Recently, the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers Association started running misleading ads in key swing states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania about new proposed standards for car emissions from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The ads falsely claim that EPA is “rushing to ban new gasoline cars.” But the spots are nothing more than a scare tactic. Not only is there no “gasoline car ban,” but EPA’s proposal would boost the American economy, improve public health, and make the U.S. more competitive globally. in key swing states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania about new proposed standards for car emissions from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The ads falsely claim that EPA is “rushing to ban new gasoline cars.” But the spots are nothing more than a scare tactic. Not only is there no “gasoline car ban,” but EPA’s proposal would boost the American economy, improve public health, and make the U.S. more competitive globally.

First, let’s set the record straight on what EPA is actually proposing. The proposed standards (introduced last April) would reduce emissions of various pollutants including particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide. They would apply to new cars for model years 2027 through 2032.

The proposal would not “ban” gas-powered cars in any way. Like past EPA rules, these proposed standards are “performance-based.” That means EPA is setting standards to lower tailpipe emissions without mandating how car manufacturers meet those standards. Most car companies will use a mix of technologies to reduce the total emissions of their new models, including electric vehicles (EVs), hybrids, plug-in hybrids, fuel cells and more efficient gas-powered cars. In fact, recent analysis suggests there are compliance pathways that don’t involve EVs. But even if every car manufacturer decided to go all-in on EVs, they could still meet the proposed 2032 standards even if a third of the cars they sold were gas-powered.

Despite claims to the contrary, there’s no “radical agenda” there. Instead, EPA’s proposed standards are squarely focused on total benefits to the country. The agency’s hundreds of auto engineers, climate scientists, and policy experts create standards based on, among other things, the availability of different auto technologies, costs, lead times, economic impacts, and overall public health impacts. Their work is publicly available in a 1,000-plus-page analysis, which the public comments on.

Second, it’s important to understand the potential impacts of EPA’s proposed standards, starting with their health benefits. Particulate matter from combustion engines causes or worsens asthma, bronchitis, cardiac arrythmias, heart attacks, and premature death. It’s also linked to chronic lung diseases. And carbon dioxide is a main contributor of climate change. Reducing the concentrations of these pollutants in the atmosphere makes all Americans healthier while also reducing the risks of extreme drought, flooding, sea-level rise, and extreme weather linked to climate change. EPA’s proposal would also help consumers save money because EVs are cheaper to operate than similar gas-powered cars.

The consumer benefits combined with reduced mortality and sickness from air pollution, along with climate mitigation stack up to more than $1 trillion in net benefits to the U.S.

Even without EPA’s proposed standards, EV sales in the U.S. are growing significantly. Between early 2021 and 2023, EV sales increased from about 125,000 to roughly 300,000. Then, in 2023, U.S. EV sales passed a million units, which is amazing growth for a new technology. It took hybrids 25 years to reach 10% of the passenger vehicle market; EVs got there in half the time. This market growth—driven by a combination of consumer demand, smart regulations, and massive public and private investment—also delivers huge economic benefits. Since mid-2022, battery and EV production accounted for 212,000 American jobs.

EPA’s proposal will further encourage domestic car manufacturers to invest more in the U.S. By 2035, some forecasts project total EV demand at 68% of new sales globally, as well as 77% of sales in North America and 95% in Europe.

However, while U.S.-based Tesla has been an early global leader, other American companies are lagging in the rapidly-expanding global EV market. Last year, the Chinese company BYD took the global lead in EV sales from Tesla and is planning to extend its advantage by opening car factories around the world, including one in Mexico. To win a significant global market share, U.S. manufacturers need to increase and sustain their investment and innovation in their EV offerings.

So why would oil and gas companies ask Americans to reject regulations that would improve public health, spur innovation, create new jobs, and make American manufacturers more globally competitive? Their motives are easy to guess. The exponential growth in EV sales is substantially reducing worldwide oil demand.

During my 18 years as Director of the Office of Transportation and Air Quality at EPA, I had plenty of firsthand experience with various industries – automotive, agriculture, marine, aviation and oil, to name a few. Since the mid-1970s, oil and gas companies have known that burning fossil fuels was dangerously warming the planet. They’ve had the same goal since at least the 1980s: slow or stop every effort to mitigate the impact of fossil fuels. Every time the agency made a proposal to improve the quality, reduce toxic emissions from gasoline and diesel, the oil industry predicted soaring prices that would devastate drivers and the economy.

