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.
Scott Pruitt should know other parts of the world are moving forward on this and companies like Ford and GM will have to to meet them no matter what the laws are in the US.
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.
"EPA Prepares To Roll Back Rules Requiring Cars To Be Cleaner..."
Armor All and Simoniz are going be very upset about this.
Solar grand minimum just delays the problem until the next solar cycle. It doesn't go away.
Plus, oil has a limited supply. The goal should be to use it efficiently and eventually move to other tech for transportation. Leave the remaining oil for chemical processes that actually require it.
Strict emissions rules have resulted in companies cheating (eg VW)...
It results in higher prices for cars..
It has resulted in various other ways to game the system - eg there are rules on CO2 emissions, but no rules on emission of other things so cars now generate less CO2 and more things which aren't so heavily regulated, which are potentially worse for both health and the environment.
I don't drive much, maybe 1000 miles per year... I have an old car which is not terribly efficient, if i were to replace it today with the most efficient car currently available, how many miles would i have to drive before the reduced fuel consumption compensated for the extra energy used to actually build the car?
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
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.
There's like, the 49-state version and then there's a California version with extra emissions equipment. At least that's the way it's been in the motorcycle world since.... the 80's?
But I don't think any of this matters, what Trump EPA does or what Obama EPA did. World will pretty much be all electric in the near future. Not because of ideological beliefs, but because of the march of (technological) progress means it will simply make more economic sense for people to buy electric cars than petrol burning cars.
In the spirit of Good Friday, I'm not going to call you a dumb sonofabitch.
http://time.com/money/4702421/...
OK, you're a dumb sonofabitch.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/rese...
You are welcome on my lawn.
California already has stricter emission standards that have held up in court (for new cars, you can still bring a "Federal standard" used car into CA if it exceeds 15,000 miles on the clock).
Some counties ban alcohol sale, others allow it year around. Some states allow AR-15s, others ban them from sale. States don't have an obligation to allow a given item to be sold in their state or city.
...b...b...b..ut you guys keep telling us about states' rights and limited government interference! Surely you aren't just a sour-grapes hypocrite more concerned with "sticking it" to whatever you imagine liberalism and by extension California to be?
LOL, anyway, I'm sure _this_ will be the time that the courts side with the Trump administration, over the last 50 years of California's regulation of emissions produced by vehicles in their state.
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?
Well it's clear what they're charged with "protecting" now.
(Corporate) Economic Protection Agency
Cheers.
Though calling him an "ADHD clown" gives a bad name to entertainers with ADHD. How about a harmful sociopath?
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.
It doesn't handicap us -- cars sold outside the US by the same makers won't be subject to US standards anyway. If anything, it will force them to do research to meet future EU/China/Japan standards NOW, and make them more prepared to compete when those laws come down.
Higher US standards would also favor US manufacturers over foreign ones as far as sales in the US.
Let's roll back the calendar to the Good Olde Days (approximately 50 to 75 years, that is), when we were totally ignorant about the impact we have on the planet we have to live on, we did what we wanted because that's the American Way, and God had the last word on everything!
That's also what this is.
The Dominionists should love this, it's one more thing to check off their to-do list: hasten destruction of the Earth, so Zombie Jesus will come back to them and take them Home that much sooner.
We have to get the Trump administration out as soon as possible, while it may still be possible to repair the damage being done to pretty much everything.
I like your optimism that the EPA will behave differently than the FCC.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Yep, that's an argument for you to keep the old car as long as you can -- energy costs are a large part of making any consumer good. Thus, government policy should encourage durability and discourage planned obsolescence.
If it was a real issue you would not be a using a computer, if it was a real issue the people getting paid to push it would not be traveling around in private planes, if it was a real issue the people who say it is an issue would at least do minimum things like volunteer recycling.
All of those are not being done, so really how much it global warming an actual concern?
Couldn't California accomplish almost the same effect by raising the gas tax? That will give residents an incentive to buy more efficient cars, as well as cut down on miles driven by existing cars.
So said all the Nazis at Nuremburg. Just wait...
1. Cut taxes adding another trillion to the national debt we spent years rallying against. Make sure 80% of tax reduction goes to top 1% all the while giving a massive one finger salute to our children.
