Unfortunately, the Trump administration at the behest of the automakers and the oil industry has proposed rolling back the clean car standards – and even though automakers have been easily meeting strong standards so far, the mpg on the sticker in 2025 could actually be lower than what we enjoy today! But the American people strongly support maintaining the current standards. In fact, Consumers Union polling earlier this year found that an overwhelming majority of American adults (85%—with Republicans at 88%) agree that automakers should continue to improve fuel economy for all vehicle types.

UCS asked our supporters across the country to weigh in – so in addition to their letters to Santa, many American drivers also wrote letters to their automakers this year. Here are just a few highlights:

From GM owner, Robert from Michigan –

I am a long time GMC driver, fuel efficient cars (and in my case, trucks) benefit consumers like me who save money at the pump. Even more important, these standards are helping to cut climate pollution and push innovation forward. I want to know that you are doing your part to make sure that the next car or truck I buy is more fuel efficient than the one I am driving now. Also, as a consumer of one of your most profitable products (pickups), I can assure you I am willing to bear my fair share of the legitimate costs to minimize negative environmental impacts.   You do your part in the political arena to prove your commitment to safeguarding our environment, and I’ll do mine in the marketplace.

From Ford owner, Dee (and husband Peter) from North Carolina –   

My husband and I own and drive a 2014 Ford Fusion Hybrid — only the third US-made car we’ve bought in our 30 years of marriage. We chose this car instead of a foreign hybrid because we were thrilled to see a US automaker heading in the right direction in making a fuel-efficient and eco-friendly vehicle — and we voted with our dollars to support you in that effort. It’s a great car and I’d like to see you increase your hybrid and electric vehicle offerings. I’m not alone in that! However, I was disturbed to learn that you are working with the Trump administration to try to relax the fuel economy and global warming emission standards. Don’t be foolish!! Fuel efficient cars save money on gas — but even more importantly, strict standards help to cut climate pollution, create jobs, and push innovation forward. Be a leader! In 2012, you agreed to and promised to uphold strong fuel-efficiency standards and I respected and supported your company for that stance. Don’t abandon your principles and align yourself with President Trump, whose aim of relaxing the standards is retrogressive and short-sighted. As a consumer, I urge you to stay true to your word, be a leader in designing cars for the future, and resist any effort to weaken these standards.

From Toyota owner, Carol from Massachusetts –

I am a long time Toyota owner — in fact, every car I have ever owned has been a Toyota, including my current Camry hybrid, and I have been planning to buy one for my daughter later this summer. Part of my loyalty to Toyota has been because I think of you as a relatively ethical company. So, I have been deeply disturbed to see you working with the Trump administration to try to relax the fuel economy and global warming emission standards. Global warming has already proceeded to the point that it will have very negative impacts on my daughter and people of her generation around the world. How can you renege on standards and make this problem worse?!? Fuel efficiency standards are helping to cut climate pollution, create jobs, and push innovation forward. I want to know that you are doing your part to uphold them. As a longtime loyal customer, I urge you to stay true to your word and not support any effort to weaken these standards.

From Ford investor, GM AND Toyota owner, Joy from Virginia –

I am a long time Toyota owner (one of my vehicles is a Prius), a new Chevrolet Bolt owner, a long-time investor in Ford, and a more recent investor in General Motors. I appreciate the investments these companies have made in more fuel-efficient, hybrid, and electric vehicles, and I have rewarded them with my patronage when I could find a vehicle that suited my needs. As a consumer and a citizen concerned about and acting on what climate science is telling us, I am quite disturbed to learn that many automakers are working with the Trump administration to try to relax the fuel economy and global warming emission standards.   I want to know that all U. S. automakers are doing their part to make sure that the next car I buy is more fuel efficient than the one I am driving now.   That goal is what has driven 2 of my last 3 vehicle purchases. In 2012 I wanted a vehicle that could beat the 30 mpg I was getting with my Camry; the Prius was the closest I could come on my budget. In 2016, if any company had offered an electric or hybrid pickup truck when I needed to replace my old one, I would not have bought the gas-hog Toyota Tacoma that I did. I had not bought a GM vehicle since 1990 because I long ago lost faith in its products, but I reversed myself in 2017 because it offered the best EV I could find for the range and money. Not only do I not believe I am all that unique among auto buyers, I believe my purchase considerations are the future. U. S. car makers need to get the message. Our country and indeed our world need the automobile industry to employ its creativity, ingenuity, and manufacturing prowess to lead us all toward a clean, emission-free transportation future. By standing with President Trump during his announcement to reopen the review process of the standards, your company is clearly leading the push to weaken them and is thereby endorsing a horrible course of action. As a consumer and past (and maybe future customer depending on what you do going forward), I urge you to stay true to your word and not support any effort to weaken these standards. And for heaven’s sake do not join the ranks of the fossil fuel industry and cover up or lie about the true risks posed by our warming climate.

These letters, just a few among over 23,000 sent to automakers over the course of a year, are a powerful testament to the deep-seated concern many have about having clean car choices in the marketplace. A car purchase is one of the most important choices a consumer can make in terms of their personal carbon footprint.

The Trump administration’s proposed rollback of the federal fuel efficiency standards is still working its way through an agency rulemaking process, so the automakers have a chance to give consumers what they’re wishing for this season – they can stop the proposed rollback and ensure that the standards remain strong and continue to drive innovation. They’ve been shown the ghosts of actions past, present, and future, and they still have a chance to turn things around this holiday season, but only if they deliver the cleaner cars they promised.

