

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Instead of continuing past success on reducing emissions, lowering consumer costs, and helping American automakers lead the global transition to clean vehicles, the Trump administration has moved to eliminate EPA actions that reduce climate pollution.
The Trump administration’s “Freedom to Pollute” agenda just went into overdrive.
The 2009 endangerment finding on climate emissions is the underlying basis for the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulatory responsibility for taking actions to address greenhouse gas pollution. U.S. President Donald Trump’s EPA just proposed to eliminate this science-backed finding which puts several rules, and their many health, climate, and consumer benefits, at risk. Among these rules are the wildly successful vehicle standards that are reducing pollution, saving drivers money at the pump, driving industry innovation, and providing more clean vehicle choices at the dealerships than ever before.
This action flies in the face of overwhelming evidence of climate harms and the legal basis for the determination, as my colleague Dr. Cleetus pointed out in her blog when EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin first noted his interest in targeting the finding. This, like so many other recent administrative actions, will be challenged in court and may eventually be determined to be illegal, as it most certainly is.
Congress established EPA to protect public health and welfare—and since climate change pollution is clearly endangering these things, EPA has a responsibility to do something about it. By eliminating the endangerment finding, EPA is trying to avoid its responsibility to act. This isn’t just bad news for reducing climate emissions and the worsening impacts of climate change that Americans are dealing with on a daily basis from intensified storms to extreme heat, but it’s going to mean spending more at the pump and fewer choices at the dealership.
Transportation—including the cars, trucks, and buses plying our roads everyday—is the LARGEST source of human-caused climate pollution in the U.S. accounting for 28% of the annual total. And globally, the U.S. is second only to China in overall annual climate pollution. So yes—our cars and trucks and the gasoline and diesel they burn DO contribute to climate change. And reducing those emissions is important for getting global emissions—and global temperatures—under control.
I don’t know anyone who wants to spend thousands of dollars more on gas—but that’s the path we are headed down by eliminating standards.
Alongside the endangerment finding action, the administration also announced it was eliminating all EPA vehicle greenhouse gas standards for passenger cars and heavy-duty trucks. Despite the most recent passenger car and heavy-duty truck EPA standards regulations being less ambitious than our analysis suggested was feasible, they represent the largest climate action the U.S. has ever taken, Combined, the latest greenhouse gas standards for cars and heavy-duty trucks would eliminate a total of approximately 8 billion tons of heat-trapping emissions—more than one year of total U.S. climate emissions. EPA’s Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis, released alongside the announcement to eliminate the standards, completely ignores the value of these benefits noting, “The EPA does not attempt to monetize the value, if any, of changes in GHG emissions that result from the proposed action.” We’ll be taking a closer look at what other logical and analytical gymnastics the administration is including in their assessment as we prepare comments on the proposal.
History has shown that vehicle standards are extremely effective at reducing pollution. Smog-forming pollutants, carbon monoxide, and dangerous particulates from tailpipes have all declined substantially from the 1960s and ‘70s and led to improved air quality and public health. This progress on pollution, along with steadily growing vehicle sales, occurred despite constant cries from the auto industry over the past half a century claiming vehicle pollution standards were bad for business, unachievable, etc. etc. Vehicle standards have been an essential tool to achieving lower tailpipe emissions and more efficient gasoline models as well as bringing an ever-increasing variety of electrified models to market.

The proof is in the pudding. Take this chart from EPA’s latest “Trends Report.” While fuel economy standards accelerated emissions reductions after the oil crisis in the 70’s, in the absence of further regulation (resulting from automaker and oil industry opposition) the emissions from new vehicles rose in the 1990s and early 2000s. Why? Because contrary to what the EPA argues in its proposal, the market does not work to innovate and cut fuel in the absence of regulation. Over the last 20 years, new fuel economy and emissions standards, currently being eliminated by this administration, have pushed new vehicles to the lowest level of emissions on record.
The data don’t lie: Vehicle standards work. Freed from binding fuel economy and emission standards in 90’s and early 2000’s, vehicle pollution increased as well as gasoline consumption. Recent fuel economy and emissions standards being eliminated by this administration have pushed new vehicles to the lowest level of emissions on record.
When Trump offered to payback oil industry donations with political favors, I don’t think oil executives themselves could have even dreamed up that this wishlist would be granted within seven months of his reentering the White House.
This latest attack on vehicle standards specifically covers EPA’s greenhouse gas standards for cars and commercial medium and heavy-duty trucks. The first of these EPA standards went into effect in model year 2012 for passenger cars. The figure above illustrates the declining emissions that have occurred for the average vehicle since their implementation. But here’s a more specific illustrative example of what that means in the real world.
The Toyota RAV4 is the best-selling SUV in the U.S. Before EPA standards, it went 15 years with essentially zero improvement in fuel economy or emissions. Thanks to EPA standards, buyers now have options that are 29-46% more efficient. These more efficient options are saving consumers hundreds of dollars at the gas pump every year while cutting emissions in half for the cleanest models. I don’t know anyone who wants to spend thousands of dollars more on gas—but that’s the path we are headed down by eliminating standards.

EPA’s standards haven’t only delivered more choices of lower polluting, and less fuel consuming gasoline cars and trucks. These standards have pushed traditional vehicle makers to add more hybrid and electric vehicle models to their lineups and encouraged new EV-only companies to bring products to market. The increased availability of hybrid electric (HEV), plug-in hybrid electric (PHEV), and Battery Electric (BEV) models driven by vehicle standards (as shown in the figure below) has given consumers more choices to cut their gasoline bills or eliminate them all together.

Global warming emissions from new vehicles, no matter the type of vehicle, are at record lows, largely through the use of hybrid and plug-in electric technologies deployed by manufacturers in response to EPA standards, exactly the technologies that this administration is now attacking.
While the above examples are about passenger vehicles, the story is similar for the heavy-duty trucks. As pointed out in our report on electric truck progress, Ready for Work 2.0.
“A few years ago, electric vans, buses, and trucks were essentially concept vehicles—today, more than 70 models of zero-emission MHDVs are being put to work around the country thanks to investments spurred by EPA greenhouse gas emission standards and state zero-emission vehicle requirements.”
“The momentum behind zero-emission trucks has swelled over the past several years, with registrations of electric trucks reaching record levels each year. In 2019, there were fewer than 1,000 new zero-emission trucks, buses, and vans registered in the United States.”
Now there are 150,000 thousand electric medium and heavy-duty vehicles ranging from large pick-up trucks and delivery vans to a growing number of big rigs.

Reductions in heavy-duty truck emissions, fuel consumption, and the increasingly common sight of electric delivery trucks on our streets is no accident. It’s the result of policies like EPA’s vehicle standards.
