Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/29/climate/epa-cafe-auto-pollution-rollback.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
Summary:
The Trump administration is expected to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy standards in the near future, undercutting one of the Obama administration's biggest efforts to fight climate change. Scott Pruit, head of the E.P.A., has already sent a draft of the 16-page plan to eliminate a regulatory burden on automakers that will result in more affordable trucks, vans, and SUVs for buyers to the White House for approval. The initiative is expected to have legal push back from California, who have a special waiver under the 1970 Clean Air Act that allows them to enforce stricter air pollution standards than the federal government.
Analysis:
While I understand how the Trump administration is all about deregulating the economy and what not, deregulating the automotive industry is simply a lose-lose for everybody, as pollution levels will increase exponentially, and what's money good for if we're all dead? Unfortunately, somehow even the head of the Environmental Protection Agency has no idea how to protect the environment.This article also raises another important issue of federal versus state power, and I'm glad to see that California isn't letting the Trump administration step all over it, and is effectively using its legal powers.
Questions:
What do you think of the Trump administration's new plan?
Do states have the right to challenge federal laws?
8 comments:
I am more than disappointed by the Trump administration's new plan. It disheartens me greatly to see that we came so far with Obama in terms of environmental progress, but now it is being undermined thanks to Trump. It breaks my heart to see how low the environment is on this administration's list of priorities, as we only have one planet, and at least in America, it is being disrespected and threatened. As Eric mentioned, the pollution levels will skyrocket as a result of this plan, which will set us back so much further in environmental conscientiousness and progress.
I agree with Eric, in that I also support California's decision to fight back against Trump's plan. I think that while the constitution states that federal government takes precedence over state government, California has legal power to fight this and do what they can to continue Obama's legacy.
I also agree with the comments above. (There's a lot of agreeing on this blog.) I think, while stimulating business growth is important, there is a reason for the regulations put in place on the automobile industry -- the safety of consumers. I also think it's quite a short-sighted way of thinking to place the growth of industry over the quality of, say, the air we breathe or the planet we live on.
Many car companies would like a deregulated market, as would Mankiw probably, and there might be the possibility that deregulating the market would increase jobs, but I have a problem most with the EPA leading this deregulation, working against their very purpose of establishment. Recently, it seems that the Environmental Protection Agency has become the Environmental Destruction Agency.
Many times, I try as hard as I can to come from the view of the side that opposes me to find some middle ground, but in this case, there is honestly no benefit that can come from deregulating the car industry besides that jobs may return to America. Without any government regulation, car companies don't really have any incentive to make their products as environment-friendly as they could, since simply manufacturing the cheapest car they want and bringing down prices will attract consumers by itself. I believe that deregulation may be useful in other industries, like tech, where companies constantly offshore and Americans are at risk of losing jobs, but in the car industry, deregulation is way to risky for the environment and other essential factors. As for the second question, I believe states should try all the can to challenge these recent actions, but I honestly don't see much outcome coming out of it.
I think that Trump should be deregulating the auto industry, but not exactly in the way that you think. Instead of rolling back preexisting standards on car regulations (which he's wont to do,) the president and Secretary of Energy Rick Perry should be focusing on new technologies that would seek to change the discussion on reducing emissions. As much as the Obama-era regulations helped the environment, they also did stifle the American auto industry, which killed thousands of potential jobs-the very jobs they were trying to save when they bailed out General Motors in 2010. The regulations were counterproductive.
I, like any good libertarian, has to applaud President Trump on potentially rolling back regulations, but my applause must be muted-after all, a dying Earth is not good for business. The President ought to execute the proposed rollbacks, but this must be at a fraction of whatever percentage Pruitt proposes-this would stave off the economic and environmental impact of the rollbacks.
In addition, the President, Director Pruitt, and Secretary Perry should analyze proactive solutions to help boost manufacturing jobs while helping the environment at the same time. I believe there's a way to do this, by subsidizing, deregulating, and cutting the corporate taxes of eco-friendly companies such as Tesla, while at the same time taking the best technologies from more fuel-efficent cars from Japan and Germany and making them our own.
I know that I'm coming from a standpoint that doesn't factor in the Oil and Automobile Lobbies, doesn't factor in Trump's one-man mission to undo every single thing Obama has done (aside from resurrecting Osama Bin Laden from the dead), and believes that the President, Director Pruitt, and Secretary Perry are only wishing to do what's best for America (which they've proven time and time again that they aren't), but I'm just throwing out a policy position that would help our environment without killing American jobs.
I agree with most of the above comments in that I think it is a mistake to cut back regulations on the car industry. Under federal regulations, our average fuel economy has been rising dramatically, and the trend towards fuel-efficient cars has been reducing the environmental impact of one of the most pollutant industries in the U.S. Cutting back regulations will incentivize companies to build less-efficient cars that negatively impact air quality while increasing our dependence on fossil fuels. I do think that it is good that California is pushing back against this federal legislation, because it should not be required to conform to lower environmental standards than the rest of the country just to allow companies to make more profits from selling inefficient vehicles.
I agree with the previous comments in that it is definitely a mistake to get rid of these regulations. As Sid and Eric said, there really is nothing good that can come out of deregulating the automobile industry. Without restrictions in place to ensure that cars have to be at least somewhat eco-friendly, our environment is going to continue to be irreversibly destroyed, which will only hurt us in the future. And I understand the goal is to reduce the cost of automobiles, either for purchase or manufacturing, but how much will costs actually go down? And if ones does a cost-benefit analysis of the situation, does the benefit of reduced prices for cars outweigh the cost of destroying the planet? In my opinion, it certainly doesn't, and for that reason I am opposed to the deregulations that have occurred.
Along the same lines as what other commentators have said, deregulation of the auto industry is highly disconcerting. At times I fail to comprehend why certain conservatives refuse to believe in the truthful existence of climate change. At the very least, I am glad to hear that the world's 6th largest economy, California, is resolutely opposed to the change and plans on implementing its own, stricter, auto pollution regulation laws. I would encourage other liberal states such as Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, etc. to do the same. Let's hope that during the 2018 midterm elections, we can bring back some Democrats onto Congress that will balance out some of the more extreme conservative policies being established by Trump.
Deregulating the automobile industry will lead to an exponential increase in carbon emissions, as not only are automobile makers held to a lower fuel efficiency standard, but lowering production costs (supply shifter) and thus increasing the supply of cars would inevitably lead to more cars being driven on the road. More cars plus the worse mileage of said cars will add billions of tons of COs to the U.S.' 15.1 trillion tons of annual carbon emissions. Thus, Trump's administration is greedy and ignorant for prioritizing the health of the auto industry for the health of the global population. Furthermore, aside from air quality, increased carbon emissions will also burden our oceans with absorbing more carbon dioxide than it already does (about 25-50% of carbon emissions are currently absorbed by the ocean). Carbon dioxide combines with water molecules to produce carbonic acid, which is the main source of ocean acidification- a phenomenon that has killed coral reefs and depleted fish populations worldwide. Thus, Trump's policies are detrimental to public health as well as many fisheries and the numerous industries dependent on fisheries. Yay APES!
Post a Comment