By on September 10, 2019

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler weighed in on the gas war this week, issuing some firm language on the matter during a visit to Chattanooga, Tennessee. His words were softer upon returning to Washington, where he reminded everyone that the EPA has made no formal decisions on the matter and suggested there could still be room for compromise.

Unfortunately, locating that happy middle ground has been a bit of a problem. Despite the fuel economy rollback’s status as a proposal, hard lines have been drawn in the sand between the Trump administration and California’s regulatory bodies. The Golden State’s compromise was to delay the Obama-era targets by one year. California also recruited municipalities, U.S. states, and automotive manufacturers to pledge their support of the plan, resulting in a handful of carmakers finding themselves on the business end of an antitrust probe.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s compromise has been nonexistent. Wheeler’s words suggest that might be because everyone is still making up their minds… but not before he gently razzed the West Coast for being shortsighted an singleminded. 

“We have to have one national standard for automobiles,” he said during an EPA visit to a Superfund site in Chattanooga on Monday. “The standard we proposed last year will produce less expensive cars for the consumer and will save lives. We can’t have one state dictating what the standards are for the entire country, particularly when they are only looking at one policy and that is greenhouse gas emissions.”

Presently, that national standard aims to increase fuel economy to the equivalent of 54.5 mpg for cars and light-duty trucks by the 2025 model year. The proposed rollback suggests freezing those targets in 2020 but Californian leadership has refused to entertain the possibility. Before issuing its modest compromise earlier this year, the state was gathering support to maintain the old standards regardless of what the federal government decided.

According to the Chattanooga Times Free Press, Wheeler stipulated that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) lacked authority to set its own fuel economy standards in conjunction with automakers. While the state has been able to set its own standards in the past, roping in manufactures was a step over the line — hence the antitrust probe. He also claimed California was missing the bigger picture.

People are keeping cars longer than ever before and the current administration is fearful that more regulation will raise vehicle transaction prices to a point that will make them less palatable to consumers. There are also concerns that overzealous efficiency rules could result in people not being able to have the kind of vehicles they want to buy. While there’s little hard data to back that up in this country, we do know that American’s like bigger cars and sales-weighted mpg averages haven’t improved in years — even though economy standards have risen. Forcing a glut hyper-efficient autos onto the U.S. market could hurt the economy and maybe the environment by keeping more people in older models. At least, that’s the theory the EPA is operating under.

“We want to encourage people to buy new cars,” Wheeler said. “Older cars are worse for the environment and for public safety.”

Unfortunately, if you actually break things down, maintaining an older car typically works out to be better for Mother Earth than buying a new one — even if you’re purchasing an brand-new electric. Shopping your way out of an environmental problem is often far less effective than conservation. Of course, California’s plan also hinges on people buying newer vehicles with superior fuel economy so we’ll have to call this one a wash.

On Tuesday, Wheeler was back in Washington and announced the Trump administration is still evaluating aspects of its plan to ease the Obama-era fueling requirements. While that isn’t a guarantee that they will be more stringent than initially proposed, it would be almost impossible to imagine it going in the opposite direction.

Wheeler told reporters that he is still committed to easing the standards but added that it was “safe to say our final [version] will not look exactly like the way we proposed it.”

Bloomberg also reported that he claimed the administration hasn’t decided whether to separately advance a plan revoking California’s authority to set its own automotive efficiency requirements, stating “we are looking at that, it is certainly an option.”

Sadly, none of this gets us any closer toward deciding which side has taken the “correct” approach in saving the planet. But it’s nice to see the EPA’s leadership suggesting this might be a more complicated issue than it seems at first blush. Maybe if everyone starts thinking that way and begins talking constructively, this mess can finally be over.

 

[Image: Albert H. Teich/Shutterstock]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

49 Comments on “Gas War: EPA Head Suggests Fuel Rollback May Have Some Wiggle Room...”


  • avatar
    Snooder

    “California also recruited municipalities, U.S. states, and automotive manufacturers to pledge their support of the plan, resulting in a handful of carmakers finding themselves on the business end of an antitrust probe.”

    C’mon man.

    You can’t just act like the Trump Administration launching a baseless antitrust investigation out of spite because the automakers like the California compromise better than their own non-compromise was some neutral action.

    You’re better than that.