2. Gut any environmental regulation our billionaire buddies want
3. Give Putin locations of US nuclear submarines
4. Allow traitors to covertly change republican party platform to be PRO-Russia
5. Allow traitors who will now likely spend the rest of their lives in jail to run your campaign
6. Install a traitor into the role of national security advisor
7. Publically invite hostile foreign nations to attack your political opponents
8. Hire a bunch of low life scum to work in your administration having no chance of ever obtaining security clearances.
9. Install Manchurian leaders to destroy any congressionally mandated agency you disagree with.
10. Trump's own wife wants nothing to do with him.
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.
Only the united states and canada has those standards at all...
Kinda fucking stupid to be the only ones doing it.
What are you talking about? Nearly every country has emissions standards:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Even under the stricter Obama led standards, the USA still lags most of the world in efficiency standards:
http://www.biologicaldiversity...
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"
Just because it is a real issue, doesn't mean we need to revert to stone-age technology. We should be innovating and getting off of fossil fuels as soon as possible. Very few people are traveling the world in private planes to "push it", but they are the ones who make the news. i.e. just because some people don't practice what they preach, doesn't mean the issue isn't real and that it isn't a large concern for our society. P.S. I do more than the "minimum things" :-)
Another sad day for the USA. From a sad administration...
It's not the middle ages anymore, no matter how much you wish it to be otherwise. Food is a global commodity.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
You know, the Trump philosophy summarized simply as, "Fuck you, environment!" What bothers me is that they could make cars that got 50mpg 70 years ago, e.g. the Fiat 500. However, with all the safety rules they are now required to follow, they have to go to great lengths to build an efficient hybrid car... that still cannot do better than 50mpg. Technically, it is possible to build a vehicle that gets over 100mpg, but the regulations won't let you drive it on the street.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
The sooner Mar-a-lago goes underwater, the better, baby!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Ever driven a 60s muscle car? It's like driving a barge with a stinky engine. All HP, no handling, no brakes, no thanks. If we're going to bring back the glory days of cars, we could do worse than a Jag E-type or MGB... maybe an Alfa Spider or two as well.
Only the united states and canada has those standards at all...
Kinda fucking stupid to be the only ones doing it.
Somebody has been watching WAY TOO MUCH Faux news!!!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
California's waver is up for renewal in 2025. One plan is to let that expire in order to force the state's environmental policy to fall in line behind the federal rollback. Until then, expect most US cars to not deviate far from that standard... with some exceptions (like the reintroduction of the small truck in other states).
Trump's up for reelection in two years. If you can get him out of there, and if he doesn't succeed in revoking it early, you can protect California's emission regulations. If you can protect their regulations, you provide the rest of America some semblance of coverage until the new administration comes in.
Even in the worst case, the lobbyists must succeed in rolling back regulations worldwide for there to be an appreciable difference here at home. I know the article tries to make that seem like a certainty, but I think it's just fear mongering. I half expected them to suggest that the government would ban catalytic converters and reintroduce leaded gasoline.
I'm not unsympathetic. Just be mindful that everyone has an agenda, and that everyone wants to get you upset.
If it was a real issue you would not be a using a computer, if it was a real issue the people getting paid to push it would not be traveling around in private planes, if it was a real issue the people who say it is an issue would at least do minimum things like volunteer recycling.
All of those are not being done, so really how much it global warming an actual concern?
Ah yes, "whataboutism" at its finest. From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism):
Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument, which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda. When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the Soviet response would be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world.
And yes, I do more than my fair share (e.g., practice reduce/reuse/recycle, in that order, solar panels, bicycle, vegetarian, be involved in politics, and try to use my career as an engineer to make positive changes.)
> the military budget is maybe 40% of the budget, at most.
Phew. The OP almost got me worried. I feel very much relieved now. Thanks a bunch for that!
I hope I didn't brain my damage.
Requiring cars and trucks in California to have a "California Emissions" package started in the 1970s. CARB still has requirements for cars and trucks in California. Lots of lawsuits, all won by California.
In fact, there is nothing in the Constitution nor Supreme Court precedent that stops California from doing this. It would only be a problem if California was attempting to regulate cars and trucks in other states. It isn't.
Global warming man-made by adjusting the measurements, because the raw un-adjusted temperature data says there isn't any warming.
https://realclimatescience.com/2018/03/noaa-data-tampering-approaching-2-5-degrees/#comment-86445
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/02/nasa-noaa-climate-data-is-fake-data/
The right feeds the left, or haven't you looked at the political demographics of the US farming communities?
Those farming communities are heavily reliant on "liberal" areas to fund their existence. That's why CA only gets back 80-someodd cents of every tax dollar, while "farming" states turn a profit on federal taxes.
