The article explains how the Trump administration has managed, through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to weaken fuel economy standards in the United States. This appears to be a move that has been challenged by the state of California and twelve other states. They consider this move a permit for air pollution by greenhouse gases and have opted to maintain their stricter air standards. The article is informative in nature, since the author only relays information without taking any stance.
The material is valuable not only to the occupants of California and the twelve other states but also to automobile manufacturers and environmental activists all over the world. The article clearly explains the cross roads and stakeholders involved. The most critical piece of information in my view is the political nature of the EPA. It consented to Obama’s regulations during his tenure but now it claims that the Obama era set the standards too high because of incorrect assumptions (Rott n.p.). This is contradictory since the body had the chance to raise these objections but it didn’t.
The author of the article is Nathan Rott. He is a reporter at the National Public Radio (NPR) national desk. Nathan hails from Montana and is a graduate of the University of Montana. His background is reporting although he has done lots of occupations including professional snow-shovelling.
The publisher and article bear a common purpose of informing the readers of the fuel economy policy being adopted by the nation and the brewing legal battle between the government and the state of California.
The author appears to be biased towards the government and the automobile manufacturers. He seems to spend a lot of time discussing about the plea of the Trump organization and the automobile manufacturers while less time is spent on the reasoning of the state of California. The author passively depicts California as a rebellious state.
The writer has neglected the plea of environmental conservatives’ in this whole debate. Whether this is intentional or accidental remains to be seen by the reader. The magnitude of this debate should have involved other stakeholders including the very consumers of these automobiles and fuel.
It remains at the readers’ disposal to decide whether the twelve states are backing California for the same reason or for other isolated reasons. More information is required in order to understand the extent of this debate. Nevertheless, I still question the participation of the EPA in this whole process. Can they assure a fair outcome given all the political interference involved?
Rott, Nathan. “EPA Moves to Weaken Landmark Fuel Efficiency Rules.” NPR, NPR, 2 Apr. 2018, https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/02/598888447/epa-moves-to-weaken-landmark-fuel-efficiency-rules.