We depend on these vehicles to take our kids to school, get the goods we order online, and collect our trash. But they also have a big impact when it comes to oil use: heavy-duty vehicles collectively make up 7 percent of traffic on American roads, but account for over 25 percent of the fuel used to travel them. Trucks may be relatively small in number, but large in impact, and there is more we can do to increase their efficiency and reduce the pollution they create.

Today as the President reaffirmed his commitment to cutting oil use and global warming pollution, he started the wheels in motion on a process that should culminate in proposed standards early next year. Setting strong efficiency standards for trucks is part of a suite of proposals the President included as part of his Climate Action Plan last year, as well as an essential part of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ (UCS) Half the Oil plan. In addition to new efficiency/emission standards, there are other initiatives the President announced today that include additional research dollars for new truck technology and fleet purchase incentives as the more efficient trucks roll out.

UCS applauded today’s announcement and the President’s commitment to cleaning up our trucking fleet, but the real work is still to come in making this commitment a reality. We will be generating analysis on the potential benefits of the new standards as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation develop the standards over the coming months.

We know from policies already on the books that the potential benefits are considerable. The first ever fuel efficiency/emission standards for heavy duty trucks enacted just two years ago and covering trucks sold between 2014 and 2018—will, when fully implemented:

• Reduce annual oil consumption by 390,000 barrels per day in 2030, roughly equivalent to the amount of oil we import each year from Iraq
• Cut carbon dioxide pollution by 270 million metric tons—equal to the emissions from more than 4 million of today’s passenger cars and trucks over their lifetimes
• Save individual truck drivers up to $73,000 in fuel costs over the life of a tractor, and
• Lead to a net increase of 40,000 jobs economy-wide in 2020 and nearly 80,000 jobs in 2030, according to an analysis commissioned by UCS.

Our analysis shows that standards that go beyond 2018 could realize even greater oil savings and emissions reductions than the first round by considering the full vehicle (both tractor and trailer) and technologies coming online over the next decade. In addition, according to the analysis in our Half the Oil plan, improving the fuel efficiency of all types of heavy-duty trucks could reduce oil consumption by 1 million barrels a day in 2035, more than the maximum capacity of the Keystone XL pipeline.

There is a lot of work to do to ensure that the new standards are as robust as they need to be. But with today’s announcement we are clearly “truckin” in the right direction.

We are good at making the case for policy based on the best science by crunching the numbers, but reducing air pollution from cars and trucks is not just a numbers game. Yes, the numbers are impressive: according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the proposed standards would prevent up to 2,400 premature deaths, 3,200 hospital admissions and 22,000 asthma attacks each year and by 2030, Tier 3 will result in up to $23 billion in annual health care savings.

But most importantly, those numbers represent real people with real health issues living in communities suffering from ongoing pollution problems. Last fall, we asked UCS supporters to write to the editors of their local newspapers about why cleaner cars and fuel matters to their families and their communities. Hundreds of people from all over the country responded with very personal reasons why strengthened clean car and fuel standards are important to them. Here are just a few of their stories.

Congested Freeways = Congested Lungs

Ria Tanz Kubota of El Sobrante, California and her daughter and grandson all live in an area surrounded by packed freeways and oil refineries. The other thing they have in common is that they all suffer from asthma. As Ria put it in her letter in the Contra Costa Times,

“The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed Tier 3 air quality standards could save our lives and the lives of the children in our area. The oil industry would try to convince the very citizens its pollution sickens that it can’t afford Tier 3 standards — at 1 cent per gallon of gas…

Our kids deserve to breathe more than oil companies deserve one penny more profit.”

 Unfortunately, air pollution problems aren’t isolated to the refinery communities of California, but rather face Americans from coast to coast. As Albert Collins of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania wrote about the air quality challenges in his home county,

“As a native Pittsburgher and an asthmatic, I hope that the EPA will pass the tier III gasoline standards to make our air cleaner and healthier… Allegheny County fails to meet federal air quality standards, threatening our health and especially that of the most vulnerable. I stand with the automakers, labor unions, consumer groups, public health and science advocates who support steps to clean up one of the primary causes of dirty air: the cars and trucks we drive every day.”

Toxic Seasons

Kent O’Quinn of Salt Lake City, Utah should be enjoying a winter wonderland in and around his home but instead he had this to say about the particular air pollution challenges his community faces,

“Every winter, when the temperatures and temperaments are at their lowest points, we find ourselves struggling to breathe the very air around us. We know this toxic cloud as “the inversion,” and have come to simply take it for granted, like it’s a perfectly natural and manageable thing. It is neither.

The oil companies have the technology to dramatically clean up the pollution caused by cars, a major contributor to our ever browner and more hazardous inversions.”

Inversion over Salt Lake City. Credit: Flickr user Tim Brown

Prescription for Cleaner Air

Doctors and health experts in Utah and across the country are working every day to limit pollution from our vehicles and fuels, and that’s why health professionals are leading supporters of the Tier 3 standards.

Dr. Leng Ky, an anesthesiologist who lives in San Diego sees the impact of air pollution every day in his work, but he also sees the promise of reducing emissions through cleaner vehicle and fuel technology. As he explained,

“We are on the cusp a new age in the automobile, Tesla has produced an expensive but truly impressive luxury sedan, Nissan has a very good commuter car in the Leaf, and even the Volt is a reasonable electric choice. On the horizon are better electrics and plug-ins which will bring the cost down and increase the visibility.

