This has made the NY Times, which uses lots of fossil fuels to gather the news and never had a problem with the enormous amount of fossil fuels used by Mr. Obama to take long trips for short speeches followed by fundraisers and golf, very upset
Trump to Undo Vehicle Rules That Curb Global Warming https://t.co/rqDr1aHfAp
— The New York Times (@nytimes) March 4, 2017
From the article
The Trump administration is expected to begin rolling back stringent federal regulations on vehicle pollution that contributes to global warming, according to people familiar with the matter, essentially marking a U-turn to efforts to force the American auto industry to produce more electric cars.
The announcement — which is expected as soon as Tuesday and will be made jointly by the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Scott Pruitt, and the transportation secretary, Elaine L. Chao — will immediately start to undo one of former President Barack Obama’s most significant environmental legacies.
Sigh. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
Under the Obama administration’s vehicle fuel economy standards, American automakers were locked into nearly a decade of trying to design and build ever more sophisticated fuel-efficient vehicles, including electric and hybrid models. The nation’s largest auto companies told Mr. Trump last month that they found those technical requirements too burdensome.
Gasp!: Trump won't try to prevent bad weather by “forcing the American auto industry to produce more electric cars” https://t.co/cVqrRaIrMw
— Tom Nelson (@tan123) March 4, 2017
The E.P.A. will also begin legal proceedings to revoke a waiver for California that was allowing the state to enforce the tougher tailpipe standards for its drivers.
Hey, Democrats keep stating that federal law trump state law, and, if you remember, the argument against Arizona’s SB1070 illegal immigration law was that it was more stringent than federal law, which was, according to Democrats, a big no no. So, if California is more stringent, then that would also be a no no, would it not? (Personally, I think California should be allowed to keep the standards if they want)
They complained about the steep technical challenge posed by the stringent standard, noting that only about 3.5 percent of new vehicles are able to reach it. That even excludes some hybrid cars, plug-in electric cars and fuel cell vehicles, the automakers wrote. “Even today, no conventional vehicle today meets that target.”
The automakers estimated their industry would have to spend a “staggering” $200 billion between 2012 and 2025 to comply and said the tailpipe emissions rule was far more expensive for the industry than enforcing the Clean Power Plan.
Guess who pays for the cost increases?
The tailpipe pollution regulations were among Mr. Obama’s major initiatives to reduce global warming and were put forth jointly by the E.P.A. and the Transportation Department. They would have forced automakers to build passenger cars that achieve an average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, compared with about 36 miles per gallon today.
From the same guy who jumped in a helicopter, flew to an airport, took a fossil fueled flight on a jumbo jet, along with a backup jet and several fighter jets, then got in a low MPG limo to head to a fundraiser with almost two dozen fossil fueled low MPG vehicles, causing traffic jams which force Other People to use more fossil fuels.
Those regulations are locked into place for vehicle model years through 2021, and just before Mr. Trump took office, the E.P.A. put forth a final rule intended to cement them for vehicles built from 2022 through 2025. However, the E.P.A. did not jointly release its plan to do so with the Transportation Department, leaving a legal loophole for the Trump administration to take advantage of.
Look, if manufacturers want to build hybrids, then that is their choice. There’s certainly a market for them. If they want to make a big V8 muscle car, they should also be able to do that and not worry about silly rules. CAFE standards have long put drivers in danger due to making lighter and lighter vehicles. Manufacturers have done a great job using technology to avoid going even lighter. But, why not let drivers get what they want without government interference over silly ‘carbon pollution?” Especially when those rules artificially raise vehicle costs. And those rules hurt the poor and middle class more than the rich folks, like Obama, who push the rules.