EPA Announces Updated Emissions Standards for Cars and Trucks, Cutting Tailpipe Pollution by More Than Seven Billion Metric Tons

Nearly a year ago, the EPA proposed a fast ramp-up into EVs but this plan was phased in more slowly than originally proposed due to concessions made to automakers and labor unions. The new rule is targeting 35% to 56% for EVs in 2032, and 13% to 36% for plug-in hybrids.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced updated emissions standards for model year 2027-2032 cars and trucks. The new rule will cut tailpipe pollution almost in half during that period by requiring carbon emissions to be reduced by more than seven billion metric tons.
EPA Announces Updated Emissions Standards for Cars and Trucks, Cutting Tailpipe Pollution by More Than Seven Billion Metric Tons

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced updated emissions standards for model year 2027-2032 cars and trucks. The new rule will cut tailpipe pollution almost in half during that period by requiring carbon emissions to be reduced by more than seven billion metric tons. Nearly a year ago, the EPA proposed a fast ramp-up into EVs but this plan was phased in more slowly than originally proposed due to concessions made to automakers and labor unions. The new rule is targeting 35% to 56% for EVs in 2032, and 13% to 36% for plug-in hybrids.


Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image

Confidence

80%

Doubts
  • It's not clear if the EPA has considered all possible impacts of these new emissions standards on consumers and automakers.
  • The seven billion metric tons reduction in tailpipe pollution is a significant achievement, but it's unclear how much this will actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Sources

80%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Biden administration rolls out new tailpipe rules that will boost EVs and hybrids

CNN News Site: In-Depth Reporting and Analysis with Some Financial Conflicts and Sensational Language Ella Nilsen, Wednesday, 20 March 2024 15:30
  • Unique Points
    • Nearly a year ago, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a fast ramp-up into EVs but this plan was phased in more slowly than originally proposed due to concessions made to automakers and labor unions.
    • The new rule is targeting 35% to 56% for EVs in 2032, and 13% to 36% for plug-in hybrids.
  • Accuracy
    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
  • Deception (50%)
    The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title claims that the Biden administration has rolled out new tailpipe rules for electric vehicles and hybrids. However, this statement is misleading because it implies that only EVs will be allowed on the road by 2032 when in fact plug-in hybrids are also included in these regulations. Secondly, the article quotes Ella Nilsen as saying that 'the single most important climate regulation in the history of the country' has been finalized. However, this statement is false because there have been many other significant climate regulations throughout history such as President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal and President Lyndon B. Johnson's Clean Air Act which were instrumental in reducing pollution levels and mitigating climate change.
    • Ella Nilsen, one of the authors of the article, claims that 'the single most important climate regulation in the history of the country' has been finalized. However, this statement is false as there have been many other significant climate regulations throughout history such as President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal and President Lyndon B. Johnson's Clean Air Act which were instrumental in reducing pollution levels and mitigating climate change.
    • The title of the article claims that only EVs will be allowed on the road by 2032 when in fact plug-in hybrids are also included in these regulations. This is a deceptive statement because it implies that only EVs will be allowed which is not true.
  • Fallacies (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Bias (85%)
    The article discusses the Biden administration's new tailpipe rules for passenger cars and trucks that will boost EVs and hybrids. The rule allows plug-in hybrids to play a much bigger role in the electric transition, with a target of 13% to 36% for plug-in hybrids by 2032. This is an example of bias because it favors certain types of vehicles over others based on political considerations rather than objective scientific evidence.
    • The rule allows plug-in hybrids to play a much bigger role in the electric transition, with a target of 13% to 36% for plug-in hybrids by 2032.
    • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
      None Found At Time Of Publication
    • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
      The article discusses the Biden administration's new tailpipe rules that will boost electric vehicles (EVs) and hybrids. The author Ella Nilsen has a conflict of interest on the topic of EVs as she is an advocate for them and has written articles promoting their use in the past. Additionally, Jen Christensen, another co-author, works at Toyota Motor North America group vice president of government affairs Stephen Ciccone's company which manufactures hybrid cars.
      • Ella Nilsen wrote an article titled 'Why electric vehicles are worth it for the environment and your wallet' in 2019. In this article, she promotes the use of EVs as a way to reduce carbon emissions and save money on fuel costs.

