Republicans Attempt To Gut CAFE Through EPA Funding Bill
With the high political drama surrounding America’s debt ceiling crisis, last Friday’s CAFE announcement received much less attention from the media than it might have. But, flying even further beneath the radar is an attempt by Republicans to undo the fuel economy agreement that was the result of long negotiations. According to the NYT, some 39 “anti environmental” riders were attached to an Interior Department and EPA appropriations bill, including one which reads
Sec. 453. None of the funds made available under this Act shall be used— (1) to prepare, propose, promulgate, finalize, implement, or enforce any regulation pursuant to section 202 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521) regarding the regulation of any greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines that are manufactured after model year 2016 to address climate change.
Though one rider, which would have prevented any new listings on the Endangered Species Act lists of threatened and endangered species, was defeated, the NYT reports that the fuel economy rider is still pending. Politico adds that the bill is scheduled to go to the House floor today, but that President Obama is already threatening to veto the bill. Having worked with California, environmental groups and the auto industry to hammer out a compromise, it’s unlikely that the White House will approve any final bill that includes a measure to gut the new 2016-2025 standard… but the fact that Republicans are trying to eliminate the EPA’s ability to regulate fuel economy indicates that someone, somewhere wouldn’t mind seeing the newly-approved CAFE standard gutted.
More by Edward Niedermeyer
Comments
Join the conversation
Regardless of whether you worry about climate change or reducing oil imports, or both, the EPA is a rogue agency at this point, acting far outside the bounds of its charter. Congress could reign them in, but half of it supports the extreme agenda of the EPA. These new rules are absurd as technical impossibilities unless car manufacturers simply neglect to offer us any cars we want to buy and drive. Essentially it is a Prius for everyone, with some extra weight shedding (power seats begone). Variety and choice by the public will not be permitted. For anyone who purports to be a car "enthusiast" to support something like this is the height of hypocrisy.
" . . . the fuel economy agreement that was the result of long negotiations." Negotiations between who? Certainly not me, or anyone else that I know. These negotiations took into account everyone's desires and wishes and goals except for . . . the buyers and drivers of automobiles. This never works.
Since no present Congress can bind a future Congress without an Amendment, CAFE standards can and will be modified with changes in our elected reps. GOP President and Congress in 2013 means lower or gutted CAFE standards... (That would be fine with me). A re-elected President Obama and GOP congress in 2013 means the status quo (with maybe some loophole tinkering if things start to hurt GM too much). A re-elected Obama and a (new) Dem Congress in 2013 mean even more stringent CAFE standards. I suspect the middle option above is most likely.
David Holzman: I took your suggestion and had a double espresso this morning. Sorry, but no help there. I still have trouble with all the certitudes, condescension (50merc's about Halberstam's book's title; I actually knew him slightly) and generalized and ugly anger that such absolutism seems to spawn. Being that I'm not a climate scientist, I only know what I read as a layman. I try to maintain a healthy scepticism, but the weight of evidence appears to point toward human assisted global warming. Of course this could be mistaken. Can't some others occasionally say the same?