we have are Camaro, Mustang, Challenger / Charge

  • Tesla (Score:5, Funny)

    by 110010001000 ( 697113 ) on Thursday August 02, 2018 @01:17PM (#57058086) Homepage Journal
    If everyone would just buy a Tesla we would solve two problems: Tesla's balance sheet and the emissions problem. Solution: buy a Tesla.
  • by Alain Williams ( 2972 ) <addw@phcomp.co.uk> on Thursday August 02, 2018 @01:20PM (#57058118) Homepage

    if the extra air pollution that it will cause would, somehow, be kept within the borders of the USA. It does not: it follows the winds and ends up harming the rest of us. If it did stay within the USA then those who caused it would suffer the consequences; but pollution is a global problem, not a national one - so it upsets me to see those who seemingly put, what they see, as their interests first and do not act in global interests.

    Please do not take this as an attack of most who live in the USA, I have friends who live there. Most are good guys who want to behave in a responsible way. It is unfortunate that your current president does not care about the planet, only making money for those who support him.

  • Which aspects of fuel efficiency was an executive order to the EPA, and which ones are backed by legislation? Yesterday NPR was talking how Trump will extend the short-term insurance rule 3 months to 3 years. Is that possible because the ACA grants the executive the ability to set the maximum length of a short-term health care plan? It's funny to me what they put in the statutes and what they grant to various committees and offices.

  • by Max_W ( 812974 ) on Thursday August 02, 2018 @01:27PM (#57058172)
    Roll back fuel standards, - what it could mean? Will we witness 5 tons SUVs instead of 3 tons? 700 hp motors instead of current 500 hp? 400 km/h speedometers instead of 300 km/h?

    I mean, - could it be even worse standards than we had all these years, and which led to these monsters on the roads.
    • I mean, - could it be even worse standards than we had all these years, and which led to these monsters on the roads.

      Now that American consumers are used to buying them, it absolutely will lead to more and worse gas-guzzling SUVs, right up until the next time fuel prices skyrocket. It will happen sooner or later.

  • More catering to out-of-control capitalism from this Administration.
    'Human-caused global climate change' isn't good for profits, so it's ridiculed and ignored, officially. Screw the future, who cares about 100 years from now, that's someone else's problem, make The Rich richer, now, and to Hell with everyone and everything else.
    Got lead or other toxic chemicals in your tap water or the air you breathe, giving you cancer, ruining your childrens' brains, and so on? Tough shit, it's your fault for being The
  • Note that the electric vehicle market - led by Tesla Motors - has taken off in the wake of Trump's election. If (and this is a big if) one of the primary factors in this is consumer reaction against Trump's pro-fossil fuel policies, this could accelerate that trend, perhaps to the point where it starts to take a real bite out of the oil market.
  • by Rick Schumann ( 4662797 ) on Thursday August 02, 2018 @01:46PM (#57058332) Journal
    Go right ahead, Trump, play into the hands of the Dominionists if you like. But it won't have the long term effect you think it will. You think you can just roll back the calendar to the 1940's or something? LOL, you're living in a fantasy world, Trump.

    Businesses and corporations, even in the energy sector, are already embracing solar and other renewables. You can't halt that without interfering in the free-market economy.

    Meanwhile plug-in electric cars and hybrids are gaining more and more of a foothold in the United States, and they're becoming more affordable. More and more infrastructure to support them is being invested in and installed.

    Oil prices won't stay low forever. They'll spike up, and driving gas-guzzlers around will become prohibitively expensive. Electrics will become more and more attractive in the face of that.

    Clearly and objectively we need to move away from fossil fuel use anyway and everyone except apparently the Trump Administration sees this. Making ICEs less efficient will just help make electrics and renewables more attractive.
  • by u19925 ( 613350 ) on Thursday August 02, 2018 @01:51PM (#57058396)

    Many car companies subsidize their small cars and make more profit on large vehicles. They do this to meet the fleet efficiency. If you reduce the required efficiency standards then they will be able to meet the efficiency standards with large vehicles and will stop subsidizing small vehicles. This will result in more bigger vehicles on the road. It will cause chain reaction since once you reach critical mass of big vehicles, people in small vehicles will feel less safe. A collision between two vehicles is more deadly than collision between two small vehicles. Collision between large and small vehicle is more deadly to small vehicle. Already America is lagging behind Europe in road fatality because it has more percentage of large vehicles. This will make it even worse.

  • by pecosdave ( 536896 ) on Thursday August 02, 2018 @01:58PM (#57058476) Homepage Journal

    Regular gas engines do better WITHOUT ethanol - I would say it was actually worse for the environment due to decreased efficiency and decreased life-span of other parts in regular gas engines. Also, gas doesn't keep as long with Ethanol. I have a big gas can for my lawn mower, I use it for a couple of months, then dump what's left in my car and go fill it up again. If it were just plain gas I could just keep it until I emptied it through the lawn mower - could take a couple of years.

    I recently rented a flex-fuel vehicle, and I ran it with both E15 and E85. That vehicle probably did produce less pollution running E85, enough to justify the decrease in efficiency, but making us run it in our normal gas engines isn't helping anyone but the corn lobby.

    • by jonwil ( 467024 )

      There are suggestions that ethanol produced from corn (as opposed to say swichgrass or hemp or even sugar cane) actually results in a net increase in overall harm to the planet due to how intensive the production process for corn ethanol is.

Some people claim that the UNIX learning curve is steep, but at least you only have to climb it once.

Working...