Published • loading... • Updated
Trump administration relied on flawed logic to justify scrapping vehicle emission rules, study says
Researchers said correcting EPA errors would erase claimed savings and show the rollback costs Americans $670 billion, according to a study in Science.
- On Thursday, a study published in the journal Science reported that the Trump administration used flawed logic to justify scrapping vehicle emissions standards, making errors in accounting for fuel savings and technology costs.
- Earlier this year, the Trump administration revoked the endangerment finding, removing the legal basis for federal greenhouse gas regulation; The White House justified the move as a deregulatory action estimated to save Americans $600 to $790 billion.
- Correcting the Environmental Protection Agency's analysis would reduce estimated benefits by $1.5 trillion, according to researchers led by Antonio Bento, a professor of public policy and economics at the University of Southern California, suggesting the rollback will cost the country $670 billion.
- Bento argued that rollback standards force consumers to pay higher fuel costs, while the study found the agency under both the Trump and Biden administrations made faulty assumptions about efficiency improvements and vehicle costs.
- The Environmental Protection Agency maintains its economic analysis, stating it used updated assumptions on EV demand and fuel-price projections, and asserting it will not "push an EV mandate" on Americans but restore consumer choice.
Insights by Ground AI
10 Articles
10 Articles
Associated Press News+8 Reposted by 8 other sources
Trump administration relied on flawed logic to justify scrapping vehicle emission rules, study says
A new study contends the Trump administration relied on flawed logic to justify scrapping vehicle emissions standards, making errors it accounted for fuel savings, the price of technology and mileage.
·New York, United States
Read Full ArticleCoverage Details
Total News Sources10
Leaning Left5Leaning Right1Center4Last UpdatedBias Distribution50% Left
Bias Distribution
- 50% of the sources lean Left
50% Left
L 50%
C 40%
Factuality
To view factuality data please Upgrade to Premium