These advances will be substantially hindered if we backpedal on tailpipe emissions and lower our standards for gasoline. As a physician who takes care of patients daily with respiratory diseases, I know how much more difficult it is on the patient when the air quality is poor. If we can improve the air on a daily basis all the people I take care of will literally breathe easier.”

Tell Your Story

These are just a few among hundreds of personal reasons why swift finalization of these standards must be a priority for policy-makers. You can add your voice tomorrow, when EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy takes to twitter to talk about the impacts of air pollution on our families. If you follow the hash tag #cleanairmoms at 2 pm EST on Wednesday, January 8, you can ask Administrator McCarthy about how EPA is working to move ahead with key pollution-cutting programs like Tier 3, and share your personal story. You can also write a letter directly to Administrator McCarthy, at any time, calling on EPA to put Tier 3 into action.

EPA has a chance to start the new year with a real victory for clean air and public health. Strong clean car and fuel standards will make a critical difference in the lives of many struggling with the impact of pollution on their families and communities.

WHO’s causing cancer?

As Kurt Straif of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) put it, “We now know that outdoor air pollution is not only a major risk to health in general, but also a leading environmental cause of cancer deaths.” Francesca Dominici, a professor of biostatics at Harvard University’s School of Public Health, put a finer point on what this means: “You can choose not to drink or not to smoke, but you can’t control whether or not you’re exposed to air pollution.”

Far too many of us are exposed to — and contribute to — this dangerous pollution every day. One in three Americans live in areas that do not meet federal air quality standards, and passenger cars and trucks are a major culprit. In fact, passenger vehicles are the second largest emitters of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) — the primary pollutants that form smog — in the U.S. These vehicles emit more than half of all carbon monoxide pollution and contribute significantly to particulate matter emissions. The WHO announcement is a timely reminder that addressing vehicle pollution must be a priority for the federal regulators charged with protecting our health and air quality.

The Good News — Tier 3 is on its way

Here’s the good news — the EPA has developed a new rule to address vehicle pollution. Earlier this year, the EPA published a proposal to reduce smog-forming pollution from cars and trucks, known as the Tier 3 standards. These cleaner gasoline and vehicle standards will reduce air pollution to protect health and save lives, and create thousands of new jobs in an ailing economy. The sooner these standards are adopted the sooner we will see real pollution reductions, and that’s why it is critical that the Administration finalize Tier 3 as quickly as possible.

The EPA and the White House have many priorities on their plates, but few compare to Tier 3 when it comes to potential health and air quality benefits — and at such low cost. The standards will cut harmful emissions of smog-forming nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds by approximately 80% from today’s fleet average. Additionally, vehicles would emit 70% less particulate matter, and toxic pollutants such as benzene would be reduced by nearly 40%. The Tier 3 program is expected to reduce the average gasoline sulfur concentration from 30 parts per million (ppm) to 10ppm. This decrease in sulfur will reduce pollution from all cars and trucks on the road by improving the performance of the emission control equipment under the hood.

Most importantly, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the proposed standards would prevent up to 2,400 premature deaths, 3,200 hospital admissions and 22,000 asthma attacks each year. By 2030, Tier 3 will result in up to $23 billion in annual health care savings.

The pen is mightier, and you can help!

The WHO finding on air pollution and the fact that EPA has proposed new tailpipe and fuel standards deserves more attention in the media, and we need to keep the pressure on to finalize the standards. You can help shine a light on these important developments by sending a letter to the editor (LTE) of your local newspaper with the talking points we’ve put together. Believe it or not, even in today’s digital media landscape, LTEs are still one of the most widely read aspects of the news media. Help us tell the story of the dangers of air pollution and the need to reduce emissions from cars and trucks by finalizing the new standards in the next few months.

New car buyers not only have more choices, but also have better information on which to base their new car purchase decisions, thanks to improved fuel economy labels developed by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2011. So where does that leave someone looking to purchase a used car? Out of luck, when it comes to good information on how far that vehicle can go on a gallon of gas and what that might mean in terms of global warming emissions. That is, until yesterday.

The DOE and the EPA just released a tool that helps evaluate the fuel economy of used vehicles.

The Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency just announced the release of a new fuel economy tool for used vehicles. You can check it out at www.fueleconomy.gov. Consumers looking to purchase a used car, and auto dealers and individuals looking to sell, can use the tool to estimate the fuel economy and global warming emissions of any vehicle, based on the original EPA fuel economy estimate of that vehicle. The tool then generates a label with this information; the electronic version can be linked to online advertisements and a paper version can be printed and posted on a vehicle window. The tool is easy to use and it only takes about 30 seconds to get this important information – as I learned when I tried it out myself!

This new tool will help consumers find a used car that can save them money at the pump, reduce their oil use, and their global warming pollution – really a classic win-win-win situation. According to the Consumer Federation of America, some 75% of car buyers in the market choose used vehicles. With so many potential customers, the real question is whether these new labels will actually be put to use by used car dealers. As fuel economy standards increase over the next several years, so too will the value of accessible information about the fuel economy performance of vehicles in both the new and used car markets. But consumers can’t benefit from information they don’t know exists. Auto dealers have a great new tool in their toolbox – let’s hope they use it.

Known in regulatory parlance as Tier 3, the new standards require reductions of smog-forming pollution from cars and trucks and significant cuts in the sulfur content in gasoline. As you may have surmised, these standards are the third in a series of rules (after Tier 1 and Tier 2) – and they build on the cost-effective success of these existing regulations.

