Automobiles and the Environment

Today, I found an article from the New York Times, entitled "Obama Sets New Auto Emissions and Mileage Rules." You can read the piece at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/business/energy-environment/20emit.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=politics. As the title states, President Obama has helped to "set in motion a national policy aimed at both increasing gas mileage and decreasing greenhouse gas pollution for all new trucks and cars sold in the United States of America." California already has certain standards, but this plan aims to expand those ideas to the rest of America. The benefits of this change vary widely from saving money on buying gas to saving the environment by reducing the impact of pollution from automobiles. In the past, these effects were outweighed by economic concerns of both industry officials and the Bush administration. However, the new Congress and executive branch are working together to make progress in this area.

Clearly, this article relates to much of the material we have been discussing in class. We have talked about how government is cyclical and wavers back and forth from leaning one way to the other. These environmental improvements reflect a distinct change from the previous years. Nonetheless, the article does mention that a law was passed in 2007, which states that gas mileage must increase 40% by 2020. At the time, however, no regulations were in place that would enforce the law. Quite evidently, the sort of power established by this law was illegitimate because no one had any incentive to follow such a law. Just like students who do not follow the signals when crossing the streets, automakers could choose whether or not they wanted to abide by the law. Fortunately, President Obama "will direct the E.P.A. and the Transportation Department to jointly write enforcement regulations." With auto manufacturers already struggling to survive, they will essentially have no other option except to comply. Whether we look at this decision from a personal or community-centered perspective, we will likely see numerous advantages. This policy should help the economy, the environment, and the vast majority of citizens in the United States.

Furthermore, this article demonstrates many of the ideas associated with federalism and the conflicting views about how much power the federal government should have. Originally, this issue was left up to the states. California took the lead by imposing strict limitations on the emissions and gas mileage of vehicles within the state's borders. Other states have not been as quick to catch onto this idea, so Obama is encouraging a more rapid change by utilizing the federal government. The president of the Alliance of Auto Manufacturers, Dave McCurdy, commented how a debate has gone on for seven years as to whether this should be a state or national issue. In this case, the federal government has stepped up and declared that it has the authority to determine these standards. Nevertheless, we discussed in class that states do not always follow national regulations, so I am interested in seeing how this will unfold. Many representatives for the auto industry as well as the governor of Michigan showed up to support Obama and this announcement, but initial support does not always last. Hopefully, they will understand the immense benefits to these standards and follow them, but they have long resisted such changes. Still, the federal government does have ways to control both states and businesses through funding and even criminal sanctions. At this point, I am optimistic in believing that these rules will be taken seriously and we will benefit greatly from this policy.

Unfortunately, some questions still remain in my mind as well as the minds of others. Personally, I have very little knowledge about some of the people mentioned in this article, so I do not know for certain how they will respond when things really start to get moving. For years, the auto industry (especially in the United States) has basically refused to move forward with less pollution and better gas mileage. People are often reactive rather than proactive towards situations. Back in the 70s, America faced an oil scare, in which people were afraid that they would not have enough gas for everyone. Then, when people's fears were relieved and gas prices dropped, people became less concerned with the issue. Certainly, gas mileage and emissions have improved since the 1970s, yet here we are, decades later, virtually repeating the same events. We still rely heavily on oil, and alternative energy sources are seriously underdeveloped. While some individuals have foreseen the pitfalls of continuing in such a fashion, the public (and by extension, the government) has long overlooked the potential consequences. Only when we face disastrous circumstances, do we generally decide to respond. My fear is that companies may comply with the new regulations to the point just above the minimum amount required by law. If we do not continually set additional goals, we may once again fall into complacency.

The people and the government need to think ahead and proactively implement innovative policies. Some may argue that we are already doing a fine job in terms of the environment because we are not in a dangerous position in terms of global warming / climate change. On the other hand, some may claim that we should have considered the environment much more seriously before now; they may also feel that we still need to make a great deal of improvements. Economically, we can more clearly acknowledge that we certainly fell behind and consequently, are in an unfavorable position. Now, the government has taken on the challenge of fixing both the economy and the environment. With the Democrats in control, the government is taking a larger role in matters, and the federal government is extending its authority, as we can witness through these new measures. Only time will tell how the government's actions will affect the world around us.