Instead of trying to continue this success on reducing emissions, lowering consumer costs, and helping American automakers lead the global transition to clean vehicles, the Trump administration has moved to eliminate EPA actions that reduce climate pollution.
While some vehicle makers are guilty of fighting against state and federal vehicle standards so they can continue to wallow in global mediocrity, the oil industry is the one laughing all the way to the bank. For decades the oil industry has used fraud and deceit to avoid the realities of climate pollution, so it is no surprise they want to prolong the life of combustion vehicles as long as possible. They just scored big time in Trump’s tax bill, as my colleague details in their recent blog, and were already basking in the glow of Congress’ decision to pull the rug out from under the state clean car and truck standards and neutering the Department of Transportation’s fuel economy standards by eliminate compliance fines. Now they get another gift in in the elimination of EPA rules that would result in U.S. car and truck drivers spending billions more on gasoline and diesel than they would have otherwise. When Trump offered to payback oil industry donations with political favors, I don’t think oil executives themselves could have even dreamed up that this wishlist would be granted within seven months of his reentering the White House.
How much will the rest of us be paying to the oil industry, you ask? If all of these rollbacks take effect, there’s nothing stopping the auto industry from backsliding on the progress that’s been made. But just looking at the benefits of the rules that have yet to take effect gives a good idea. Owners of new passenger cars subject to the standards between 2027 and 2032 would have saved an estimated $6,000 over the life of the vehicle. Eliminating the Phase 3 heavy-duty truck GHG standards for model years 2027 through 2032 will increase net costs to truck drivers by $2 billion. These numbers are just the tip of the iceberg.
The attack on logic, reason, and just plain common sense might be comic, if it wasn’t so serious as pointed out in my colleagues “danger season” blog post. The irony of this past week’s extreme heat event impacting more than 150 million Americans happening at the same time as the administration’s latest climate-denial move was painfully apparent in this Fox News clip.
This is the time to accelerate, not throw us into reverse. Instead, the White House is seeking to trash these vital protections, using the flimsiest and most self-serving of rationales, showing yet again it is willing to sacrifice public protections for polluters’ gain. For U.S. drivers, it means less choices at the dealership and more pain at the pump.
One critic said the party's "top priority is making working- and middle-class families pay more for healthcare, lifesaving medications, food, cars, and electronics, all to fund more tax breaks for the ultrawealthy."
The national campaign Unrig Our Economy said Wednesday that U.S. President Donald Trump's promise of tariffs targeting the automobile industry, pharmaceuticals, and semiconductor chips is just the latest evidence that elected Republicans are prioritizing megarich individuals and corporations, not working people.
"This action is further proof that Republicans' top priority is making working- and middle-class families pay more for healthcare, lifesaving medications, food, cars, and electronics, all to fund more tax breaks for the ultrawealthy," said Unrig Our Economy spokesperson Kobie Christian in a statement.
The statement followed Trump discussing the forthcoming tariffs with reporters on Tuesday at his Florida residence, Mar-a-Lago. Bloomberg's Hadriana Lowenkron asked about his plans for new taxes on imports.
For the auto industry, "I probably will tell you that on April 2, but it'll be in the neighborhood of 25%," Trump said. For pharmaceuticals and semiconductors, he added, "it'll be 25% and higher, and it'll go very substantially higher over course of a year," giving those industries some time to set up U.S. factories to avoid the tariffs.
On April 1, "members of his Cabinet are due to deliver reports to him outlining options for a range of import duties as he seeks to reshape global trade," Reuters reported.
Trump's 10% tariff for imports from China has taken effect, but his 25% tariffs targeting Canada and Mexico have been delayed.
David Greene, an industry analyst at Cars.com, told CNN that "if the administration moves forward with a 25% tariff on all auto imports, car shoppers should get ready for some sticker shock at dealerships."
"If new car prices increase, more buyers will shift toward used vehicles, and as demand rises, so will prices," Greene said.
The president's latest comments on tariffs came after Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives last week advanced out of committee a budget plan that would cut healthcare and food assistance programs to fund tax giveaways for the rich.
The Economic Policy Institute last week released a report detailing how extending the expiring provisions from the tax law that Republican lawmakers passed and Trump signed in 2017 "will have painful trade-offs for the U.S. economy and most Americans."
Christian said Wednesday that "even as the cost of everyday goods continues to rise and Trump and the billionaires in his administration arbitrarily cut programs that help feed children and seniors, Republicans in Congress are still pushing forward an agenda that would give billions in handouts to the wealthiest few, while leaving the rest of us behind."
"Our representatives in Congress need to look out for their constituents," the spokesperson added, "instead of prioritizing cost-raising tariffs to bankroll a massive payday for billionaires and giant corporations."
If we take President Donald Trump at his word, his policies will slam the brakes on innovation or the next four years—just long enough to potentially send the Detroit auto industry into a death spiral.
t came upon a midnight clear, a vision both complete and quite specific—not from any of those “angels bending near the Earth to touch their harps of gold,” as in the Christmas carol, but from a long line of trucks on the Indiana Toll Road.
On that cold winter’s night about five years ago, the 18-wheelers were playing their usual game to stay awake, passing each other endlessly and slowing me down to 60 miles an hour when I wanted to do 70 or, I’ll admit it, 75. When I pulled into a rest stop to gas up, about 50 of those big rigs were parked there. Their drivers were taking the federal government’s mandatory 11- or 12-hour rest breaks.
A quick bit of mental arithmetic told me that 50 big rigs, each costing $200,000 new, meant that $10 million in working capital was snoozing profitlessly by the side of that road. Back on the highway in a radio-dead zone, my mind wandered as I wondered just how many trillions of dollars in capital were tied up when America’s three million big rigs spent half their working days functionally asleep. Surely, I thought, there must be a better way to run the world’s biggest consumer economy.
As I hit the Chicago Skyway with its rough pavement and rusting guard rails, a vision of America’s automotive future came to me in a flash, complete in every detail. One day in the not-too-distant future, the left lane of every Interstate highway across America would be filled with platoons of a dozen or so 18-wheelers, all electric, all driverless, going 70 miles per hour only 10 feet apart to draft in the slipstream and cut their energy consumption by 30%. In the right lanes, electric passenger vehicles would be driving, hands-free, until they reached their exit ramps. To keep the navigation signal constant, the highway reflectors would have become wireless transmitters, linked by fiber-optic cables to ensure safety.
Then, as I merged into that crazy-fast nighttime traffic on Chicago’s Kennedy Expressway, I came up with what I thought was my really big idea. Outside every major city, those all-electric big rigs would pull into an automated depot to exchange their standard-sized batteries, allowing a full charge in five minutes. There, human truckers, probably more of them than ever before, would take over, navigating crowded city streets and tight loading docks with hard-won skills that no robot could ever replicate.
