Slashdot Mirror
California Leads States In Suing the EPA For Attacking Vehicle Emissions Standards (theverge.com)
California, along with seventeen other states, announced a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency today over its recent rollback of Obama-era vehicle emissions and fuel economy standards. The states argue that the EPA "acted arbitrarily and capriciously" in overturning the previous administration's decision. The Verge reports: The standards in question were drawn up in 2009 and adopted in 2012. They laid out a path for automakers to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions by reaching an average fleet fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2024. Since the program was charting a course that stretched out more than a decade into the future, it was written into the rules that the EPA would have to perform a "mid-term evaluation" before April 1st, 2018. This review would serve two purposes: assess whether automakers were on track, and then use that information to determine if the last section of the standards (which apply to model year 2022-2025 cars) were still feasible.
The EPA, under Barack Obama, kicked off this review process ahead of schedule in the summer of 2016 when it published an extensive 1,200-page technical assessment that analyzed whether the standards were working. In January 2017, the outgoing EPA wrapped this evaluation and determined that the bar was not set too high. In fact, it argued, automakers were overwhelmingly compliant. The Trump EPA's decision in April did not set new standards -- it simply argued that there were problems with the existing standards. In the meantime, the agency and the Department of Transportation are currently working together to craft and officially propose new standards. But the previous standards that the EPA said were inappropriate will technically remain in place until that happens.
The EPA, under Barack Obama, kicked off this review process ahead of schedule in the summer of 2016 when it published an extensive 1,200-page technical assessment that analyzed whether the standards were working. In January 2017, the outgoing EPA wrapped this evaluation and determined that the bar was not set too high. In fact, it argued, automakers were overwhelmingly compliant. The Trump EPA's decision in April did not set new standards -- it simply argued that there were problems with the existing standards. In the meantime, the agency and the Department of Transportation are currently working together to craft and officially propose new standards. But the previous standards that the EPA said were inappropriate will technically remain in place until that happens.
with no skin in the game.
Who are you accusing of not having any skin the game? People who actually breathe air? They don't have any 'skin' in the game?
Not to let the facts get in the way of hyperbolic partisanship, but...
(1) The Obama decision was made with input from (and the endorsement of) car manufacturers.
(2) Long term plans and regulations, as a matter of both law and public policy, are not subject to the chief executive's whims. This makes sense, because how would business proceed if regulations were substantially overhauled every 4 years?
(2a) Just because someone doesn't like a deal, doesn't mean it wasn't accomplished and cannot be backtracked on.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
That whole state can fucking burn.
It often does.
If something is illegal, does that automatically make it morally wrong?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
California politicians have that "If you believe it enough, it will come true" mentality. These are the folks who would require auto makers to build a four door sedan that can get 80 mpg city and 110 mpg highway. And if they can't break the laws of physics...
"Hop in, Smithers!"
1. California politicians have pushed the rest of us towards sane environmental standards.
2. 80 Mpg isn't that hard. Tesla is getting Zero MPG.
3. Break the laws of physics? Guess, just guess who is giving them numbers - the real ones not the above AC's hyperbolic ones.
I have a LOT of criticisms about Tesla and Musk - and they are only criticisms - but the end game he has - I'm on board baby! (As well as Nissan, Ford, Volkswagen, Mercedes, GM, Ferrari, etc ...)
The ICE should die - it's 19th century tech (that alone should be a death sentence!) - it's polluting and inefficient! At best only 20% of the energy of the gas you burn makes it to the wheels. In a electric car, 40% makes it to the wheels.
California- bully the rest of the country to sanity!!
Obama was not the King of Babylon. The next elected head of the executive branch actually does get to reverse his decisions.
Which is what the Federal Gov't said the states cannot do.
They want all states to use weaker standards, and bar the 15+ states from using California Emission Standards that are stronger than Federal.
The only people who should be allowed to make decisions about the environment are the industries whose profits might be impacted by the EPA.
We can trust car manufacturers to make the right call for everyone.
While we're at it, we should get the coal companies to set labor conditions for all workers because they have such a great track record there too. Everyone wants to live off the company store don't they?