Their ominous predictions never materialized. But their tactics persist. Their new ads about a made-up “gasoline car ban” are just the latest example of how oil companies have worked for decades to mislead the American public.

I hope Americans will see through the misinformation. EPA’s proposed emissions reductions standards are a critical part of a better future for the country and the world.

First, let’s set the record straight on what EPA is actually proposing. The proposed standards (introduced last April) would reduce emissions of various pollutants including particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide. They would apply to new cars for model years 2027 through 2032.

The proposal would not “ban” gas-powered cars in any way. Like past EPA rules, these proposed standards are “performance-based.” That means EPA is setting standards to lower tailpipe emissions without mandating how car manufacturers meet those standards. Most car companies will use a mix of technologies to reduce the total emissions of their new models, including electric vehicles (EVs), hybrids, plug-in hybrids, fuel cells and more efficient gas-powered cars. In fact, recent analysis suggests there are compliance pathways that don’t involve EVs. But even if every car manufacturer decided to go all-in on EVs, they could still meet the proposed 2032 standards even if a third of the cars they sold were gas-powered.

Despite claims to the contrary, there’s no “radical agenda” there. Instead, EPA’s proposed standards are squarely focused on total benefits to the country. The agency’s hundreds of auto engineers, climate scientists, and policy experts create standards based on, among other things, the availability of different auto technologies, costs, lead times, economic impacts, and overall public health impacts. Their work is publicly available in a 1,000-plus-page analysis, which the public comments on.

Second, it’s important to understand the potential impacts of EPA’s proposed standards, starting with their health benefits. Particulate matter from combustion engines causes or worsens asthma, bronchitis, cardiac arrythmias, heart attacks, and premature death. It’s also linked to chronic lung diseases. And carbon dioxide is a main contributor of climate change. Reducing the concentrations of these pollutants in the atmosphere makes all Americans healthier while also reducing the risks of extreme drought, flooding, sea-level rise, and extreme weather linked to climate change. EPA’s proposal would also help consumers save money because EVs are cheaper to operate than similar gas-powered cars.

The consumer benefits combined with reduced mortality and sickness from air pollution, along with climate mitigation stack up to more than $1 trillion in net benefits to the U.S.

Even without EPA’s proposed standards, EV sales in the U.S. are growing significantly. Between early 2021 and 2023, EV sales increased from about 125,000 to roughly 300,000. Then, in 2023, U.S. EV sales passed a million units, which is amazing growth for a new technology. It took hybrids 25 years to reach 10% of the passenger vehicle market; EVs got there in half the time. This market growth—driven by a combination of consumer demand, smart regulations, and massive public and private investment—also delivers huge economic benefits. Since mid-2022, battery and EV production accounted for 212,000 American jobs.

EPA’s proposal will further encourage domestic car manufacturers to invest more in the U.S. By 2035, some forecasts project total EV demand at 68% of new sales globally, as well as 77% of sales in North America and 95% in Europe.

However, while U.S.-based Tesla has been an early global leader, other American companies are lagging in the rapidly-expanding global EV market. Last year, the Chinese company BYD took the global lead in EV sales from Tesla and is planning to extend its advantage by opening car factories around the world, including one in Mexico. To win a significant global market share, U.S. manufacturers need to increase and sustain their investment and innovation in their EV offerings.

So why would oil and gas companies ask Americans to reject regulations that would improve public health, spur innovation, create new jobs, and make American manufacturers more globally competitive? Their motives are easy to guess. The exponential growth in EV sales is substantially reducing worldwide oil demand.

During my 18 years as Director of the Office of Transportation and Air Quality at EPA, I had plenty of firsthand experience with various industries – automotive, agriculture, marine, aviation and oil, to name a few. Since the mid-1970s, oil and gas companies have known that burning fossil fuels was dangerously warming the planet. They’ve had the same goal since at least the 1980s: slow or stop every effort to mitigate the impact of fossil fuels. Every time the agency made a proposal to improve the quality, reduce toxic emissions from gasoline and diesel, the oil industry predicted soaring prices that would devastate drivers and the economy.

Their ominous predictions never materialized. But their tactics persist. Their new ads about a made-up “gasoline car ban” are just the latest example of how oil companies have worked for decades to mislead the American public.

I hope Americans will see through the misinformation. EPA’s proposed emissions reductions standards are a critical part of a better future for the country and the world.