When I got home to Madison, Wisconsin late that night, I went online to test my vision with some quick numbers. In 2020, the costs for a big rig’s driver, fuel, and engine maintenance were as much as $2.20 a mile, so a typical thousand-mile run from Port Newark on the East Coast to Chicago could cost $2,200. By contrast, a driverless electric semi-slipstreaming in a peloton would make the same trip for just $70—with the cost of drivers at near-zero, energy outlays down to five cents per mile, and maintenance reduced to tire replacement—not to mention the incalculable gains from doubling each rig’s driving time to 24/7.
Until recently, I kept that midnight vision to myself, except for an occasional dinner-table chat after a second glass of wine. Frankly, it all seemed a bit much for prime time. Even electric passenger vehicles, much less semi-trucks, faced two key barriers to widespread acceptance in America—range and cost. In the upper Midwest where I live, a cold winter’s day can cut the 300-mile range of an electric car like a Tesla to just 150 miles. Although I could make the 250-mile drive in an electric vehicle from the state capital of Madison to hike or ski in Northwoods Wisconsin, there’s no public charger anywhere nearby. So there’s no way to get back. And cost? While you can get a reliable gas-powered Honda Civic for $24,000, a comparable electric vehicle like the Hyundai Ioniq now costs $39,000.
But just last week, I was surfing the EV (electric vehicle) test drives in Edmunds and Kelly Blue Book when a web page popped up with the title “Seven Long-Range Electric Cars from China.” I was stunned to read that a car I’d never heard of, the NIO ET7, comes with a standard 649-mile range and complimentary access to “3,000 battery swap stations across China.”
Following Ford’s time-tested lead, China’s largest automaker, BYD, is selling its Dolphin hatchback EV for a low-low $15,000, complete with a 13-inch rotating screen, ventilated front seats, and a 260-mile range.
Was my midnight vision becoming clearer? Yes, the article said, “the battery swap stations allow you to exchange your depleted battery for a fully charged one in just a few minutes, minimizing downtime.” Another cutting-edge Chinese car few in America have ever heard of, the ZEEKR 001, can load a 300-mile charge in 11 minutes flat, less time than it takes to pump an equivalent-mileage of gas. And a Chinese car unknown here, the XPENG P7, has an innovative battery that “operates optimally” in temperatures ranging down to –22°F, ending the cold weather battery loss that makes EV driving so frustrating in Midwest winters.
And what about their price? While Detroit is maxing profits by pricing the tricked-out Ford F-150 Lightning EV truck for $87,000 and GM’s similar Silverado EV costs $96,000, China has gone back to basics with a latter-day Model T Ford—reliable, affordable cars for the average worker.
European companies were hand-crafting cars for the rich as early as 1890. The Detroit auto industry didn’t get a jump-start until 1908 when Henry Ford mass-produced the Model T for what began as a reasonably affordable $850 and soon had dropped to $345—unprecedented pricing that ramped that car’s production relentlessly up to an impressive 2 million units a year. In just 10 years, half of all the cars in America were Model Ts.
Following Ford’s time-tested lead, China’s largest automaker, BYD, is selling its Dolphin hatchback EV for a low-low $15,000, complete with a 13-inch rotating screen, ventilated front seats, and a 260-mile range. Here in the U.S., you have to pay more than twice that price for the Tesla Model 3 EV ($39,000) with lower tech and only 10 more miles of driving range. In case $15K beats your budget, the Dolphin has a plug-in hybrid version with an industry-leading 74-mile range on a single charge for only $11,000 and an upgrade with an unbeatable combined gas-electric range of 1,300 miles. Not surprisingly, EVs surged to 52% of all auto sales in China last year. And with such a strong domestic springboard into the world market, Chinese companies accounted for more than 70% of global EV sales.
It’s time to face reality in the world of cars and light trucks. Let’s admit it, China’s visionary industrial policy is the source of its growing dominance over global EV production. Back in 2009-2010, three years before Elon Musk sold his first mass-production Tesla, Beijing decided to accelerate the growth of its domestic auto industry, including cheap, all-electric vehicles with short ranges for its city drivers. Realizing that an EV is just a steel box with a battery, and battery quality determines car quality, Beijing set about systematically creating a vertical monopoly for those batteries—from raw materials like lithium and cobalt from the Congo all the way to cutting-edge factories for the final product. With its chokehold on refining all the essential raw materials for EV batteries (cobalt, graphite, lithium, and nickel), by 2023-2024 China accounted for well over 80% of global sales of battery components and nearly two-thirds of all finished EV batteries.
Clearly, new technology is driving our automotive future, and it’s increasingly clear that China is in the driver’s seat, ready to run over the auto industries of the U.S. and the European Union like so much roadkill. Indeed, Beijing switched to the export of autos, particularly EVs, to kick-start its slumbering economy in the aftermath of the Covid-19 lockdown.
Given that it was already the world’s industrial powerhouse, China’s auto industry was more than ready for the challenge. After robotic factories there assemble complete cars, hands-free, from metal stamping to spray painting for less than the cost of a top-end refrigerator in the U.S., Chinese companies pop in their low-cost batteries and head to one of the country’s fully automated shipping ports. There, instead of relying on commercial carriers, leading automaker BYD cut costs to the bone by launching its own fleet of eight enormous ocean-going freighters. It started in January 2024 with the BYD Explorer No. 1, capable of carrying 7,000 vehicles anywhere in the world, custom-designed for speedy drive-on, drive-off delivery. That same month, another major Chinese company you’ve undoubtedly never heard of, SAIC Motor, launched an even larger freighter, which regularly transports 7,600 cars to global markets.
Those cars are already heading for Europe, where BYD’s Dolphin has won a “5-Star Euro Safety Rating” and its dealerships are popping up like mushrooms in a mine shaft. In a matter of months, Chinese cars had captured 11% of the European market. Last year, BYD began planning its first factory in Mexico as an “export hub” for the American market and is already building billion-dollar factories in Turkey, Thailand, and Indonesia. Realizing that “20% to 30%” of his company’s revenue is at risk, Ford CEO Jim Farley says his plants are switching to low-cost EVs to keep up. After the looming competition led GM to bring back its low-cost Chevy Bolt EV, company vice president Kurt Kelty said that GM will “drive the cost of E.V.s to lower than internal combustion engine vehicles.”
What about Tesla, America’s pioneering EV maker? With its CEO Elon Musk off playing pretend president, its worldwide vehicle deliveries fell last quarter for the first time in a decade, even as BYD’s global sales shot up 12% to 1.76 million, beating Tesla by a 20% margin to become the world’s biggest EV car-maker. Even though Tesla still accounts for almost half of this country’s EV sales and has a current market capitalization of $1.3 trillion, Musk’s model line-up now seems increasingly outmoded, over-priced, and unappealing, exemplified by his latest launch, the “weird” Cybertruck with a “nonsensical exterior,” which starts at $82,000 for a minimal 330-mile driving range. Even though Tesla is still the world’s “most valuable automotive brand,” stock pickers and short-sellers take note: Its car sales could be toast within five years, though its still-small division making electrical semi-trucks has real growth potential. (And take note as well that I’m not giving stock advice, just making a point on where I think our world’s heading.)