So what does Tier 3 mean and why does it matter to communities across the country? Here is a quick snapshot of the proposed standards and their many benefits:

• Big emissions reductions: The Tier 3 standards will cut emissions of a range of harmful pollutants, reducing smog-forming nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds by 80%. Vehicles would emit 70% less particulate matter and toxic pollutants such as benzene would be reduced by 40%. Cars remain the number two source of nitrogen oxide emissions and volatile organic compounds in our air, but there’s enormous potential to reduce this pollution with standards like Tier 3.

• Cleaner fuel means immediate benefits: By reducing the sulfur content of the gasoline we pump into vehicles already on the road, the pollution-reduction and public health benefits of Tier 3 will be immediate. In 2017, the proposed reduction in the average gasoline sulfur concentration from 30 parts per million (ppm) to 10 ppm will reduce nitrogen oxide emissions from existing vehicles by 260,000 tons, the equivalent to taking 33 million of today’s cars off our nation’s roads according to a study by the National Association of Clean Air Agencies. The proposed sulfur reductions are  consistent with the global trend to reduce sulfur in gasoline. China has announced plans to move ahead with a 10ppm standard.

• Big health benefits for years to come: The standards will help reduce asthma attacks, respiratory problems, and premature death caused by harmful, smog-forming emissions, improving public health and cutting costs. By 2030, the EPA estimates that the proposed standards will prevent up to 2,400 premature deaths, 23,000 cases of respiratory ailments in children, 3,200 hospital admissions and asthma-related emergency room visits, and 1.8 million lost school days, work days, and days when activities would be restricted due to air pollution each year. The EPA estimates that in 2030 these health benefits will have a dollar value of between $8 and $23 billion annually.

• More American jobs: A study by Navigant Economics estimated that implementing the Tier 3 program will create almost 5,300 permanent jobs in the operation and maintenance of new refining equipment, as well as more than 24,000 new jobs over a three-year period for equipment installation at U.S. refineries. In addition, Tier 3 will drive the advancements in emission control technologies – which are developed in the United States and exported globally.

Sounds like a win-win situation. In fact, the standards have broad support from science, environmental and health organizations, the United Auto Workers, consumer groups, the manufacturers of emission control technology, and many automakers.

So who would oppose such cost-effective, health protective, job creating, technology enhancing standards? The answer, which may not surprise you, is the oil industry. Oil companies and their allies in Congress have worked hard to stall the proposal of these standards, and they continue to rely on misleading and discredited data that overestimates the standards’ costs. In fact, according to the proposal, it will cost refiners only an additional penny per gallon to reduce the sulfur content of gasoline to the mandated level.  That’s a cost they can afford and a small price to pay for the health and economic benefits of Tier 3. But, once again, the oil industry is putting their self-interest over the public interest.

Getting back to the good news – now that the proposal is out, the EPA will be scheduling public hearings and opening up a public comment period. That will be your chance to be part of the growing chorus in support of the standards, so stay tuned to our blog and follow us on twitter (@ucsusa or @ucsrachel) – we will keep you posted on the best way to make your voice heard in the weeks ahead.

Photo: iStock

We looked at this question in a new report entitled appropriately enough, Where Your Gas Money Goes. This is a particularly timely report given that several major oil companies recently released their earnings for the last quarter of 2012, and their profits soared to new heights. It is also not breaking news that oil companies reap huge benefits from the status quo and invest in obstructing progress toward oil-saving, climate-friendly solutions.

Oil companies have been trying to improve their public image by arguing that these record-breaking earnings benefit the millions of Americans who own stock in oil companies – so go ahead – fill up your gas tank and help out your fellow citizen’s retirement portfolio. But this rhetoric begs the question: Does your oil use benefit you?

In our new report, we calculated how much money an average consumer spends on gas, where that money really goes, and what a consumer can expect in return. It turns out that regardless of how many shares you may own in oil companies, your oil use fails to benefit your bottom line. In fact, the ‘average’ ExxonMobil shareholder gets far less than a penny back in additional dividends from their annual gas expenditures. Even ExxonMobil’s CEO Rex Tillerson, who owns 1.7 million shares of ExxonMobil stock worth almost $150 million, would only get 34 cents back per year from spending money on gas purchased exclusively at Exxon stations.

Everyone’s bottom line, therefore, is better served by spending less money on gas and investing in oil-saving solutions such as fuel-efficient vehicles.

So back to the question of where your money really goes, or doesn’t:

It doesn’t go to gas stations. Out of a $50 fill up, the gas station receives only around 80 cents. (Your local gas station makes more selling soda and half-smokes than on gas.) Instead, two-thirds of the money you spend on gasoline goes to one place – oil companies.  Out of the $22,000 spent on gas over the lifetime of an average vehicle, oil companies rake in about $15,000, or 68 percent.

It doesn’t help your retirement bottom-line. While your gas expenditures certainly help the bottom line of oil companies, they don’t help you – even if you own stock in oil companies.  If you own an average retirement portfolio that includes $20,000 in oil company stock, after spending close to $2,000 on gas over the course of a year, your oil company stock would yield far less than a penny in return.

