The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Detroit's Death Wish Comes Roaring Back as Trump Vows to Lower Emission Standards
The oil industry and its "deep state" allies in the Trump administration have lured U.S. auto companies into a potentially fatal political trap, chumming Detroit by tapping into the deeply embedded penchant of the Big Three for chasing short-term market trends at the expense of long term value.
Excited by the arrival of a Big Oil ally, Scott Pruitt, to head the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the auto industry asked the Trump administration to undo the recent Obama Administration rule locking long term, reliable standards for emissions and fuel economy. The industry argued that the standards, which it agreed to back in 2009 as part of the auto bail-out, were now too onerous because consumers were shifting to buy SUV's again with lower oil prices. The argument is utterly bogus. The 2009 rules set separate, if ambitious, standards for each size class of vehicle, so while more SUV sales do drive up average emissions and oil consumption, they do not require the companies to make a single vehicle to a higher standard than they agreed to.
What's really at stake here is the pace of vehicle electrification. Meeting the 2009 standards for each vehicle class was always dependent on a significant portion of those vehicles being zero-emission electric drive. That's an existential threat to the oil industry—and in many ways to Detroit's dealers, who make most of their money repairing the drive trains of internal combustion cars. Electric drive vehicles (EV) have a fraction of the maintenance costs of gas or diesel.
But a rapid deployment of electric drive cars is vital to the long term global viability of automobile manufacturers. Whatever happens in the U.S., global auto markets are going electric and the Big Three need a major U.S. EV market to compete in the 21st century.
A few days before the Trump administration announced that—surprise, surprise—it was giving the auto industry everything it had asked for and more, not only waiving the post 2022 economy standards but also seeking to strip California of its historic right to set its own vehicle emissions rules, I attended a high level strategy session in New Delhi devoted to the future of India's auto fleet. If Detroit had been listening it might have realized the folly of resuming its servile junior partner status with oil.
The message could not have been clearer. Minister after Minister—roads, industry, rail, urban development—proclaimed India's urgent need for "transportation without oil." The government of India's top planners made clear that they were uniformly committed to an all electric vehicle economy by 2030, a step which would dry up the oil industry's biggest remaining growth target. It would also shut off the world's fastest growing automotive market to U.S. manufacturers if they continue to rely on internal combustion engines.
India's domestic ride-hailing service, Ola, announced a partnership with Indian auto maker Mahindra to test electric taxis. The government indicated it would suspend the permit process for electric vehicles, as the City of Beijing has already done, giving electric car ownership a big boost. Toyota boasted that 46 percent of the Camry's sold in India are already hybrids or electrics. The electric drive train has already left the station. With China already far down the electric vehicle pathway, Europe being forced onto it by air pollution problems and India trying to leap-frog both, an auto industry that continues to rely on 20th century technology will rapidly become a 20th century relic.
Why would U.S. auto companies, like General Motors with its big—and bold—bet on the ground-breaking electric Bolt, give up the level playing field and predictability which the 2022 emission and economy rules had given them in 2009? Just as Trump was signaling that he will ease the requirements, Rob Threlkeld, global manager of renewable energy for General Motors, said the automaker is pushing to source all of its power from clean sources by 2050 because that's what consumers want. Why would manufacturers choose a strategic pathway so clearly at odds with where world auto markets are going?
Why would they pick such a big fight with their biggest domestic market. California, joined as it is by a bevy of other states seeking cleaner and cheaper transportation options? Well, dealership pressure is one reason. Dealers hate EV's, because they don't break down and don't fatten their service departments. Another is that the auto industry's lobbying apparatus thrives on the message, "the government is out to hurt you. Fight back!" (After all, if Government Affairs departments concede the reality that government regulations have been, net, good for the industry, keeping it competitive with the German and Japanese manufacturers, what's the argument for fat lobbying budgets?)
From 2004 to 2008, as oil prices soared, Detroit clung to its SUV dependent business model, pronouncing that gasoline prices could never reach the $2.50 mark at which customers starting seeking fuel economy. When that marker was crossed in 2006, Chrysler and GM headed for bankruptcy, Ford for massive debt and value loss and the U.S. industry almost went away except for the Obama administration rescue.
Now, just as happened in that era, the auto industry is once again barreling towards long-term bankruptcy for short-term relaxation of standards. What can rescue Detroit from its own death wish?
Primarily California and its allied states, (Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont), which have adopted their own version of the 2022 fuel efficiency rules and an electric vehicle mandate to go with it. Representing 30 percent of the U.S. auto market, these states alone can drive Detroit to remain competitive in the electric drive segment. While the Trump administration appears ready to deny California the waiver which enables it to maintain its own rules, there will be a major legal battle in the courts over whether the federal government can revoke a waiver once it has been issued. And even if, in the short turn, the Trump administration prevails, California and its allies can make clear that once political attitudes in Washington change, as they always do, that the next round of economy and emissions standards will be much, much tougher than those Detroit is seeking to weaken today. The 2022 rules were very much a compromise—and with foreign manufacturers racing to electrify, California holds a much stronger long term hand than Detroit.