Realizing that their auto industries are facing a carmageddon of Chinese competition, the U.S. and Europe are already slapping heavy tariffs on imports from China. With its robotic factories cranking out one complete car every 76 seconds, China is ready to crush rival car companies and build 80% of all the world’s autos, as it already does with solar panels. Last June, the European Union imposed additional duties of 17% on China’s BYD and 38% on SAIC, but the Biden administration had already beaten that with a flat 100% duty on all Chinese EVs. And count on one thing: That’s just the start. In his second term in office, Donald Trump has already promised an additional 10% tariff on all Chinese imports, cars included—protecting the U.S. auto industry just long enough for it to decline into technological obsolescence.
In our integrated global economy, cars are a commodity like copper, oil, food, or textiles. In capitalist societies, commodities are not just products but the sinews that bind together nations on an otherwise disparate planet and a force like water that always finds its own level. Even if those tariffs manage to keep American workers buying overpriced, outmoded vehicles, the big four of the U.S. auto industry—Ford, GM, Stellantis, and Tesla—can hardly afford to lose their overseas markets. Last quarter, China’s motorists accounted for a hefty 40% of Tesla’s total worldwide sales, so Elon Musk faces an impossible contradiction: how to get President Trump to protect his U.S. market with high tariffs on Chinese cars while somehow avoiding Beijing’s wrath. Finding a way through that conundrum will likely prove challenging for Tesla.
So, what does all this mean for America? In the past four years, the Biden administration made real strides in protecting the future of the country’s auto industry, which is headed toward ensuring that American motorists will be driving $10,000 EVs with a 1,000-mile range, a 10-year warranty, a running cost of 10 cents a mile, and 0 (yes zero!) climate-killing carbon emissions.
Not only did former President Joe Biden extend the critical $7,500 tax credit for the purchase of an American-made EV, but his 2021 Infrastructure Act helped raise the number of public-charging ports to a reasonable 192,000, with 1,000 more still being added weekly, reducing the range anxiety that troubles half of all American car owners. To cut the cost of the electricity needed to drive those car chargers, his 2022 Inflation Reduction Act allocated $370 billion to accelerate the transition to low-cost green energy. With such support, U.S. EV sales jumped 7% to a record 1.3 million units in 2024.
Most important of all, that funding stimulated research for a next-generation solid-state battery that could break China’s present stranglehold over most of the components needed to produce the current lithium-ion EV batteries. The solution: a blindingly simple bit of all-American innovation—don’t use any of those made-in-China components. With investment help from Volkswagen, the U.S. firm QuantumScape has recently developed a prototype for a solid-state battery that can reach “80% state of charge in less than 15 minutes,” while ensuring “improved safety,” extended battery life, and a driving range of 500 miles. Already, investment advisors are touting the company as the next Nvidia.
The loss or even weakening of the U.S. auto industry would have a devastating effect on this country’s economy and its quality of life.
But wait a grim moment! If we take President Donald Trump at his word, his policies will slam the brakes on any such gains for the next four years—just long enough to potentially send the Detroit auto industry into a death spiral. On the campaign trail last year, Trump asked oil industry executives for a billion dollars in “campaign cash,” and told the Republican convention that he would “end the electrical vehicle mandate on day one” and thereby save “the U.S. auto industry from complete obliteration.” And in his victory speech last November, he celebrated the country’s oil reserves, saying, “We have more liquid gold than anyone else in the world.”
Then, just last month, president-elect Trump “vowed” to repeal Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act and its $400 billion in unspent funds for green energy, while his transition team began to plan a “sweeping rollback” of federal support for the adoption of EVs—including shifting charging-station appropriations to defense, blocking California’s strict emission standards, and ending the $7,500 tax credit that has made EVs affordable for many Americans. More broadly, he’s promised to reverse Biden’s ban on oil leases in federal waters, saying just this month: “It’s ridiculous. I’ll unban it immediately. It’ll be changed on Day One.”
But, you might protest, it’s only four years, right? How much damage can be done in just one itty-bitty presidential term? The answer is all too grim: With technology passing us at 100 miles an hour, four years isn’t a term; it’s an era, a veritable epoch. Think back to 2020. Worldwide EV sales were just 1.6 million then; now they’re up 10-fold to 16.6 million and rising fast. Chinese motorists bought just 1 million EVs in 2020; now they’re buying 10 million a year. Then, the reasonably affordable 2020 Hyundai Ionic EV had a relatively useless driving range of 133 miles; now, it has a very usable 342 miles. Back in that day, QuantumScape’s extended-range solid-state EV battery seemed so improbable it was damned by stock-pickers as “a pump and dump… scam”; now Volkswagen is taking that company’s prototype into mass production.
So here’s the reality of it all: The loss or even weakening of the U.S. auto industry would have a devastating effect on this country’s economy and its quality of life. At the moment, the industry employs 13 million workers, including 1 million in manufacturing. We’re talking about a solid 10% of the country’s full-time workforce of 133 million.
Under their 2023 union contract, striking unionized UAW auto assembly workers won an hourly wage of $35 and skilled trades got $50, which is a gate pass into the American middle class. Not only did President Biden join a UAW picket line with striking auto workers, but he engineered a full-spectrum transition to EVs, understanding that they represent the future of the auto industry. Indeed, as Biden explained while signing a 2021 executive order requiring that 50% of all cars sold in America by 2030 be EVs: “We need to grow good-paying, union jobs at home, lead on electric vehicles around the world, and save American consumers money.” As Biden all too accurately reminded that UAW picket line at the Willow Run GM plant: “The middle class built the country, and unions built the middle class.”
During his upcoming four-year term, despite the present support of Elon Musk—and who knows how long he’ll last in Trump world—President Trump has made it clear that he will undo all of that, promote fossil fuels in a massive fashion, ignore climate change, and potentially hand the economic future to China (which already makes 80% of the world’s solar panels and 60% of its wind turbines), while creating a carmageddon for this country’s auto industry.
And what about my midnight vision of that peloton of all-electric, driverless semi-trucks slipstreaming down the Interstate at 70 mph? Yes, it’s coming. But with Trump as our driver for the next four years, we can only pray to those angels with the golden harps that electric semi-trucks and their batteries will somehow, someday, be made in America.
"We believe that if Stellantis can afford to spend over $8 billion this year on stock buybacks and dividends, it can live up to the contractual commitments it made to the UAW."
