The Trump administration wants to roll back the fuel-economy standards put in place by the Biden administration. There’s a public-comment period before the rules would be finalized. Consider this my public comment — this is not a very good idea.
While pushing for higher MPGs isn’t the only way, or perhaps not even the best way, to cut greenhouse gas emissions, it’s a good tool for reducing oil consumption. This, even despite some loopholes that automakers have been all too eager to take advantage of.
Automakers, like any business, are going to do what costs them the least and maximizes profit — and I am not sure that carmakers would’ve made the efforts to increase MPGs if not pushed by the federal government. Not to mention that these restrictions helped bring about technological innovations.
You could argue that if there were no restrictions, automakers could still offer high-MPG cars, and maybe people would buy them. That’s the libertarian approach — let the market settle it.
But would enough folks buy those cars to justify the cost of making them? To allow OEMs to make a profit? Maybe — but maybe not.
More to the point, pollution is something that affects everyone. So I am fine with the government using carrots and sticks to force automakers to be as fuel-efficient as possible.
There’s also the geopolitical side — we all know, of course, that fuel-economy regs were a response to the oil embargoes of the 1970s. Simply put, the U.S. government was working to reduce American dependence on foreign oil.
Trump’s proposed rules will, I think, cause America to slide backward in the fight against climate change — which is real, and which is caused by humans. It will also throw automakers into confusion, since they need to plan new models years in advance. With electric vehicles gaining in popularity in other parts of the world, automakers will also find it more challenging to come up with global designs.
It may also cost us, the consumer, more at the gas pump. Not to mention any environmental damage. That last bit, though, will be tricky to track — tailpipe emissions and fuel-consumption aren’t always linked. A car can have a low MPG number but still burn clean, though that’s rare — usually low-emission ICE vehicles tend to have good gas mileage.
By the way, here’s the rules side by side again:
The plan announced on Wednesday would require automakers to achieve an average of 34.5 miles per gallon for cars and light trucks in model year 2031, down from the standard of 50.4 miles per gallon set by the Biden administration.
I am no fan of what Biden had proposed, either — I found the numbers his administration wanted to achieve to be unrealistic, especially on the proposed timeline. The best way for automakers to hit those numbers would’ve been an increase in EVs on the road, and while EVs don’t pollute out of a tailpipe, there are still environmental costs to their production, especially when it comes to mining for the necessary materials. As a practical matter, while EVs are improving all the time in terms of range and charging speed, they still aren’t, on the whole, at a point where they can replace ICE and hybrid vehicles in terms of customer convenience. And charging ability is still lacking.
I also didn’t love that while Biden wasn’t mandating a shift to EVs, his approach seemed to force automakers into that lane. What about hydrogen fuel-cell cars? What about synthetic fuels that burn clean? Et cetera?
It feels from where I sit that Donald Trump, a famously petty man, is just trying to undo what his predecessor did. Trump has also come across as someone who doesn’t understand that clean energy works — he’s worked to kill all sorts of clean-energy efforts, even at the expense of jobs. Even if it means rising electric bills for consumers. Why? It’s hard to say. Maybe he’s still stuck in the era of his youth. Maybe he’s got friends working for Big Oil and/or lobbyists influencing his position. Maybe he’s trying to appeal to a certain part of his political base. Maybe it’s because didn’t like how wind turbines looked near one of his golf courses. I do not want to enter his disordered mind.
Thing is, despite my desire to breath clean air and pay as little at the pump as possible, I might be OK with a fuel-economy roll back. Like I said, Biden’s rules seemed unrealistic. And I say that as an outside observer. Sometimes automakers cry about regulation like a whiny kid, saying they can’t do it, and lo and behold, they can. But I don’t know if that was the case here.
Trying to find a balance between having the least amount of pollution/fuel consumption possible within the limits of technology, cost, and infrastructure is not easy, and there is no easy answer — not even having a fleet of 100 percent EVs would completely solve the issue (especially since cars aren’t the only things emitting pollution into the air).
For now, I think Trump missed an opportunity — he could’ve rolled back fuel-economy regulations slightly while still keeping them strict enough to keep automakers honest.
Instead, he’s gone too far the other direction.
That doesn’t mean the Sierra Club’s hysteria about the new rules — they’ll make “make cars burn more gas and American families burn more cash” — is totally justified. Automakers can, of course, continue to build high-mileage gas cars and EVs, and consumers can continue to buy them.
The issue isn’t that all cars will backslide into being gas-guzzlers. And I doubt automakers will completely abandon plans to build EVs, hybrids, and high-MPG ICE vehicles. But I do think some OEMs — not all — will move a bit backwards with at least some models.
That’s unfortunate — and it could’ve been avoided, even without adhering to Biden’s proposed rules. A little bit of work could’ve made everyone, if not happy, then content.
Consider this my public comment.
[Image: IAB Studio]
Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.