The new standards will lessen the current regulatory requirements that control pollution emitted from gasoline-powered cars and light trucks, reports The Associated Press.
The new plan sets the industry fleetwide average for light-duty vehicles at roughly 34.9 miles per gallon by the 2031 model year. That is a significant drop from the projected 50.4 miles per gallon target put in place under the fossil fuel-hating Biden administration.
President Donald Trump defended the move on social media, claiming the less-stringent requirements will save consumers thousands of dollars on new vehicle purchases
Automotive groups are applauding the new standards. John Bozzella, of Alliance for Automotive Innovation, called it "the formula for preserving consumer vehicle choice and keeping the U.S. auto industry globally competitive.”
However, environmental groups are predictably upset.
Katherine Garcia, of the Sierra Club’s Clean Transportation for All campaign, said the “less fuel-efficient cars” will result in dirtier air as more gas is “burned” and spending at the pump increases.
As seen, critics and supporters are already clashing over the decision and the media coverage surrounding it.
AFN spoke with Larry Behrens, communications director for the energy advocacy group Power the Future, about the administration’s rollback and how it’s being framed.
Behrens questioned the objectivity of mainstream reports, pointing to the financial backing behind major outlets.
For example, at the end of the AP story, in an editor's note, the wire service states that its "climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations."
Those foundations are not named but presumably hand out grants for left-wing causes, including "climate justice" to fight fossil fuels. Thus, an AP story on lower emission standards would have an alarming tone.
“Everyone should also know that The Associated Press has taken millions of dollars in grants from environmental agents to report on climate news. It definitely switches how they report things,” Behrens says.
Relaxing these federal requirements, he argues, is a necessary step to counter mounting inflation and vehicle costs, supporting what the administration calls consumer choice.
“This is the exact right thing to do. With everyone on the planet on the left screaming about affordability, this is going to make vehicles more affordable by taking off unneeded regulations to do it,” Behrens says. “This could drop the price of an average new car well over $1,000. That is something that should speak to affordability.”
The new rule, he adds, effectively dismantles what he calls the backdoor mandates, pushing electric vehicles on consumers who are already facing high ownership costs.
Dr. Kevin Dayaratna, a vice president at Advancing American Freedom (AAF), also agrees the Trump administration did the right thing.
“The problem is, with these types of standards, they're really trying to shove government preferences down the throats of ordinary Americans because some people prefer other features in their cars,” Dayaratna says.
For example, he says that some people might prefer space while others prefer safety.
“Government should not be dictating that they should prefer mileage. That should be up to the market and consumers to decide,” Dayaratna states.
He dismisses the concerns from critics and mainstream outlets, who have framed the rollback through an environmental lens and warned it could worsen climate impacts, as alarmist math.
“It's absolutely not going to hurt the environment. I have run the numbers over the years. The claim, the premise of all of this is that cars... emit CO2 through their tailpipes and, therefore, negatively impact climate change,” Dayaratna says. “Even if you were to get rid of every single car and turn it into an EV where it emitted zero CO2, it would have less than 0.07 degrees Celsius temperature impact on the environment, even assuming worst-case scenarios by climate alarmists.”
He further argues that energy abundance and consumer freedom should take priority over federal mandates as the market continues to evolve. For now, automakers face a much less restrictive path forward heading toward the next decade.