In what the United Auto Workers hailed as "a powerful show of solidarity," scores of U.S. lawmakers on Thursday sent letters to "Big Three" automaker Stellantis and its CEO, Carlos Tavares, urging them to honor their contractual obligation to their employees, protect American jobs, and stop making excuses amid record profits and multibillion-dollar stock buybacks and dividends.
"We are writing to express our growing concerns about the failure of Stellantis, under your leadership, to honor the commitments it made to the United Auto Workers (UAW) in last year's collective bargaining agreement," says one letter led by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), and Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) and signed by 18 of their Democratic colleagues.
"We urge Stellantis not to renege on the promises it made to American autoworkers and to provide details on the timelines for these investments," the senators wrote.
Meanwhile, 56 members of the Congressional Labor Caucus led by Reps. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), and Donald Norcross (D-N.J.) sent a separate letter, this one to Stellantis' board of directors, calling on Chrysler's parent company to "follow through on promises to workers to invest in its domestic workforce."
"Given the significant governmental financial support for Stellantis over the years, we have become alarmed by a steady stream of reports indicating your plans to lay off auto workers and move production out of the United States, and that you are failing to honor contractual commitments that Stellantis made as part of the 2023 national collective bargaining agreement," the letter states.
Last November, UAW workers at the Big Three—GM, Ford, and Stellantis—ended a six-week "stand-up strike" and signed new contracts with better pay, benefits, and working conditions. Stellantis committed to making nearly $19 billion in new domestic investments, reopening its "indefinitely idled" Belvidere, Illinois plant, continue manufacturing the Dodge Durango SUV in Detroit through 2025, and build the next-generation Durango in the city starting in 2026, among other promises.
However, according to the senators' letter:
Stellantis is now delaying planned investments to reopen and expand the Belvidere assembly plant, leaving behind thousands of American workers who built the company into the auto giant it is today. We are also concerned with reporting that Stellantis is planning to move production of the next-generation Dodge Durango out of the United States, after previously announcing layoffs that threaten the economic security and well-being of thousands of autoworkers.
Moreover, Stellantis has stated publicly that it plans to source 80% of supply from "low-cost countries" like Mexico. By your own admission, Stellantis' growth plan hinges on shifting "industrial production into cost-competitive countries" like Mexico, where workers are making substandard wages. These actions violate the obligations Stellantis made to the UAW.
"Taxpayers are currently funding consumer incentives for several Stellantis vehicles and Stellantis is slated to receive $585 million under the Domestic Manufacturing Conversion Grant Program," the House lawmakers noted in their letter. "Under this program, Stellantis is on track to pocket $335 million to reopen the Belvidere Assembly plant in Belvidere, Illinois. As stewards of taxpayer funding, we have a responsibility to ensure these investments benefit the public interest."
"We hope it is clear to you that the American people will not tolerate taxpayer subsidies for a company that is cutting production and slashing jobs—all the while it increases executive compensation, dividends to shareholders, and stock buybacks," the letter adds.
The senators noted that "this year, Stellantis has spent over $8 billion on stock buybacks and dividends to benefit its wealthy executives and stockholders, and that "last year, while blue-collar auto workers in Belvidere were being laid off indefinitely, you were able to receive a 56% pay raise boosting your total compensation to $39.5 million, which made you the highest paid executive among traditional auto companies."
"During the first six months of this year, Stellantis has generated over $6 billion in profits, making it one of the most profitable auto companies in the world," the letter adds. "We believe that if Stellantis can afford to spend over $8 billion this year on stock buybacks and dividends, it can live up to the contractual commitments it made to the UAW."
Last week, the UAW published a powerful video in which union president Shawn Fain makes some of the same demands that are in the lawmakers' letters.
"For years, this company has picked us off, plant by plant, and our leadership lacked the will and the means to fight back," Fain said in the video. "Those days are over."
Fain continued:
Stellantis management has launched a campaign of intimidation and harassment against our members, our local unions, and the International UAW to try to get us to back down from the fight to save our jobs.
I have bad news for Stellantis: We're not going anywhere.
Their corporate lawyers are claiming that our fight to keep jobs in Belvedere, Detroit, and America is based on what they call "sham grievances."
But here's the real sham: Over the past nine weeks, Stellantis has spent over a billion dollars on stock buybacks, all while saying they can't afford to keep their commitments to their own employees. In fact, Stellantis has spent $3 billion on stock buybacks this year alone.
The real sham is this campaign of intimidation and interference in our union's business. Stellantis managers are calling members, threatening their jobs. They're emailing our local presidents threatening lawsuits. This is what happens when a CEO is cornered and isolated. His dealers in America and Europe are turning against him. His suppliers and shareholders are suing him, and he's pushing our customers away.
And the sham is that he will walk away with a golden parachute of millions and millions of dollars, while American autoworkers are left holding the bag.
"The sham took place this week when he was asked about stepping down or being replaced, Carlos Tavares said, and I quote, 'I signed a contract,'" Fain said. "Well, Carlos, the workers at Stellantis signed a contract too, and it's time for you to honor it."
Calling on UAW members to sign a strike authorization pledge over Stellantis' broken promises, Fain vowed that "we will once again save this company from mismanagement, from corporate greed, and from killing tens of thousands of good jobs."
"But only if we stick together," he stressed. "So, are you in? If you are, sign your strike authorization pledge today. And you can do that by going to shitcancarlos.com."
"Let the company know where you stand," Fain added. "And together, let's tell Stellantis: The days of plant closures are over, and Carlos Tavares needs to go."
"Kamala Harris has stood with labor," said Shawn Fain. "She's walked the walk. Donald Trump serves himself. He's always served himself."
The head of the largest U.S. autoworkers union on Thursday highlighted the yawning chasm between former President Donald Trump's campaign promises to protect the country's auto industry and the 2024 Republican nominee's White House record—which includes hundreds of thousands of lost manufacturing jobs.
Speaking on a call hosted by the campaign for Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, United Auto Workers president Shawn Fainargued that "there is a stark contrast between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris."
"Kamala Harris has stood with labor," Fain said of the UAW-endorsed candidate. "She's walked the walk. Donald Trump serves himself. He's always served himself."
Taking aim at Trump's claims that he's the best choice for U.S. autoworkers and that he's "always had their back," Fain said:
Look at the Lordstown, Ohio assembly plant. [Trump] told workers there, "Don't sell your houses." The plant closed. He came to Warren, Michigan, a week ago or two. Again, wants to talk about how he cares about autoworkers. But we had [General Motors'] powertrain plant in Warren closed under his watch. He did nothing. Trump stood there in 2016 and promised that he wouldn't allow a single plant to close.