So I think the evil liberal commies could afford to take some of your subsidy and use it to buy food on the global market.
I like your optimism that the EPA will behave differently than the FCC.
The Internet is fundamentally cross-border, despite the ridiculousness of Pai I can see the FCC having legitimate cause to say that a state can't have their own set of Internet rules.
But cars are different, the EPA shouldn't have any pretext to overrule state regulations.
More importantly, California is a very big and very rich state, big and rich enough that car manufacturers might decide it's better just to make one model that hits California standards rather than investing in a second dirty model, especially when the federal standard is likely to revert once Trump is out.
I stole this Sig
It seems Leonardo DiCaprio, who differs from most in that he's filthy rich, represents all human beings that are concerned with the environment.
Not at all.
Electric cars are rated at around 120 mpg for the purpose of the law. Let's assume 20% electric car sales.
"Regular" gas sedans now get 35-40 mpg routinely, call it 35. Let's assume 30% gasser sales.
"Hybrid" gas sedans get 50-70mpg average, call it 60, depending on whether they have a "plug in" option or not. Let's assume 20% of sales.
"Other" cars like efficient sports (not muscle) cars can be made to average 40 mpg. 10% of sales.
"Trucks and light trucks" should be able to eke out 25 mpg average. Last 20% of sales.
(120*.2) + (35 * .3) + (60 * .2) +(40 * .1) + (25 * .2) = 55.5mpg.
Perfectly doable with current tech assuming the mix of cars sold drifts towards hybrids and electrics over 7 years.
How does that cause net neutrality rules in one state to affect another state in a way that's different than California emissions rules affecting other states?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Personally I am done buying gasoline engine vehicles. I've got my last SUV and motorcycle in 2011. I'll be picking up an electric car if I have to commute more than 10 miles. These days I mostly bicycle and only use the vehicles when I need to haul stuff or go a longer distance.
I'm waiting for someone to come out with an electric 4x4 truck or SUV. (Most of the garbage they sell these days are neither, they just look pretty with no actual capability under the plastic and fake bumpers) and are way overpriced for what they are.) Then I'll pick up another.
Tesla needs to hurry up and come out with one, though if the Semi ever got below $100K I would be interested. Road warrior it up and use it as an angry daily driver.
More like the Joker, who wants to watch the world burn...
[($)]
Where have you been? You have more choices of high performance cars than ever before. Exactly when in history could you buy a Mustang/Camaro that you could set the cruise control to 125mph and just cruise smoothly down the highway at 20+mpg?
Not to mention motorcycles. My not particular fast FZ-1 street bike does 0-60 in 2.9s and tops out around 185mph.
You are living the dream right now. On a plus if you crash a modern car you will actually have a good chance of surviving the wreck uninjured.
Wasn't it all the European car companies the ones getting their pants sued off for cheating on the emissions tests the past 5 years? Volkswagen has half a million cars sitting out in the desert they can't sell because of that. I'd take it with a grain of salt that they are doing better than the US.
I proposed an amiable split, not war. Trade doesn't have to go away. And even if there were war, plenty of other countries grow food to sell.
What's that have to do with a split? Both sides feel superior: humans have fat-ass egos both on an individual level and cultural level. The point is we don't get along and therefore should divorce.
Table-ized A.I.
Moreover, this "debate" is like most others - the so-called champions of science have long since abandoned any attempt to convince people about their theories or prove them [...]
There are people who believe that the Earth is flat, that the moon landings were a hoax / directed by Stanley Kubrick, that the children in the Newton shooting were faked / false flag, and that 9/11 was an "inside job". And that's just the easy stuff: let's not get into evolution (which even the Catholic Church has accepted for many, many decades--though the Vatican runs their astronomical observatory and has a meteorite collection, so science isn't really a problem with them).
The Left certainly has it's own issues (see sacking of James Damore) as you say, but treating the two sides the same is false equivalence IMHO.
You cannot reason people out of a position they have not used reason to get into in the first place.
It's not a logical fallacy to point out hypocrisy, bigger problems, or other shit that in turn show the point of some retard to be stupid or moot.
If your point is that guns are dangerous, and I tell you that cars and alcohol and hospitals are more dangerous, you don't get to call "whataboutism" like some schoolyard "nuh-uh" retort that magically enshrines your bullshit as unassailable.
People crying about "whataboutism" are typically actually crying about someone poking holes in their claims, pointing out how dumb they are, etc.
