On Saturday, President Trump announced that he had approved new vehicle fuel economy standards, and on Monday the Transportation Department made the final rule official. Within hours, the legacy media covered the rollback of Biden’s vehicle mandates with shrill criticisms. The New York Times told readers that the administration was gutting a signature federal effort to speed the shift to electric vehicles. Politico judged the revision “one more nail in the coffin” for Biden-era EV policy. Bloomberg’s headline announced that the US “guts” auto mileage rules, while the Washington Post ran its own story under the banner “Analysts are doubtful”, reporting that “experts” scoffed at the administration’s claim of a $1,300 cut in new-car prices.
The final rule requires a fleetwide average of 34.9 miles per gallon by model year 2031, in place of the roughly 50 mpg demanded by Biden’s standards. To the assembled commentariat, this is climate vandalism, a betrayal of drivers and a gift to Beijing. Every one of these claims is false or badly misleading. And the missing context – what the Biden mandates cost, who paid, and what they actually bought – is the story the legacy press coverage never reveals.
A funeral for a rule already dead
Start with an irony that the NYT buries in its own reporting. The paper conceded that Congress had already scrapped the fines for automakers that miss the mileage targets, leaving Monday’s rollback more symbolic than substantive. That penalty repeal, part of last year’s One
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I hope that allowing cars to have lower mileage will enable a return to cars with individual style instead of the wind tunnel engineered me too designs currently on sale. A 57 Chevrolet with fins, engineered using 2026 technology, would look great on my driveway.
The days of every average American car having a 5.0 litre V8 are behind us now anyway. They sounded great and had loads of character, but when a modern suitably mapped 2.0 turbocharged lump is knocking out similar power for a lot less fuel then people will naturally choose those instead. Fuel economy is a flex in itself.
Also, automated enforcement of speed limits (speed cameras) means that it matters less that you have a machine capable of reaching silly-mph. Only those getting out into the gaps between cities (for fun) are interested.
I used to read ‘Kit cars and specials‘ magazine and aspired to build one – but I never did. I think I once read that a silly-sized Chevrolet engine would fit into a Morris 1000 (Moggy Minor) chassis/body. That was probably wrong when I read it… but the idea!
For those who remember measuring fuel economy in proper gallons: The new CAFE target is 42mpg and the Biden target was 60mpg.
Regulation is the tool of low ability political management. They can’t fix any real problems so they impinge on peoples lives and choices to create an illusion of being in some way effective.
Your first sentence could be on a best selling t shirt
Another clear informative article. The reduction in actual pollutants since the 1970s is striking. Not that the soap dodging Greens loons will recognise, or acknowledge, that.
Nominally. But not really. It’ was about socialists wanting to impose central planning on us.
Socialists don’t think central planning is an unfortunate but necessary tool to solve problems. They think central planning is the right way and that markets are fundamentally flawed and cannot be relied on to allocate resources properly.
It’s a far bigger ideological issue. CO2 is just one of their many excuses to impose the economic system of their choice.