However, plant closures and offshoring increased during the Trump administration, during which domestic auto production plummeted from nearly 12.2 million units in 2016, the last full year of the Obama administration, to under 8.2 million units in 2020, Trump's last full year in office, according to the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. While Covid-19 affected that year's production, fewer than 10.9 million vehicles were manufactured domestically in pre-pandemic 2019.
Fain, who noted this trend, called Trump the "job-killer-in-chief."
The UAW chief also mocked reports that numerous attendees wearing "autoworkers for Trump" T-shirts at a Tuesday rally for the Republican in Detroit weren't actually autoworkers.
"It's pathetic. Everything he does is a con," Fain said of Trump.
Referring to the multibillionaire CEO of electric vehicle maker Tesla, Fain added that Trump "sits there and applauds Elon Musk for trying to fire striking workers, and they laugh about that."
"And that's why I said Donald Trump is a scab," the union leader added, using the term for nonunion workers who cross picket lines during strikes.
During last year's UAW strike for a fair contract, President Joe Bidenmade history by becoming the first-ever sitting U.S. president to join striking workers on a picket line. Four years earlier, Harris, then a U.S. senator from California running for president, walked a picket line with striking UAW workers in Reno, Nevada.
The Biden-Harris administration has often been called the most pro-labor presidency in modern history.
Fain's remarks came hours before Trump infuriated many Michiganders by telling local business owners at a Detroit rally that if Harris wins, the entire country will "end up being like Detroit"—which is in the midst of an economic revival.
Congressman Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.), who represents the city,
admonished Trump to "keep Detroit and our people out of your mouth."
"Detroit is a city with a booming economy, diverse culture, and some of the best people in America," he said, adding that the heavily Democratic city "will elect Kamala Harris."
Michigan Democratic Party Chair Lavora Barnes said Thursday: "Plain and simple, a second Donald Trump presidency would be a disaster for Michigan workers. His agenda will raise costs and kill jobs."
"When he was president," she added, "Trump gave tax cuts to the wealthy at the expense of Michigan's working families, tanked our economy during the pandemic, and only helped the rich get richer."
Organizers are expected to continue their effort, drawing inspiration from a recent success in Tennessee that followed two defeats.
Workers at a pair of Mercedes-Benz plants near Tuscaloosa, Alabama narrowly voted against joining the United Auto Workers this week, according to a preliminary tally on Friday.
As of press time, the UAWwebpage had the National Labor Relations Board tally at 2,045 in favor of joining the union (45%) and 2,642 opposed (56%).
Voting at the large facility in Vance and the battery plant in Woodstock kicked off Monday and wrapped up Friday morning. Speaking to reporters Friday evening, UAW president Shawn Fain said that it was "obviously not the result we wanted" but "we'll be back in Vance."
"These courageous workers reached out to us because they wanted justice," Fain said of the Mercedes employees. "They led us. They led this fight, and that's what this is all about—and what happens next is up to them."
"It's a David v. Goliath fight. Sometimes Goliath wins a battle but ultimately David will win the war."
"Justice isn't just about one vote or one campaign, it's about getting a voice and getting your fair share," he continued, noting that "workers won serious gains in this campaign."
Fain added that "it's a David v. Goliath fight. Sometimes Goliath wins a battle but ultimately David will win the war."
The Alabama election followed a UAW win in Chattanooga, Tennessee, where Volkswagen workers last month voted to join the union.
Labor reporter Mike Elk
noted that the "tough loss" in Alabama was "not a blowout," and organizers now have "a solid base that future campaigns can build on like they did at Volkswagen," where winning a union election took three rounds of voting.
The UAW has ramped up organizing in the U.S. South since securing contract victories last year following a "Stand Up Strike" targeting Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis, the American automobile industry's "Big Three."
The Alabama organizing effort has garnered support from progressives and union workers around the world. The Washington, D.C.-based Global Labor Justice said Friday that "we stand with Mercedes autoworkers who are voting to join UAW to better their lives and help end the so-called 'Alabama discount.' It's time we end the U.S. South and Global South 'discounts' that allow corporations to perpetuate a race to the bottom that hurts all workers."
Meanwhile, Republican leaders in U.S. Southern states have shown "how scared they are that workers organizing with UAW to improve jobs and wages," as the Economic Policy Institute put it last month, after Govs. Kay Ivey of Alabama, Brian Kemp of Georgia, Tate Reeves of Mississippi, Henry McMaster of South Carolina, Bill Lee of Tennessee, and Greg Abbott of Texasissued a joint statement accusing the union of coming to their states to "threaten our jobs and the values we live by."
NEW: Right now Mercedes workers in Alabama are voting on joining the @UAW.
One reason workers are voting yes? They know they're building cars that sell for $250,000 and generating billions for Mercedes.
And that they aren't seeing that money. pic.twitter.com/vOnej9ufuO
— More Perfect Union (@MorePerfectUS) May 15, 2024
Mercedes has said that it "fully respects our team members' choice whether to unionize and we look forward to participating in the election process to ensure every team member has a chance to cast their own secret-ballot vote, as well as having access to the information necessary to make an informed choice." However, both employees and the UAW accused the company of union-busting ahead of the vote.
During his remarks to the press Friday evening, Fain charged that "this company engaged in egregious illegal behavior" and pointed to ongoing probes by German and U.S. officials into "the intimidation and harassment that they inflicted on their own workers."
The Alabama facilities are operated by Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, a subsidiary of a German parent company. The UAW said Thursday that Germany's Federal Office for Economic Affairs and Export Control has launched an investigation into worker claims.
"Autoworkers in Alabama should have the same rights and be treated with the same respect as autoworkers in Germany," Jeremy Kimbrell, who has worked at one of the Alabama plants since 1999, said in a statement. "My coworkers and I are grateful to the German government for taking our testimonies and the evidence we have provided seriously and taking the first steps to hold the lawless, reckless Mercedes managers in Alabama accountable for their action."
Mercedes told Quartz that it "has not interfered with or retaliated against any team member in their right to pursue union representation" and is "fully cooperating with the authorities."
As The Washington Post reported Friday:
Alabama business leaders, politicians, and clergy have also stepped in to warn workers against voting for the union...
In a video posted this week on a Mercedes-run website about the union election, Rev. Matthew Wilson, a pastor and city council member in Tuscaloosa, told workers of the union vote: "This one change I would be careful of... As a lifelong resident of Tuscaloosa, we have come too far to turn around now."
ESPN sportscaster and retired University of Alabama football coach Nick Saban also spoke to Mercedes workers this week. According to Axios, "Saban owns multiple Mercedes dealerships and has reportedly said he does not endorse the UAW's campaign."
Kay Finklea, a Mercedes employee and member of the UAW's voluntary organizing committee, told the outlet that "they don't stop the line for hardly anything, but they shut the line down and they had a meeting with Nick Saban in there to talk to us about teamwork and the tactics and methods he used as a football coach."
