China is about to impose more stringent fuel economy standards for new cars, and especially for light trucks, minivans, and SUVs, than the United States.
This is good news, but the contrast makes metaphorical smoke come out of my ears. We have abdicated, so completely. The world has given up on us, and decided that if it is going to solve its environmental problems they will have to do it without help from the biggest economy and biggest polluter.
Of course, according to the article, China’s stated reasons have nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with decreasing future dependence on oil imports.
Also, unstated, but possibly another reason – having more strict standards than the US, Japan, and Korea will mean that the market for Chinese car buyers will limited to a much greater degree to cars of Chinese manufacture, though certainly foreign companies will look at conforming to the standards if they think they can make a buck or yuan or whatever.
Katherine, I’d be curious what you think are the reasons we’re so oblivious to the future.
I recalled in the days after 9/11 when there was a spirit of helpfulness and compassion in New York, and I thought, finally, the self-centered, short-sightedness that seemed to doom us to a cannibalistic future where we ended up devouring each other in our ferocious need to consume and consume and consume may actually end now.
It was only four days after 9/11 when I realized that was not the case. A privileged princess model type in the East Village snapped me out of my deluision as she shoved her entitled self past me and my friends in that “I’m late for a photo shoot, you silly little bugs, out of my way” fashion and I realized that this is who we are now in a big way.
How was she oblivious to the tragedy around her, I thought. As I continued on my way, I passed literally hundreds of posters and billboards and buses and taxi’s each promoting some expensive deisgner fix for my every ill.
I suspect it’s the virtually scientific manipulation of our emotions through advertising that makes us so short-sighted and shallow, but that’s a guess.
This may start a flame war. But what I really think, as far as the environment and many other things, is that we have a major party controlling all branches of government whose only strategy is to fool most of the people most of the time. We have a press that not only doesn’t uncover the truth but is often unwilling to narrow the range of acceptable lies. And we have a minority party that is not willing to stand up for its principles, or to try to convince people when the polls go against them.
I incline more towards political than sociological explanations.
I remember the same feeling after 9/11–I was totally freaked out and scared (I worked in a mental health program for refugees and survivors of violence and suddenly there it was in the city where I was born) but I thought at least some good might come out of it. My husband, ever the rational one, thought I was exagerating both the danger and the possible good effects. He was right. But perhaps it’s not too late.
I’d agree with your assessment about the political situation, but in the end, we, the people, allow that to be the case…
I’m questioned constantly by European friends who think we’re a bunch of spoiled brats who don’t care if we destroy the planet, so long as we have easy credit for our next SUV.
Apropos of mike p’s comment, I wonder whether this decision will factor into US-China trade negotiations (or at least the demagouging about them). I can see American car companies putting pressure on the government to demand that China rescind its “unfair” emissions regulations so that American cars can compete without the cost of R&D and changing production practices.
This may start a flame war.
Flame war? No just a roll of eyes. It’s actually embarassing to see you write stuff like that. ’tis your blog though…
Ever actually been to a decent-sized city in China, Katherine? They make Houston look like the middle of Alaska, air-quality wise.
I read somewhere that we’re a net CO2 sink, and China is a net source. I’m going to have to dig up a link on that, I know. Oh. It was here. I can’t find where the supporting data came from, though.
China’s gone from being moderately polluted to heavily polluted; this change goes hand-in-hand with the increasing presence of poorly regulated passenger cars on the continent. Now that they’re getting off the bicycle, it’s going to be difficult to get them back on.
I wouldn’t take that at face value, Slarti — this link seems to contradict it. I don’t know where the truth lies, but OTOH, a recent article leads me to be skeptical of environmental information coming from TCS.
I suspect it’s the virtually scientific manipulation of our emotions through advertising that makes us so short-sighted and shallow, but that’s a guess.
Speaking as someone working in advertising, I’ll level with you and let you know that thhe “virtually scientific manipulation of our emotions” is just another Madison Avenue lie to get our clients to pay us even more money.
Ah, the well has been thoroughly (although ham-handedly) poisoned, I see.
You should be skeptical of environmental information coming from anywhere, kenB. Seems there’s been some rather questionable practices on the part some rather well-known environmentalists.
Thanks for the link, kenB. I forgot to acknowledge that.
I have no pollution data on China; just firsthand experience in Wuhan, Changsha and Guangzhou. And the subsequent days blowing unpleasant black stuff out of my nose.
You should be skeptical of environmental information coming from anywhere, kenB.
I’m skeptical of all information coming from anywhere, especially any reports of scientific studies that have an impact on public policy — considering the potential bias of the scientists, the potential bias of the reporter and/or publisher, the likely ignorance of the reporter about the science itself, and the need of the reporter to have a good story to tell, not to mention the inherent difficulties in designing and conducting the research in the first place, there’s probably one science article in 500 that gets within spitting distance of the truth.
BTW, my reference to the “TCS as astroturf” article should be taken as a bit of topical humor rather than as a statement of my acceptance of it (would’ve helped if I’d included a smiley, I know). So don’t draw any conclusions about the toxicity of that well from me. And thanks for your link as well — the “carbon sink” notion was new to me.
Sorry I missed the joke. The idea that TCS would decide to run anything by Philip Shropshire to the end of more durable astroturf is pretty amusing, I’ll grant. Given his obvious political proclivities, I mean.
Yeah, this new policy had nothing to do with environmentalism and everything to do with oil. This is also assuming that it will actually be enforced.
My father was in Harbin a few years ago and could not believe the level of pollution. Coal, mostly. Oh yeah, they also spit everywhere and use some nasty solvents as cleansers.