Using your numbers, you get to 52 mpg with a mix of 15% trucks, 5% sports cars, 40% hybrids, 10% normal cars, 30% electrics. Still doable. Even more doable if automakers concentrate on weight reduction at the expense of some un-needed features (do able-bodied people really need electric chairs up front?).
Err... no. The memo in question basically instructs staffers to use equivocal language to misrepresent the current state of evidence.
Suppose somebody asks you, "Is a proton more massive than an electron?" and you answer (paraphrasing the Trump administration here) "The ability to measure with precision the mass of a proton is subject to continuing debate and dialogue." Have you lied?
Well let's clarify: You haven't said anything counterfactual; new papers on more precise mass measurements of proton mass are being published every year. However you have deliberately left the false impression that the uncertainty in proton mass is more important than what we know about proton mass for purposes of answering the question.
I submit that deliberately encouraging false belief is a form of lying, even if you don't say anything that is by itself false. That's how lies of omission work. It's the intent to create a false picture in your audience's mind that makes it a lie.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I may add that there are "credits" built in to the CAFE numbers for things like natural gas cars and ability to run on alternative fuels. So the MPG numbers used for the law tend to be better than at first glance.
based transportation is a goal.
Not really -- you can get a Yaris (2300 lb), Versa, or Smart car in the US. European crash safety standards are similar to (or tougher than) US ones these days, and can be met without making the car a heavy porker. Problem in the US is cheap gas, so no market for light/cheap cars.
XL1 is not a real car -- it was a VW concept. But yeah, you can get European-sized cars in the US, and they'll meet safety standards.
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
Seriously, the best thing that can happen is that ownership of ICE remain high, part of which is due to low mpg. EVs are much cheaper to drive, but with the exception of Tesla, EVs are more expensive to buy Vs comparable ice cars. But as car makers produce more, prices are coming down. So high cost of ice ownership simply speeds EV ownership.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The right is poisoning people & Earth for profit, reject inconvenient science and subject experts, fill the country with dangerous firearms...
As a compromise, why not just stop trying to impose your belief systems on people? If people want to have firearms, how does it help anyone to hate on those people? Is hate your goal? Because that's mostly what you’ve achieved.
If people refuse your belief that you can "save the Earth", why should they be bullied into going along with something they think is false? You've tried forcing them to go along with you. You've tried name-calling them and being mean to them. You've tried pointing at people you revere as "experts". You've tried making endless apocalyptic predictions of the future. How did it work out? Is it working out? Maybe you should give up trying to make others live their lives according to your beliefs. How about it?
You know what you didn't try? Listening to them and caring about their concerns. Being fair to them. Treating them like your fellow Americans. If you want to accomplish something more than spreading hatred and division, this is how you start doing that.
The real problem is everyone is trying to move everything to the federal level.
There are states for a reason.
Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.
That all great, but for some applications there aren't economical solutions.
I drive a full-size SUV, and sometimes a transit van for my (freelance) work.
No one is making (or will be any time soon) an electric vehicle that are affordable in that size range.
Even IF they could, range, cold weather issues and battery lifespan would all still be a huge issue for me.
I regularly drive in off-road winter conditions, in sub-zero temperatures... and need the cargo space and range of an ICE.
I don't even want to think about how a lithium battery would perform in -20-30F temperatures after 15 years and 200k miles... on steep grades, with snow tires on a 200-300 mile round trip.
The turbo V6 versions have drawbacks, and don't really get better mileage in the real world.
My current 15-year-old SUV gets within 1 or 2 mpg of the v6 turbo, and that's on crap menthol gas.
Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.
How does that cause net neutrality rules in one state to affect another state in a way that's different than California emissions rules affecting other states?
For vehicles it's easy to say if you want to register in state X you need to meet standard Y, other than affecting the market you don't really affect other states.
But for Net Neutrality what happens if the server and client are both in NN states but an intermediate network isn't, is that intermediate carrier allowed to slow down the traffic? What if the ISP and user are both in NN states but the ISP routes the traffic out of state, are they allowed to degrade the traffic there?
These aren't insurmountable problems by any means, but I could see the FCC being given the leeway to make those kinds of determinations, and if you care as little for evidence or proper procedure as Pai then you might take any excuse to block the states.
I stole this Sig
One of the logical fallacies is your using regulated things to argue that something shouldn't be regulated. Hospital's are highly regulated with most workers needing various training and licenses as well as regulations on cleanliness and such, which have made them much safer. Cars are highly regulated, with enforced safety features, rules about operating such as seat belts and drivers are licensed, this has made cars much safer over the years as well as saving numerous life's due to cleaner emissions which have also been regulated.
You seem to be saying that given the fact that people still die in hospitals and automobiles, we don't have to regulate guns, not even regulating a safety, plus we don't have to ensure that people have any training in using firearms and anyone should be free to buy them.
Good example of how whataboutism works
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
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.
the last spending bill was $1.3 Trillion, of which nearly $700 billion is military. 700/1300 = 53% (rounding down since 'nearly'). And if you think the next spending bill will be any different you haven't been paying attention to who's running the government.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
What do you think will happen to all those farms if people in cities aren't buying their output?
They can scale back production, lower costs, and have some nice forest areas in addition to the high quality subsistence crops.
Let's not pretend firearms aren't regulated, as many states do regulate them.
It was easy. They just needed to make certain both major candidates running were mental patients. Voila: 2016 election.
Pruitt would not know science if it sat on his face.
"whataboutism" is a dog whistle.
It means somebody is secretly a smarmy fuck.
Err... no. The memo in question basically instructs staffers to use equivocal language to misrepresent the current state of evidence.
Suppose somebody asks you, "Is a proton more massive than an electron?" and you answer (paraphrasing the Trump administration here) "The ability to measure with precision the mass of a proton is subject to continuing debate and dialogue." Have you lied?
Well let's clarify: You haven't said anything counterfactual; new papers on more precise mass measurements of proton mass are being published every year. However you have deliberately left the false impression that the uncertainty in proton mass is more important than what we know about proton mass for purposes of answering the question.
I submit that deliberately encouraging false belief is a form of lying, even if you don't say anything that is by itself false. That's how lies of omission work. It's the intent to create a false picture in your audience's mind that makes it a lie.
Sorry, got my memos confused. But I don't have any issues with this one either
"While there has been extensive research and a host of published reports on climate change, clear gaps remain including our understanding of the role of human activity and what we can do about it."
"Human activity impacts our changing climate in some manner. The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of that impact and what to do about it are subject to continuing debate and dialogue."
Both statements are accurate and generally accepted.
You've clearly never heard of California
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
It's not anywhere near 2025 yet - why quit trying so early?
Regular mid-sized sedans do not average 35-40mpg. Midsized hybrid sedans do not average 50-70mpg. Electric vehicles only account for 1% of sales and hybrids only account for 2% of sales so I don't know why you believe those numbers will grow from 3% to 40% in only 7 years http://www.hybridcars.com/dece...
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
No one actually makes a hybrid truck yet because hybrid trucks have been notoriously slower than their V8 counterparts, tow far less and cost far more so it was a lose lose lose scenario. Ironically, none of the most efficient trucks on hybridcars.com are hybrid trucks http://www.hybridcars.com/amer...
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
on their fine for the emissions scandal?
I am sorry ? But since then the US is setting standard WORLDWIDE on emission, pollution , or whatnot ? For fuck's sake they can't even adhere to a unit measurement standard like the meter...
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
It's not a logical fallacy to point out hypocrisy, bigger problems, or other shit that in turn show the point of some retard to be stupid or moot.
If your point is that guns are dangerous, and I tell you that cars and alcohol and hospitals are more dangerous, you don't get to call "whataboutism" like some schoolyard "nuh-uh" retort that magically enshrines your bullshit as unassailable.
Yes, that's also an excellent example of whataboutism. You seem to think that your retort about cars, alcohol, and hospitals is somehow a reason to shut up about the dangers of uncontrolled gun possession. It is not. Uncontrolled gun possession is still irresponsible, and you haven't said anything to refute that. You're just trying to change the subject.
People crying about "whataboutism" are typically actually crying about someone poking holes in their claims, pointing out how dumb they are, etc.
No, they are typically crying about somebody who thinks or pretends to think that whataboutism pokes a hole in their claims, whereas in reality it does not; it is just an attempt at deflection.
When will the President of Trumpistan and the Head of the Environmental Destruction Agency be put on trial for serving their swamp buddies instead of serving the people? "Democracy is direct self-government, over all the people, by all the people, for all the people.”
Does that number include all of the nuclear stuff? AFAIK, most of that runs under the Department of Energy, not the DoD, and would have to be added to your "measly" 630 billion bucks. I wouldn't be surprised if some other departments also had budgets that would go towards military spending.
Even at the cited number, the USA are still at more than the next several most spending countries together.
That doesn't make sense. Just because people are hypocrites and also live in the modern world where its not usually possible to avoid these behaviours doesn't mean the problem does not exist. It's still a real issue.
It'd still be a real issue if we didn't know anything about it. We do know about it, we're just not (seriously) doing anything about it.
"Looks like Jodka triggered another snowflake." - says the snowflake posting as an AC
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
lets not pretend that firearms are regulated to prevent idiots getting and using them to kill unarmed people
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
so you its upto everyone else to do something while you sit on your hands selfishly adding to the problems.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
a lot of countries outside the USA are proposing no more sales of ICE cars around 2025 and beyond. Seems like Norway is starting the trend https://www.independent.co.uk/...
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Our politicians have let the people down. Again.
Thanks Trump voters.
Get up!
It’s your religion, not mine.
Both statements are accurate and generally accepted.
But neither signifies what, in context, is being implied. Therefore they are lies of distraction.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
... Rules Requiring Cars To Be Unrealistically Cleaner and Impossibly More Efficient
FTFY.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Both statements are accurate and generally accepted.
But neither signifies what, in context, is being implied. Therefore they are lies of distraction.
Blame the ars article that presented them without context
That was only true when state taxes could be written off the fed.
And that's over with.
Um.....writing off state taxes reduces federal income taxes. So high-tax states will be paying more in taxes. Which means that 80-someodd percent will now be 75-to-80 someodd.
In other words, they're paying an even bigger subsidy to the "farming" states. Making it even easier to fund buying food from global sources.
Also, have you considered those "farming" states would be losing their largest and most profitable markets?
Congress could pass a law or Act that mandates uniform emissions standards nationwide with EPA enforcing them
Congress could also pass a law requiring blowjobs every Tuesday. It's about as likely to pass.
See, CA and all the other states that passed laws which said "follow CA's rules" would not want such a law to pass, killing it in the Senate.
Trump could simply use that pen and phone that your boy Obama left behind that you liked so well when he used it for what you wanted.
And do what with it? Despite your wet dreams, he is not God-emperor.
That's one of the bad things about having a large and powerful Federal government
Are you drunk?
The subject at hand is a perfect example of Federalism. California wants stricter air quality controls, so it enacted state laws. Which only apply in the state. So where's the ebil federal government out to seize your guns....er....tailpipes?
Stop deciding on issues with emotion and start using logic and reason
Says the guy who's jealous of Obama's "pen".
Its not out of the norm, lots and lots of people take driving vacations involving hundreds of miles a day of travel. Its the USA, which is huge. If you're going to start in the midwest and visit Yellowstone, Devil's Tower, maybe Pikes Peak, swing down to the Painted Desert and the Petrified Forest, etc. you're going to be traversing 100's of miles a day. Recharging for hours after 300 miles or so just doesn't work.
My Subaru WRX isn't a "rally car", its a STOCK Subaru WRX. I just happen to use it for a rather sedate form of road rally, where sudden acceleration bursts are still an advantage. But it ain't the races you see on TV.
Anyway, if the car I'm considering requires a lot of time to "refuel", then I don't consider it. A lot of people won't - I've been doing these long distance drives my whole life. Friend of my was stationed in Georgia in the Army, and would drive up to Ohio on weekends to visit his family - that's probably 600 miles. Hours to recharge after 300 miles wouldn't work for that either.
Pretty much everyone has some occasion to drive 100's of miles, and won't consider something that won't do that when forking over $30K+ or better for the only car they can afford.
Ask anyone who drives a diesel. Their fuel efficiency has tanked with the stricter regulations. A huge portion of traffic are commercial highway tractors, and they simply are no longer are the super fuel efficient beasts that they used to be, due solely to emission laws.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
What the fuck is it with all this fly-over hatred?
What the fuck is it with all this coastal hatred?
It's not like flyover country has a positive opinion of "coastal elites". For example, they've been claiming the people of states like NY and CA are not Real Americans for decades.
If you throw shit, don't be surprised when some of it splashes back on you.
Recent Volt owner here, and I bet the Volt beats your Subie off the line. You'll win in the 0-60MPH and 1/4 mile, but from 0-30MPH, electric is amazingly quick because of the immense torque - you also don't have downshifts that effectively count as periods of 0 acceleration.
So, I think for the use case you describe, a Volt would probably be competitive with a WRX (and undoubtedly much better than a Cherokee).
How many $150K cars are sold vs. $25K cars? Orders of magnitude fewer. $150K cars are a rounding error when it comes to pollution numbers. You don't affect change by pruning the outliers. You do it by improving the performance of the mainstream.
Imagine all the people...