The Alabama effort is widely seen as a test case for unionizing more auto workers in the South. Before the results were announced, Harley Shaiken, a labor professor at the University of California, Berkeley, told Reuters that "if the union wins, they improve their momentum dramatically for future organizing."
This post has been updated to correct the reference to Global Labor Justice.
Congressman Greg Casar said the Republicans behind a new joint statement "sound more like corporate lobbyists than governors."
As Volkswagen workers in Tennessee began voting on whether to join the United Auto Workers, progressive critics on Wednesday continued to call out six Southern GOP governors for jointly saying they "are highly concerned about the unionization campaign driven by misinformation and scare tactics that the UAW has brought into our states."
Govs. Kay Ivey of Alabama, Brian Kemp of Georgia, Tate Reeves of Mississippi, Henry McMaster of South Carolina, Bill Lee of Tennessee, and Greg Abbott of Texas issued their statement in response to "the largest organizing drive in modern American history," which the UAW launched after major contract wins following a strike targeting the Big Three automakers—General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis—last year.
"As governors, we have a responsibility to our constituents to speak up when we see special interests looking to come into our state and threaten our jobs and the values we live by," the Republican leaders said, claiming that "unionization would certainly put our states' jobs in jeopardy" and the UAW is "making big promises to our constituents that they can't deliver on."
"We have serious reservations that the UAW leadership can represent our values. They proudly call themselves democratic socialists and seem more focused on helping President [Joe] Biden get reelected than on the autoworker jobs being cut at plants they already represent," the governors added, nodding to the union's January endorsement of the Democrat—UAW president Shawn Fain also called the presumptive Republican nominee, former President Donald Trump, a "scab."
The Economic Policy Institutesaid Wednesday that the governors' anti-union statement "clearly shows how scared they are that workers organizing with UAW to improve jobs and wages will upend the highly unequal, failed anti-worker economic development model of Southern states."
Responding to the statement on social media, the Congressional Labor Caucus declared that "we speak up when we see threats to workers' rights. Workers must be allowed to choose whether to form a union on their own—free from influence from their employers or politicians. Shame on these governors for putting out this anti-union propaganda."
After Ivey shared the statement on social media, Nina Turner, a senior fellow at the Institute on Race, Power, and Political Economy, asked, "Better wages and working conditions are against the values of your state?"
MSNBC's Chris Hayes was even snarkier, jokingly calling the statement "yet more evidence of the populist, pro-worker turn of the Trump-era GOP."
The UAW vote in Chattanooga, Tennessee is set to wrap up on Friday. Then, attention is expected to shift to Vance, Alabama. Workers at a nonunion Mercedes-Benz plant there submitted a petition to the National Labor Relations Board earlier this month requesting an election to join the union.
Noting Ivey's social media post about the statement, Diana Hussein, who does communications work for the UAW, said: "She's mad cuz she wants to keep the Alabama discount that leaves workers behind. No more! #StandUpUAW."
Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, also took aim at Ivey, saying, "You used Alabama taxpayers' money to have state troopers escort out-of-state scabs to break the strike of YOUR constituents."
Nelson explained that she was referring to the "hardworking" United Mine Workers of America members employed by Warrior Met, "who were fighting for the right to see their families more than a few days a year."
More Perfect Union told Ivey that "unions only threaten your values if you value denying workers a living wage and good benefits."
In contrast with the Republican governors, around two-thirds of the Senate Democratic Caucus in January wrote to 13 nonunion automakers—including Mercedes and Volkswagen—urging them not to illegally block UAW organizing at their plants.
"We are concerned by reporting at numerous automakers that management has acted illegally to block unionization efforts," the senators stressed, citing multiple examples. "These retaliatory actions are hostile to workers' rights and must not be repeated if further organizing efforts are made by these companies' workers. We therefore urge you all to commit to implementation of a neutrality agreement at your manufacturing plants."
Welcoming their letter, Fain said that "every autoworker in this country deserves their fair share of the auto industry's record profits, whether at the Big Three or the Nonunion 13. We applaud these U.S. senators for standing with workers who are standing up for economic justice on the job."
"It's time for the auto companies to stop breaking the law and take their boot off the neck of the American autoworker," the union leader added, "whether they're at Volkswagen, Toyota, Tesla, or any other corporation doing business in this country."
"Building a worker-led movement ain't easy but it's the most important thing we can do," said one organizer.
With the electric vehicle battery industry expected to add tens of thousands of jobs in the coming years, the United Auto Workers announced Wednesday its plan to ensure the new workers will benefit from labor protections and fair wages.
The UAW's International Executive Board voted Tuesday to commit $40 million to help support and organize nonunion autoworkers and battery workers, said the union.
The decision reflects that "organizing the unorganized and fighting for a just transition for workers in the emerging EV industry are our union's top priority!" said Chris Brooks, an adviser to UAW president Shawn Fain.
Thanks to a surge in organizing activity, including a six-week "Stand Up Strike" last fall that pushed the "Big Three" automakers to provide employees with improved pay and working conditions, said the UAW, "new standards are being set" as the battery sector begins to expand.
The union announced during the strike that EV workers would be included in its national agreement.
Jobs at electric vehicle battery facilities "will supplement, and in some cases largely replace, existing power-train jobs in the auto industry," said the union. "Through a massive new organizing effort, workers will fight to maintain and raise the standard in the emerging battery industry."
Last month, the UAW announced that more than 10,000 autoworkers at 14 nonunion companies have signed union cards since the union's successful strike that ended last October.
"The UAW is committing serious resources to help autoworkers organize their workplaces," said UAW organizing director Brian Shepherd. "Building a worker-led movement ain't easy but it's the most important thing we can do."
The announcement comes after green groups this week criticized the Biden administration's plans—reported by The New York Times—to relax the pace at which manufacturers must boost EV sales. The UAW delayed its endorsement of President Joe Biden over EV policy.
"The world is on fire," said one campaigner. "We need the Biden administration to maintain strong emissions rules that are one of the biggest extinguishers."
Green groups this week are responding with alarm to reporting that President Joe Biden's administration plans to relax the pace at which manufacturers must boost electric vehicle sales "in a concession to automakers and labor unions" as he seeks reelection on the heels of the hottest year in human history.
"A decision by President Biden to roll back the scale of his planned transition to EVs would be a monumental failure of his administration and of industry to take action toward a fossil-free future," Public Citizen's Chelsea Hodgkins said Monday. "President Biden isn't leaning into his full power to accelerate government action on one of the most effective strategies for preventing climate chaos—electrifying transport. In scaling back his ambition, he is kowtowing to the auto industry's propaganda."
