The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced plans to lower fuel efficiency standards for cars, a move that would allow vehicles to run at 34.5 miles per gallon (14.7km per liter) compared with the current standard of 50 miles per gallon (21km per liter). The proposed change would cut fuel standards by more than 15 miles per gallon, a decision that has sparked debate among experts and environmental groups.

According to the EPA, the new standards would make cars more affordable for Americans and give them the freedom to choose larger vehicles. However, experts say that the idea that this change would save US drivers money is highly speculative. "The notion that this change will save drivers money is not supported by the data," said a spokesperson for the Union of Concerned Scientists. "In reality, this change will likely lead to increased fuel costs and higher emissions."

The proposed change in policy has also been criticized for laying to waste the years and billions of dollars invested in cleaner cars, including electric vehicles (EVs). "This decision is a step backward for the US auto industry and will undermine the progress we've made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions," said a representative for the Sierra Club. "We urge the administration to reconsider this decision and prioritize a cleaner, more sustainable transportation future."

The proposed change in fuel efficiency standards is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to roll back environmental regulations. In recent months, the administration has announced plans to relax rules governing emissions from power plants and to ease restrictions on oil and gas drilling. Critics argue that these changes will have significant environmental and health impacts, while supporters say they will boost economic growth and create jobs.

The proposed change in fuel efficiency standards is currently under review by the EPA and is expected to be finalized in the coming months. Environmental groups and industry stakeholders are expected to continue to weigh in on the issue, and it remains to be seen how the final rule will be received.