Slashdot Mirror
EPA Prepares To Roll Back Rules Requiring Cars To Be Cleaner and More Efficient (nytimes.com)
Coral Davenport and Hiroko Tabuchi, reporting for The New York Times: The Trump administration is expected to launch an effort in coming days to weaken greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy standards for automobiles, handing a victory to car manufacturers and giving them ammunition to potentially roll back industry standards worldwide. The move -- which undercuts one of President Barack Obama's signature efforts to fight climate change -- would also propel the Trump administration toward a courtroom clash with California, which has vowed to stick with the stricter rules even if Washington rolls back federal standards. That fight could end up creating one set of rules for cars sold in California and the 12 states that follow its lead, and weaker rules for the rest of the states, in effect splitting the nation into two markets.
Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, is expected to frame the initiative as eliminating a regulatory burden on automakers that will result in more affordable trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles for buyers, according to people familiar with the plan. An E.P.A. spokeswoman confirmed that Mr. Pruitt had sent a draft of the 16-page plan to the White House for approval. Further reading: EPA to its employees: Ignore science when talking about climate change (ArsTechnica)
Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, is expected to frame the initiative as eliminating a regulatory burden on automakers that will result in more affordable trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles for buyers, according to people familiar with the plan. An E.P.A. spokeswoman confirmed that Mr. Pruitt had sent a draft of the 16-page plan to the White House for approval. Further reading: EPA to its employees: Ignore science when talking about climate change (ArsTechnica)
Surely this change in regulation would do more to hurt US car companies that help them? If they don't design and build for efficiency, then surely this would limit their ability to export to any market that cares about efficiency or where fuel costs are already high? This feels like another short term action, just like trying to protect the coal industry, that will end up hurting more in the long run, than doing any real good.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
CAFE (Corp Average Fuel Economy) standards were always a silly way of doing things, since they specified average economy within a given class of vehicle. Car, truck, later there were more categories based on wheelbase and width. It encouraged automakers to make more "trucks" that were used as cars, actually lowering real-life average fuel economy for the cars on US roads.
Better solution would be to tax fuel at a fairly high rate and let the markets decide what to buy. Use the tax money to subsidize clean (electric) transport like electric cars and trains, roll out charging stations, encourage solar installation, maybe even subsidize the (relatively clean compared to fossil fuels) nuclear power industry.
I swear to God, if Obama had found the cure for cancer, these f.cking trumptards would repell it, and in a sickening display of intellectual travesty, they would somehow claim that this is a Good Thing (tm).
Seriously, you can't be more ideological than this. Way more than those so called leftist SJWs they condemn and whine about all the time.
Trumptards are hell-bent on bringing society back to the dark ages, when humanity basically acted like a cancer of the planet. And they're proud of it.
You are free to believe whatever you want. However, we all need to worry about global warming. It is really happening and is really man-man. The science is correct. I tend to believe the scientists who have studied this for many years, over conservative politicians and talk show hosts.
Tax will have little impact for people who can afford more fuel thirsty vehicles (SUVs, trucks, and sports cars). Meanwhile it'll hi the working poor like ton of bricks.
Really? So if Ford was offering a 10mpg car and Honda was offering a 35mpg comparable car, you gonna buy the Ford? How many car manufacturers are out there? You are free to buy from the most fuel efficient car maker. And buying a more fuel efficient car saves you money, so why would you need a law to force you to buy the more fuel efficient model? Why not a law to force CPU makers minimum flops? Or RAM makers minimum Ram speeds? Or hard driver makers minimum terabytes?
That's a strawman.
The choice will be more like a 35mpg Honda and 25mph Ford that costs $2000 less, has a more powerful engine, but also emits a *lot* more pollutants of all types, not just CO2, but the smog inducing pollutants that have a direct link in killing people.
Many people will take the cheap, faster car even if it kills children since that killing is an indirect link, which is why the regulation is needed.
Umm, no.
US Military budget is around 630 billion dollars. Total Federal budget is north of 4 trillion dollars.
Even if you only count discretionary spending, the military budget is maybe 40% of the budget, at most.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I totally agree, but then...
No, wait, no, stop. Don't subsidize anything with this money. And you can't afford to subsidize things anyway, once you look closer at your true liabilities.
Use this money to mitigate the effects of the pollution. Plant forests with it. Build atmospheric scrubbers. Use it to treat people who are sick from pollution. Use it to build multi-trillion-dollar projects to put our coastal cities on stilts. That sort of stuff.
The goal of the tax should simply be end the subsidy that we're currently giving to everyone who burns things. You won't need to give incentives to cleaner tech, because they'll already have the incentive of their users accruing less tax to clean up after themselves.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
" A lot of countries spent far less on defense, and remain oddly uninvaded."
Because WE are protecting them with OUR (very expensive) military. Before he was elected, before he was even running for election, Donald Trump mentioned in interviews that some big benficiaries of our defense spending should start coughing up for its creation and maintenance. I favor that. If you're in such a situation that you're in danger if the US military goes home, then you should be paying for it.
The headlines on this story have all been uniformly Disingenuous and Sensationalist.
Twelve Mile a gallon cars are NOT going to be coming back, Standards are not going to be weakened.
What is changing is that the highly unrealistic target of 50 mpg for fleet average requirements in 2025 are going to be scaled down to something that is actually achievable.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
There is NO Russian collusion! Give that shit up. You retards are blinding me from all the reflection given off your tin-foil hats.
That said, the parent is correct. Trust mentioned that the US is effectively subsidizing other nations via an umbrella of protection paid for by the US tax payer. Now, I'm all for helping out allies. But, when European nations (members of NATO) are touting socialized medicine and how great it is, in essence, you can thank the US for that.
Life is not for the lazy.