Charles Milliken: The CARS Act is about more than cars
The House of Representatives, in a bipartisan vote, recently passed the Choice in Automobile Retail Sales Act (CARS) blocking the EPA from imposing regulations drastically restricting tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide. The EPA has proposed these rules in furtherance, naturally, of the same agenda of global warming alarmism now around for over half a century.
Lest you have forgotten, the earth has warmed a bit over the past couple of centuries. ( Despite that, we seem to be surviving.) Human beings using hydrocarbons are responsible for this. Cars use a lot of hydrocarbons. The EPA doesn’t yet have the guts to ban cars, (give them time), so the next best thing is to make hydrocarbon-powered cars all but unavailable, leaving only EVs. Presto. No carbon dioxide coming out of a tailpipe because there is no tailpipe. We’re saved!
Simple, isn’t it? What could be wrong with such impeccable logic? Let’s leave out, for the sake of argument, the dubious notion of human beings being the chief cause of global warming. What impact will these regulations have on the global supply of carbon dioxide? Supporters of the bill say 10 billion tons of carbon emissions will be saved over a five-year span — the language is ambiguous, but I guess that’s what is meant.
To put that in perspective, the U.S. emits about 5 billion tons a year. Of that, about 17% comes from light-duty vehicles, according to the EPA. That yields less than a billion tons a year, so how this regulation will save twice the total emissions from all the cars ever made and still on the road eludes me. Perhaps I have misinterpreted something along the way.
We all know, don’t we, that global warming is going to end civilization as we live it within the next generation or two, so how will this impact the looming disaster? Worldwide, the U.S. emits around 14% of global carbon emissions, and falling fast. Our absolute emissions have fallen around 20% over the past two decades. Continuing with this boring math exercise, a 17% reduction (which is clearly nonsense) of our 14% total yields about 2% of annual global carbon emissions. Does anyone think this is going to have any significant impact on the supposed catastrophes rapidly approaching your front door?
Continuing this exercise in logic, or common sense, now that all cars are electric cars, what is the source of the power they run on? Turns out about 60% of electricity generated in the U.S. is hydrocarbon-based, with the rest roughly equally divided between nuclear and renewables. So, chemistry and physics being what they are, emissions are removed from tailpipes with 60% moved to smokestacks. All things being equal, we are now down to a net worldwide reduction of 0.8%, more or less the additional amount China alone pumps into the atmosphere each year. India is coming up fast in the carbon emissions derby, probably passing the U.S. within 10 years, and Indonesia is rapidly becoming significant.
Obviously, this EPA proposal is absurd on its face as having any material effect on global warming. Then there are the myriad practical problems with EVs which explains why they are only toys for wealthy environmentalists. Range. Inconvenience. Cost. How are we going to pay for highway maintenance when there are no more revenues from gasoline taxes?
I realize climate change is a religion for the true believers, thus tossing facts and logic out the window. Cars are only one target of our hydrocarbon usage. I hope you’ve not gotten attached to your gas stove. But surely there must be a few at the EPA who know this whole exercise is ludicrous, so why do it? I guess control of the population to utopian ends is as good an explanation as any. Clearly, EVs aren’t the end game. Public transportation is. One Democrat speaking against this bill noted how it would hamstring the EPA in making decisions.
To which I can only say “Amen."
— Charles Milliken is a professor emeritus after 22 years of teaching economics and related subjects at Siena Heights University. He can be reached at milliken.charles@gmail.com.
This article originally appeared on The Holland Sentinel: Charles Milliken: The CARS Act is about more than cars