Thanks A/C but I don't want to drive some 1990's piece of crap.
Fortunately for me neither does the rest of the world.
Actually, if you've driven Bay Area highways, you'd know that regenerative braking makes the most difference on the highways. :-D
But seriously, the main problem with electrics is that the major automakers have limited interest beyond doing the bare minimum required by law. As clean air standards get more and more strict, it forces them to invest in driving the cost of electric vehicles down and removing barriers to adoption (e.g. by improving the charging networks, increasing battery capacity, increasing battery longevity, etc.), which makes them more marketable.
The alternative, should they choose not to do so, is that they can instead buy credits sold by companies whose vehicles produce lower emissions. This, in turn, means that companies like Tesla can sell those credits and use them to fund innovation that drives down the cost of electric vehicles and removes barriers to adoption, thus making EVs more marketable.
Either approach clearly benefits both the environment and national security (by making us less dependent on foreign oil), and as an added bonus, it drives technology forward and increases innovation. If the only impact is that your ICE car costs a few extra bucks, I'd call that a win.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
but I think the argument is going to be that Obama was following the various laws when the rules were put in place and that Trump is not. Remember, Trump is the Chief _Executor_. He doesn't make laws, he executes them. Now, we can debate whether Obama or Trump or neither were/are overstepping their bounds, but we don't really have to, since it's about to be litigated to high heaven.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
won Trump the election. But you're right, Hilary ignoring those rust belters (and also her ignoring our f'd up electoral college system that creates "Swing States") has consequences. And, well, one of those is going to be gas prices going up due to lower fuel economy standards. And oil wars. Those too.
Sad thing is we're on track for another 6 years of this. The Dems are fronting another right wing, oblivious Hilary-style candidate for the next prez election...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Or, if we've truly reached the limits of the internal combustion engine, use a different type of engine. It is quite possible to do now, after all.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
What's that? You're mocking the idea of vested interests setting public policy without a counterbalance? Well...then surely you must be against Big Green trying to sue or regulate everyone who doesn't buy their solar panels and electric cars and smart thermostats and etc etc out of business.
What a joke. You understand how the incentive structure for "academics" and "experts" works right? If you have influence, personal profit follows. Academics can be lobbied and bribed just as easily as anyone, especially if they "transition to government service" for a spell and have a cushy position waiting for them when they return.
No, just the 'too expensive' suffices.
What. The. Fuck.
Why have cars gotten so expensive?
Life's a trade-off. You can have good mileage, good safety, good cargo capacity, good reliability, low emissions, and low cost, but you can't have all of them at once. I am accusing the people who dismiss as unimportant many of those performance metrics when they write the regulations of having no skin in the game.
Good slave. Well said.
The expensive trucks are loaded with options. That's a big big business in Detroit today. It's hard to buy a stripped pickup truck these days.
I drive a stripped Ford Ranger. The only option it has is the 'deluxe' radio that features a CD player. It doesn't even have air conditioning. Such a vehicle is hard to find. You have to order something 'custom' like that special.
Who are you accusing of not having any skin the game? People who actually breathe air? They don't have any 'skin' in the game?
Corporate average fleet mileage (CAFE) has a tenuous connection to air pollution (diesels get better mileage on average...ever stand behind one? Ever hear of 'Volkswagen?').
And carbon dioxide at 400ppm, 500ppm, 600ppm, 700ppm, etc. is a clear odorless gas with no impact on air quality.
> start and stop
My boss bought a new Buick with that "feature." Unlike every car since I know at least the late 1930s Pontiac my parents had when I was growing up that had a starter directly connected to the engine with a gear and would engage with a solenoid, the Buick uses a huge starter connected to the serpentine belt. He even drove it up a hill to a gas station after we ran out of gas, and the start was hot to touch but wasn't that hot. The problem is that he went through three expensive serpentine belts in the two years he's had it. The belt in it now is fraying, and the Buick dealer told him they'd have to charge for a new harmonic balancer. All just to save a few seconds of gas when we stop at a red light.
Good old American dualism. There can only be two possibilities, Republican or Democrat, our way or Venezuela.
