For more than two decades, climate alarmism and the related causes of the energy transition have given their followers a powerful advantage in American politics. To this extent, supporters of these causes have an equally strong, if not stronger, advantage in the politics of all economically developed countries, whether in the EU, Canada, Australia and others. Historically, few politicians in the United States—even those who claimed to generally advocate smaller government or less regulation—were willing to directly oppose claims of a “climate crisis” or demands to reduce “carbon emissions.” Or achieve a “net-zero” energy economy through government mandates and large-scale subsidies. Most Republicans seeking office are intimidated into deflecting and delaying on these issues, if indeed they do not openly support the left's energy plans.
I have long said that this situation cannot continue. The reason is that the proposed energy transition is not feasible and is unlikely to work; efforts to achieve the impossible through government mandates and subsidies will inevitably increase costs or directly impact voters in the way they see it. At some point voters will respond. But when will it happen?
You may not have noticed, but in the current election, fighting against crazy energy transition policies has suddenly become a winning political issue. For the first time, Republicans are explicitly using the clear consequences of the energy transition as a key strategy to win close races, including the presidential election.
Consider the issue of electric vehicle mandates. There is no doubt that Kamala Harris' current position on this issue is a matter of official government action in which she is personally involved. The Biden-Harris administration has been working on some form of mandate for electric vehicles from the day the pair took office as part of a “whole-of-government” approach it says will control climate change through regulations. Two major rules were launched on this issue and gradually moved through the regulatory maze. After a multi-year process, these two rules became final on April 18 and June 7, 2024 respectively. . Two rules are now in effect. There’s no way to pretend that this didn’t exist, or that it was part of some long-ago talking point from Harris’ previous campaign that she has since moved away from. I introduced these two rules in a June 8 post titled “Latest Update on the Federal War Against Internal Combustion Vehicles.”
For those who haven't been following this closely, let's review the bidding. The April 18 rule comes from the EPA and is titled “Multiple Pollutant Emission Standards for Light- and Medium-Duty Vehicles for 2027 and Beyond.” The Federal Register has 373 pages in three-column, single-spaced format. The point is to gradually tighten the allowable emissions from internal combustion engine cars so that fewer and smaller cars can meet those requirements. The June 7 rule comes from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and sets fuel economy standards for combustion vehicles. It's titled “Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks of Model Years 2027 and Later and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Heavy-Duty Pickups and Vans of Model Years 2030 and Later.” This standard, often referred to as the “CAFE” standard, consists of 1004 pages, typed in standard double-spaced format.
Although the rules are spelled out in terms of emissions and fuel economy standards, on the face of it, it's clear that most internal combustion engine vehicles will not be able to meet the way these standards are set, forcing a shift to primarily electric vehicles by the early 2030s. My June 8 post cited a March 25 analysis from Atlas EV Hub, which concluded that EPA rules alone could force electric vehicles to account for 69% of new vehicle sales in 2032:
The regulations will bring significant changes to the auto industry, potentially putting the U.S. on the path to full electrification. . . . Under the final rule, pure electric and plug-in hybrid light vehicles will account for 32% of all new vehicle sales by 2027, rising to 69% by 2032.
Sometime in late September or early October, the Trump campaign, sensing a political advantage, began running an ad in Michigan making it clear that Harris was seeking a ban on gasoline-powered cars. A video of the ad can be viewed at this link. The following are the first few sentences of the text:
Auto workers. Kamala Harris wants to end all gas-powered cars. Crazy but true. Harris' push to require only electric vehicles failed, and Michigan's autoworkers are paying the price. Mass layoffs have already begun. You might be next. President Trump is committed to protecting America’s auto workers.
According to a report by the New York Post on October 4, Harris responded at a campaign rally in Flint, Michigan, and wrote in a statement:
“Michigan, let's be clear: Contrary to the advice of my opponents, I will never tell you what kind of car you have to drive.”
Of course, Harris didn't give anyone a chance to press her on the issue or ask her to explain how these two new rules didn't constitute an attempt to tell people “what kind of cars they can drive.”
Meanwhile, on July 31, Ted Cruz introduced a resolution in the Senate to repeal EPA and NHTSA rules, which Cruz correctly described as a “Biden-Harris gas vehicle ban.” The resolution ultimately came up for votes in the House and Senate, forcing Democratic Senate candidates in a close race to take a stand and defend it. One of them is Michigan Senate candidate Elissa Slotkin, who is currently in the House of Representatives. Below is her statement defending her vote for the rule. excerpt:
“In March, the EPA announced new emissions standards that were drafted in close consultation with the Michigan auto industry and Michigan autoworkers. Responding to the legitimate concerns of our automakers, the administration established strict, aggressive but achievable standards and won the support of the auto industry and the United Auto Workers.
The statement begins here, with a carefully orchestrated cover-up. It was fun to watch her squirm.
A similar situation is playing out in Pennsylvania, where Democratic Senate candidate Bob Casey now pretends he has been a big supporter of fracking.
We are in the early stages. Harris, Slotkin, Casey and others still have a good chance of winning the game. But whatever happens this year, I predict that two and four years from now, the needle will swing further in the direction of energy sanity. Sooner or later, support for expensive and unusable energy becomes politically toxic. This can't happen anytime soon.
Relevant
