Some Carmakers Put Their Faith in the Trump Administration. It’s Costing Them.
By Jeff Turrentine
"Be careful what you wish for; you just might get it." This is something that everybody has to learn at some point. Lately, the lesson has hit home for a group of American automakers.
Over the last several weeks, officials from the Trump administration have been meeting with representatives from big carmakers like GM, Ford, and Fiat Chrysler, in hopes of getting them to publicly support the president's proposed freeze on Obama-era fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks. But even though some of these companies might want those standards to be relaxed to some degree, they've been forced to watch — and wince — as the administration speeds headlong into a legal brick wall. And honestly, what sort of automaker would ever endorse that kind of driving?
The brick wall is the state of California, which was given the power by Congress to set its own tailpipe emissions and fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks almost 50 years ago, as long as those standards were stricter than the ones set by the federal government. California has consistently strengthened these rules in the ensuing years, with the result being far cleaner air for its residents and far lower gas costs for its drivers. In fact, the state's clean-car standards have been so effective that 13 other states and the District of Columbia have adopted them as their own, thanks to a federal rule that allows for such adoption every time California requests — and is granted — a renewal of its waiver by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Automakers have kept pace by upping their technology game to meet the stricter rules — a decision that's proved to be of immense benefit to all Americans, as our new cars and pickup trucks become cleaner and more fuel efficient year after year. From a production standpoint, that decision was pretty much a no-brainer: If carmakers wanted to sell vehicles in the "clean car states," including the most populous one in the country, they simply had to adapt. And so adapt they did. By 2012, when President Obama announced the new federal standards, the idea of continuously and dramatically improving fuel efficiency was already baked in to the business model of the American automobile industry.
Which isn't to say car companies were thrilled with the way this all played out. While they may have talked a great zero-emissions game in public, many of them privately bristled at the pressure they felt as government agencies enforced new rules in the service of a decidedly ambitious goal: an American fleet that averages 54.5 miles to the gallon by 2025. That's why they wasted almost no time (literally just 48 hours!) before asking the newly elected President Trump to reevaluate the Obama standards, citing the billions of dollars in extra costs associated with compliance. They wanted things to go at a slower, less costly pace. And they had reason to believe the new administration would be on their side—not to mention that of a fossil fuel industry hungry to sell more gas, not less.
Trump, never one to shy away from a chance to undo the legacy of his White House predecessor, heard the car companies' request. "I'll go you one better" was the gist of his response. First he proposed freezing fuel efficiency targets at 2020 levels, which would lower the national average to just 37 miles per gallon. And then, to top that, he vowed to strip California of its 50-year-old EPA waiver.
Last month, the administration signaled its desire to go forward with this reckless plan when it abruptly broke off talks with the California Air Resources Board, negotiations that many people believe the White House conducted in bad faith. This wasn't what automakers had in mind. Unlike the president's legal advisers, apparently, car companies know that the White House can't just swoop in and prevent California from creating and enforcing its own emissions policies. The EPA has granted the state's request for a waiver more than 100 times since 1967; the one request that the agency did deny was later approved. Any attempt by this president — or any president — to deny California its right to control its own air quality is very likely to fail.
But here's the thing: It wouldn't fail overnight. It would be defeated only after many years and many lawsuits. And that prospect is what's making carmakers worry. Because the only thing car companies might hate more than billions of dollars in added costs is an atmosphere of prolonged regulatory uncertainty, which could end up costing them even more. That's why they felt compelled to clarify their original request in a plaintive letter to President Trump last May — the same month that 18 states filed suit against the administration — once it became clear that the president was brazenly stepping into a protracted legal battle that he almost certainly wouldn't win. And that's why most of them are now urging the White House to resume negotiations with California and find some sort of compromise.
Will the White House listen to America's suddenly cold-footed carmakers and head back to the negotiating table? Or will it engage in a needless fight with more than a dozen states? We'll all find out soon enough.
Reposted with permission from our media associate onEarth.
- EPA Report: Vehicle C02 Emissions Are at a Record Low - EcoWatch ›
- Fiat Chrysler Recalls 900,000+ Cars in U.S. and Canada for ... ›
- Tesla Unveils 2nd Mass-Market EV: The Model Y - EcoWatch ›
New fossils uncovered in Argentina may belong to one of the largest animals to have walked on Earth.
- Groundbreaking Fossil Shows Prehistoric 15-Foot Reptile Tried to ... ›
- Skull of Smallest Known Dinosaur Found in 99-Million-Year Old Amber ›
- Giant 'Toothed' Birds Flew Over Antarctica 40 Million Years Ago ... ›
- World's Second-Largest Egg Found in Antarctica Probably Hatched ... ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
- Pruitt Guts the Clean Power Plan: How Weak Will the New EPA ... ›
- It's Official: Trump Administration to Repeal Clean Power Plan ... ›
- 'Deadly' Clean Power Plan Replacement ›
By Jonathan Runstadler and Kaitlin Sawatzki
Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers have found coronavirus infections in pet cats and dogs and in multiple zoo animals, including big cats and gorillas. These infections have even happened when staff were using personal protective equipment.