So what the auto companies and auto workers and auto communities, all ought to be praying for is that the Trump administration's ploy to reinforce Detroit's dependence on oil fails—because the courts uphold state's rights and California's ability to insist that the auto industry remain globally competitive.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
georgeclerk / E+ / Getty Images
By Jennifer Molidor
One million species are at risk of extinction from human activity, warns a recent study by scientists with the United Nations. We need to cut greenhouse gas pollution across all sectors to avoid catastrophic climate change — and we need to do it fast, said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
This research should serve as a rallying cry for polluting industries to make major changes now. Yet the agriculture industry continues to lag behind.
"The Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources Conservation and Tourism wishes to inform the public that following extensive consultations with all stakeholders, the Government of Botswana has taken a decision to lift the hunting suspension," the government announced in a press release shared on social media.
Company Safety Data Sheets on New Chemicals Frequently Lack the Worker Protections EPA Claims They Include
By Richard Denison
Readers of this blog know how concerned EDF is over the Trump EPA's approval of many dozens of new chemicals based on its mere "expectation" that workers across supply chains will always employ personal protective equipment (PPE) just because it is recommended in the manufacturer's non-binding safety data sheet (SDS).
By Grant Smith
From 2009 to 2012, Gregory Jaczko was chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which approves nuclear power plant designs and sets safety standards for plants. But he now says that nuclear power is too dangerous and expensive — and not part of the answer to the climate crisis.
By Brett Walton
When Greg Wetherbee sat in front of the microscope recently, he was looking for fragments of metals or coal, particles that might indicate the source of airborne nitrogen pollution in Rocky Mountain National Park. What caught his eye, though, were the plastics.
In a big victory for animals, Prada has announced that it's ending its use of fur! It joins Coach, Jean Paul Gaultier, Giorgio Armani, Versace, Ralph Lauren, Vivienne Westwood, Michael Kors, Donna Karan and many others PETA has pushed toward a ban.
This is a victory more than a decade in the making. PETA and our international affiliates have crashed Prada's catwalks with anti-fur signs, held eye-catching demonstrations all around the world, and sent the company loads of information about the fur industry. In 2018, actor and animal rights advocate Pamela Anderson sent a letter on PETA's behalf urging Miuccia Prada to commit to leaving fur out of all future collections, and the iconic designer has finally listened.
If people in three European countries want to fight the climate crisis, they need to chill out more.
"The rapid pace of labour-saving technology brings into focus the possibility of a shorter working week for all, if deployed properly," Autonomy Director Will Stronge said, The Guardian reported. "However, while automation shows that less work is technically possible, the urgent pressures on the environment and on our available carbon budget show that reducing the working week is in fact necessary."
The report found that if the economies of Germany, Sweden and the UK maintain their current levels of carbon intensity and productivity, they would need to switch to a six, 12 and nine hour work week respectively if they wanted keep the rise in global temperatures to the below two degrees Celsius promised by the Paris agreement, The Independent reported.
The study based its conclusions on data from the UN and the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) on greenhouse gas emissions per industry in all three countries.
The report comes as the group Momentum called on the UK's Labour Party to endorse a four-day work week.
"We welcome this attempt by Autonomy to grapple with the very real changes society will need to make in order to live within the limits of the planet," Emma Williams of the Four Day Week campaign said in a statement reported by The Independent. "In addition to improved well-being, enhanced gender equality and increased productivity, addressing climate change is another compelling reason we should all be working less."
Supporters of the idea linked it to calls in the U.S. and Europe for a Green New Deal that would decarbonize the economy while promoting equality and well-being.
"This new paper from Autonomy is a thought experiment that should give policymakers, activists and campaigners more ballast to make the case that a Green New Deal is absolutely necessary," Common Wealth think tank Director Mat Lawrence told The Independent. "The link between working time and GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions has been proved by a number of studies. Using OECD data and relating it to our carbon budget, Autonomy have taken the step to show what that link means in terms of our working weeks."
Stronge also linked his report to calls for a Green New Deal.
"Becoming a green, sustainable society will require a number of strategies – a shorter working week being just one of them," he said, according to The Guardian. "This paper and the other nascent research in the field should give us plenty of food for thought when we consider how urgent a Green New Deal is and what it should look like."
- Reduced Work Hours as a Means of Slowing Climate Change ›
- How working less could solve all our problems. Really. | ›
- Needed: A shorter work week – People's World ›