The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
17 of World’s Largest Car Makers Ask Trump for Compromise on Plan to Weaken Fuel Efficiency Standards
In a letter sent to Trump on Thursday, car companies including Ford, General Motors, Toyota and BMW asked the administration to return to the negotiating table so as to avoid "an extended period of litigation and instability." They worried the current plans would hurt their profits.
Automakers had initially sought a weakening of the standards put in place by former President Barack Obama to address the climate crisis. The standards would have set a fuel efficiency target of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. But the Trump administration draft plan would freeze mileage standards at around 37 miles per gallon and revoke California's waiver to set its own standards under the Clean Air Act, all but guaranteeing that California and the 13 other states that have adopted its tougher standards would sue. Car makers are then worried about having to design cars for two separate U.S. markets.
"What works best for consumers, communities, and the millions of U.S. employees that work in the auto industry is one national standard that is practical, achievable, and consistent across the 50 states," the companies wrote, according to the Detroit Free Press. "In addition, our customers expect continuous improvements in safety, efficiency, and capability. For these reasons, we support a unified standard that both achieves year-over-year improvements in fuel economy and facilitates the adoption of vehicles with alternative powertrains."
Negotiations between California and the administration on a national standard broke down in February, and the final Trump fuel efficiency plan is due this summer.
"Our thinking is, the rule is still being finalized, there is still time to develop a final rule that is good for consumers, policymakers and automakers," Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Vice President Gloria Bergquist told The New York Times.
Fiat Chrysler was the only of the Big Three U.S. car companies not to sign the letter. Other companies who did sign included Honda, Mazda, Nissan, Subaru, Volvo and Volkswagen.
Some questioned the timing of the automakers' intervention.
"The reality was if they had sent these letters months ago, there might have been a possibility of doing something," Safe Climate Campaign of the Center for Auto Safety Director Dan Becker told the Los Angeles Times. "But doing it at the last minute when they know the administration is poised to issue this rule any week now … it's just so they can say to people who object: 'Oh, we were opposed, we weren't in Trump's pocket.'"
On eve of Trump's rollback of clean car rules, automakers cover their tailpipes: Pleading, "we're not in Trump's pocket!" -- except Fiat-Chrysler! Had they done so earlier it might have made a difference. .@CoralMDavenport https://t.co/buWDaINnPX— Safe Climate Campaign (@safe_climate) June 6, 2019
Auto industry analyst Jeremy Acevedo, on the other hand, saw the letter as an admission from car companies that they "bit off more than they could chew" when they asked for the Obama-era standards to be weakened.
"This letter in some ways represents ceding defeat to California and the CARB states, but it proves how desperate automakers are to avoid having two different fuel economy standards," he told the Detroit Free Press. "While automakers may not want to meet these aggressive targets, at least it's something they can plan for, as opposed to years of uncertainty waiting out a lengthy court battle."
The automakers also sent a letter to California Governor Gavin Newsom, encouraging him to work with the Trump administration to develop a standard "midway" between the Obama-era rules and the proposed rollbacks.
But Newsom told The New York Times he is not interested in finding a "midway" position.
"A rollback of auto emissions standards is bad for the climate and bad for the economy," Newsom wrote in an email. "I applaud the automakers for saying as much in their letter today to the President. We should keep working towards one national standard — one that doesn't backtrack on the progress states like California have made."
If the Trump rollbacks go through, they would increase U.S. gas consumption by some 500,000 barrels a day, raising greenhouse gas emissions, the Los Angeles Times reported.
- 3 Reasons Why You Should Care About Vehicle Efficiency and ... ›
- Trump Fuel Efficiency Proposal Is Attack on Global Climate and ... ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
A new multiyear study found that people living or working within 2,000 feet, or nearly half a mile, of a hydraulic fracturing (fracking) drill site may be at a heightened risk of exposure to benzene and other toxic chemicals, according to research released Thursday by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE)
The crowd appears to attack a protestor in a video shared on Twitter by ITV journalist Mahatir Pasha. VOA News / Youtube screenshot
Some London commuters had a violent reaction Thursday morning when Extinction Rebellion protestors attempted to disrupt train service during rush hour.
By Kristen Fischer
Though the science has shown sugary drinks are not healthy for children, fruit drinks and similar beverages accounted for more than half of all children's drink sales in 2018, according to a new report.
Farms with just one or a handful of different crops encourage fewer species of pollinating and pest-controlling insects to linger, ultimately winnowing away crop yields, according to a new study.
Up to half of the detrimental impacts of the "landscape simplification" that monocropping entails come as a result of a diminished mix of ecosystem service-providing insects, a team of scientists reported Oct. 16 in the journal Science Advances.
Monocrop palm oil plantation Honduras.
SHARE Foundation / Flickr / CC BY-NC 2.0
"Our study shows that biodiversity is essential to ensure the provision of ecosystem services and to maintain a high and stable agricultural production," Matteo Dainese, the study's lead author and a biologist at Eurac Research in Bolzano, Italy, said in a statement.
It stands to reason that, with declines in the sheer numbers of insects that ferry pollen from plant to plant and keep crop-eating pests under control, these services will wane as well. But until now, it hasn't been clear how monocultures affect the number and mix of these species or how crop yields might change as a result.
Aiming to solve these questions, Dainese and his colleagues pulled together data from 89 studies cutting across a variety of landscapes, from the tropics of Asia and Africa to the higher latitudes of northern Europe. They tabulated the number of pollinating and pest-controlling insects at these sites — both the absolute number of individuals and the number of species — along with an assessment of the ecosystem services the insects provided.
In almost all of the studies they looked at, the team found that a more diverse pool of these species translated into more pollination and greater pest control. They also showed that simplified landscapes supported fewer species of service-providing insects, which ultimately led to lower crop yields.
The researchers also looked at a third measure of the makeup of insect populations — what they called "evenness." In natural ecosystems, a handful of dominant species with many more individuals typically live alongside a higher number of rarer species. The team found as landscapes became less diverse, dominant species numbers dwindled and rare species gained ground. This resulting, more equitable mix led to less pollination (though it didn't end up affecting pest control).
"Our study provides strong empirical support for the potential benefits of new pathways to sustainable agriculture that aim to reconcile the protection of biodiversity and the production of food for increasing human populations," Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter, one of the study's authors and an animal ecologist at the University of Würzburg in Germany, said in the statement.
The scientists figure that the richness of pollinator species explains around a third of the harmful impacts of less diverse landscapes, while the richness of pest-controlling species accounts for about half of the same measure. In their view, the results of their research point to the need to protect biodiversity on and around crops in an uncertain future.
"Under future conditions with ongoing global change and more frequent extreme climate events, the value of farmland biodiversity ensuring resilience against environmental disturbances will become even more important," Steffan-Dewenter said.
Reposted with permission from our media associate Mongabay.
Ivory Coast's rainforests have been decimated by cocoa production and what is left is put in peril by a new law that will remove legal protections for thousands of square miles of forests, according to The Guardian.