    • 0 avatar
      Daniel J

      Not that I don’t disagree, but I love how California wants to use “states rights” when its only beneficial to them. If California could force all states to bow to their will, they would. I see many Californians and liberals talk about we should ban ICE vehicles now. Everyone should, by law, only be able to drive X type of vehicle or Y type of truck, regardless of states rights.

      The republicans are just as bad, don’t get me wrong. But lets keep it real. The folks in California would love to make CARB a national standard.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        “Not that I don’t disagree, but I love how California wants to use “states rights” when its only beneficial to them.”

        just like how conservatives LOVE “states rights” unless states do something they don’t like.

        don’t act like your s**t don’t stink.

        • 0 avatar
          joeaverage

          IF they go along with more lax federal laws then they backslide a little towards “can’t breathe”. LA Basin smog – remember? Population density.

          Environmental conditions are not uniform across the country.

          Don’t live there (would never live there) but I prefer cleaner than not.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            This is the reality. LA and thus California have different needs than I do in Northern Alabama. If we are going to have a single standard, then it has to take that into account.

            Having said that, the leaders and planners in LA really haven’t done a decent job of dealing with it. Smog is far less of a problem when cars aren’t always idling and it is the one major city I frequent where mass transit is pathetic. I get the volume problem…they are set up for 2 level interstates. Turns out that sometime about 1994 the North Ridge quake revealed this to be a bad idea. But one would have thought they’d have come.up with something in the following 25 years.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            I think you’re confusing the Loma Prieta, San Francisco quake in ’89. They had double decker freeways, LA never has. Great idea though.

            The LA basin is just like what it sounds. Built up in a dog dish of sorts. Smog isn’t easily flushed out, but that sounds like a “them” problem, not ours.

            Plus LA is a major port city with all the related smog (trucks/trains/ships/cargo planes) never talked about by CARB, nor dealt with.

  • avatar
    SD 328I

    CARB is comprised of California and 13 other states that make up 40% of all new car sales and 50% of all revenue.

    Auto manufacturers are going to make whatever CARB dictates because they have to financially. They make it to CARB standards and they can sell them to all 50 states, not so if they go with the federal mandate. This also keeps them in synergy with the rest of the World, which is going more strict, not less.

    Since anything that isn’t agreed upon will end up in court for the next few years, there really isn’t anything Trump’s administration can do about it.

    As a Republican, don’t we believe in state’s rights? Unless of course we don’t agree with it?

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      “…They make it to CARB standards and they can sell them to all 50 states…”

      You make it sound so easy. Like all they have to do is flip a switch. Yet the base 2020 Corolla can barely squeeze out 35 mpg. It’s about the same for the base Civic and Sentra.

      Now how do automakers deal with bigger? Or faster? Never mind European. How the…

      Even just midsize. Except automakers aren’t necessarily siding with CARB, but they have slightly more to gain by “negotiating” with, than fighting. It doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll comply one bit. And CARB didn’t give up much.

      Settling (out of court) on 2022 CAFE schedule limits, for example, would be a “compromise”. By not bending, CARB could lose the fight completely.

      • 0 avatar
        SD 328I

        Flip a switch?

        You mean keep doing what they have been doing? You realize they are currently building to CARB standard?

        How do they continue to I guess is your question? Not sure, but European standards are even stricter. Don’t you expect it’s better to have synergy Worldwide? All resources meeting a similar goal right?

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          It’s working currently, but they’re struggling to get past 25 mpg. They’re basically stalled there.

          The best way to deal with Europe and related markets is not deal with them at all. Including Japan.

          • 0 avatar
            joeaverage

            There remains un-tapped technology to dip into.

            What has been expended is cheap solutions.

            Variable compression engines are the next thing. And compression ignition gasoline engines.

            Manufacturers can still add effective hybrid systems to more vehicle lines similar to what the Prius offers. Not like GM has offered in the past with “hybrid-lite” systems that don’t make much real difference but allow them to claim their SUVs are hybrids.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Expensive and complicated? What’s not to love?? Ever since overdrive and fuel injection, nothing has made a sizable dent. Collectively? Sure.

            Worth it? I guess. Will any wizardry, at least double the mpg?

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        Oh there is another way. Malaise 2.0 is coming. Everyone laments those little turbos and what not, but you’ll miss them when double digits 0-60 times and CVTs are the norm. Cars were fast in the 60s and early 70s. Then…malaise until they figured out how to deal with the new standards without cars being miserable. Enjoy it while you can…it’s right about 1971 now, but Winter is coming.

