President’s auto-jobs-over-environment move a no-win for air

Based on a request to review current domestic vehicle-emissions standards – a change that, if advanced, would likely soon take effect – apparently, for motor vehicles traversing America’s roadways in the not-so-far-off future, air, as well as vehicle fuel economy could suffer.

Puzzling it is why most of the motoring public is not standing tall in opposition against so-called “proposed” emissions-standards and improved engine-performance rollbacks.

As for me, after I learned of such a move, this one as counterintuitive as they come, my thinking was something along the lines of this country going back to the days when air pollution from transportation was a major, major cause of concern. What I’m talking about is mid-1940s pollution in L.A. Hopefully you can understand why it is I would feel that way. Maybe you are thinking the same.

As it were, you would probably be interested in knowing that, according to one source, here in the United States, in 2016 a total 17.5-or-so-million new vehicles were purchased. And you can bet your bottom dollar – and you’d probably be correct – that but a small fraction of those sales would be vehicles fitting the description of no- and near-zero-emissions cars and trucks. In my book, that’d be a bet I would make.

Now, as to the auto-jobs-versus-the-environment argument, well, from where I sit, that’s just a bunch of baloney. No reason whatsoever why it can’t be a “the-economy-plus-the-environment” tack. California is living proof of that. It’s a fact.

And, in the transportation arena, it is no different. The reality is that if incentivization of more eco-friendly vehicles kicked into high gear and there was greater market penetration with the aim of promoting said vehicles, I mean really promoting such, I have every confidence sales of eco-friendly cars and trucks would be much more brisk.

A rollback in vehicle-engine-performance capability, regarding direct and ancillary employment opportunity, how many jobs will just this very move bring? Who has the figures? I’m curious.

Know this: California along with possibly several other states, I believe, stand ready to fight this.

Meanwhile, I’m looking at one particular automaker’s new car brochure. Regarding a hybrid for-instance, specified for around-town driving is 49 miles per gallon (mpg). Under highway driving conditions, 47 mpg. Combined, or average: 48 mpg, with the disclosure that the rating is as that determined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, if I did in fact, interpret correctly what it was I read.

So, contested is the notion that any or all of Detroit’s “Big Three” can meet the 2025 mileage rating criteria of an average 54.5 mpg as per pronouncement issued by former President Obama, is that what this is about? That the time allotted isn’t sufficient? That the money it will cost automakers is too much? Seriously?! Are you kidding me?!

I am fast reminded of American automakers and how in order to prevent from going under – you remember that time, some required bailout. I seem to also recall there being this pledge to markedly improve engine performance/fuel-efficiency ratings as a condition of their being rescued. Is this not what was communicated? Then again, I could be wrong. I have to remember in terms of my ability to recall learned information like I once could, that ability ain’t what it once was.

Okay, so moving right along, come to think of it, speaking of memory recall, that one electric-car manufacturer, regarding one of its products, expected to be available (if I am not mistaken) come fall, having had advance orders placed well in advance as a matter of fact, speaks volumes. Does this not convey the message that these vehicles are in high demand? If it doesn’t, then I guess I’m not clear on what the concept of “in high demand” means.

I presume these vehicles will save their owners loads, they’ll be able to get 200 miles or more to the charge, they will be relatively fast-charging, and costs to maintain will be extremely reasonable, and they’ll probably turn more than a few heads as they roll off the miles. If the price of owning one comes down over time, then, all the better.

There is almost nothing that if we put our minds to it, we cannot do.

And, that goes for cleaning the air, too, first and foremost.

This post was last revised on Apr. 18, 2020 @ 3:13 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time.

– Alan Kandel

2 thoughts on “President’s auto-jobs-over-environment move a no-win for air”

  1. You have NO idea of what you speak of…
    There are no rollback planned …Zero…
    Your and yours who constantly complain and bitch about everything Trump does is
    So transparent that as to be unbelievable
    And could only believed by idiots such as
    the author….

Comments are closed.