Biden vetoes Republican effort to poison you with truck soot (Updated)
President Joe Biden has vetoed an effort by Congressional Republicans to roll back the first update to heavy truck pollution standards in 22 years. The new soot standards targeted by Republicans are estimated to save thousands of lives and tens of billions of dollars.
We expected this veto when we originally reported on Senate Republicans passing a resolution to roll back the rule in April. House Republicans went on to pass it in May. Both chambers passed the resolution expecting Biden’s veto, but despite this knowledge they still made yet another public effort to kill Americans and cost them money.
Heavy duty trucks are a primary contributor to harmful air pollution. This is particularly true for the types of pollution that harm human health, like ozone, particulate matter and NOx. While light duty vehicles do make up the majority of global warming emissions (CO2), heavy duty vehicles make far more than their fair share of these other harmful pollutants.
And so, in December, the EPA finalized a rule updating heavy truck emissions standards, the first update to these standards since 2001. The rule goes into place starting in model year 2027 and would reduce NOx emissions by 48%. But they are still significantly lighter regulations than those in some states, like California, which just made a big update to its truck regulations.
The EPA’s 2027 rule would save 2,900 lives, prevent 18,000 cases of childhood asthma and prevent 6,700 hospital admissions. It would also lead to 78,000 fewer lost days of work, 1.1 million fewer lost school days and save $29 billion per year by 2045, and when accounted for in net present value, the benefits are greater than the costs today. These benefits would go disproportionately to disadvantaged communities who live closer to truck routes and depots.
So, this rule is an unequivocal benefit. Like most environmental regulations, the rule both reduces costs and improves quality of life. It’s a no-brainer, a win-win for everyone.
And yet, Congressional Republicans voted to reverse it. The effort started in the Senate where Republicans were joined by Joe Manchin (D-WV), but otherwise the 50-49 vote was entirely along party lines. All 49 Republicans and Manchin voted to poison America and waste money, and 48 Democrats and Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) voted to clean the air and save money.
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) was on an extended absence at the time and missed the vote, which is what allowed the Republicans to push the measure through.
The vote then went on to the House, where 217 Republicans and 4 Democrats voted in favor of poisoning Americans, while 202 Democrats and 1 Republican voted against.
The vote was a resolution under the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to block federal regulatory actions. The Act was passed in 1996 but rarely used until 2017, when Congress used it several times, mostly notably to reverse consumer protections implemented under President Obama.
Even before undertaking this effort, Congressional Republicans knew that it would not become law. The move merely seized on the absence of one Democratic Senator, but it was clear that Biden would veto this effort to kill Americans and cost them money, so it was a fruitless effort from the start.
Republicans argued that the reason they want to poison everyone and cost them money is because the cost of complying with this new rule – which, once again, would save, not cost, $29 billion annually – was too high.
Senator Deb Fischer (R-NE) led the effort which she called “bipartisan,” despite it being supported by 266 Congressional Republicans and just 5 Democrats. She said that since past regulations have worked very well to get emissions down, then new regulations to get emissions down are not necessary – an argument that explicitly acknowledges that regulations work to reduce pollution.
She also said that the cost of complying – which could be as little as $2,568 per truck, a small fraction of the six-figure price of heavy duty vehicles – would be too high. Her statement runs counter to calculations showing that this rule would result in not only health benefits, but net financial benefit for the US.
Environmental groups praised Biden’s veto today, with the Environmental Defense Fund saying “the EPA’s commonsense protections will minimize health harms and save lives all across the country” and the Union of Concerned Scientists saying “it’s deeply disappointing that Congress used this flawed process to try and undo important public health protections” – while also pointing out that the new truck rule could, and should, be even stronger than the EPA has proposed.
Electrek’s Take
Whenever we write articles like this, we end up getting a few comments saying “stop getting political! it’s not fair that you target one party!”
We do understand the point that compliance to new regulations can cost money. And sometimes, those compliance costs are high for little benefit. But here, those compliance costs and net benefits have been calculated, and they’re positive. As is the case with so much environmental regulation these days, especially with the advent of electrification and renewable generation, we can improve both the economy and health at the same time. That is the case here as well.
All we do here at Electrek is advocate for electric vehicles. We do this openly – you know that this is the position we’re coming from, and you know why we’re doing it. We’re doing it because we like clean air, we like energy efficiency, we like technology, we like better cars. We don’t make a secret about this. We want to live in a better world, and we’re pretty sure you do, too.
In our coverage of these efforts to live in a better world, there is one party which seems to be unequivocally against doing so. When we cover efforts to make things better, these efforts are not being led by republicans. And when we cover efforts to make things worse, those efforts are being led by republicans.
So when we point out, time and time again, that republicans are voting to poison you, this is not an example of us being partisan. This is an example of republicans picking the side of poison, and us reporting on it factually.
And in this case they weren’t even going to get it into law. They knew this, and yet they still voted for it, as if to say: “hey, if given the chance, we want everyone to know that our goal is to kill you and make things worse.” It wasn’t even necessary for them to do so, they could try to keep it a secret or something, but it’s all out in the open. As the saying goes: “when people show you who they are, believe them.”