        At least EVs will keep performance around.

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          Honestly, you have to sort of look forward to it. The electronic controls and modern construction techniques brought us cars that in the end were better in almost every way than the peak of the muscle era. Yes, we will wander in the wilderness for a while but even that will have a few bright spots (turbo Buicks…E30 BMWs, etc). But technology will find a way and it is likely to be glorious.

          But yeah, until then what most folks will be able to afford is likely to be a penalty box.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Agree, as a manufacturer you are not going to lose 40% of a market with 50% revenue. Again this is less about making Trump looking bad and more about the loss of a market and eventually having to comply with the new Western European standards. Manufacturers have to plan for the long term which is beyond Trump.

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      So if Ford is so concerned with being able to sell Western European models in the US, where in the HE double hockey sticks is my new Fiesta ST. What is the crossover in the markets…Ecosport and Escape? Mustang in tiny numbers? Not an insignificant market size, but different engines for different markets have been a thing forever.

      I don’t really care about any of this, just thought it was funny.

  • avatar
    JD-Shifty

    bring on the new high mileage, clean vehicles.

  • avatar
    Art Vandelay

    Honestly now that they have said they can meet the increased standards I’d hold them to it. Then in a few years when Ford comes back with “but muh F150 profits” tell em to just shut it and fork over the fines.

    No credit BS either. Meet the standard or pay the fines. These folks jumped on board saying they could do it so I see zero reason not to hold them to the letter of it.

    I’d add that should they back out each of those companies ceo’s should have their first born inducted into the Marine Corps for the next middle eastern war. None of those cushy jobs either…0300 Infantry…you made it.

    Whatever, I don’t care. My next car is going to be Italian anyway and certainly pre all this nonsense.

  • avatar
    Art Vandelay

    You know, I don’t care. This is what all the little progressives want anyway so fine. If you are right and this doesn’t price cars out of reach for people, cool, I’ll shake your hand and say you were right, thanks.

    But if you are wrong don’t come to me with your grubby little hands out for more money on April 15th. So sorry, take the bus…I’ll wave as I drive by.

    • 0 avatar
      Daniel J

      Art,

      That is exactly how I feel about it. They’ll want more money and just blame the “free market” and start taxing more to “fix” the issue.

    • 0 avatar
      joeaverage

      The “poor people” may just have to do what I do and buy used vehicles. Or economy cars vs fully equipped new SUVs. If the market truly prices out a large enough chunk of the population then car makers will react.

      It’ll take time for the markets to shake out.

      I think once ICE engines are too expensive it’ll begin a trend of people buying EVs at some lower price.

      I know, I know – change is hard. Hang in there.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    I don’t think Ford is concerned about selling Western European Fiestas in the US especially since they discontinued the Fiesta and Focus in the US. The concern is the future in which they will have to comply. Auto manufacturers have to plan for the future which is not next year but the next 5, 10, or more years. I doubt most auto manufacturers embrace stricter standards more like they anticipate that the standards will be stricter and by being part of the process they might have more control over them. Also it is more expensive to comply with a variety of standards than it is to have the standards more uniform.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    The lead picture – That’s Rudy Giuliani in a very finely crafted toupee right?

  • avatar
    mtunofun

    The “cars will be more expensive” argument is kind of a strawman isn’t it? Cars are more expensive because a significant amount of consumers (including me) want apple carplay, blind spot monitoring, led headlights, lane keep assist, radar cruise control with stop n go, panoramic sunroofs, climate control, heated/ventilated seats, more sound deadening. I can go on and on. Also, I think it’s great that automakers are putting money into R&D for high-strength steels, aluminum, carbon fiber. They offer lighter weight and more rigidity. And plain old steel are for plebes anyways. Won’t anyone think of the children?!?!

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      Not just the options either. You can buy all manner of cars and trucks reliably pushing 400+ HP. It’s mundane now. You want that 30+ years ago? Better buy you one of those Lamborghini Countaches you had hanging on your bedroom wall. Heck my Fiesta’s 1.6 is Mustang and Camaro territory. And for all the hate little turbo Mills get it is more reliable than any freaking fox body mustang or third/forth gen Camaro I remember my friends owning back then. Sure, my Ranger was pretty bulletproof, but how hard is it to get 88 reliable HP?

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        OK not 400 HP, but 300 lbs/ft of torque, starting at very low RPM in a 3,200 lbs car wasn’t too bad, or as bad is it seems on paper now.