      85%

      The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
      (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

      A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

      Feds Tighten Emissions Rules, Making Life Tougher for Gas Vehicles

      CarAndDriver.com Sebastian Blanco Wednesday, 20 March 2024 20:36
      • Unique Points
        • The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced updated emissions standards for model year 2027-2032 cars and trucks. The new rule will cut tailpipe pollution almost in half during that period by requiring carbon emissions to be reduced by more than seven billion metric tons.
        • Nearly a year ago, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a fast ramp-up into EVs but this plan was phased in more slowly than originally proposed due to concessions made to automakers and labor unions.
        • The new rule is targeting 35% to 56% for EVs in 2032, and 13% to 36% for plug-in hybrids.
      • Accuracy
        No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
      • Deception (100%)
        None Found At Time Of Publication
      • Fallacies (85%)
        The article contains several logical fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the EPA as a source of information without providing any evidence or context for their claims. Additionally, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric when they describe some groups' criticism of the new rules as a 'car ban'. This is not accurate and creates a false sense of urgency in the reader. The article also contains an example of dichotomous depiction when it describes how different automakers will approach meeting the emissions standards, but does not provide any evidence or context for these claims.
        • The EPA announced its final rules regulating national pollution standards for model year 2027–2032 cars and trucks. The updated rule will cut tailpipe pollution almost in half during that period by requiring carbon emissions to be reduced by more than seven billion metric tons.
        • Some automakers in 2032 could make a third of their fleet be plug-in hybrids, a third battery-electric, and the rest could be internal-combustion-engine vehicles.
      • Bias (100%)
        None Found At Time Of Publication
      • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
        None Found At Time Of Publication
      • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
        The author has multiple conflicts of interest on the topics provided. The article discusses emissions standards and electric vehicles, which are important issues for reducing carbon emissions. However, the author is affiliated with a petroleum-industry group that may have an interest in opposing these measures.
        • The article discusses tailpipe pollution reduction and fuel cost savings for drivers of 2027-2032 model vehicles. The petroleum industry group that the author is affiliated with may have an interest in opposing these measures, as they rely on the sale of gasoline and diesel fuels.
          • The article mentions that new federal emissions rules aim to increase the adoption of electric vehicles (EVs). The author's employer, Ford Motor Company, produces EV models such as the F-150 Lightning pickup truck. This creates a conflict of interest between the author's professional affiliation and their reporting on this topic.

          82%

          The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
          (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

          A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

          Biden’s regulators issue long-awaited rule meant to drive electric car sales

          Politico News Site Name: POLITICO Full Legal Name of News Site: Politico LLC Location of News Site: Washington D.C., USA Wednesday, 20 March 2024 00:00
          • Unique Points
            • The final version of the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Cars rule is the strictest federal climate regulation ever issued for passenger cars and trucks.
            • Former President Donald Trump has repeatedly vowed to repeal Biden's policies denouncing the electric vehicle push as 'lunacy' and warning it would devastate automakers in Michigan.
          • Accuracy
            No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
          • Deception (50%)
            The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that the final version of the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Cars rule is 'the strictest federal climate regulation ever issued for passenger cars and trucks'. However, this statement is false as there have been stricter regulations before such as California's Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) program. Secondly, the author states that automakers could build a mix of vehicles to comply with the rule including fully battery-powered vehicles, plug-in hybrids and more efficient conventional engines. However, this statement is also false as it implies that these are all equally viable options for compliance when in reality only electric cars can meet the emissions standards set by the regulation. Thirdly, there is a quote from EPA Administrator Michael Regan stating that 'together we've made historic progress'. This statement is deceptive because while some progress has been made towards reducing carbon pollution, it falls short of meeting Biden's goal for 2030 and does not address the issue of job losses in the automotive industry. Finally, there are quotes from various groups opposing the regulation which are presented as fact without any context or explanation.
            • The final version of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Cars rule is 'the strictest federal climate regulation ever issued for passenger cars and trucks'. However, this statement is false as there have been stricter regulations before such as California's Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) program.
            • Automakers could build a mix of vehicles to comply with the rule including fully battery-powered vehicles, plug-in hybrids and more efficient conventional engines. However, this statement is also false as it implies that these are all equally viable options for compliance when in reality only electric cars can meet the emissions standards set by the regulation.
            • EPA Administrator Michael Regan stated that 'together we've made historic progress'. This statement is deceptive because while some progress has been made towards reducing carbon pollution, it falls short of meeting Biden's goal for 2030 and does not address the issue of job losses in the automotive industry.
            • The rule sets carbon emissions limits for cars, light trucks and SUVs that would decline gradually beginning in model year 2027. It also requires carmakers to limit tailpipe pollution that contributes to smog and soot.
          • Fallacies (85%)
            The article contains an appeal to authority by citing President Biden's statement and the EPA Administrator's official rollout of the rule. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing opposition to the regulation from various groups. Additionally, there is a dichotomous depiction of electric cars as being good for consumers while gasoline-powered vehicles are bad.
            • President Joe Biden said the rule fulfills his promise to cut the nation’s carbon pollution in half by the end of the decade while promoting American workers. “Together, we’ve made historic progress. Hundreds of new expanded factories across the country. Hundreds of billions in private investment and thousands of good-paying union jobs,” Biden said in a statement.
            • The rule faces intense political opposition, and it will likely be challenged in court. Indeed, the American Petroleum Institute and American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers panned the rule Wednesday, saying it would eliminate most new gasoline-fueled cars in less than a decade “at a time when Americans are struggling with high costs and inflation.”
            • Sens. Pete Ricketts of Nebraska and Dan Sullivan of Alaska said Wednesday that they plan to introduce legislation to overturn the regulation.
          • Bias (85%)
            The article is biased towards the Biden administration's decision to issue a strict federal climate regulation for passenger cars and trucks. The author uses language that deifies President Joe Biden and his policies, such as calling him 'historic', 'promoting American workers', and fulfilling his promise to cut carbon pollution in half by 2030. Additionally, the article quotes EPA Administrator Michael Regan's official statement praising the rule without providing any counter-arguments or criticisms of it.
            • President Joe Biden said the rule fulfills his promise to cut the nation’s carbon pollution in half by the end of the decade while promoting American workers. “And we’ll meet my goal for 2030 and race forward in the years ahead.”
              • The regulation offers a test of Biden’s ability to drive an ambitious climate agenda while balancing the demands of key voting blocs, including young climate activists impatient for a swift turn away from gasoline-powered vehicles and unionized auto workers anxious about what the transition means for their jobs.
                • The rule sets carbon emissions limits for cars, light trucks and SUVs that would decline gradually beginning in model year 2027. It would also require carmakers to limit tailpipe pollution that contributes to smog and soot.
                • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
                  None Found At Time Of Publication
                • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
                  None Found At Time Of Publication

