The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Wednesday proposed sweeping emissions cuts for new cars and trucks through 2032, a move it says could mean two out of every three new vehicles automakers sell will be electric within a decade.

The proposal, if finalized, represents the most aggressive U.S. vehicle emissions reduction plan to date, requiring 13% annual average pollution cuts and a 56% reduction in projected fleet average emissions over 2026 requirements. The EPA is also proposing new stricter emissions standards for medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks through 2032.

The EPA projects the 2027-2032 model year rules would cut more than 9 billion tons of CO2 emissions through 2055 – equivalent to more than twice total U.S. CO2 emissions last year.

Automakers and environmentalists say the administration is moving quickly in order to finalize new rules by early 2024 to make it much harder for a future Congress or president to reverse them. Then President Donald Trump rolled back tough emissions limits through 2025 set under Barack Obama but the Biden administration reversed the rollback.

The agency estimates net benefits through 2055 from the proposal range from $850 billion to $1.6 trillion. By 2032 the proposal would cost about $1,200 per vehicle per manufacturer, but save an owner more than $9,000 on average on fuel, maintenance, and repair costs over an eight-year period.  

“A lot has to go right for this massive – and unprecedented – change in our automotive market and industrial base to succeed,” said John Bozzella, CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation representing General Motors GM.N, Volkswagen VOWG_p.DE, Toyota 7203.T and others.

“Factors outside the vehicle, like charging infrastructure, supply chains, grid resiliency, the availability of low carbon fuels and critical minerals will determine whether EPA standards at these levels are achievable.”

The proposal is more ambitious than President Joe Biden’s 2021 goal, backed by automakers, seeking 50% of new vehicles by 2030 to be electric vehicles (EVs) or plug-in hybrids. Stellantis STLAM.MI said it was “surprised that none of the alternatives align with the President’s previously announced target of 50% EVs by 2030.”

The Biden administration is not proposing banning gasoline-powered vehicles, but wants comments on whether it should extend emissions rules through 2035 and on other alternatives. Some environmental groups want the EPA to set tougher rules, especially on heavy trucks.

“These standards are very ambitious and they track with the sense of urgency that the president and this administration have as we tackle the climate crisis,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan said in a Reuters interview, declining to endorse setting a date to end the sale of new gasoline-powered vehicles. He emphasized the proposal is a “performance-based standard” and not an EV mandate.

Under the EPA proposal, automakers are forecast to produce 60% EVs by 2030 and 67% by 2032 to meet requirements – compared with just 5.8% of U.S. vehicles sold in 2022 that were EVs. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration plans to propose parallel economy standards in the coming weeks.

California in August moved to require all new vehicles sold in the state by 2035 be electric or plug-in electric hybrids, but must still seek an EPA waiver to proceed. Regan would not to say how the EPA would react to a California request. “We’ll be on the lookout for that if it were to ever come,” he said.

Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Transport Campaign, said the EPA proposal should have been tougher.

“Automakers talk out of both sides of their tailpipes, promising electric vehicles while delivering mostly the same old gas-guzzlers and lobbying for weak, loophole-riddled rules,” Becker said.

Under the proposal, the EPA estimates 50% of new vocational vehicles like buses and garbage trucks could be EVs by 2032, along with 35% of new short-haul freight tractors and 25% of new long-haul freight tractors. Medium-duty vehicle rules are projected to cut emissions by 44% over 2026.
…

your ad here

The office of Mexico’s attorney general says it has launched a criminal investigation into the head of the country’s immigration agency in connection with last month’s deadly fire at an immigrant detention facility. 

A statement released late Tuesday night said National Immigration Institute (INM) chief Francisco Garduno failed to take steps to prevent the fire at the agency’s facility in the city of Ciudad Juarez that killed 40 migrants on March 27.   

The attorney general’s office says the agency knew about problems at migrant detention facilities after a migrant was killed in a fire at another detention center in 2020. 

Several other high-ranking officials of the INM are also under criminal investigation, but the statement did not specify what charges they are facing. 

Earlier Tuesday, President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador said the migrants were unable to escape the fire because the guards who had the keys to the cell door were absent.   

Five people were arrested last month in connection with a homicide investigation into the blaze after video surveillance footage appeared to show guards doing nothing to help migrants escape the fire engulfing their cell.   

Ciudad Juarez is a major crossing area for migrants or asylum-seekers wishing to enter the United States.     

The dead and injured were from Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Venezuela, Colombia and Ecuador, with Guatemalans being the largest contingent, according to the attorney general’s office.      

Authorities said one migrant is believed to be responsible for igniting the fire.   

Some information for this report came from The Associated Press and Reuters. 
…

your ad here

White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan spoke by phone with Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman on Tuesday amid signs that the Saudis and Iran-allied Houthis in Yemen are making “significant progress” toward finding a permanent end to their nine-year conflict, according to a senior administration official. 

