Cars Clips: April 17, 2018

 

General Coverage

 

'Trump Has Met His Match,' Says Gov. Jerry Brown In Promoting Climate Action On A Quick Trip To Canada. According to Los Angeles Times, “Gov. Jerry Brown told a Canadian audience Monday that he believes President Trump’s efforts to reverse course on climate change policy are a ‘momentary deviation’ as others in the United States seek limits on greenhouse gas emissions. ‘That’s very temporary, I can assure you,’ Brown said at a joint event in Toronto with Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne. The governor’s quick international trip, announced only late last week, comes as Wynne’s Liberal Party faces a stiff challenge in June’s election from the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario and its leader, Doug Ford. Critics of Wynne’s party have called for Ontario to pull out of the Western Climate Initiative, a cooperative agreement between three Canadian provinces and California on efforts to limit greenhouse gases. Brown sought to link the efforts of Canadian conservatives with Republicans in the United States who oppose existing climate change programs. In contrast, he told the audience, several GOP lawmakers voted last summer to renew California’s cap-and-trade program. ‘I would say to the conservatives of Canada, wake up and see what your friends in California are doing,’ he said. The Democrat took particular notice of Trump’s efforts to shift away from climate change policies from the administration of former President Obama, as well as a push by the Environmental Protection Agency to cancel California’s strict limits on automobile emissions.” [Los Angeles Times, 4/16/18 (=)]

 

Cars Threaten Climate Goals In Blue States. According to E&E News, “Liberal states’ carbon-cutting plans are stuck in traffic. Literally. Transportation emissions threaten to undercut blue states’ climate goals, raising questions about their ability to lead U.S. climate efforts at a time when the federal government is rolling back environmental regulations. Emissions from cars, trucks and other mobile sources are on the rise nationally. In 2016, they overtook power plants as America’s largest source of greenhouse gases. But the situation is exacerbated in blue states, where power-sector emissions have plummeted and planet-warming tailpipe pollution remains stubbornly high. The transportation sector emits at least twice as much carbon as power plants in states like California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Washington. And with President Trump poised to try to roll back emission standards for cars and trucks, the stakes for state action on transportation have never been higher. Yet plans to tackle automobile emissions remain in their infancy outside California, which has implemented an economywide cap-and-trade program and a host of policies aimed at curbing carbon from cars and trucks. ‘The policy innovation at the state level has largely been focused on power and not on comprehensive solutions,’ said John Larsen, an analyst at the Rhodium Group. ‘Tackling emissions outside the power sector is required if states are going to continue to lead.’” [E&E News, 4/15/18 (+)]

Tesla To Halt Production Of Model 3 Cars Temporarily. According to The New York Times, “Tesla plans to halt production of its Model 3 compact car on Tuesday in a bid to work out kinks that have slowed assembly of the car, a critical vehicle in the company’s business plan. It expects to idle its Model 3 assembly line for several days to clear impediments that have held production well below the electric-car company’s targets. In the final week of March, Tesla made just over 2,000 Model 3s. It is hoping to lift that to 5,000 cars a week by the end of the second quarter. At one time, the company’s chief executive, Elon Musk, thought Tesla would be able to make several hundred thousand Model 3s in 2018. In a statement, Tesla said it had planned downtime into its production plans at its car plant in Fremont, Calif., ‘to improve automation and systematically address bottlenecks in order to increase production rates.’ News of the halt in production was first reported by BuzzFeed. Tesla’s trials in putting the Model 3 into mass production have drawn scrutiny from investors. With a starting price of $35,000, the Model 3 is supposed to be Tesla’s most affordable and top-selling car. The company has been counting on a quick increase in sales to bolster revenue and enable the company to pare down losses and pay off bonds and borrowings while still investing heavily in future vehicles.” [The New York Times, 4/16/18 (=)]

 

Opinion

 

Op-Ed: Weakening Fuel-Efficiency Standards. According to Winston Salm-Journal, “The Trump administration’s recent decision to roll back sensible fuel-efficiency standards for cars and light trucks implemented by President Barack Obama would be a costly mistake. Like most of the administration’s poorly thought-out regulatory reversals, this one would have serious collateral damage. There’s little doubt, though, that the side effects would include harm to the environment and to public health. Transportation is the No. 1 source of air pollution in the United States, with automobiles the biggest culprit. Air pollution from automobiles is a major factor in both respiratory illnesses and climate change. Weakening the standards would likely hurt consumers, too, because automakers will not be producing vehicles with the kind of fuel efficiency that is possible. And it would slow the nation’s efforts to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, a dependence that is a security risk and a source of international tension. America’s role as world leader will take another hit, as this country resists dealing with global warming. Some automakers lack enthusiastic about the prospect of wholesale changes in the regulations. That’s because the Obama administration set new standards only after extensive study and negotiation. The tough standards — calling for raising average fuel economy to 36 miles per gallon by 2025, as compared to about 25 today — were part of an agreement that was part of the bailout deal for Chrysler and General Motors. Those automakers received $80 billion in public money to help them stay in business. They agreed at the time that increasing the fuel efficiency of vehicles in their fleets would help them be more competitive here and in the world market. They said — correctly — that the deal that kept them afloat and had environmental and health benefits was good for the country.” [Winston Salem-Journal, 4/16/18 (+)]