Lying With Statistics: Trump/Auto Mileage Version

The Washington Post tells us today about a new Trump report on the impact of increasing fuel mileage standards for cars and light trucks:

Last month, deep in a 500-page environmental impact statement, the Trump administration made a startling assumption: On its current course, the planet will warm a disastrous 7 degrees by the end of this century.

A rise of 7 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 4 degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels would be catastrophic, according to scientists. Many coral reefs would dissolve in increasingly acidic oceans. Parts of Manhattan and Miami would be underwater without costly coastal defenses. Extreme heat waves would routinely smother large parts of the globe. But the administration did not offer this dire forecast as part of an argument to combat climate change. Just the opposite: The analysis assumes the planet’s fate is already sealed.

Let’s go straight to the source to check this out. The new NTSA report estimates effects for nine different scenarios. Alternative 0 is the “do nothing” scenario: that is, we keep the Obama rules that were enacted a few years ago. Alternatives 1 through 8 kill off the Obama rules and replace them with a set of set standards rising from 1 (don’t change mileage standards at all) to 8 (increase mileage standards by about 2-3 mpg). Here’s the effect on CO2 emissions:

The current Obama standard would decrease CO2 emissions from 1100 megatonnes per year to about 950 megatonnes per year. Not bad! That’s a decrease of 150 megatonnes. Alternative 1, the preferred alternative of the Trump administration would reduce CO2 emissions by only 30 megatonnes.

But wait! How does this affect actual CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere? According to the NTSA, every one of these alternatives has literally zero effect on global CO2 concentration. No matter which one we choose, we end up at 789.11 ppm by the year 2100:

That’s disappointing. How about temperatures?

Once again, there’s no change. Global mean temperatures will rise 3.48ºC by 2100 no matter what.

So what’s the deal? Aside from making some perhaps unwarranted assumptions, the NTSA is measuring global impacts from a smallish US program. This is a longtime conservative hobbyhorse: namely that any change the US makes by itself is necessarily so small that it has barely any global impact. And since climate change is a global problem, what’s the point of taking action by ourselves?

Presumably this could be addressed by taking coordinated action with the rest of the world, but Trump pulled out of the Paris Accord last year, so we can’t do that. Our only alternative is to take action on our own, and clearly that makes no difference at all. So there’s really no alternative left to us. Our best bet is to kill the Obama rules and do nothing:

Using the no-action scenario “is a textbook example of how to lie with statistics,” said MIT Sloan School of Management professor John Sterman. “First, the administration proposes vehicle efficiency policies that would do almost nothing [to fight climate change]. Then [the administration] makes their impact seem even smaller by comparing their proposals to what would happen if the entire world does nothing.”

I think we can expect a lot more “science” reports like this one about climate change in the future—and conservatives will cheer. After all, the whole thing is just a big hoax anyway. Haven’t you heard about the heat island effect and water vapor in the air and solar variability and the “tricks” climate scientists use to get the results they want? Don’t be a sap! Read up on all this stuff and you’ll learn that there’s no global warming at all. All those wildfires and droughts and hurricanes and shrinking ice caps are just totally normal occurrences. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.


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