Using less oil always pays dividends. Whether you want to invest in oil companies is up to you, but regardless of the number of oil company shares you own, spending money on gas is not a worthwhile investment.  Reducing your oil use, on the other hand, pays major dividends.  You can save thousands by investing in a fuel efficient vehicle, and save even more by investing in a hybrid vehicle, even after paying for the upfront cost of the hybrid technology. While you may pay $3,500 more for a fuel-efficient vehicle like a Ford Fusion SE Hybrid, you’ll save nearly $9,000 in fueling costs over its lifetime. So which would you prefer, a penny growth in your stock or thousands more in your pockets?

We can 1/2 it!  Reducing our oil use is a smart strategy for our pocketbooks, for the climate and our health. Putting efficient technologies and innovative solutions to work, we can cut our projected oil use in half—saving more than 11 million barrels of oil every day by 2035. The oil industry is doing all it can to block progress, so to get to Half the Oil, we need to build a strong and diverse chorus of voices demanding action.

Let’s start by sharing the key findings of this new report with family, friends and colleagues, so we can all better understand where our gas money really goes and what we can do about it.  Will you join us?

Top image: Image: Flickr Commons; coconut wireless

This isn’t even a case of playing fast and loose with the facts. This is a case of pure fabrication and misrepresentation. Here are the facts:

• Rep. Terry (R-NE) claims that he authored the final fuel economy bill that passed Congress, public law 110-140,  when, in fact, he and Rep. Baron Hill drafted a bill, HR 2927 or Hill-Terry, that was much weaker than the final provision and would have undermined critical features of today’s vehicle standards. It was never even voted on in the House. UCS opposed the Hill-Terry bill when it was introduced.
• The ad and material on his website cite 2007 analysis UCS performed to calculate the benefits of a totally different fuel economy bill authored by Representatives Markey (D-MA) and Platts (R-PA). The references to barrels of oil saved, the jobs created, and the emissions reduced were the computed benefits resulting from passage of the Markey-Platts bill, not the Hill-Terry legislation.
• The Hill-Terry bill was a weaker proposal than either the Markey-Platts bill or the legislation that passed the Senate in July of 2007. As a result Congressman Terry’s bill would have led to more oil use than what became law.
• The Hill-Terry bill would have also made matters worse by taking away EPA and state authority to protect public health and welfare through the Clean Air Act. The EPA recently used this authority to cut global warming emissions from new cars and light-trucks in half by 2025 and save those new vehicle buyers $8,000 over the life of their vehicles.
• UCS was in good company in opposing the Hill-Terry bill – a number of national consumer, public health, and environmental organizations; 12 Attorneys General; and even members of the Pennsylvania State Legislature sent letters to the House urging opposition to the Hill-Terry bill.

It is also confusing that Representative Terry is misrepresenting UCS statements and analysis to tout his “leadership” on fuel economy, while he is publicly questioning whether the recently finalized fuel economy/vehicle emissions standards (supported by automakers, labor, consumer and national security groups, and the Union of Concerned Scientists) are good policy.

Our view is that honesty would be his best policy. UCS sent a letter to the Terry campaign on Friday requesting that he refrain from citing our name, analysis, and materials inaccurately, and correct the record. We are awaiting his reply.

For years, my colleagues and I at the Union of Concerned Scientists have been not just dreaming about but working, day in and day out, for a future where cars and trucks go significantly farther on a gallon of gas – actually becoming a part of the solution to our climate and oil problem, not a primary cause.

Today, August 28, 2012, we are taking a major step in that hopeful direction. Today the administration finalized historic new federal automobile standards that will nearly double the average fuel efficiency of new passenger vehicles by 2025.  This is one of the biggest steps ever taken to reduce U.S. oil use and a huge step on the path toward cutting the country’s projected oil use in half within 20 years.

Under the new standards, the result of a widely-supported agreement between automakers, the White House, and California state officials, Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) for new cars and light trucks will climb to about 50 miles per gallon (mpg) and global warming pollution levels for the new vehicle fleet will tighten to an average of 163 grams-per-mile by model year 2025.

These standards, combined with the set of standards the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation enacted for model years 2012 through 2016, will produce tremendous benefits if they are implemented without opening up loopholes in the program in the years ahead.

UCS analysis shows the combined standards will:

• Cut oil use by as much as 3.1 million barrels per day by 2030 – about the amount we import from the Persian Gulf and Venezuela combined.

• Save consumers $8,000 over the life of a model year 2025 vehicle, compared to the average vehicle on the road today, even after paying for fuel-saving technology.

• Reduce U.S. global warming pollution by as much as 570 million metric tons in 2030, the equivalent of taking 85 million of today’s cars and trucks off the road for an entire year.

In addition to helping to shield consumers from volatile gas prices, strong standards will help create hundreds of thousands of jobs around the country.

To meet strong standards, we need solid auto engineering and manufacturing, not rocket science, and that means jobs both in the auto industry and industries that supply them. From new jobs at a Ford plant in Ohio and GM plants in Tennessee to satisfy demand for fuel efficient gasoline models, to ramped up production of hybrid transmissions at Ford’s Van Dyke plant in Detroit — these standards will drive innovation and be a true win-win.

Consumers who have been waiting for cleaner choices and care about saving oil and money will have more options across vehicle classes, and the talented engineers and production line workers who are building these vehicles and helping transform the market will have money in their pockets. And because consumers will be spending less on oil, they can spend more on the things they need and enjoy, from food and education to buying gifts for their family, which will lead to more jobs throughout the nation. After all, “spending $1 on almost anything in the U.S. economy is better than spending it on gasoline or oil when it comes to jobs!”