- Gorillas in San Diego Test Positive for Coronavirus - EcoWatch ›
- Wildlife Rehabilitators Are Overwhelmed During the Pandemic. In ... ›
- Coronavirus Pandemic Linked to Destruction of Wildlife and World's ... ›
- Utah Mink Becomes First Wild Animal to Test Positive for Coronavirus ›
By Peter Giger
The speed and scale of the response to COVID-19 by governments, businesses and individuals seems to provide hope that we can react to the climate change crisis in a similarly decisive manner - but history tells us that humans do not react to slow-moving and distant threats.
A Game of Jenga<p>Think of it as a game of Jenga and the planet's climate system as the tower. For generations, we have been slowly removing blocks. But at some point, we will remove a pivotal block, such as the collapse of one of the major global ocean circulation systems, for example the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), that will cause all or part of the global climate system to fall into a planetary emergency.</p><p>But worse still, it could cause runaway damage: Where the tipping points form a domino-like cascade, where breaching one triggers breaches of others, creating an unstoppable shift to a radically and swiftly changing climate.</p><p>One of the most concerning tipping points is mass methane release. Methane can be found in deep freeze storage within permafrost and at the bottom of the deepest oceans in the form of methane hydrates. But rising sea and air temperatures are beginning to thaw these stores of methane.</p><p>This would release a powerful greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, 30-times more potent than carbon dioxide as a global warming agent. This would drastically increase temperatures and rush us towards the breach of other tipping points.</p><p>This could include the acceleration of ice thaw on all three of the globe's large, land-based ice sheets – Greenland, West Antarctica and the Wilkes Basin in East Antarctica. The potential collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet is seen as a key tipping point, as its loss could eventually <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/324/5929/901" target="_blank">raise global sea levels by 3.3 meters</a> with important regional variations.</p><p>More than that, we would be on the irreversible path to full land-ice melt, causing sea levels to rise by up to 30 meters, roughly at the rate of two meters per century, or maybe faster. Just look at the raised beaches around the world, at the last high stand of global sea level, at the end of the Pleistocene period around 120,0000 years ago, to see the evidence of such a warm world, which was just 2°C warmer than the present day.</p>
Cutting Off Circulation<p>As well as devastating low-lying and coastal areas around the world, melting polar ice could set off another tipping point: a disablement to the AMOC.</p><p>This circulation system drives a northward flow of warm, salty water on the upper layers of the ocean from the tropics to the northeast Atlantic region, and a southward flow of cold water deep in the ocean.</p><p>The ocean conveyor belt has a major effect on the climate, seasonal cycles and temperature in western and northern Europe. It means the region is warmer than other areas of similar latitude.</p><p>But melting ice from the Greenland ice sheet could threaten the AMOC system. It would dilute the salty sea water in the north Atlantic, making the water lighter and less able or unable to sink. This would slow the engine that drives this ocean circulation.</p><p><a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/atlantic-conveyor-belt-has-slowed-15-per-cent-since-mid-twentieth-century" target="_blank">Recent research</a> suggests the AMOC has already weakened by around 15% since the middle of the 20th century. If this continues, it could have a major impact on the climate of the northern hemisphere, but particularly Europe. It may even lead to the <a href="https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/handle/10871/39731?show=full" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">cessation of arable farming</a> in the UK, for instance.</p><p>It may also reduce rainfall over the Amazon basin, impact the monsoon systems in Asia and, by bringing warm waters into the Southern Ocean, further destabilize ice in Antarctica and accelerate global sea level rise.</p>
The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation has a major effect on the climate. Praetorius (2018)
Is it Time to Declare a Climate Emergency?<p>At what stage, and at what rise in global temperatures, will these tipping points be reached? No one is entirely sure. It may take centuries, millennia or it could be imminent.</p><p>But as COVID-19 taught us, we need to prepare for the expected. We were aware of the risk of a pandemic. We also knew that we were not sufficiently prepared. But we didn't act in a meaningful manner. Thankfully, we have been able to fast-track the production of vaccines to combat COVID-19. But there is no vaccine for climate change once we have passed these tipping points.</p><p><a href="https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-risks-report-2021" target="_blank">We need to act now on our climate</a>. Act like these tipping points are imminent. And stop thinking of climate change as a slow-moving, long-term threat that enables us to kick the problem down the road and let future generations deal with it. We must take immediate action to reduce global warming and fulfill our commitments to the <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Paris Agreement</a>, and build resilience with these tipping points in mind.</p><p>We need to plan now to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, but we also need to plan for the impacts, such as the ability to feed everyone on the planet, develop plans to manage flood risk, as well as manage the social and geopolitical impacts of human migrations that will be a consequence of fight or flight decisions.</p><p>Breaching these tipping points would be cataclysmic and potentially far more devastating than COVID-19. Some may not enjoy hearing these messages, or consider them to be in the realm of science fiction. But if it injects a sense of urgency to make us respond to climate change like we have done to the pandemic, then we must talk more about what has happened before and will happen again.</p><p>Otherwise we will continue playing Jenga with our planet. And ultimately, there will only be one loser – us.</p>
By John R. Platt
The period of the 45th presidency will go down as dark days for the United States — not just for the violent insurgency and impeachment that capped off Donald Trump's four years in office, but for every regressive action that came before.
- Biden Announces $2 Trillion Climate and Green Recovery Plan ... ›
- How Biden and Kerry Can Rebuild America's Climate Leadership ... ›
- Biden's EPA Pick Michael Regan Urged to Address Environmental ... ›
- How Joe Biden's Climate Plan Compares to the Green New Deal ... ›