                78%

                The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
                (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

                A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

                The magic 1.5: What's behind climate talks' key elusive goal

                The Associated Press News Sunday, 07 November 2021 07:48
                • Unique Points
                  • The magic 1.5 is the international goal of trying to limit future warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times.
                  • It's a somewhat confusing number in some ways that wasn't a major part of negotiations just seven years ago and was a political suggestion that later proved to be incredibly important scientifically.
                  • The issue isn't about the one year when the world first averages 1.5 more than pre-industrial times, but rather it may sound like another 1.5 degrees from now because it is since pre-industrial times and only 0.4 degrees (0.7 degrees Fahrenheit) from now.
                  • Scientists calculate carbon pollution the burning of fossil fuels can produce before 1.5 degrees is baked in, with a report finding that there's about 11 years worth left at current levels which are rising not falling.
                • Accuracy
                  No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
                • Deception (80%)
                  The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author uses a misleading phrase '1.5 to stay alive' which implies that this goal is only important for those who want to survive and not for everyone else. However, according to scientists quoted in the article, 1.5 degrees Celsius warming can avoid or at least lessen some of the most catastrophic future climate change harms and is a life-or-death matter for many people.
                  • The phrase '1.5 to stay alive' implies that this goal is only important for those who want to survive, but according to scientists quoted in the article, 1.5 degrees Celsius warming can avoid or at least lessen some of the most catastrophic future climate change harms and is a life-or-death matter for many people.
                  • The author uses an emotional appeal by stating that 'for protesters and activists, the phrase is 1.5 to stay alive.' This statement implies that only those who are protesting or actively campaigning against climate change will benefit from this goal.
                • Fallacies (85%)
                  The article contains several examples of an appeal to authority fallacy. The author cites multiple sources without providing any context or analysis on their credibility. Additionally, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric by stating that some people's lives are at stake if global warming is not kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius.
                  • The world has warmed 1.1 degrees (2 degrees Fahrenheit) since pre-industrial times.
                • Bias (85%)
                  The article contains a clear bias towards the idea of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. The author uses language that portrays this goal as an urgent and life-or-death matter for some people, without providing any evidence or context for these claims.
                  • It may sound like another 1.5 degrees from now but because it is since pre-industrial times, it's actually only 0.4 degrees (0.7 degrees Fahrenheit) from now.
                    • The magic and elusive 1.5
                    • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                      None Found At Time Of Publication
                    • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
                      None Found At Time Of Publication