ABOUT
Smart discussion of the latest science and news on toxins in your food, water, and air, and what government agencies should be doing to protect public health. Written by EWG staff.
DONATE TO EWG!
Help us protect your health and environment! Please donate $5 to EWG today.
GET EWG'S TIPS & ACTION ALERTS
Sign Up here to receive email updates and tips from EWG and stay informed on the issues that matter most to you.
ENVIROBLOG VIA EMAIL
Join EWG's live chat with Chef Ann Cooper
School lunch: More fruits & veggies, please!
Texas Schools are Drilling for Dollars
Why do blowouts take so long to fix?
SEARCH ENVIROBLOG
FEATURED
Support the 2010 Safe Cosmetics Act. It's Urgent.
Why, oh why is there plastic in my aluminum water bottle?
Cell phone radiation series - Part 2: 8 Ways to reduce your exposure
Test Your Knowledge of Cosmetics Safety: 8 Myths Debunked
EWG's Tips for Parents: The Series
EWG's Tips to avoid BPA exposure
EWG on TV
Cutting the Pork from U.S. Farm Bill
Sunscreen safety & DC drinking water
Perchlorate in people, kids' personal care products & plastics, and sunscreen
BPA in baby formula & safe cosmetics
What can I do about fluoride in my water?
What is new carpet treated with? What can I do?
Are stainless steel water bottles safe?
Is mineral-based makeup safer?
PEOPLE TALKING TOXICS
TALK TO US
Did we miss something? Email Enviroblog.
« “Independent” Pet Food Task Force Includes Pet Food Co. Scientists | Main | Paper or plastic? Never mind »
Automakers construct excuses, not solutions
According to the New York Times, American automakers recently put together a short list of reasons for not cutting carbon dioxide emissions in their vehicle fleets:
1. Individual states don’t have the right to regulate CO2 emissions.
2. Smaller vehicles endanger occupants’ lives.
3. Global warming really isn’t all that bad.
The scramble to defend automotive carbon pollution follows a Supreme Court decision on April 2, classifying carbon dioxide as an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. This ruling allows the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate CO2, paving the way for individual states such as California and several other Northeastern states to mandate emissions cuts in automobiles.
The industry claims that states don’t have the right to pass legislation against automotive CO2 emissions. Such legislation would likely necessitate fuel economy improvements, which can only be set by the federal government and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
The courts aren’t buying it.
The American automakers also worry about consumer health. Larger vehicles physically protect consumers by making them less vulnerable in crashes. Additionally, smaller, fuel-efficient vehicles cost less per mile to drive, which may increase the number of miles driven. More traffic inevitably leads to more traffic fatalities, a big health no-no.
Sierra Club lawyer David Bookbinder notes: “Everybody’s getting a good laugh out of the safety claim. Detroit is saying it’s a bad idea for everybody to drive more.”
A bit ironic, perhaps? What makes the safety claim even more ridiculous is the fact that the very presence of larger vehicles compromises safety for small vehicle drivers. These auto industry “health concerns” are also a real slap in the face for bicyclists and pedestrians, whose fatality rates increase substantially in crashes with larger vehicles.
As for the U.S. auto industry’s carefree attitude towards global warming—well, maybe they should pay more attention to public opinion. More than two-thirds of the global population worries about global warming, and most folks view the United States as the world’s primary greenhouse gas contributor. Although U.S. citizens tend to be less anxious about climate change than our international counterparts, a recent Gallup poll found that 79 percent of Americans favor setting higher emission standards for automobiles.
« “Independent” Pet Food Task Force Includes Pet Food Co. Scientists |
Leave a comment