The best thing about this “dream come true” is that UCS supporters across the country helped make it a reality. UCS supporters and hundreds of thousands of other concerned citizens have been demanding tougher standards for years, and weighed in at every step in the policy process. You have helped shape our transportation future and put us on a path to cutting our oil use in half in the next 20 years. Oil companies are making record profits from the status quo and will fight against the change we are seeking, so I hope this important victory inspires you to keep working with us on the efficiency and innovation policies we need to stay on a path of real progress!

Court upholds endangerment finding

On Tuesday, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) finding that carbon pollution and global warming constitute a threat to public health – the finding that led EPA to propose the first ever carbon emissions standards for cars and trucks. Opponents had argued that EPA was operating under a faulty interpretation of the Clean Air Act and improperly relying on assessments of climate science from a variety of sources. The Court dismissed these arguments, often repeated by climate deniers like VA Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, outright saying, “EPA’s interpretation of the governing Clean Air Act provisions is unambiguously correct.”

The court went a step further in support of the agency’s scientific analysis, adding, “EPA simply did here what it and other decision makers often must do to make a science-based judgment. This is how science works. EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question”.

The question of EPA’s ability to regulate vehicle carbon emissions is put to rest!

The American auto industry is back…

Yesterday, I attended a White House event celebrating the remarkable resurgence of the auto industry.  The event featured leaders from the auto industry, labor, and local communities discussing the role of the proposed fuel economy and emissions standards, set to be finalized this summer, in job creation in the automobile and supply chain communities. Speakers emphasized how the standards will drive industry to innovate and develop transformative automotive technologies.  Mike Gamella from UAW Local 1250 told the story of how Ford’s Eco-Boost technology – which uses conventional technology to maximize efficiency – has helped revitalize production at his plant in Cleveland, Ohio, and is helping to revitalize the city.

We need to hear more stories like Mike’s, and in future years there may be hundreds of thousands of them. On Tuesday, the Blue Green Alliance (of which UCS is a member) – released a new report, Gearing Up: Smart Standards Create Good Jobs Building Cleaner Cars showing that up to 570,000 American jobs will be created by 2030 as a direct result of the administration’s proposed 2017-2025 fuel economy/global warming pollution standards. This includes 50,000 new jobs in light-duty vehicle manufacturing and assembly alone. In addition to the jobs created, the study reaffirms that the standards will save drivers significant money at the pump, help reduce oil use, and open new markets abroad for U.S. automakers. More good news!

Meanwhile on Capitol Hill

But turning to the House of Representatives reminds us that we haven’t won this fight just yet.  In deliberations over the annual appropriations for EPA this week, Republicans on the House Appropriations committee proposed an amendment that would prohibit EPA from spending money on developing or finalizing global warming pollution standards for vehicles after model year 2016. The amendment passed by a vote of 26-18. Fortunately, this House action is not likely to make any headway in the Senate, but it’s a startling reminder that we have to continue fighting for clean car standards.

Which of these things is not like the other??  Though this vote shows the true stripes of some in the House, they are clearly out of step given the strong, diverse support for the clean car standards that we are seeing across Washington and across the country. It’s time to finalize these standards and continue taking steps to cut our nation’s oil use in half in 20 years.

On Thursday, the House of Representatives will consider HR 4480 – Domestic Energy and Jobs Act – or DEJA. It’s aptly named, because as Yogi Berra would say, it certainly feels like “deja-vu all over again” – with fossil fuel lobbyists and their Congressional allies once again attempting to undermine the Environmental Protection Agency by  using false claims about the impacts that future standards could have on gas prices.

While providing no discernible impact on gas prices, Title II of the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act – which has been referred to as the Gasoline Regulations Act – would significantly diminish crucial public health benefits for all Americans. Among other provisions, this legislation would delay the “Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards” (or the Tier 3 program).

The Tier 3 program, currently being considered by the EPA, would reduce the amount of sulfur in U.S. gasoline and set fleet-wide emission limits on new vehicles. By addressing engines and fuels together, the Tier 3 program would realize more efficient and economical emission reductions than if treated separately.

The Tier 3 program would significantly cut emissions of nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and volatile organic compounds. According to a study released by the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) in October 2011, these reductions would avoid more than 400 premature deaths and 52,000 lost workdays each year. That same study finds that the cleaner gasoline needed to secure these clean air benefits would cost less than a penny a gallon.

Just last week, Navigant Economics confirmed the results of the NACAA study concluding that not only would reducing the sulfur content of fuel cost less  than one cent per gallon, but also that these costs would not be passed along to the consumer. Additionally, the study found that the Tier 3 program “would decrease smog, generate billions of dollars in health and economic benefits, and create thousands of new jobs.”

There’s no magic fix that will make gas cheaper overnight, but blocking science-based environmental regulations will not ease pain at the pump. Taking steps today to cut your own gasoline use and supporting a plan to cut projected U.S. oil use in half in 20 years will help insulate us from even higher gas prices as we scrape increasingly expensive and dirty oil from the bottom of the barrel.

Tell your Member of Congress: Don’t block standards that protect our health and the environment. Vote no on HR 4880 – the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act.

Living in the Past

For years GM was stuck in neutral and sometimes reverse on several fronts—they vocally opposed increasing fuel economy standards even as other manufacturers were giving consumers more efficient choices and grabbing market share as a result. A good representation of the company’s past attitudes is former GM executive Bob Lutz. Bob for years has railed against government regulation of the industry. In fact, once the fuel economy standards established in 1975 leveled out in the 1980s, Lutz and others at GM took a lead role in keeping any improvements to those standards at bay.

