Emissions reduction on the national level

At the beginning of April, the federal government announced new regulations for fuel economy. According to a report in The New York Times, the EPA and Transportation Department increased the fuel mileage for new cars to 35.5 mpg by 2016. "The rules are expected to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases about 30 percent from 2012 to 2016," according to the article, and the rules could also save the average driver $3,000 over the vehicle's lifetime.

Getting the standard increase was a battle that started in the 1970s. However, given the state of the auto industry and the push for greener autos in general, the move should not come as a huge surprise. In fact, automakers may welcome the idea because it matches national fuel economy to the 2004 California fuel restrictions, meaning they won't have to market cars in one state but not another because of differing standards. It will cost the industry an estimated $52 billion, but will save $240 billion in reduced pollution, oil imports, and gas prices, the Times reported.

The fact that the fuel standards fight lasted so long is no surprise, given U.S. reluctance to nationwide sustainability policies. "The US federal government has been very reluctant to develop policy related to many other dimensions of sustainable development, including land use, energy consumption, resource use, greenhouse gas emissions, equity (apart from civil rights), or urban growth management" (Wheeler, 2004, 121). However, it seems appropriate that issues dealing with greenhouse gas emissions be handled on the national level. If states or even smaller governments set their own emissions standards, auto manufacturers would spend significant amounts of money just trying to determine a localities regulation. Additionally, like most pollution, emissions do not just affect one city or one state. They spread. Issues such as clean water and endangered species are also handled at the national level, partly because they are concerns that are not deterred by artificial boundaries.

However, in the past, states have acted to regulate auto emissions. As mentioned above, new rules meet California standards that passed six years ago. States and cities filed suit against the Bush administration in order to be permitted to regulate greenhouse gases. Wheeler argues that states "offer smaller and more manageable political arena in which to bring about change" (ibid, 125), and can also push the national government to adopt more stringent policies in the long run.

In the case of California, it is the poster child for regulations stronger than the federal government. Air pollution issues in the state are a driving force. The state is already working on new regulations to start in 2017 that will be stricter than the national 35.5 mpg rule, according the Times article. Is this fair? Should states continue to be able to create a patchwork of regulations? Yes. While such regulations may be a headache for automakers, it is important that states retain some modicum of control that allows them the option to improve the health of the state by more strict regulation. Also, state laws can act as incentives for the national government to continue to update its own regulations.

The state laws should only enhance, not reduce, national environmental laws, including fuel economy standards. There should not be a race for the bottom. But states with automobile-driven societies, like in Los Angeles and in Phoenix, have a more vested interest in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles than less populated or less spread out areas.