March 26, 2020,
After the pomp and circumstance—the celebratory confetti of the inaugural address, thousands of handshakes, hundreds of rallies, tens of debates, and one triumphant campaign—most presidents are eager to break in their oval office chair by scrawling their signature across the sweeping legislation they promised voters along the campaign trail.
President Donald Trump, however, is an exception.
As prompt as President Trump was in pursuing massive tax cuts, the construction of a wall at our southern border, and the renegotiation of NAFTA, he was just as committed to upending the most major achievements of his predecessor, President Barack Obama.
In particular, President Trump wasted no time beginning an aggressive attack on existing environmental regulation, so far eliminating 58 environmental rules with another 37 in the process of elimination, including many Obama-era environmental regulations that aim to slow global climate change. One of the most contentious rollbacks, the Clean Car Standards, were set in place by president Obama in 2012.
The previous standards, applauded by American consumers, set new fuel efficiency regulations for vehicles produced from 2017–2025. By 2025, these standards would save 2 million barrels of oil a day, according to the Environmental Defense Fund. More important, to those concerned with the effects of unregulated vehicle emissions on the environment, by 2025 the Clean Car Standards would halve the amount of atmospheric pollutants emitted by vehicles, double the fuel efficiency of vehicles produced by automakers, and “reduce CO2 emissions by 6 billion metric tons”.
These improvements, however, will not materialize so long as the Trump Administration keeps on course relaxing fuel efficiency standards. Administration officials, including the president’s first Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, have said that the previous standards are “too high,” while Pruitt’s successor, current Administrator Andrew Wheeler said that the current standards “‘impose significant costs on American consumers and eliminate jobs.’”
Yet, what appears to be a nod to American automakers is puzzling U.S. automakers themselves.
After all, 17 U.S. automakers, in a letter to President Donald Trump following the changes, asked the Trump Administration to consider a more moderate policy going forward, noting that “a broadly supported final rule would provide regulatory certainty and enhance our ability to invest and innovate by avoiding an extended period of litigation and instability, which could prove as untenable as the current program.”
But the most outspoken opponents of the relaxed standards are not U.S. automakers.
Since the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1971, the State of California has retained the legal authority to set its own emissions standards. This gave California a reputation as one of the most progressive states regarding vehicle emissions standards, leading many other states to follow in its footsteps. It is this progressive policy that has embroiled California in a legal battle with the Trump Administration.
This battle between the state and federal government began with a presidential tweet: “The Trump Administration is revoking California’s Federal Waiver on emissions in order to produce far less expensive cars for the consumer, while at the same time making the cars substantially SAFER.” President Trump continued, “Many more cars will be produced under the new and uniform standard, meaning significantly more JOBS, JOBS, JOBS!” California responded to the President’s actions by filing a lawsuit against the EPA, along with 22 other states, two major U.S. Cities, and the District of Columbia.
Support for tighter fuel efficiency standards also extends to the American public. Seventy percent of Americans “want EPA to leave current fuel efficiency standards in place, outnumbering those who think the standards should be weakened,” as a poll by the American Lung Association found.
U.S. automakers, nearly half of American states, and a majority of the American people agree: The Trump Administration should not roll back the fuel efficiency standards adopted by the Obama Administration.
While we, the American people, see the bigger picture, politicians are only seeing their side of the political aisle. This has led us to where we are today. The Guardian explains, “Since Trump’s election, Democrats across Congress have voted for pro-environment legislation 92% of the time on average, compared with 5% for Republicans, according to an analysis by LCV.” This party line voting has become a legislative roadblock as the two houses of Congress are now held by different majorities. While legislation can overturn regulatory action, an environmental policy that could win support in the House of Representatives, with its Democratic majority, would be unlikely to pass the Republican-controlled Senate and would be vulnerable to a potential veto. The partisan divide thus paints a bleak picture, meaning that the American people cannot rely on Congress to overturn the EPA’s less restrictive emissions mandate.
This is the inevitable result of our electoral system: A clear disconnect between the desires of the American people and the actions of those representing us. Perhaps this means less when it comes to trivial issues, but the well-being of the planet that supports us should not be an issue determined by partisan gridlock and presidential overreach.
Luckily, it doesn’t have to be. By eliminating the Electoral College, and by electing our representatives through a system of proportional representation, we can determine the quality of the world we live in—politically and otherwise.
Support a system that counts every vote equally. Sign the petition.