Renewable Revolution

 
Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click here to subscribe.

Aug 8, 2018




As the barrage of dumb Trump stuff marches on (Yay crimes! Boo water!), analysis of Trump’s stupid policy moves often fails to grab the public’s attention (yay asbestos!)

One of the administration’s most stupid policies of late is its decision to reverse Obama-era gas mileage standards. Don’t let the official language about the supposed lifesaving benefits fool you: rolling back these standards, in essence, lets car companies off the hook for producing better cars, and keeps customers buying, and burning, more gas. 

E&E News, thankfully, has put some smart reporters on the “stupid policy” beat, and produced a number of interesting stories lately about the auto mileage standard rollback. Last Thursday, the outlet ran an intriguing story about how the car rule came together. Though officially the policy was a joint effort between the EPA and Department of Transportation, E&E reported that retired EPA officials told them the DOT “cooked the books,” and that “EPA staff had basically nothing to do with” the final policy document.

If DOT did take the steering wheel for this particular policy, it’s not because of ample staff time: the division of the DOT that worked on the rule, The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), has far fewer experts at its disposal than the EPA. One former EPA staffer told E&E that her “understanding is that NHTSA in-house has only two engineers that are responsible for the fuel economy standards, whereas at EPA, we have hundreds of engineers.”

Perhaps that dearth of experience is a reason why, per a second E&E story last week, the auto rollback policy proposal cites research from scientists who told E&E that they think the rollback is “nuts” and “just not consistent with the evidence." One researcher also pointed out the irony that the data used in the study and cited by the administration is private, and therefore wouldn’t be permitted under the EPA’s proposed (and opposed) pro-tobacco science rule.

That the policy proposal justifies the burning of more oil with research about the dangers of doing just that is hardly the only oddity. Two stories E&E ran yesterday provide more details on the nearly thousand-page auto rule proposal.

For example, despite Trump’s claim last year that “the assault on the American auto industry is over,” and the right wing’s well-worn canard about regulations costing jobs, Trump’s proposed rule change, per E&E, actually says the opposite: the weakened standards could result in as many as 60,000 fewer jobs in the industry. As it turns out, innovation and competition are good for business and employment, and letting those things stagnate isn’t. What a shocker!

Equally shocking is that the proposal points to higher oil consumption as a result of the suggested changes, estimating that an additional 500,000 barrels will be burned per day after the policy is implemented. As a result, E&E reports, the rule suggests that CO2 concentrations by 2100 will reach an unthinkable 789.76 ppm 😡, nearly doubling the concentrations. 😱 🤬

Although the administration has downplayed just how much additional carbon pollution the rollback will emit, Rhodium’s Trevor Houser pointed out on Twitter that “by 2035 the impact could be larger than total national emissions of 82% of countries today.”

More pollution, fewer jobs, more time and money spent at gas stations. Surely not a good rule for anyone.

Except, of course, the oil industry 🐉🦕🦖, which lobbied for the move. That Trump 🦀 would appease them , and not any other Americans, is pretty much the only thing that makes sense about the reversal.a



 The Fossil Fuelers 🦖 DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks 🦀, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or   PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!