Trump’s EPA Head Declares War On Start/Stop Tech
- EPA’s new head is pushing to ban stop/start tech despite its environmental benefits.
- Studies show that stop/start technology reduces fuel consumption by up to 8 percent.
- The tech has been in use for over 20 years with proven efficiency and lower emissions.
The EPA’s mission, as proudly stated on its own website, is to “protect human health and the environment.” But someone might want to pass that message along to the agency’s new Trump-appointed head, because it seems like he’s declared war on it.
var adpushup = window.adpushup = window.adpushup || {que:[]};
adpushup.que.push(function() {
if (adpushup.config.platform !== “DESKTOP”){
adpushup.triggerAd(“0f7e3106-c4d6-4db4-8135-c508879a76f8”);
} else {
adpushup.triggerAd(“82503191-e1d1-435a-874f-9c78a2a54a2f”);
}
});
No, not war on gas-guzzling supercars, full-sized trucks sold to those who don’t use them as such, or oil companies. Instead, he’s targeting the stop/start function on many modern cars. Yes, the same one proven to save fuel and reduce carbon emissions.
More: Trump’s New EPA Boss Starts Review That Could Overturn California’s ICE Ban
As a quick reminder, stop/start technology turns off a car’s engine when it’s idling—typically at a stoplight or in traffic. Different systems work in slightly different ways, but most kick the engine back on as soon as the car detects the driver lifting their foot off the brake pedal. Automakers started putting this sort of system into cars over two decades ago to help meet fuel economy targets.
The Battle Over Stop/Start Technology
According to EPA head Lee Zeldin, it’s little more than a “climate participation trophy.” He’s wrong about that, but before we get into it, here’s his entire quote from his X account. “Start/stop technology: where your car dies at every red light so companies get a climate participation trophy. EPA approved it, and everyone hates it, so we’re fixing it.”
Zeldin fails to mention that automakers launched the tech because it clearly works and is clearly hyperbolic by saying that ‘everyone hates it.’ Why come out with this statement in this way? Ignorance might be a part of it.
var adpushup = window.adpushup = window.adpushup || {que:[]};
adpushup.que.push(function() {
if (adpushup.config.platform !== “DESKTOP”){
adpushup.triggerAd(“bb7964e9-07de-4b06-a83e-ead35079d53c”);
} else {
adpushup.triggerAd(“9b1169d9-7a89-4971-a77f-1397f7588751”);
}
});
Car UK summed up its thoughts saying, “He has absolutely no background in environmental law, science or policy as every other EPA head has had. He’s a prominent climate change sceptic. His sole qualification for one of the biggest jobs in US government – running a department created by Republican darling Richard Nixon – is his loyalty to Trump and his commitment to an agenda of deregulation.”
Notably, non-political data proves the efficacy of start/stop systems. We’ve literally known for over 20 years that these systems improve efficiency and reduce carbon emissions. Jason Fenske, the man behind Engineering Explained, clarified that on his channel six years ago (embedded below). A study he referenced showed a real-world fuel savings of 4-8.7 percent in light to heavy traffic. That wasn’t a scientific calculation, it was a test with real cars on real streets in real traffic.
To be even clearer, we’re not talking about sitting at a stoplight for several minutes. This study showed that it took less than 8 seconds of sitting at a light for the technology to be effective in reducing fuel consumption.
It Works
var adpushup = window.adpushup = window.adpushup || {que:[]};
adpushup.que.push(function() {
if (adpushup.config.platform !== “DESKTOP”){
adpushup.triggerAd(“b25ecba7-3bbb-4ea7-a3a8-dbea91695c07”);
} else {
adpushup.triggerAd(“e46c436a-adeb-4b5e-a2c7-56bc36561c10”);
}
});
Since that 2004 study, both the components and systems involved have only gotten better. Starters designed for these heavy-duty cycles have seen improvements as well. Sure, there are legitimate complaints about stop/start technology – it can be annoying, and without electric compressors to keep the AC running when the engine shuts off, cars can get uncomfortably warm. And yes, automakers use this tech to help meet fuel economy targets. But that doesn’t change the fact that it delivers tangible benefits.
If the EPA wants to focus on protecting the environment, maybe higher fuel economy standards and meeting them should be something it champions. It seems that for now, it’s more focused on driver comfort, which I’m pretty sure isn’t in its mandate anywhere.