        In contrast today, cars are low on torque, compared to HP.

        I can’t speak for the Camaros so much but a simple EFI Windsor 302 Fox Mustang had unbeatable reliability under normal, hard use and lots abuse. I don’t know if there’s been anything made before or after with equal hands-off reliability.

        Along with most of the better cars in its day, I’m not sure they knew how to fail.

        Nor do I know what your friends did to theirs, but their only downfall, weakest link was their module/igniter, which was also the most common fail on Hondas from the era, no matter how rare the occurrence. So you carried a spare (with the spare tire), even though you’d probably never need it.

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          “In contrast today, cars are low on torque, compared to HP.”

          Don’t I wish this was actually the case. I’m not sure which cars you are thinking of, but there are a *ton* of torque-focused low-reving turbo’d tug boats on the road today.

          Compare the specs of an EB Mustang or a Camaro 2.0T to a ’90 Mustang GT. The power philosophy is extremely similar. The biggest difference is that the Windsor sounds like a cool V8 and the turbo-4 engines sound like food processors.

  • avatar
    Oldschool

    Vehicles in the future will all have to weigh a lot less than they do now for any significant increase in fuel economy as I believe automakers have done all they can to squeeze out every last bit of power and fuel efficiency in all of these tiny 4 banger turbos.

    I mean what else is there for them to improve upon besides going full on EV?

    Weight is the enemy here even with the use of all this light weight materials, crossovers easily can weigh over 4,500lbs!!!

    It can’t be the sheet metal such as the doors, hood or the tail gate weighing so much since they all feel paper thin and chintzy. It’s all the additional accessories installed in new vehicles today that add a hundred pounds here and there.

    As cars and trucks become outrageously expensive and overpriced sometimes I wonder WTH I’m I paying for? Since everything made today feels like it’s made out of one huge piece of plastic! It goes back to tech features which has reduced quality of other parts we don’t see such as engine and drivetrain components and or interior/exterior trim that won’t hold up in 20-50 years unlike vehicles from the 50’s-80’s that still used solid tank like bodies with heavy duty metal door handles and heavy chrome bumpers. That ish lasts forever!! Not like the cheap toy like built cars and trucks of today.

    • 0 avatar
      iNeon

      No. No. No. Nonononono. So much response necessary. This is going to take a while.

      The car is a luxury and you’ll do well to understand that reality. This is and has always has been true.

      Cars are great fun. Cars are autonomy. Cars are beautifully-crafted, stylish examples of personal transportation. All’em! Cars are f’in glorious!

      And they’re a luxury.

      Once you own your personal truth (sounds like you’re a used car/proven reliability person— own it! This is a beautiful thing!) you’ll understand that new car people are demanding more of what you don’t like, not less.

      You’ll have a lot of nice cars to pick from once the new car people sort out the bad ones through trial and error.

      1980s cars didn’t have steel bumpers, except for the few 1970s holdouts. 1970s cars didn’t have indestructible dashboards or interiors— except for the few 1960s holdouts. 1980s cars didn’t have triple-chrome trim— and while I’m ranting about it— neither did 1960s cars. Those cars had soft aluminum trims that hazed if one looked at them funny— single-coat chrome bumpers that rusted right at the exposed bolts.

      You’re very frustrated because you’re assigning emotionality and motive to inanimate objects.

      You’re also looking at over-restored examples of cars that are better than what the state-of-the-art could produce at their time of manufacture.

      I’d like you to recognize that technology has advanced such that today’s coating and materials technology are so improved— they’re forcing your admiration of old objects carrying new restoration technology as something they never were, originally.

      I’ve hand-buffed enough old cars to know it only lasted a dang week and had to be done again.

      I’ve hand-buffed enough premium, indestructible— GERMAN— paint right off of a ‘finest at any price’ Mercedes-Benz to know that paint wasn’t any better than the maintenance-free single-coat orange-peel on my 2018 Jeep.

      I’ve set enough points, traced enough vacuum leaks and timed enough engines to know the computer-controlled mpg-special 2.4 in the Jeep is superior in every way to those VW 1200s, slant-sixes and even the vaunted OM616.

      Wake up. Its 2019. I’d ask if you’d like a coffee— but even that would take a different form than the 1980’s-style Maxwell House murder-swill you’d suggest was somehow better.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      ” unlike vehicles from the 50’s-80’s that still used solid tank like bodies with heavy duty metal door handles and heavy chrome bumpers. That ish lasts forever!!”

