Daily oil consumption around the world is expected to increase from 89 million barrels in 2012 up to 109 million barrels in 2035. In the past, many Americans were more concerned about their make and model of car than what kind of fuel was used to power it. But while you might have more than enough room for a giant gas guzzler in your standard carport (which ranges from 12 feet to 24 feet wide) or garage, you might not necessarily want one if you care about protecting the environment. And what’s more, the state of California might soon prohibit you from having one.
Whether you own a pickup truck — a type of vehicle that accounts for 16.4% of all auto sales throughout the U.S. — or a sensible sedan, you might be more inclined to be concerned with the paint color or a vehicle’s mileage over the type of fuel it takes. Sure, electric vehicles are becoming more popular, but gas-powered options still dominate the marketplace. It might not be that way for long, however, if the Golden State has anything to say about it.
That’s because the California Air Resources Board is threatening to take drastic action if the Trump administration follows through on its plan to relax vehicle emission and fuel economy standards. Although the specialty gases market is forecast to surpass $14 billion by 2026, many of those gases are utilized in industrial and medical applications, rather than in vehicular ones. The fuel many of us use to fill up our cars is highly hazardous to the environment, with transportation-related emissions making up a substantial portion of our carbon footprint. Although Obama era rules pertaining to carbon dioxide emissions and fuel economy standards would raise the requirement to 47 miles per gallon next year, the current administration is reportedly working on a plan to ease these mandates and cap them at 37 miles per gallon after 2020.
While that might ease the minds of the owners of more than 20 million vehicles that will be over 25 years old by 2021, these decisions don’t sit well with the California Air Resources Board. In fact, Chairperson Mary Nichols said publicly that the state might be forced to pursue “extreme” measures in order to offset the increase in pollution caused by the federal government’s decision.
Nichols explained at a recent forum on the issue, “If we lose the state vehicle standards, we have to fill up the gap with other measures. We will be faced with dramatic alternatives in terms of tighter, stricter controls on everything else, including movement of vehicles and potentially looking at things like fees and taxes and bans on certain types of vehicles and products.”
And what those measures might entail? Nichols wouldn’t say for sure, but she did suggest some options.
“CARB will be exploring ways to ensure communities get the reductions of air pollution they so desperately need to keep the air clean and breathable — and continue to fight climate change,” Nichols explained. “That might mean, for example, tougher requirements for low-carbon fuels, looking at tighter health-protective regulations on California refineries, doubling down on our enforcement efforts on mobile and stationary sources — and might lead to an outright ban on internal combustion engines.”
That last possibility is of particular interest to many motorists, as an outright ban could be disastrous for many of the nation’s most profitable industries. That said, this measure may not even be likely to take place, as Nichols hinted that CARB doesn’t necessarily believe that extreme is the best option. Still, as the nation’s leader in electric car sales, some are wondering whether it will only be a matter of time before gas-powered vehicles are outlawed — or are at least discriminated against.
