Sunday, September 11, 2016

In Response to the Politico Article, "Obama tightens fuel efficiency rules for trucks" by Alex Guillen

In his article, Alex Guillen discusses the new round of emissions regulations announced by the EPA under the Obama administration. These rules are specifically geared towards “freight-hauling tractor trailers, garbage trucks, buses, and the largest class of pick-up trucks.” These new regulations, combined with those already enacted, are estimated to “save U.S businesses more than $1.9 trillion in energy costs and cut oil consumption by 8.1 billion barrels over the lifetime of the vehicle.” The EPA estimates that, all together, these rules would “eliminate carbon dioxide equal to cars travelling 17.7 trillion miles, or running 2,145 coal plants for one year.”


I believe that this is a great step forward not only for U.S. energy independence but for the advancement of renewable energy. In order to meet the regulations set forth by the EPA car companies will have either develop more efficient engines, invest in zero emissions power (such as electric power), or both. Either way this helps to stabilize our economy in times where oil is scarce and helps us get one step closer to our ultimate goal of carbon neutrality. The author of this article doesn't really take a side although there is a slight inclination towards supporting these policy changes. Having said this, the article appears mostly neutral. 

Image result for tractor trailer emissions

2 comments:

  1. I believe this is a great step in the right direction, and believe that the article does a great job of explaining the benefits of this plan. They use simple comparisons and numbers that can put these changes into perspective for the average person. Being a political news source I think they did a great job integrating in the environmental benefits of this new law.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This looks like a good source, covering an important topic, and since we know Politico covers politics - we know it also focuses on what's going on in Washington instead of what is going on in scientific communities or in the international community.

    ReplyDelete