Read on Twitter
EPA and NHTSA have written a letter to the NYT in an attempt to counter a very good op-ed that was published decrying the Trump administration's repeal of the Clean Car Standards.
The problem with the letter? Basically every claim is wrong.
Lets check.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/01/opinion/trump-fuel-efficiency-standards.html
The problem with the letter? Basically every claim is wrong.
Lets check.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/01/opinion/trump-fuel-efficiency-standards.html
(1) The Obama admin actually conducted the review promised in 2012, called the "mid term evaluation."
(2) After a National Academy of Sciences report, 1000s of pages of technical analysis, and public comments, in 2017 EPA concluded the 2012 standards remained achievable.
The Trump admin has basically ignored those analyses, despite a D.C. Circuit decision warning them not to.
The Trump admin has basically ignored those analyses, despite a D.C. Circuit decision warning them not to.
(3) The Clean Car Standards set separate standards for cars and trucks/SUVs. Selling more trucks/SUVs means manufacturers face less stringent standards. Americans' preferences don't change that.
In fact, the SAFE rule finds the Standards caused Americans to buy more trucks/SUVs!
In fact, the SAFE rule finds the Standards caused Americans to buy more trucks/SUVs!
(4) You actually can pay for the extra sticker price of a more efficient car over time, and most Americans do.
A car loan lets you spread the upfront cost out, and pay for an increase from the savings you get from using less fuel.
And like 85% of American cars are financed!
A car loan lets you spread the upfront cost out, and pay for an increase from the savings you get from using less fuel.
And like 85% of American cars are financed!
(5) What EPA/NHTSA fail to mention is that, under their own (flawed) analysis, the costs--to consumers and to society--of their rule are more than the benefits.
Saving $100 billion in regulatory costs isn't so appealing when it means losing $175-$293 billion in benefits.
Saving $100 billion in regulatory costs isn't so appealing when it means losing $175-$293 billion in benefits.
(6) EPA/NHTSA's own numbers don't even remotely support this statement.
Their own charts say the rule will save 685-724 lives by replacing older vehicles with newer safer ones.
This is the most blatantly false claim in the letter.
Their own charts say the rule will save 685-724 lives by replacing older vehicles with newer safer ones.
This is the most blatantly false claim in the letter.
(7) Oh... except the charts also say they're lead to 347-1000 more premature deaths from air pollution.
Sure air pollution is a "co-benefit" of the Clean Car Standards. But the *whole repeal* is explicitly premised on the co-benefits of rolling back the standards.
Sure air pollution is a "co-benefit" of the Clean Car Standards. But the *whole repeal* is explicitly premised on the co-benefits of rolling back the standards.
(7-8) And if NHTSA or EPA actually cared about saving lives from air pollution or vehicle safety, maybe they wouldn't have gone 3 years still with no new rule under their authorities to set criteria pollution limits or to set vehicle safety standards for typical cars/SUVs.