      Uh, no it didn’t. Chevrolet made 1.5 million vehicles in 1957. The VAST, VAST majority of them rusted out and were junked before they were 10 years old. You’re falling victim to survivorship bias because you see one or two pristine, meticulously restored ’57 Bel Airs at an auction or car show. For every mint ’57 Bel Air you see, tens of thousands of Bel Airs, 150s, Two-tens, etc. were thrown away.

      remember, these cars were nothing special back then, they were what everyone drove. Nobody bought one thinking “I’m going to make this last forever because it’s going to be a classic some day!” They just drove them and threw them away when they were used up. And given the shoddily built junk that they were, that didn’t take very long.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        Agree @Jimz. There are very few cars that were built to last multiple decades. The 2 that come to mind are the Postal LLV mail trucks and old school air cooled Porsches. Even early to mid 90’s Lexuses which are “peak quality” for modern cars IMHO are likely past their “Best if used by” date. You can keep anything on the road forever so long as your checkbook can keep up. That doesn’t mean it was “built to last”

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          not to mention those “solid tank like bodies” were poorly designed and poorly protected. thicker sheet metal is irrelevant when the structure is a joke and rust eats it all away within a few years.

          and I really had to LOL at those “solid metal door handles.” They were solid, all right. solid pot metal, and the things broke all the time.

      • 0 avatar
        joeaverage

        And the collector cars are babied in every way and stored indoors. Left outside again and driven daily they’d show the wear quickly.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Agree with Old School that to gain any significant fuel savings vehicles will have to lose more weight. There is only so much that can be done with ICE and with transmissions. There are the good and the bad with today’s vehicles and the vehicles of the past. As for paint it is more of the clear coat that makes the paint on today’s vehicles finishes last longer. What I miss about the vehicles of the past are the different interior and exterior color choices and that they had more distinctive designs. Having said that if I were in an accident I would rather be in one of today’s vehicles than one of the past. I would not be surprised if manufacturers start to use carbon fiber to lighten up future vehicles even though the costs of carbon fiber are higher. Getting vehicles lighter is just as important as engine and transmission technology changes.

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      Agree on interiors. My Fiesta ST REALLY needs a red interior.

      I think there is still weight savings to be had. Aluminum bodies are the next low hanging fruit I think. Ford has demonstrated it can be done on a mass market vehicle profitably, however I suspect it is no longer profitable on vehicles with lower margins than the F150 and Expedition. Carbon Fiber should get cheaper with mass production too though it will take a bit to get the repair industry to catch up. Aluminum basically requires you switch your multiprocess welder from MIG to TIG but Carbon Fiber will be a whole new skillset.

      But yes, the low hanging fruit is all picked…it gets expensive to shed more weight unless we go back to manual windows and what not but even then we significantly lightened wiring harnesses when the CAN bus gained use so those gains are less than on something like a mid 80’s car. We won’t go backwards safety wise so that heft is here to stay.

      • 0 avatar
        joeaverage

        And people are choosing heavier crossovers instead of lighter sedans so a portion of efficiency gains is being lost to people being indulgent. I say that as the driver of a 4400 lb crossover.

  • avatar
    stingray65

    Given California’s love of high taxes, I don’t understand why CARB doesn’t relent on the easier CAFE standards and simply enact taxes to achieve their desired MPG goals. All they need to do is add $1,000 for every MPG below the 54 MPG standard the given model achieves on the official EPA test. Want a 20 MPG F-150, then the California citizen will be paying $34,000 tax on top of the regular purchase price and sales tax, or they can buy the 50 MPG Prius and only pay $4,000 in extra taxes. If that still doesn’t achieve pristine air and stop global warming, they can of course raise the price to $2,000 per mpg, or add another $3 or $4 dollars per gallon on gasoline, and to be fair they should start putting the same equivalent tax on the electricity charging up those Teslas and Leafs to account for all environmental damaged caused by the coal used to generate the electricity (and solar panel waste, and dead birds caused by windmills, etc.).

    With all the money they raise from these “green” taxes, California will be able to afford to import even more illegals and mentally ill to ensure Democrats retain state control forever. The fact they don’t do this just illustrates how stupid the CARB people are.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      What make you think CARB is remotely interested in cleaner air? Make the tax too high and no one will pay it. Sure that would lead to cleaner vehicle, but what’s in it for CARB?