As recently as a few weeks ago, Lutz, now retired, restated this assertion in an appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher. What’s even more unfortunate is his continued insistence that “global warming is a crock of $&#t.”  Despite the fact that there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it, on that same appearance he reaffirmed his ill-informed opinion that there is no scientific consensus, challenging the only actual scientist on the panel, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, host of the PBS show scienceNOW, to prove otherwise.  (You can see the actual exchange here but note there is some colorful language in this clip.)

Growing Pains

As they look to the future, there are still bumps in the road. Recently, GM was listed, among several other companies, as providing financial support through their charitable arm for the Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute is an advocacy group that among other efforts to put out misleading and inaccurate information on climate, has been developing educational materials for schools questioning the veracity of climate change science. Thousands of GM customers have been weighing in expressing their concern that GM would support such a group.

However, GM’s vice president for sustainability and global regulatory affairs, Michael Robinson, responded this way: “the firm does not support the Heartland Institute’s position and has been operating our business to continually reduce the carbon footprint of our vehicles and operations.” And CEO Dan Akerson said in a speech at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco that he believes that global warming is happening and that he would investigate the situation and “take another look” at the funding from their foundation for Heartland. That’s a good step in the right direction.

The Chevy Volt. Photo: Wonderdawg777/Flickr

Embracing the Future

Here’s what gives me hope. More and more, GM is showing in word and deed a new attitude toward providing cleaner, more efficient options to their customers. It is important to note that they joined with 12 other major manufacturers in supporting the recently proposed fuel efficiency and global warming pollution standards for new cars and truck produced from 2017-2025. If this means that they are prepared to focus on putting their engineers to work on meeting the standards instead of lobbying to weaken them or looking for loopholes to exploit as they have in the past, that would be a very good thing. And their first commercial entrant in the electric vehicle market, the Chevy Volt, is an impressive vehicle and hopefully a sign of more innovation to come.  In fact, the Volt may be one thing that allows Bob Lutz to claim some embracing-the-future street cred—he was an advocate of that vehicle within the company and has been responding to some of its uninformed critics of late.

The brink of financial collapse can certainly bring focus and renewed purpose to a company; with the help of American taxpayers and better vehicles hitting showrooms, they are getting back on top and the future looks brighter. Perhaps GM has put their checkered past in the rear view mirror and is headed down a new, more enlightened road. They have an opportunity to learn from past mistakes and provide some environmental leadership in the years to come—I hope they seize it.

“We’re celebrating something that has taken a long time to reach,” said Representative John D. Dingell, a Michigan Democrat who helped quash previous efforts to impose higher mileage standards. “There appears to be no significant opposition amongst responsible persons.”

Representative John Dingell said this at the first of a series of hearings happening across the country on the 2017-2025 clean car standards proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation. It is important to take a moment and reflect on how extraordinary it is that Representative Dingell – the longest serving member of the House and a long-time opponent of increased fuel efficiency standards – was the first to testify in support of the proposed standards at the Detroit hearing. The second half of the quote really says it all: “there appears to be no significant opposition amongst responsible persons.”

Dingell’s official written statement can be found here.

Today Jim Kliesch, our Research Director, will testify at the hearing in Philadelphia. According to reports, some 250 people have signed up to testify – an impressive number reflecting the strong support for the proposed standards from the public, the United Auto Workers, and even the auto manufacturers themselves. It appears that the auto dealers, represented by the National Auto Dealers Association (NADA), continue to be a lone voice in opposition. They continue to pull bogus numbers out of the air to argue against the standards and, frankly, their own self-interest. Perhaps NADA falls outside that “responsible persons” category Representative Dingell alluded to in his remarks.

The agencies plan to finalize the 2025 standards by July, and though there is broad support, the details of how they are implemented matter a lot. We need to ensure that the standards do not include opportunities for the auto industry to game the system and reduce the important benefits of the clean car program. The public comment period is set to end on February 13, so you still have time to weigh in on this important government decision – one that strengthens a program that will do more to reduce our reliance on oil, reduce global warming pollution and save consumers money at the gas pump than any other in our nation’s history. These standards, combined with the decision announced yesterday on the Keystone XL pipeline, are two important milestones on the road to real energy security and a smarter national energy policy. The trick is to stay on that road in the months and years to come.

The Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency issued a joint Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would nearly double fuel efficiency standards for new vehicles by model year 2025 and cut their global warming pollution in half. At the same time, the California Air Resources Board outlined their plans to issue automobile global warming standards consistent with the federal proposal.

The agencies will be inviting public comment through the end of January and will be holding public hearings in Detroit, Philadelphia and San Francisco. We will be letting folks know how and when to weigh in. Your voice in support of keeping these standards strong and free of loopholes that would erode the oil, pollution and consumer benefits will be absolutely critical to a successful outcome.

The administration’s announcement comes on the heels of two polls that leave no room for doubt that  consumers and the small business community want cars and trucks that go farther on a gallon of gas and that government should set significantly higher standards to help create those choices in the marketplace. On top of that, they are willing to pay more for the technologies that will boost efficiency and reduce emissions across makes and models as long as they make that money back in fuel savings over time.

The proposed fuel efficiency and pollution standards are the next major step toward the clean car future we all want and deserve. They can be a win for energy security, a win for our pocketbooks, and a win for jobs and a revitalized auto industry. What is not to like?

