Following

This decision is counter the trend of environmental protection by switching to cleaner and more environment friendly vehicles, such as electric-powered vehicles (EVs). This is not a responsible move and not good for the future of the American car industry as a whole. China, for example, is quickly turning its attention to EVs and in many third-tier or fourth-tier cities all buses are electrically powered. The national government and local governments subsidize for the purchase of EVs. Trump seems to be obsessed by old-fashioned and outdated industries and technology, this may generate jobs in the short turn, good for his ballots, but will inevitably lose in terms of future development.

These measures of course will not help future generations but all this is a symptom of USA decline, as Trump disposes of claims to moral and ethical leadership. Although Trump's decision will affect the world, as in reality much of the genuine leadership for these issues has gone, all political decisions have a knock-on affect-the USA the worse off as a consequence.

The situation can be compared to removing the safety glasses that are meant to protect one's eyes! The only thing left is to expect the sour outcomes associated with such an unfortunate decision.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Turner and readers,

According to the NY Times article on this issue,

"Trump to Undo Vehicle Rules That Curb Global Warming" (March 3rd) :

On Feb. 21, a coalition of the 17 largest companies that sell cars in the United States sent two letters to Mr. Pruitt, asking him to revisit the tailpipe rules. They said it may be “the single most important decision the E.P.A. has made in recent history.”

They complained about the steep technical challenge posed by the stringent standard, noting that only about 3.5 percent of new vehicles are able to reach it. That even excludes some hybrid cars, plug-in electric cars and fuel cell vehicles, the automakers wrote. “Even today, no conventional vehicle today meets that target.”

The automakers estimated their industry would have to spend a “staggering” $200 billion between 2012 and 2025 to comply and said the tailpipe emissions rule was far more expensive for the industry than enforcing the Clean Power Plan.

---End quotation

See:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/03/us/politics/trump-vehicle-emissions-regulation.html

I wonder what readers of this thread may make of these claims from the automobile industry. Are there refutations available?

H.G. Callaway

I would doubt that a reversal of the tailpipe rules would induce Americans to rush to the purchase of the 4.0 litre and above cars of old. Anyone watching American movies of the 1950's and 60's will see the huge cars that used to characterise US streets and highways. Some of the monsters had 5 & 6 litre engines and were heavier than the SUV's of today.

That kind of car is as obsolete as the steam trains that rattled across the nation in the late 19th century. Nostalgia there may be but they are not coming back.

Any move that might increase air pollution is naturally to be a cause of concern but it is questionable whether this reversal of the Obama era regulations will halt the natural progresion to more efficient and therefore more economical cars. Apart from the odd petrol head no one wants to increase the weekly gasoline bill.

There is merit in laws and regulations that keep people safe and no one wants to pollute the atmosphere with any more toxins. There is no sense however in making laws that are impossible to implement or that would be so costly as to make driving the preserve of the rich. Emissions targets need to be achievable, effective and affordable. Desirable is just not enough.

While I thought that the Obama standards were probably too much, too fast, private companies and universities have been able to achieve astounding results in fuel mileage. True that these results are predicated on space-age materials, but they show the possibilities. This is one of the things that irritates me about the Chevrolet commercials ridiculing Ford's choice of aluminium body trucks. Still, as C. says, Americans and the American auto industry are dedicated to clean air. I think it will slow research and development down, but this Trump move is not surprising, considering I believe he already has eliminated all government assistance for research and use of solar powered homes and electric cars.

Two points on this issue:

1. The Trump administration has been talking about slowing down the schedule of ever more stringent emission requirements, not "rolling them back." No one is talking about returning to 1970. So there is no huge problem here.

2. People are usually hypocrites when it comes to environmental issues. That's really where you see this hypocrisy most. So, much as Americans like to make themselves sound virtuous, guess what the best selling personal transportation vehicle is, in the US? Is it anything like the huge cars of decades ago? No. It is worse! The best selling vehicle in the US is the tall, blunt-nosed, ugly as sin, Ford F-150 pickup truck.

Of course, the truth is also that it seems everyone else also likes huge ugly vehicles these days, even in Europe. Take a look at what Fiat is doing with their vehicle lineup. Everything trends toward SUVs and cross-over vehicles. Vehicles that are more difficult to make very efficient, simply because they are tall, creating greater wind resistance, and heavier, than efficent actual cars would be.

Given the opportunity, it seems many people, not just Americans, opt for obese, boxy, ugly vehicles, these days. How typical is it to point fingers at Trump, for what people are working so hard to do, all by themselves? Buy SUVs and giant pickup trucks, then blame Trump for yourown weakness.

Sigh