Section 3.10: Department of Transportation
“The department should ensure a tech-neutral approach to addressing any emerging transportation technology while keeping safety as the number one priority. As part of this, it should work to facilitate the safe and full integration of automated vehicles into the national transportation system.”
I didn’t have “supports self-driving cars” on my Project 2025 bingo card, but here we are. By default, that’s support for electric vehicles – 58% of self-driving cars are electric, and an additional 21% are hybrids. This doesn’t fit with the rest of the Project’s vehement pro-fossil fuel / anti-environment stance. (She indicates later that she is not aware of this fact.)
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.10: Department of Transportation here.
“The Clean Air Act gives EPA general authority to establish emissions limits for new motor vehicles for air pollutants that are found to pose a danger to humans. However, there is no reason to believe Congress ever contemplated that EPA’s authority to address automotive air pollution might be used to displace or supersede NHTSA’s fuel economy mandate under EPCA.”
This is an argument that fuel efficiency should trump emissions standards – in other words, if controlling emissions interferes with fuel economy, it should be ignored. You can have both, by the way.
“Since model year 2004, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions have decreased by 24 percent as fuel economy has increased by 32 percent.” [Source]
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.10: Department of Transportation here.
“In pursuit of an anti–fossil fuel climate agenda never approved by Congress, the Biden Administration has raised fuel economy requirements to levels that cannot realistically be met by most categories of ICE vehicles. The purpose is to force the auto industry to transition away from traditional technologies to the production of electric vehicles (EVs) and compel Americans to accept costly EVs despite a clear and persistent consumer preference for ICE-powered vehicles. In further support of this agenda, federal regulators administer a scheme of generous fuel economy credits that subsidize EV producers such as Tesla at the expense of legacy automakers.”
Does Furchtgott-Roth not know that most self-driving vehicles are EVs? It feels like she doesn’t know that. ICE is an acronym for “internal combustion engine”, meaning gas-powered vehicles.
For a breakdown of what parts of this statement are true and which are misleading, see the analysis below.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.10: Department of Transportation here.
“The Clean Air Act allows other states to follow California’s requirements; thus, CARB is effectively determining fuel economy policies for the entire nation.”
Nope. “Allowing” does not equal “forcing.” CARB is the California Air Resources Board, which issues its own fuel economy directives for California.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.10: Department of Transportation here.
“NHTSA itself has acknowledged that the Biden Administration’s fuel economy standards will generate hundreds of additional fatalities and thousands of additional injuries on U.S. highways. Because older cars also produce more harmful air pollution, the aging of America’s fleet will also have negative consequences for air quality.”
This might be a contender for the most confused a human being has ever been and still sounded confident. This is olympic-level nonsense. I don’t agree with emissions standards, because it interferes with fuel efficiency, but because I’m attempting to make a point about how Americans will be stuck driving older cars because they can’t afford new ones – which I admit are safer – I’m suddenly pretending to care about the air pollution produced by these older cars, even though, generally speaking, I don’t care about air pollution caused by cars.
The idea that fuel efficiency standards will be to blame for “hundreds of fatalities” because people will be holding onto their older cars, because efficient cars are more expensive up front, and older cars become less safe over time, is convoluted insanity. If you have to twist yourself up into these kinds of knots to make your point, perhaps your point is not as good as you think it is.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.10: Department of Transportation here.
“In exchange for all of these harmful effects—on traffic safety, consumer choice, American jobs, the nation’s air quality, and U.S. national security—the Biden fuel economy regulations are predicted to have no meaningful effect on global temperature trends over the long term.”
False.
“The EPA says the new rules will avert 7 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions and provide close to $100 billion in savings per year across the country in the form of fuel costs, lower maintenance needs, and health benefits.” [Source]
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.10: Department of Transportation here.
“The Administration should consider returning to the minimum average fuel economy levels specified by Congress for model year 2020 vehicles: levels aimed at achieving a fleet-wide average of 35 miles per gallon.”
The average fuel economy in 2020 was 25.4 miles per gallon, not 35. [Source]2 So, we didn’t quite meet the standard of 35 that was set forth. I couldn’t find specifications set forth by Congress for any years beyond 2020, and Furchtgott-Roth doesn’t specify, either.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.10: Department of Transportation here.
“Revoke the special waiver granted to California by the Biden Administration. California has no valid basis under the Clean Air Act to claim an extraordinary or unique air quality impact from carbon dioxide emissions, and EPCA is clear that under no circumstances may a state agency regulate fuel economy in place of DOT. The federal government should therefore exercise its preemptive authority over CARB and take all steps necessary to invalidate any inconsistent fuel economy requirements imposed by CARB, including its ban on sales of internal combustion engines.”
California has historically received special waivers from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act, allowing the state to set its own, more stringent vehicle emissions standards. This was due to California’s unique air pollution challenges, particularly in cities like Los Angeles. The waiver system enables California to set stricter limits on greenhouse gas emissions and regulate sales of certain types of vehicles, such as internal combustion engine (ICE) cars.
Why on earth would you care if a state is actually doing BETTER than government standards? And what would stop California from continuing “unofficially” with their own standards? This is performative nonsense.
Did California ban sales of cars with internal combustion engines? No, Furchtgott-Roth is being deliberately misleading about that with her having implied that it’s a current thing that’s in place right now. CARB did mandate that all new cars sold in CA should have zero tailpipe emissions by 2035, which will be an effective ban on fully gas-powered vehicles for new car sales in the state at that time. The policy won’t take existing cars off the road. 11 other states have announced plans to follow suit. [Source]
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.10: Department of Transportation here.
“Today, facing a pilot shortage, larger and safer twin-engine planes with two pilots are being phased out of service at smaller airports and replaced by single-engine planes that have only one pilot. This trend could be reversed if copilots were required to have fewer flight hours or could count certified simulator training.”
I don’t like the idea of reducing training requirements for pilots, just to have more of them.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.10: Department of Transportation here.
“Federal subsidies are also distorting the commercial market. The Essential Air Service (EAS) program subsidizes flights to 200 small airports that are not otherwise commercially viable. The program was established in the 1970s as a temporary measure to cushion deregulation. It has since been made permanent. Finally ending the program would free hundreds of pilots to serve larger markets with more passengers.”
Now she’s outright arguing for an example of what I was talking about at the beginning of this section. They do not care about rural or traditionally underserved areas. Ending the EAS program would likely result in many of these smaller airports losing commercial air service altogether. Here’s that list of communities that will be affected.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.10: Department of Transportation here.