The director of the National Council of Churches’ “eco-justice” programs was among the onlookers when Barack Obama signed his executive order on auto emission and gas mileage standards. As usual, her response was hyperbolic rather than realistic, attributing almost mythical efficacy to an order that is unlikely to do anything other than further hobble the auto industry. According to NCC News:
Cassandra Carmichael was present in the East Room as the President directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to grant state waiver requests to strengthen tailpipe emissions standards. The new guidelines cover 2011 model-year cars.
“The President’s executive orders can help us pave the way for a energy future that is sustainable not only for God’s planet, but for God’s people,” said Carmichael.
“By allowing states to have stronger emission standards and mandating that cars be more fuel efficient, we can not only protect human health from air pollution but also help reduce global warming, which threatens both the planet and people.”
Not really. With regard to fuel efficiency standards, the executive order was unnecessary–it simply calls for follow though on standards that had already been passed as part of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act. And there’s reason to think that even that isn’t all that great an idea; according to the Congressional Budget Office, “given current estimates of the value of decreasing dependence on oil and reducing carbon emissions, increasing CAFE standards would not pass a benefit-cost test.”
As for the emission standard order, that is more problematic. There’s no question that putting new regulatory requirements on the auto manufacturers at the same time that the government is putting out billions to bail them out makes little economic sense. From the regulatory standpoint, giving California this waiver essentially puts all American environmental policy in this area in the hands of one state’s bureaucrats, given the size of the market and its subsequent influence on Detroit decision-making.
But what’s really sad about Carmichael’s enthusiasm for this order is that it will have little if any actual impact on the climate, since it will effect only new cars in the United States, which means a very small portion of the world’s carbon output. Some numbers: total atmospheric CO2 amounts to about 780 billion tons. Annual U.S. auto CO2 emissions amount to about 315 million tons (meaning U.S. cars contribute less than 0.5% to a system that involves the exhange of the gas between oceans, vegetation, and marine lifeforms in amounts of almost 250 billion tons a year). That is to say that American autos contribute a tiny fraction of the CO2 that is at play in the entire ecosystem. Take that, and realize that California isn’t trying to eliminate CO2 emissions, just reduce them by some percent, and would only be able to do so in increments in the years ahead. Anyway you slice it, we’re talking about relatively very small amounts, and for that, which is unlikely to have any impact on global climate at all, we’re talking about making it harder for the auto industry to make it through some extremely tough times.
Carmichael’s goals–cleaner air, better use of available energy resources, climate stability are laudable (though the last is thoroughly utopian). But if she thinks that steps like these are going to make a difference, she needs to get her tire pressure checked.
January 28, 2009 at 10:43 pm
I have to ask you what value system you come from? You object to regulations designed to improve the quality of the air we breath? I live in LA. The air in LA has improved dramatically over the last 25 years, but it slipped back down a bit since Washington started meddling.
We in California like better air and we are willing to pay for it.
Do you have any idea how much extra it costs for each car to satisfy tighter emission standards? And what the benefits are?
But really, my question is one of values.
January 29, 2009 at 9:04 am
It is not a question of values. It is a question of prudential judgment. What they are “designed” to do is beside the point, since when the government is involved, design and result rarely match up. My objection is to regulations that will make it more difficult for Detroit to recover (and will thus cost people jobs), while accomplishing very little.
The primary engine behind the cleaner air in Los Angeles, and for that matter around the country, is the Clean Air Act of 1971, a Washington innovation.
As for the costs and benefits, check out this Congressional Budget Office page.
January 29, 2009 at 9:18 am
While, as a Michigander, I’m supposed to be genetically opposed to higher CAFE standards, as I wrote recently on my blog, this is as good a time as any to implement them.
January 29, 2009 at 11:42 am
David,
The question was >>mine<>your<< values.
You oppose regulations for the common good. You oppose scientific research for the common good. You support the policies and decisions of big business corporate boards that are not for the common good. You support the use of armored military force and chemical weapons in urban areas and turn a blind eye to the horrific human suffering that results.
What are your values?
January 29, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Jodie: Your response is a non sequitur. I do not “oppose regulations for the common good”–I oppose those regulations that will not achieve the desired end or which will result in unintended consequences. I do not “oppose scientific research for the common good”–I oppose taking scientific data and drawing unwarranted or politicized conclusions from it. I do not “support the policies and decisions of big business corporate boards that are not for the common good”–I don’t even know what you’re referring to here. I do not “support the use of armored military force and chemical weapons in urban areas and turn a blind eye to the horrific human suffering that results”–I do not allow myself to be swayed by propaganda or tear-jerking photos, and seek to make moral evaluations based, not on one isolated aspect of a conflict, but on the total picture.
What you’ve done here is what liberals at the NCC and WCC have been doing to Christian conservatives for years. You take a position that I hold on particular policy items, matters that involves prudential political, economic, diplomatic, or military judgment, and then render blanket moral judgments on my “values,” coming to conclusions that are ridiculous and overstated on their face, simply because I don’t buy your particular policy preferences. I’m not about to play that kind of game.
January 29, 2009 at 11:06 pm
David,
I am not really making a moral judgment on your values. I am only asking because I don’t know what they are.
I have nothing to do with the “liberals at the NCC and WCC”. I am only responding to what you have felt the urge to blog about and the spin you have put on those topics. The impressions I have are taken only from reading what you wrote.
Perhaps I have misunderstood you point.
However other than the fact that you don’t like liberals and seem to judge information a-priori on the basis of whether it can be used by liberals or conservatives to support their various agendas, I still know nothing about your values. Nor can I decipher them from what you have said in your blog.
Would you care to spell them out? It might help to better understand where you are coming from and properly interpret what you are saying.
January 30, 2009 at 12:19 pm
I am fairly sure my 67 chevy 327 with holly carbs got better gas mileage than my newer cars. Isn’t burning less gas a good thing? I mean i am really fairly sure, and it had no pollution control stuff.
January 31, 2009 at 5:51 pm
[…] ENVIRO MYTH-MAKING; and your Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, Jan. 30th 2009 …. (RP, […]