The New Hotness: Fuel Economy Kills

Take that, you gas-sipping Japanese tin can.

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

From the LA Times this morning:

The Trump administration is embracing a curious — and some would say dated — argument as it builds its case to weaken federal rules championed by California that require cars and SUVs to average 55 miles per gallon by 2025. It is warning that the fuel-efficiency targets, seen by most as key to meeting climate and air quality goals in California and nationwide, could actually end up killing people.

….The agency is preparing to make the case that tough fuel economy rules could effectively force automakers to sell smaller, lighter and thus less crash-worthy vehicles. That, in turn, would lead to more crash-related deaths. And it warns the rules could drive up the cost of cars to the point that consumers will put off buying new, safer models equipped with life-saving technology improvements.

This is only a “curious” argument if you don’t understand its audience. The aim here is not to build a case for the process of repealing the Obama fuel-economy rules. The aim is to appeal to Trump’s base, which has long held this theory to be gospel truth. When I’m on the road, I want a couple of tons of metal between me and the rest of the idiots.

The kernel of truth here is that all else being equal, if a big car smashes into a little car, the big car will take less damage. However, as long as cars are, on average, all getting bigger or smaller at the same time, there’s no change in overall safety.

But that doesn’t matter. The Trump base will slam down its beer and say it’s about time someone gets it. The usual suspects will write op-eds making the case that Trump’s EPA is right. John Lott will whip up a statistical study to prove that fuel economy kills. David Roberts will write 5,000 words at Vox explaining why Lott is wrong. And then the whole thing will be forgotten.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest