Let's see, raising auto mileage standards would mean that the cars sold in the United States use less gasoline for each mile driven. Unless the savings on gas causes people to increase their driving enough to offset the improved mileage (pretty unlikely), then higher auto mileage standards will reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the auto sector. Unless this action spontaneously causes an increase in emissions from some other sector (also pretty unlikely) then we can say that mileage standards will reduce overall emissions of carbon dioxide.
I don't think anyone still disputes the link between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming, so then why does the NYT tell us that it is just liberals that think that mileage standards will "combat global warming?"
Clearly there can be differences about whether higher mileage standards are the best mechanism to combat global warming, but there is no serious dispute that they can slow global warming if implemented.
There's too much at stake this November for us to quit. As we navigate another presidential election year, thoughtful independent journalism is more important than ever. We're committed to bringing you the latest news on what's really happening across the country this election season, shining a light on the stories corporate media overlooks and keeping the public informed about how power really works in America.
Quality reporting doesn't come for free, and we don't have corporate backers to rely on to fund our work. Everything we do is thanks to our incredible community of readers, who chip in a few dollars at a time to make what we do possible. This month, we're trying to raise $50,000 to help fuel our election coverage, and we've fallen behind on reaching our goal. Any amount you give today will bring us closer to making our reporting possible—and a generous donor has agreed to match all online donations, so your impact will be doubled.
