The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Strong Fuel Economy Standards Protect the Climate and Consumer Pocketbooks
By Dave Cooke and Elliott Negin
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recent decision to roll back fuel economy standards for new cars and light trucks could slam the brakes on our nation's most successful climate initiative to date.
The next phase of the standards calls for improving the average fuel efficiency of new cars and trucks in the U.S. to about 50 miles per gallon in lab tests by 2025, which corresponds to a real-world performance of about 36 mpg. By 2030, that would avoid nearly 4 billion tons of global warming emissions, akin to shutting down 140 coal-fired power plants over that time frame.
To justify the agency's decision, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt issued a document parroting baseless claims by the main auto industry trade groups, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Association of Global Automakers.
Their basic, misguided argument goes like this: Low gas prices have prompted Americans to buy more gas-guzzling pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) in recent years than gas-sipping sedans and compacts, which means that automakers would have to install costly hybrid and electric technology in more models to meet the 50 mpg average. That, in turn, would drive up sticker prices.
In fact, the industry's own analysis concluded automakers can meet the 2025 standards without relying heavily on hybrids and plug-ins. A number of cost-effective technologies—including turbocharged engines, improved transmissions and lightweight materials—have thus far enabled automakers to meet the standards' goals at a lower cost than the industry anticipated. Indeed, new car prices have remained essentially flat when factoring in inflation, despite the fact that fuel economy has steadily improved.
At the same time, Pruitt's argument also ignores the standards' inherent flexibility. Instead of setting a single greenhouse gas emission target for an average vehicle, the current standards consider a vehicle's size and type. That ensures that automakers improve the efficiency of all models, including trucks and SUVs, while giving manufacturers flexibility in hitting their targets based on the vehicles they actually sell. No one model has to be in compliance—it's an average. Automakers are judged on whether they're improving the efficiency of the vehicles they actually sell, not whether or not they are selling a bunch of efficient econoboxes.
Remarkably, the EPA document also makes the ludicrous claim that the standards hurt consumers. In fact, the standards have already saved American car buyers more than $57 billion at the pump and would continue to save new car buyers thousands of dollars in fuel costs over the life of their vehicles. Buyers who finance their vehicles actually begin saving money as soon as they drive off the dealership lot, because the marginal cost of fuel-saving technology on their monthly payments is considerably less than the money they save on gas. These savings are even more important for low-income families, who tend to buy on the used market and spend a greater share of their transportation budget on fuel.
Finally, the EPA document fails to even mention climate change, the main reason for the standards in the first place. Strengthening fuel economy is especially imperative now, given that the transportation sector has supplanted the energy sector as the nation's leading source of carbon dioxide emissions. With Americans driving more miles than ever before, it is critical that U.S. vehicles consume less fuel to avoid the worst consequences of climate change and meet U.S. obligations under the Paris climate agreement to hold global warming to 2 degrees Celsius.
The auto industry is now facing complete uncertainty, the very situation the Obama administration purposely avoided by finalizing the second-phase standards in 2017. But the industry has only itself to blame. After all, the Detroit Big Three and nearly every other automaker originally signed on to the standards, but now they are lobbying to weaken them, making the same kind of specious arguments they made whenever asked to improve safety or strengthen fuel economy in the past. And if the Trump administration ultimately rolls back the standards, the rest of us will have to bear the cost, not only by paying more at the pump but also by dealing with more extreme climate change-related impacts.
Dave Cooke is a senior vehicles analyst and Elliott Negin is a senior writer at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Last week, the Peruvian Palm Oil Producers' Association (JUNPALMA) promised to enter into an agreement for sustainable and deforestation-free palm oil production. The promise was secured by the U.S. based National Wildlife Federation (NWF) in collaboration with the local government, growers and the independent conservation organization Sociedad Peruana de Ecodesarrollo.
The rallying cry to build it again and to build it better than before is inspiring after a natural disaster, but it may not be the best course of action, according to new research published in the journal Science.
"Faced with global warming, rising sea levels, and the climate-related extremes they intensify, the question is no longer whether some communities will retreat—moving people and assets out of harm's way—but why, where, when, and how they will retreat," the study begins.
The researchers suggest that it is time to rethink retreat, which is often seen as a last resort and a sign of weakness. Instead, it should be seen as the smart option and an opportunity to build new communities.
"We propose a reconceptualization of retreat as a suite of adaptation options that are both strategic and managed," the paper states. "Strategy integrates retreat into long-term development goals and identifies why retreat should occur and, in doing so, influences where and when."
The billions of dollars spent to rebuild the Jersey Shore and to create dunes to protect from future storms after Superstorm Sandy in 2012 may be a waste if sea level rise inundates the entire coastline.
"There's a definite rhetoric of, 'We're going to build it back better. We're going to win. We're going to beat this. Something technological is going to come and it's going to save us,'" said A.R. Siders, an assistant professor with the disaster research center at the University of Delaware and lead author of the paper, to the New York Times. "It's like, let's step back and think for a minute. You're in a fight with the ocean. You're fighting to hold the ocean in place. Maybe that's not the battle we want to pick."
Rethinking retreat could make it a strategic, efficient, and equitable way to adapt to the climate crisis, the study says.
Dr. Siders pointed out that it has happened before. She noted that in the 1970s, the small town of Soldiers Grove, Wisconsin moved itself out of the flood plain after one too many floods. The community found and reoriented the business district to take advantage of highway traffic and powered it entirely with solar energy, as the New York Times reported.
That's an important lesson now that rising sea levels pose a catastrophic risk around the world. Nearly 75 percent of the world's cities are along shorelines. In the U.S. alone coastline communities make up nearly 40 percent of the population— more than 123 million people, which is why Siders and her research team are so forthright about the urgency and the complexities of their findings, according to Harvard Magazine.
Some of those complexities include, coordinating moves across city, state or even international lines; cultural and social considerations like the importance of burial grounds or ancestral lands; reparations for losses or damage to historic practices; long-term social and psychological consequences; financial incentives that often contradict environmental imperatives; and the critical importance of managing retreat in a way that protects vulnerable and poor populations and that doesn't exacerbate past injustices, as Harvard Magazine reported.
If communities could practice strategic retreats, the study says, doing so would not only reduce the need for people to choose among bad options, but also improve their circumstances.
"It's a lot to think about," said Siders to Harvard Magazine. "And there are going to be hard choices. It will hurt—I mean, we have to get from here to some new future state, and that transition is going to be hard.…But the longer we put off making these decisions, the worse it will get, and the harder the decisions will become."
To help the transition, the paper recommends improved access to climate-hazard maps so communities can make informed choices about risk. And, the maps need to be improved and updated regularly, the paper said as the New York Times reported.
"It's not that everywhere should retreat," said Dr. Siders to the New York Times. "It's that retreat should be an option. It should be a real viable option on the table that some places will need to use."
Leaked documents show that Jair Bolsonaro's government intends to use the Brazilian president's hate speech to isolate minorities living in the Amazon region. The PowerPoint slides, which democraciaAbierta has seen, also reveal plans to implement predatory projects that could have a devastating environmental impact.
Last week we received positive news on the border wall's imminent construction in an Arizona wildlife refuge. The Trump administration delayed construction of the wall through about 60 miles of federal wildlife preserves.