The crown prince, often referred to by his initials MBS, has had a strained relationship with President Joe Biden over human rights and oil production concerns. But the de facto Saudi leader and the president’s top national security adviser decided to talk amid encouraging signs on winding down the long and bloody war, a top priority for Biden. 

The call came after Saudi diplomat Mohammed bin Saeed al-Jaber met with Houthi officials in Yemen’s capital Sanaa on Sunday for talks that were aimed at accelerating negotiations on ending the war, a senior administration official familiar with the conversation told The Associated Press. The official was not authorized to comment publicly and requested anonymity. 

Biden’s special envoy for Yemen, Tim Lenderking, is being dispatched to the Saudi capital Riyadh this week for follow-up talks with Saudi officials, the official said. CIA Director William Burns traveled to Saudi Arabia last week to meet with intelligence officials. 

Al-Jaber’s visit to the Houthi-held Yemeni capital came after the Saudis reached a deal with Iran last month — in China — to restore diplomatic ties that were cut off in 2016. Iran is the Houthis’ main foreign backer in Yemen’s conflict. 

It was a flashy moment of diplomacy for China — the United States’ top global competitor — that Beijing touted as evidence of its ability to be a diplomatic player in the Middle East. White House officials note significant progress was made during several rounds of earlier talks hosted by Iraq and Oman, well before the deal was announced in China during last month’s ceremonial National People’s Congress. 

Following Sunday’s talks, White House officials were “encouraged by the significant progress on a comprehensive roadmap to consolidate the truce in Yemen and ultimately end the war,” according to the official. 

The official said Sullivan and the crown prince largely focused on Yemen but also discussed Saudi Arabia and Iran’s reestablishment of diplomatic ties, Iran’s nuclear program, and other issues. 

Iran-allied Houthis seized Sanaa in 2014 and forced the internationally recognized government into exile in Saudi Arabia. A Saudi-led coalition armed with U.S. weaponry and intelligence entered the war on the side of Yemen’s exiled government in 2015. 

Years of inconclusive fighting created a humanitarian disaster and pushed the Arab world’s poorest nation to the brink of famine. Overall, the war has killed more than 150,000 people, including over 14,500 civilians, according to The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project. 

A six-month cease-fire, the longest of the Yemen conflict, expired in October. Biden has made finding a permanent peace among his highest priorities in the Middle East. 

The call also comes amid fresh concerns that the Riyadh-led OPEC+ alliance plans to cut oil production could stymie efforts to curb global inflation. 

OPEC+ announced last week it would cut oil production by 1.1 million barrels per day, or roughly 1% of global production, beginning next month. The Saudis have said the production cuts were “precautionary,” helping to keep up prices as the world economy appears to be slowing and demand for oil is dropping. 

But along with cuts announced in October, world oil supplies are down by 3%. April’s announcement could have a ripple effect on the U.S. economy in the form of higher gasoline prices, possibly forcing the Federal Reserve to be more aggressive in rate hikes to lower inflation. 

The official said Sullivan and the crown prince discussed macroeconomic issues but did not dwell on the OPEC move. 

As a candidate for the White House, Biden vowed that Saudi rulers would “pay the price” under his watch for their human rights record. But in July, amid rising prices at the pump around the globe, Biden decided to pay a visit to Saudi Arabia. During the visit, he greeted the crown prince, whom he once shunned, with a fist bump. 

Relations hit another rocky patch last fall. 

In October, the president said there would be “consequences” for Saudi Arabia as OPEC+ alliance moved to cut oil production. At the time, the administration said it was reevaluating its relationship with the kingdom in light of the oil production cut that White House officials said was helping another OPEC+ member, Russia, soften the financial blow caused by U.S. and Western sanctions imposed on Moscow for its ongoing war in Ukraine. 

The administration’s reaction to last week’s production cut was far more subdued, with Biden saying, “It’s not going to be as bad as you think.” 

Separately, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham met Tuesday with the crown prince in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Graham said they discussed ongoing reforms in the kingdom as well as trade between the countries. The Saudis announced last month that the two national airlines would order up to 121 jetliners from American aircraft manufacturer Boeing, a deal worth up to $37 billion. 

“I look forward to working with the administration and congressional Republicans and Democrats to see if we can take the U.S.-Saudi relationship to the next level, which would be a tremendous economic benefit to both countries and bring much-needed stability to a troubled region,” Graham said. 
…

your ad here

The Biden administration is ramping up efforts to address the fentanyl crisis, increasing sanctions on traffickers and announcing plans to set up a global coalition to combat the illicit drug trade.

Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid painkiller 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine. Drug overdoses from synthetic opioids killed more than 70,000 people in the U.S. in 2021, according to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In a statement, the White House said it will work with international partners to build a global coalition to “prevent illicit drug manufacturing, detect emerging drug threats, disrupt trafficking, address illicit finance, and respond to public safety and public health impacts.”

