EPA: They Shoot Horses, Don't They?

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is under fire from California. Golden State regulators are trying usurp the federal agency's power to set fleet-wide fuel economy averages by classifying CO2 as a pollutant. Rather than fighting the move– debating the "facts" of global warming in the Supreme Court– the EPA is signaling its desire to weasel cut some kind of compromise. While it's unlikely the EPA will do anything to upset Congress' "35 by 2020" mpg applecart, Wardsauto.com reports that the EPA Air Quality Supremo Margo Oge stepped-up to the microphone at the Automotive News shindig and told automakers that "we must bring about an end to the horsepower arms race among auto makers and replace it with another different kind of a race, a race to produce the most affordable and desirable, low carbon-vehicle each year.” New industrial revolution, must reduce greenhouse gas emissions, college kids are green, yada yada yada, California wins but WE'LL handle it. Meanwhile, someone should tell Oge that the horsepower wars are already done; automakers are competing with each other to green-up and meet the EU and NTSA's new fuel economy regs (e.g. GM's Ultrav8tracide and Voltmania). Still, thanks for the career-boosting rhetorical carrot.

Robert Farago
Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Join the conversation
4 of 9 comments
  • Juniper Juniper on Jan 30, 2008

    With the wind chill at 20F below this morning in Chicago it is hard to be objective about global warming. But the horsepower race is still on. One example is the new Accord, half the ads are for "holding on to something" the other half point out very clearly how powerful the V6 is.

  • BuckD BuckD on Jan 30, 2008

    lprocter1982: Actually, last I heard, scientists are beginning to seriously doubt and question the ‘global warming is caused by us’ theories. Oh, when will the denial end? Scientists have been doubting and questioning global warming for decades now, just like scientists are supposed to. But the consensus these days by people who actually research it is that global warming is likely a product of human activity. there seems to be enough evidence for most countries, including our own (albeit reluctantly) to act on reducing carbon emissions.

  • Joeaverage Joeaverage on Jan 30, 2008

    Okay we err on the side of the greehouse effect is bull and the world is ruined and we are dead. Or worse we have a good life but our children live in a highly polluted world where life is much more difficult than now. -OR- We err on the side of the greenhouse effect is real, we take all sorts of steps to reduce our emissions and surprise, we were wrong but our world is cleaner for it... I think I'll take the cautious approach - continue to drive an efficient small vehicle (because that is all I really need, saving the hot rod for the weekend) and each time I need a new device, appliance, or vehicle I'll choose something more efficient than the last one to wear out. We'll continue the same modest lifestyle we adopted when we first married (making the most of what we've got). At the same time we'll buy quality goods so we don't need to replace them as often. Careful not to chase fads and replacing perfectly good stuff with more stuff. Seems so simple AND I don't need to send Al Gore's crew any money...

  • Landcrusher Landcrusher on Jan 30, 2008

    Consensus of researchers? Did you mean consensus of scientists? I could care less what a bunch of idiots reading other people's work think about this subject. BTW, the denial will end when someone trustworthy really can show what's happening. So far, it's been speculation and computer models, or charts and graphs based on flawed data. Oge can put on her CV how successful she was influencing car dealers (edit: manufacturers) to do what they were doing anyway. Add her salary to all the people making money on this supposed disaster without really producing any value.