GM ad that ran in college newspapers

One ad even went so far as to suggest that riding a bike would make you unattractive to the beautiful women driving their cars around campus. REALLY?!

Lots of good folks have blogged about this and GM has been furiously backpedalling (pun intended), taking down the ads and apologizing for their ham-handed marketing scheme. But this one deserves just a little more air time. What did GM expect?

Frankly, their ads are all the more galling when you look at the environmental performance of their vehicle fleet. In UCS’s fifth Automaker Rankings, released last Fall, General Motors continued its less than impressive performance in those rankings. Here’s how our Research Director Jim Kliesch characterized GM’s standing in the report:

“General Motors stagnates in next-to-last position. GM’s lackluster eco-portfolio and high sales of inefficient vehicles continue to undermine the company’s success in these rankings. The forthcoming Chevrolet Volt and Cruze Eco, however, show promise of a new direction; sales of those models will reveal whether the company is serious. To become the greenest of the Detroit Three, GM needs to step up its efforts on global warming emissions in almost every class of car and truck it sells.”

What if GM focused a bit more on improving the vehicles they bring to market rather than employing lame marketing tactics aimed at college students?

The bottom line is that the college years provide a golden opportunity to choose alternate forms of transportation that are better for the environment and better for the health of Jack and Jill Co-ed.  Whether it is biking, walking, or taking advantage of a growing number of car-sharing programs, there are better choices.

This reality may suck for GM. Perhaps what GM really needs is a reality check.

Yet one national group has spoken out in opposition and is actively lobbying Congress to delay and weaken the standards – the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA). Here’s what NADA lobbyist Bailey Wood said in a recent Wall Street Journal article, “This is our No. 1 issue and we’re putting the full weight of NADA behind it.”

NADA is trying to sell a lemon to anyone who will listen. Here are three things you should know about NADA’s position:

1. NADA is out of step with the vast majority of Americans. In a recent poll by the Mellman Group, 85% of voters supported setting stronger fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks – support that extends across party affiliation and region of the country. And another poll out this week shows even stronger support from small business owners, reporting 87% support for stronger standards.

2. NADA’s position will increase our oil dependence, cost Americans billions of dollars at the gas pump, and jeopardize 500,000 new jobs.  The proposed standards would cut America’s oil dependence by 1.5 million barrels per day – equal to what the U.S. currently imports from Saudi Arabia and Iraq combined. They would save American consumers $50 billion in 2030 alone – even after paying for the cost of fuel-saving technology. And a recent report by CERES, an investor group, found that the proposed standards could create nearly 500,000 new jobs – both inside and outside the auto industry.

3. Auto dealers already sell vehicles meeting higher standards: The recent agreement extends successful standards that are already in place for model years 2012-2016. Unfortunately, NADA also opposed these standards. Despite NADA’s dire predictions, auto dealers across the country are now selling vehicles that comply with these standards. Dealers reported record profits and increased employment in 2010, with further gains expected in 2011.

It is hard to understand why NADA is out there on a limb fighting these new standards. Their opposition does the industry a disservice, would take away clean car choices for consumers, and would only deepen our dangerous dependence on oil. That’s a deal we should all refuse.

A lot has changed since I started working on vehicle issues in 1992 (hair color and eyesight are a given). The nation’s political winds have shifted back and forth, vehicle technologies have advanced  thanks to the push and pull of state and federal standards, and the impact of vehicle emissions on our climate and our dangerous dependence on oil has only gotten worse.

What hasn’t changed?  Some in the auto industry and their friends in Congress have a tendency to pull out the same old arguments to fight tougher standards even as consumers still want better choices in the vehicle marketplace.

President Obama and automakers at clean car standards announcement

But persistence, sound science and taking the industry’s arguments head on paid off.  Building on standards they announced last year that will apply to vehicles sold in model years 2012-2016, on July 29^th, the Obama administration unveiled an agreement with major automakers and the state of California on a framework to strengthen the nation’s fuel efficiency and auto pollution standards for new cars and light trucks and we were there to applaud this historic agreement. The proposal will apply to vehicles sold in 2017-2025 and set a global warming pollution standard of 163 grams per mile by 2025, the equivalent of 54.5 miles per gallon. So for the second time in as many years, President Obama brought together the auto industry, the states, and other stakeholders to support strong standards that will protect consumers from high gas prices, curb global warming pollution, cut our oil dependence, and create innovative jobs in the American auto industry.

If implemented without loopholes, UCS analysis estimates that the standards will:

• Cut oil consumption by as much as 1.5 million barrels per day—23 billion gallons of gasoline annually—by 2030. That is equivalent to U.S. imports from Saudi Arabia and Iraq in 2010.
• Cut carbon pollution by as much as 280 million metric tons (MMT) in 2030, which is equivalent to shutting down 72 coal-fired power plants.
• Lower fuel expenditures at the pump by over $80 billion in 2030 — even after paying for the cost of the necessary technology, consumers will still clear $50 billion in savings that year alone.

I am proud to say that UCS was in the forefront of the push for higher standards.  We have been a leader in a coalition we call Go60  (www.go60mpg.org), that advocated for fuel efficiency and global warming pollution standards equivalent to a 60 mile per gallon standard.  The agreement just announced doesn’t get us all the way there, but as long as the rules are not weakened before they are finalized next July,  they will be the single most important policy victory in terms of emissions reductions, oil consumption and technological progress over 20 years of work to transform the transportation sector. I’d say the future looks a bit brighter for my niece!