“This global coalition will develop solutions, drive national actions, and create synergies and leverage among like-minded countries who agree that countering illicit synthetic drugs must be a global policy priority,” according to the White House.

The initiative includes increasing coordination among U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies and with private sector companies, including chemical industries, shipping and delivery companies in the U.S. and abroad.

The White House did not name the countries involved in the partnership.

“We will have more details about our work with partners in the coming weeks and months, including as we build a global coalition to tackle this scourge,” a National Security Council spokesperson said in a statement to VOA.

A key step in this effort would be to internationally track the shipping of the precursor chemicals used to make fentanyl, said Earl Anthony Wayne, former ambassador to Mexico who is now a fellow at the Wilson Center.

“There’s no tracking right now,” Wayne told VOA. “What you need to do is start building an international consensus to put new limits on these things. That doesn’t happen overnight.”

There is a wide variety of substances that can be used to make fentanyl, and many of them have legitimate uses and are legal to sell, making them difficult to control internationally. The U.S. has been lobbying the U.N. Commission on Narcotic Drugs to place international controls on 14 key fentanyl precursors and fentanyl analogues — drugs that have similar chemical structure and mimic the pharmacological effects of fentanyl.

Mexico and China

The fentanyl crisis has increased Washington’s tension with Mexico and China. The two countries are the primary sources for fentanyl and the precursor chemicals that are trafficked into the U.S., according to a report by the Drug Enforcement Administration.

U.S. officials say that since China started controlling fentanyl in 2021, Chinese traffickers shifted to exporting precursors for Mexican drug cartels to manufacture and traffic across the border, making up almost all fentanyl on American streets. They say Mexican cartels often make fentanyl look like other medications, such as Xanax, oxycodone or Percocet, or mix it into other drugs, including heroin and cocaine. Many people who die of overdoses in the U.S. do not know they are taking fentanyl.

Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador denies that his country produces the drug.

“In Mexico, fentanyl is not produced. The raw material for fentanyl is not produced. If China’s government says they do not produce it either, then it is interesting. Who is producing it?” he said in a news conference on Monday, referring to Beijing’s response to his letter requesting that China help stop the flow of the drug.

In response to Lopez Obrador’s letter, China denied involvement in trafficking fentanyl and blamed the U.S. for its drug problems.

“The root cause of overdose lies in the U.S. itself, and the problem is completely made in the U.S. The U.S. should face up to its own problems and take more substantive measures to strengthen domestic supervision and reduce demand,” China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said last week.

China suspended all counternarcotics cooperation with the U.S. in August 2022 as a protest to then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan, which Beijing considers a breakaway province.

“China subordinates its counternarcotics cooperation to the geostrategic relationship with the United States,” Vanda Felbab-Brown, director of the Brookings Institution’s Initiative on Nonstate Armed Actors, said in a March congressional hearing on China’s role on the fentanyl crisis.

In the absence of significant warming in the bilateral relationship, there is little prospect Beijing would intensify its anti-drug cooperation with the U.S., Felbab-Brown added.

“U.S. punitive measures, such as sanctions and drug indictments, are unlikely to change that.”

Target Mexico

Some U.S. congressional members have been calling on the Biden administration to increase pressure on the Mexican government to crack down on fentanyl trafficking. In March, Republican South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham said he would introduce legislation to designate cartels as foreign terrorist organizations and give the U.S. military the authority to stop them.

“We’re going to unleash the fury and the might of the United States against these cartels,” he said.

The administration rejected the plan.

“The United States has powerful sanctions authorities specifically designated to combat narcotics-trafficking organizations and the individuals and entities that enable them,” said White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre.

Some Republicans have even called for the U.S. military to target facilities of drug cartels inside Mexico. Legislation to put the U.S. “at war with the cartels by authorizing the use of military force” has been introduced by Republican lawmakers.

“We must start treating them like ISIS, because that is who they are,” said Republican Congressman Dan Crenshaw, a co-sponsor of the bill.

National Security Council spokesperson Adrienne Watson said the administration is not considering military action in Mexico.

“We have robust law enforcement cooperation with Mexico, which has enabled us to take successful action against cartels, transnational criminal organizations, drug traffickers and human smugglers, and that will continue,” she said in a statement to VOA.

Lopez Obrador confirmed that members of his security Cabinet are in the U.S. this week to discuss fentanyl trafficking with U.S. officials. The meeting is a followup of the January summit in Mexico City to discuss better cooperation on various issues, including fentanyl trafficking, between U.S. President Joe Biden, Lopez Obrador and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
…

your ad here

Getting a well-rounded education while maintaining one’s religious identity can be challenging in some U.S. classrooms. But there are 140 accredited Islamic-based schools in the U.S. that aim to do just that. VOA’s Rivan Dwiastono visited one such school in the state of Missouri. Camera: Ariadne Budianto, Virginia Gunawan
…

your ad here

Many Americans aren’t yet sold on going electric for their next cars, a new poll shows, with high prices and too few charging stations the main deterrents. About 4 in 10 U.S. adults are at least somewhat likely to switch, but the history-making shift from the country’s century-plus love affair with gas-driven vehicles still has a ways to travel.

The poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago shows that the Biden administration’s plans to dramatically raise U.S. EV sales could run into resistance from consumers. Only 8% of U.S. adults say they or someone in their household owns or leases an electric vehicle, and just 8% say their household has a plug-in hybrid vehicle.

Even with tax credits of up to $7,500 to buy a new EV, it could be difficult to persuade drivers to ditch their gas-burning cars and trucks for vehicles without tailpipe emissions.

Auto companies are investing billions in factories and battery technology in an effort to speed up the switch to EVs to cut pollution and fight climate change. Under a greenhouse gas emissions proposal from the Environmental Protection Agency, about two-thirds of all new vehicle sales could have to be EVs by 2032. President Joe Biden has set a goal that up to half of all new vehicle sales be electric by 2030 to cut emissions and fight climate change.

But only 19% of U.S. adults say it’s “very” or “extremely” likely they would purchase an electric vehicle the next time they buy a car, according to the poll, and 22% say it’s somewhat likely. About half — 47% — say it’s not likely they would go electric.

Six in 10 said the high cost is a major reason they wouldn’t and about a quarter cited it as a minor reason. Only 16% said the high cost would not be a factor in rejecting the EV.

New electric vehicles now cost an average of more than $58,000, according to Kelley Blue Book, a price that’s beyond the reach of many U.S. households. (The average vehicle sold in the U.S. costs just under $46,000.) Tax credits approved under last year’s Inflation Reduction Act are designed to bring EV prices down and attract more buyers.

But new rules proposed by the U.S. Treasury Department could result in fewer electric vehicles qualifying for a full $7,500 federal tax credit later.

Many vehicles will only be eligible for half the full credit, $3,750, an amount that may not be enough to entice them away from less-costly gasoline-powered vehicles.

About three-quarters say too few charging stations is a reason they wouldn’t go electric, including half who call it a major reason. Two-thirds cite a preference for gasoline vehicles as a major or minor reason they won’t go electric.

“I’m an internal combustion engine kind of guy,” said Robert Piascik, 65, a musician who lives in Westerville, Ohio, a Columbus suburb. “I can’t see myself spending a premium to buy something that I don’t like as much as the lower-priced option.”

Although he has nothing against EVs and would consider buying one as the technology improves and prices fall, Piascik said the shorter traveling range, lack of places to charge and long refueling times would make it harder for him to go on trips.

In his 2017 BMW 3-Series, all he has to do is pull into a gas station and fill up in minutes, Piascik said. “The early adopters have to put up with a lack of infrastructure,” he said.

Biden has set a goal of 500,000 EV charging stations nationwide, and $5 billion from the 2021 infrastructure law has been set aside to install or upgrade chargers along 75,000 miles (120,000 kilometers) of highway from coast to coast.

Electric car giant Tesla will, for the first time, make some of its charging stations available to all U.S. electric vehicles by the end of next year, under a plan announced in February by the White House. The plan to open the nation’s largest and most reliable charging network to all drivers is a potential game-changer in promoting EV use, experts say.

High prices and a lack of available chargers are cited by at least half of Democrats and Republicans as main reasons for not buying an EV, but there’s a partisan divide in how Americans view electric vehicles. About half of Republicans, 54%, say a preference for gasoline-powered vehicles is a major reason for not buying an EV, while only 29% of Democrats say that.

James Rogers of Sacramento, California, a Democrat who voted for Biden, calls climate change an urgent problem, and he supports Biden’s overall approach. Still, he does not own an EV and isn’t planning to buy one, saying the price must come down and the charging infrastructure upgraded.

Even with a tax credit that could put the average price for a new EV close to $50,000, “it’s too much” money, said Rogers, 62, a retired customer service representative. He’s willing to pay as much as $42,000 for an EV and hopes the market will soon drive prices down, Rogers said.

In an encouraging finding for EV proponents, the poll shows 55% of adults under 30 say they are at least somewhat likely they will get an electric vehicle next time, as do 49% of adults ages 30 to 44, compared with just 31% of those 45 and older.

And people in the U.S. do see the benefits to an EV. Saving money on gasoline is the main factor cited by those who want to buy an EV, with about three-quarters of U.S. adults calling it a major or minor reason.

Making an impact on climate change is another big reason many would buy an EV, with 35% saying that reducing their personal impact on the climate is a major reason and 31% saying it’s a minor reason.
…

your ad here