News from a Changing Planet -- This Week on Earth #38
A brief thought on regulations, why Americans drive SUVs, a new study about methane, the Flint water crisis a decade later, and
Before we get to the news, a quick digression on regulation!: Long-time readers will know that I believe regulations are important for protecting people: for securing clean air, clean water, a habitable planet, etc., for all Americans. And I don’t trust businesses to prioritize human and planetary health above their bottom line (see the first news item below!). HOWEVER I recognize that regulations can be easily distorted and warped beyond their original intention, making it more difficult and take longer to make the changes necessary for expanding clean energy infrastructure, as a prime example. (This is a very good interview on some reasons why that happens with Jennifer Pahlka, former deputy CTO for the Obama administration, about her book, Recoding America: Why Government Is Failing in the Digital Age and How We Can Do Better).
So I read this piece from Noah Smith, via Noahpinion, “Defending the status quo is not environmentalism,” with great interest, as a partial challenge to my position. I think he is right that traditional environmentalism and its general opposition to construction is getting in the way of progress, but I don’t know that I agree with his argument that the National Environmental Policy Act should basically be jettisoned because it’s getting in the way of clean energy deployment. Without NEPA, we would have even more fossil fuel infrastructure or projects like Pebble Mine in Alaska. Anyway, curious to hear people’s thoughts as I continue to consider this question — the proper role for regulation — as well as in what I wrote about in last week’s essay, What is Government For? And thank you to
for sending!WAIT, THAT’S WHY AMERICANS DRIVE SUVS?: The distortion of a regulatory loophole made it cheaper to buy more polluting cars. (The Economist)
It doesn’t really make sense that the go-to car in the US is an SUV — most of us do not require sport utility from our vehicles on the average day. Americans don’t just drive SUVs on a whim either — the proliferation of this class of car over the last 20 years resulted from a combination of a regulation loophole, the perverse economic incentives of manufacturing, and an aggressive marketing campaign.
This explainer, from The Economist, lays it all out, but here’s a quick summary: After the 1973 oil embargo (itself a response to American support of Israel during the Yom Kippur war), the government imposed fuel economy standards on cars to make them more efficient — i.e., to use less gas. To make the cars more efficient, manufacturers had to make more complicated engines, which was more expensive for them, and they passed that cost onto buyers. To avoid penalizing businesses that relied on bigger vehicles, the government exempted “light trucks” from the new regulations, which included SUVS. Because it was less expensive to build these bigger but less efficient cars than smaller, cleaner ones, that’s what car companies did, marketing them as “quintessentially American, embodying freedom, strength and adventurousness.”
However, in a bright spot, the EPA is going to rewrite/clarify this rule later this year, narrowing the definition of a light truck, and increasing efficiency standards across the board. The CO2-emission limit for light trucks allows for 71 percent more grams of carbon dioxide/kilometer, but the EPA is expected to cut that to 22 percent by 2032, raising the prices of big cars and perhaps incentivizing the transition to EVs.
One small hiccup there: “In 2022 60% of electric-vehicle sales in America were SUVs, according to the International Energy Agency.”
BAD NEWS FOR BREAKFAST ENTHUSIASTS: Warmer, more unpredictable winters are making it harder to collect maple syrup. (Associated Press)
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to News from a Changing Planet to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.