      There is such a (CAFE) tax, except it’s only $55 per each mpg under the rule, or about $1,000 per F-150 by 2025 rules. It’s not much of a “penalty”, but just enough.

      It’s a manageable number for a reason. Californians buy at least a million “trucks” a year, including SUVs, midsize and up, not to mention muscle/pony/sports cars and Euro/luxury with around 20 mpg.

      It sounds like an easy Billion Dollars to me, annually with near zero investment. Yeah if this was really about cleaner air, the fines (per vehicle) would be big enough to be respected.

      • 0 avatar
        stingray65

        I thought all government agencies were hard working public servants trying very hard to solve serious problems, so that eventually government would just fade away as Karl Marx predicted. You almost make it sound like CARB is really about generating constant new worries and generating reasonable tax revenues to protect the jobs of well-compensated CARB staff and their cushy pensions rather than actually solving global warming. Please say it isn’t so!!

    • 0 avatar
      stuart

      California tried, once, to tax higher-polluting vehicles. I can’t readily locate an on-line citation, but twenty-odd years ago, CA imposed a special tax on so-called “49-state” vehicles. (ISTR it was called an “Environmental Impact Fee”.) A “49-state” car is one that met the EPA smog standards for the 49 non-CA states, but failed to meet the then-different CA smog rules.

      During that time, my wife’s cousin bought a new car in CT and moved herself to CA in it. CA charged her an extra $300 to register her new car the first time. CA was taken to court and eventually forced to pay back those “fees”.

      CARB is just as worried about the still-illegal smog and NOx levels in CA; EPA still can, has, and will continue to fine CA if the air isn’t cleaned up.

      Illegal aliens can’t vote, even in CA.

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      “Given California’s love of high taxes, I don’t understand why CARB doesn’t relent on the easier CAFE standards and simply enact taxes to achieve their desired MPG goals.”

      You don’t understand this because it doesn’t make sense. It’s a right-wing-media meme that isn’t supposed to make sense, because it exists that they can beat up on the liberals for not making any sense.

      The Californians in charge *do* have a different attitude towards taxes and regulation than you’re probably used to if you’re from a red state (or if you watch a lot of Fox News). But that’s not the same as “loving taxes” for their own sake.

      Remember that the California government is supposed to solve California problems (except for housing supply), rather than follow conservative idiology.

      If you want to understand California, you’ll have to let the Californians explain their own politics. Keeping in mind that California has many different factions of people, some of whom are big in California but ignored in the rest of the nation.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Don’t give them any ideas many of the Democratic candidates for President want to do that and more. That would give many people an incentive to keep their vehicles longer and to buy used vehicles.

  • avatar
    ToddAtlasF1

    The fake climate change death cult’s narrative is now driving pollution. Without increases in CAFE, we wouldn’t be getting forced into gasoline-direct-injected vehicles which have particulate emissions that weren’t previously a product of port-injected combustion. Unlike CO2, which is the building block of life on earth, particulate emissions are causing lung diseases, aggravating lung diseases and killing people. Fortunately, environmentalism is just misanthropy with marketing. Otherwise, this would be disastrous for the sort of people who support CARB and the EPA.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    I can’t believe that guy is serious with that suit. Did he just arrive here from the 80s?

  • avatar
    Luke42

    “Sadly, none of this gets us any closer toward deciding which side has taken the “correct” approach in saving the planet. But it’s nice to see the EPA’s leadership suggesting this might be a more complicated issue than it seems at first blush.”

    Bwahahaha. You think the Trump EPA is trying to save the environment? LOL

    No, they’ve rolled back every environmental protection they can, from the Endangered Species Act to the Clean Water act.

    The only reason they would do this is if they don’t value environmental protection.

    Exactly why they’re trying to undo decades of environmental progress is up for debate, I suppose. But the fact that they’re moving in the direction of removing environmental protections is crystal clear from their public acts.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Luke42: “Sadly, none of this gets us any closer toward deciding which side has taken the “correct” approach in...
  • Buickman: we won’t know how well it sells since the General keeps secrets… the latest iteration of a new...
  • Hummer: “thinks a Defender is crap based on nothing but jaundiced opinion,” I offered you the chance to defend your...
  • jamespdx: I like it . . .
  • jamespdx: You forgot to mention we are all too fat to fit in it too!! lol

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States