If You Love Spending More on Gas, Trump Has Some Good News

The EPA is rolling back fuel efficiency standards.

Gas Pump

Michael Ares/The Palm Beach Post/ZUMA

On Monday, the Environmental Protection Agency ended yet another key climate policy from the Obama era. EPA administrator Scott Pruitt signed a plan to roll back fuel economy standards that the EPA first finalized in 2012. The rule would have raised fuel economy standards for cars and SUVs to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.

But Pruitt’s announcement left one major question unsettled: Will the Trump administration also revoke a waiver that allows 13 states, spearheaded by California, to enforce higher fuel economy standards? Pruitt has not taken formal action, but suggested as much in statements on Monday, telling Bloomberg News, “California is not the arbiter of these issues.”

https://twitter.com/EPAScottPruitt/status/980886931524521984

The federal government has granted a waiver for California to pursue tougher vehicle emission standards for decades. Since the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970, the only administration to challenge the waiver was the George W. Bush administration in 2008, a federal challenge that Obama ended when he took office. When the EPA moved to regulate greenhouse gasses from cars, it was catching up to California’s existing standards.

If Pruitt leaves the waiver in place, it would limit the greenhouse gas damage of Trump’s reversal; California has such a large market, it effectively sets standards for the rest of the country since many car manufacturers don’t want to produce vehicles that they can’t sell in California. Revoking it would almost certainly provoke a lengthy legal battle. 

The clash underscores some of the contradictions of Pruitt’s talk of “cooperative federalism,” a phrase he uses to justify weakening federal standards to shift environmental regulation to the states.

California’s government may not be pleased with the new rule, but the auto industry, which had previously embraced the standards during its financial crisis in 2009, later charged that the Obama administration shouldn’t “jam standards that are inconsistent with consumer behavior.” The Obama EPA estimated that the rule would save 1.2 billion barrels of oil and save consumers a net $100 billion.

“This move sets us back from years of advancements by the automotive industry put in motion by states that took the lead in setting emission standards,” Democratic governors from California, Oregon, and Washington said in a joint statement on Monday. “These standards have cleared the haze and smog from our cities and reversed decades of chronic air pollution problems, while putting more money in consumers’ pockets.”

Last year, when Trump first announced his plan to reverse the auto standards, California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) promised to “take the necessary actions to preserve current standards.” After the EPA announced it’s decision Monday, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) released a statement that hinted at potential legal challenges to protect the Obama-era rule. “This administration’s decision to place another target on California’s back will be met with a fight.”

More Mother Jones reporting on Climate Desk

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate