For more than two decades, the causes of climate alarmism and the associated energy transition have provided adherents in American politics. In this matter, the supporters of the cause are equally strong, if not stronger in the politics of all countries with advanced economies, whether in the EU, or Canada, Australia, etc. In the US, so far, almost no politician – even those who claim to support generally smaller government or less regulation – has been willing to directly oppose the statement of “climate crisis,” or oppose the demand to reduce “carbon emissions.” “or to achieve a “net zero” energy economy through government coercion and massive subsidies. Most Republicans seeking office have been afraid to sidestep and delay the issue, unless they actually open up a left-leaning energy program.
I have been saying for a long time that this situation cannot last. The reason is that the proposed energy transition is not feasible and cannot be implemented; and efforts to achieve the unattainable through government mandates and subsidies will inevitably increase costs and will affect voters in ways they will soon see. At some point voters will react. But when will it happen?
You may not have noticed, but in the current election, push-back against crazy energy transition policies has suddenly become a winning political issue. For the first time, Republicans are clearly using the current patent consequences of the energy transition as a key strategy to win close races, including the presidency.
Consider the electric vehicle mandate issue. There is no question about where Kamala Harris stands on this issue now as a matter of official government action in which she has been personally involved. The Biden-Harris administration has been working to develop a mandate for EVs since the day the two took office, part of the administration’s “whole of government” approach to, supposedly, controlling climate change through regulation. Two main rules started in the subject, and gradually crept the way through the regulatory labyrinth. After years of process, the two rules became final, respectively, on April 18 and June 7, 2024. This is not ancient history, but something that happened more than four months ago, and it was big news at the time. Both Rules apply now. There’s no pretending this doesn’t exist, or that it’s part of some talking point that’s long before the Harris campaign has moved on. I covered these two rules in a June 8 post titled “The Latest On The Federal War Against Internal Combustion Vehicles.”
For those who are not following this, let’s review the offer. The April 18 rule came from the EPA, titled “Multi-Pollutant Emission Standards for Model Year 2027 and Light- and Medium-Duty Vehicles.” It is 373 pages long in the three-column, single-spaced format of the Federal Register. The point is to tighten the permitted emissions from internal combustion cars so that only fewer and smaller and smaller cars can meet. The June 7 rule comes from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and sets fuel economy standards for combustion vehicles. The title is “Company Average Fuel Economy Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks for Model Years 2027 and Later and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Heavy Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans for Model Years 2030 and Later.” This, often known as the “CAFE” standard, is 1004 pages in standard double-spaced typing.
Although the Regulation is in terms of emissions and fuel economy standards, it is clear on its face that the standards are set in a way that most internal combustion engine cars cannot meet, thus forcing the transition to mostly EVs in the early 2030s. My June 8th post cited a March 25th analysis from the Atlas EV Hub, which concluded that the EPA Rule could only force EVs to account for 69% of new vehicle sales by 2032:
These regulations will bring about significant changes in the auto industry, which could put the United States on the glide path to full electrification. . . . Under this final rule, battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids could make up 32 percent of all new vehicle sales in model year 2027, rising to 69 percent in model year 2032.
Sometime in late September or early October, the Trump campaign, sensing a political advantage, began running ads in Michigan emphatically stating that Harris was seeking to ban gasoline-powered cars. The ad video can be viewed at this link. Here are the first few sentences of the text:
Car workers. Kamala Harris wants to end all gas-powered cars. Crazy but true. Harris’ pressure to require electricity simply failed and Michigan auto workers paid the price. Massive layoffs have begun. You could be next. President Trump is committed to protecting America’s auto workers.
On October 4, reported by the New York Post here, Harris responded at a campaign rally in Flint, Michigan, with a statement:
“Michigan, let me be clear: Contrary to what my opponent suggests, I am not going to tell you what car you should drive.”
Of course Harris didn’t give anyone a chance to press him on the issue, or ask him to explain how the two new Rules aren’t an attempt to tell people “what cars can do.”
Meanwhile, in the Senate, on July 31, Ted Cruz proposed a resolution to repeal the EPA and NHTSA Rules, which Cruz correctly called the “Biden-Harris gas car ban.” The resolution ultimately won votes in both the House and Senate, forcing Democratic Senate candidates in close races to take a stand and defend it. One of them is Michigan Senate candidate Elissa Slotkin, currently in the House. Here is his statement defending the vote to uphold the Rule. Quote:
“In March, the EPA announced new emissions standards that had been planned in close consultation with the Michigan auto industry and Michigan auto workers. After responding to the legitimate concerns of automakers, the administration developed standards that were tough and aggressive, but also workable — and won the support of the auto industry and the UAW.
The statement continues from there with carefully calculated dissembling. It’s fun to watch him laugh.
A very similar dynamic has occurred in Pennsylvania, where Democratic Senate candidate Bob Casey is now pretending that he has been a big supporter of fracking.
We are in these early days. Harris, Slotkin, Casey, and others, can still win races. But whatever comes out this year, I predict that two and four years from now the needle will move further in the direction of energy sanity. Sooner or later, support for expensive and unusable energy will turn into political poison. It can’t happen fast enough.
related