And so, we have to call these efforts what they are: efforts to poison you and cost you money. We would be happy to see republicans stop these efforts, and they can choose to do so anytime, and we will gladly and fairly report on it if they do.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Environment
Shipping groups avoid the Strait of Hormuz to reduce exposure after U.S. strikes on Iran
An Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps speed boat sailing along the Persian Gulf during the IRGC marine parade to commemorate Persian Gulf National Day, near the Bushehr nuclear power plant in the seaport city of Bushehr, in the south of Iran, on April 29, 2024.
Nurphoto | Nurphoto | Getty Images
The number of vessels navigating the critically important Strait of Hormuz appears to be declining, according to the world’s largest shipping association, amid deepening fears of a widening conflict in the Middle East.
Jakob Larsen, head of security at Bimco, which represents global shipowners, said all shipowners were closely monitoring developments in the region and some have already paused transits in the Strait of Hormuz due to the deterioration of the security situation.
His comments come shortly after the U.S. on Saturday attacked three major Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities, a massive escalation in its involvement with Israel’s effort to cripple Tehran’s nuclear program.
Iran has condemned the attack, saying it reserves all options to defend its sovereignty and people.
“Before the US attack, the impact on shipping patterns was limited,” Bimco’s Larsen said.
“Now, after the US attack, we have indications that the number of ships passing is reducing. If we begin to see Iranian attacks on shipping, it will most likely further reduce the number of ships transiting through the [Strait of Hormuz],” he added.
The Strait of Hormuz, which connects the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea, is recognized as one of the world’s most important oil chokepoints.
In 2024 and the first quarter of 2025, for instance, flows through the narrow waterway made up roughly 20% of global oil and petroleum product consumption, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Around 20% of global liquified natural gas (LNG) also transited through the Strait of Hormuz last year, primarily from Qatar.
The inability of oil to traverse through the waterway, even temporarily, can ratchet up global energy prices, raise shipping costs and create significant supply delays.
Yet, in the aftermath of the U.S. attacks on key nuclear sites, Iran’s parliament reportedly approved the closure of the waterway, risking alienating its neighbors and trade partners.
Standby mode
Andy Critchlow, EMEA head of news at S&P Global Commodity Insights, said some anecdotal evidence suggested a slowdown in shipping navigation through the Strait of Hormuz following the U.S. strikes on Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan.
“The pace at which tankers are entering the Strait of Hormuz has definitely slowed. We have indications from shippers that they are putting tankers and vessels on standby, so they are waiting for an opportune moment to enter the Strait,” Critchlow told CNBC’s “Europe Early Edition” on Monday.
“At the same time, there have been reports that suppliers of LNG, for example, in the Gulf have told lifters of LNG to wait before entering, so [as] not to loiter in the Gulf, keep vessels out of that region,” he added.
Japan’s Nippon Yusen, one of the world’s largest ship operators, recently introduced a standby to enter the Strait of Hormuz to limit the length of its stay in the Persian Gulf, according to S&P Global Commodity Insights, citing a company spokesperson.
Nippon Yusen’s policy, which comes as part of a precautionary measure following the escalation of Isreal-Iran tensions since June 13, means ships are asked to pause for a day or a couple of days when there is flexibility in the shipping schedule, S&P Global Commodity Insights reported on Monday.
The company has not implemented a navigation halt in the Strait of Hormuz, however.
Japan’s Mitsui O.S.K Lines also instructed vessels to limit time spent in the Gulf following U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, Reuters reported Monday, citing a company spokesperson.
Spokespeople at Nippon Yusen and Mitsui OSK Lines were not immediately available to comment when contacted by CNBC.
Satellite image of the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic maritime choke point with Iran situated at the top with Qeshm Island and the United Arab Emirates to the South. Imaged 24 May 2017.
Gallo Images | Getty Images
German container shipping firm Hapag-Lloyd said it is continuing to sail through the Strait of Hormuz.
“However, the situation is unpredictable and could change within a matter of hours. In this case, our emergency and response plans, which we maintain as part of our crisis management system, come into effect,” a Hapag-Lloyd spokesperson said.
Insurance costs to spike
Peter Sand, chief analyst at pricing platform Xeneta, said container shipping activity in the Persian Gulf and upper Indian Ocean appears to be continuing as expected for now.
“All companies access the risk individually – but the current situation requires them all to do so several times a day. Staying in close dialogue with national intelligence agencies and their own captains onboard the ships,” Sand told CNBC by email.
Insurance costs, meanwhile, have “probably” been hiked again, Sand said, noting Iran’s parliament reportedly approved the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
Any final decision to close the waterway rests with the country’s national security council, and its possibility has raised the specter of higher energy prices and aggravated geopolitical tensions, with Washington calling upon Beijing to prevent the strait’s closure.
Environment
CNBC Daily Open: Trump followed up on his threat to strike Iran — will this help or harm his credibility?
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike