What it means to THINK THE VOTE

// The importance of civic discourse

Join The Debate Top Comments

Q: Should the federal government create a single, reduced standard for automobile emissions?

yes

“I never think that it is a good idea for the government to set regulations on consumer goods. One major reason is varying situational standards. In a crowded city, it may make sense to limit the amount of vehicle pollution considering there are usually many other methods of transportation such as subways and buses. However, the issue comes into play in less urbanized places. In smaller towns as well as in vast farmlands it becomes more difficult to avoid use of a personal motorized vehicle. Many farmers require the use of plows, tractors, and other sorts of machinery, but they also have to drive to town occasionally to purchase goods that they otherwise would not be capable of obtaining. This is a similar situation for people of small towns where large scale transportation systems have not yet been fully established. It should be up to the vehicle manufacturers to advance in technology at their own rate to make cheaper more sustainable transportation rather than the government to force such change upon the public altogether.”

Zachary from Florida

no

“I do not believe the federal government should create a single, reduced standard for automobile emissions. According to the UN, the world could be facing “catastrophic climate change by the year 2030”. If we were to create this new standard and rebuke Obama’s policies, there would not be enough positive effects to counter the negative ones. Without enforcing environmentally competent automobile restrictions, illness and death rates will grow exponentially. A recent article from NBC states the results if Trump’s new policies were to be enacted, “199 additional cases of acute bronchitis a year, 62 added emergency room visits from respiratory distress annually and a total of 16,819 missed work days per year”. Trump’s administration claims the benefits of the new policies would be lowering the costs of cars to financially achievable levels for families and increase safety on the road for Americans. In all actuality, environmentally safe cars are becoming exponentially cheaper as the amount of them produced increases. Trump’s “safety” claim is simply a snippet of the truth. As stated in the New York Times, “improving fuel-economy standards would actually lead to about 100 fewer auto-related casualties over the next 13 years.” Furthermore, the Earth is expected to warm by seven degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. NBC writes, “The 7 degree increase anticipated in the fuel efficiency report likely would trigger flooding of New York, Miami and other coastal cities, along with a string of other disasters”. We must act to save our environment. We cannot regress and rely on policies that clearly are more harmful than beneficial.”

Kaitlin from Georgia

Think the Vote helps you to understand controversial topics and current events. Thinking through your vote is more than showing up on Election Day and picking the person that you like the best—it’s showing an interest in the world and the issues that surround you every day.

Learn About the Issues 

Join The Debate

“Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.”

– President John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961