Under the tailpipe emissions proposal unveiled last April, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) projected that EVs could account for 67% of all new light-duty vehicle sales by model year 2032. Citing three unnamed sources, The New York Times reported Saturday that officials finalizing the plan are adjusting it "so that electric vehicle sales would increase more gradually through 2030 but then would have to sharply rise."
The reporting comes after the Democratic president last month secured the crucial endorsement of the United Auto Workers, which followed a monthslong delay partly related to EV policy and came despite criticism from the UAW and residents of Michigan—the heart of the U.S. auto manufacturing industry—about Biden backing Israel's devastating war on the Gaza Strip.
Ali Zaidi, Biden's senior climate adviser, "declined to discuss the details of the final regulation" and a UAW spokesperson "declined multiple requests to interview" union president Shawn Fain, according to the Times.
Others suggested Biden's concession may be worth it to beat former President Donald Trump, the likely Republican nominee. David Victor, co-director of the Deep Decarbonization Initiative at the University of California, San Diego, told the newspaper that "you have more emissions for a few years but you raise the odds that the rule will stick."
However, Hodgkins argued that "with climate change fast accelerating, this is no time to capitulate to corporate demands."
The campaigner continued:
For decades, Big Auto has employed the same playbook as Big Oil to delay and prevent progress on rules that would clean our air, fight climate change, and save lives. Study after study, including the administration's own annual reporting, shows that the technology to reduce emissions and electrify fleets is not only available, but it will save automakers money in compliance fees and consumers money on fueling and overall costs. Yet, decades of the auto industry dragging its feet to take action means that it is further behind the curve.
Automakers have had decades to drive forward the transition to electric vehicles. They have failed time and again. The only factor that will usher in the needed transition to electric vehicles is firm and specific government requirements. Consumers will embrace electric vehicles when automakers make them the attractive option—which they will only do when the government requires them to do so.
"There's still time for the Biden administration to avoid this epic error and recommit to science-backed actions it has started," she stressed. "The world is on fire. We need the Biden administration to maintain strong emissions rules that are one of the biggest extinguishers."
Sierra Club executive director Ben Jealous similarly pressured the administration in a Tuesday statement, arguing that "strong EPA vehicle standards are essential to protecting clean air for communities across the country."
"Lobbying by auto manufacturers to stall the transition to electric vehicles could have severe consequences: Millions of Americans breathing deadly car pollution, suffering from the impacts of climate change, and spending too much on volatile gas prices," Jealous warned. "Enough excuses from the auto industry."
"Automakers have had more than enough time to prepare for the EV transition, and funding from the Inflation Reduction Act is rolling out the infrastructure necessary to support it," he added. "We can and must have union-made clean vehicles. We urge the EPA to remain steadfast in finalizing a strong rule that will improve public health and protect our future."
While Biden campaigned as a clear climate-friendly alternative to Trump in 2020, the Democrat has come under fire during his presidency for various decisions—including supporting certain oil and gas projects, continuing fossil fuel lease sales, skipping last year's United Nations summit, and declining to declare a national climate emergency.
Nearly two dozen Sunrise Movement campaigners were arrested at the president's campaign headquarters in Wilmington, Delaware last week and the youth-led climate group held dozens of actions across the country on Monday, warning that "Biden can either follow the lead of the young people who helped elect him in 2020 and declare a climate emergency or he's going to lose in November; backing a genocide and giving up our last chance to avert the worst of the climate crisis will be his legacy."
"This pushes back the fossil fuel industry's knowledge of the climate crisis a full two decades," one campaigner wrote.
The fossil fuel and automotive industries knew that their products could destabilize the climate as early as 1954, new research published by DeSmog on Monday reveals.
The Southern California Air Pollution Foundation, whose contributors included major oil and car companies, helped to fund the early climate research of Charles David Keeling, who went on to create the famous Keeling curve tracking the rise in global concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide, DeSmog reported. The foundation was also informed of the potential implications of Keeling's research.
"This pushes back the fossil fuel industry's knowledge of the climate crisis a full two decades," Jamie Henn of Fossil Free Media posted on social media in response to the news. "Think of the damage and lives that could have been saved if we started researching and moving to clean energy back then."
"These findings are a startling confirmation that Big Oil has had its finger on the pulse of academic climate science for 70 years—for twice my lifetime—and a reminder that it continues to do so to this day."
The revelations were based on documents found in the California Institute of Technology Archives, the U.S. National Archives, the Charles David Keeling papers at the University of California, San Diego, and Los Angeles newspapers, which established that the foundation helped finance Keeling's early measurements of carbon dioxide levels in the U.S. West from 1954-56.
The Southern California Air Pollution Foundation was established in 1953 to help address the problem of smog in Los Angeles. Its members included 18 car companies such as American Motors, Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors. It also received funds from the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the Western Oil and Gas Association, now the Western States Petroleum Association. What's more, representatives from the Southern California Gas Company, the Southern California Edison Co., Chrysler, General Motors, and Union Oil—now Chevron—sat on its board of trustees, and beginning in 1955, that board was updated on findings by a "technical advisory committee" staffed with one API member and Richfield Oil Corporation—now BP—and Chrysler scientists.
In a November 1954 research proposal from Keeling's research director Samuel Epstein, the foundation was informed of the potential implications of Keeling's measurements of carbon dioxide levels.
"The possible consequences of a changing concentration of the CO2 in the atmosphere with reference to climate, rates of photosynthesis, and rates of equilibration with carbonate of the oceans may ultimately prove of considerable significance to civilization," Epstein wrote.
DeSmog noted that this makes 1954 the earliest known date at which the fossil fuel industry both funded climate research and was informed of the possible consequences of its products. It comes five years before physicist Edward Teller spoke to API about global heating and around 25 years before ExxonMobil's research into climate change in the 1970s and '80s. In total, the foundation funded Keeling's early work for a total of $13,814, which would be around $158,000 today.
In reporting the news, Rebecca John pointed out that many of the same companies and industry associations that funded Keeling's early research would go on to fund a campaign denying climate science 35 years later, among them API, the Automobile Manufacturers Association, Chevron, and BP.
"It's important to know that the oil industry sponsored climate science research in the 1950s because it reveals a picture of a much more nuanced, closely connected world of science and the frontiers of scientific discovery than the oil industry has admitted to," John wrote.
Geoffrey Supran, who studies the history of climate disinformation at the University of Miami, told The Guardian that John's revelations "contain smoking gun proof that by at least 1954, the fossil fuel industry was on notice about the potential for its products to disrupt Earth's climate on a scale significant to human civilization."
"These findings are a startling confirmation that Big Oil has had its finger on the pulse of academic climate science for 70 years—for twice my lifetime—and a reminder that it continues to do so to this day. They make a mockery of the oil industry's denial of basic climate science decades later."
The Center for Climate Integrity put it more succinctly on social media.
"They knew. They lied. They need to pay," the group said.