Trump's election to POTUS has to be the mark of the golden age for lawyers. Sooooo many lawsuits from every direction, aimed at so many facets of Trump's administration. Wow.
Law school graduates definitely having no problem finding work, I imagine.
Just as a point of reference, as a general rule of thumb, most lawsuits filed in court, are vetted extensively before hand and are not even considered for presentation to a court unless the plaintiff has a fairly high confidence they will prevail.
As another interesting tidbit, these lawsuits are being paid for by taxpayer money, on both sides. And the judges too, taxpayer funded. In fact the entire spectacle is taxpayer funded, down to every cup of coffee and yellow legal pad. Maybe you should talk to your representative about this?
Modern autos are vastly better built than the older cars, they have fewer problems overall. I had a 36MPG car that lasted 13 years, and it failed with transmission issues and not from the engine. Before then I had cars that were in the shop all the time.
My parents always had a Dodge or Chrysler when I was growing up, because that's the dealer they went to in town. They were not at all reliable cars and were often being worked on. Sometimes when the warranty wore out they'd get a new car rather than deal with the maintenance headaches. They kept being loyal customers though, and I never really knew why. Later on my mother goes to look at new Chryslers and she just didn't like the look of any of them. A bit of a nudge and she drives a couple towns over and buys an Accord instead. That's been going strong now for over a decade, rarely in the shop, and she loves it. Some of that is due to going to a better auto maker, but a lot is due to newer cars just being better cars.
Everyone should think about this every time the Trump administration 'rolls back' some rule or regulation.
Someone got hurt, was poisoned, sold a shoddy product, swindled, defrauded, or otherwise injured by some one else, and in the course of remedying the situation, a rule or regulation was enacted to prevent another person from being injured in the same way by the same negligence or willful act that caused that injury.
At the time the rule or regulation was enacted, it seemed like a good idea. Just remember that, at the time, it seemed like a good idea. And someone or many someone were probably hurt that gave rise to the rule or regulation.
Good old socialist intransigence. Always insisting that the next time you'll get right.
only certain species of frog and a few superheros I can't remember the names of have skin the the "breathing" game...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I see. So the way to get a dirt-cheap scientific pocket calculator back in 1950 would have been to legislate them into existence? Well doesn't the Truman administration deserve a massive black mark on its record for not coming up with such an obvious solution. They could have had the internet of things back at the '64 World's Fair if they'd just legislated and regulated all of that stuff into existence. And how come we don't have teleporters? Maybe we should regulate the airlines into making teleporters happen.
That's just a half-assed design, typical of Generic Morons. A high-power starter/alternator would work fine, if chain-driven or geared to the crank. A cogged belt like a timing belt might even work. But GM cheaped out and decided to attach it to an existing serp belt system. This is just shit design execution, not a bad concept per se.
The EPA set overly high emissions standards to begin with, the EPA now is just settling on a more realistic goal and letting that sit for a few years so companies can adjust
Nope. Electric cars are the future because they don't put out any pollution. Get with it, you rube.
It was the original goals that were an attack on the auto industry,
LOL! Who needs to attack the auto industry when they needed to be bailed out by a democratic congress and president?
The only thing being attacked here is people who profit from polluting the environment.
You're super when it comes to bullshit but not so much with common sense.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
And even if they were marketable, unless the government plans to build new nuke plants up and down the state there is a limit to the number of electric cars California can feasibly support without crashing the electrical grid.
Not with an Otto cycle ICE...maybe 50% tops. And thermal recovery nets you far less than that. The only way to get close to 50% is to raise the combustion temperatures significantly, and now you're detonating the crappy gas and melting the heads and block.
California politicians have that "If you believe it enough, it will come true" mentality.
Most great leaders do.
its reducing the pollution while idling not saving gas thats the aim of the stop/start
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
save money and invest in shanks's pony
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
I had a Mitsubishi with this feature and it was fine. I used it a lot too. I guess your boss' problems were more to do with the implementation than the concept.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
They should stop selling these extra credits. And I mean "Make it illegal ;" Because the wrong people (meaning you and me) are getting the benefits.
So GM buys it all from Tesla. Tesla can keep making expensive cars. Why would they make cheaper cars? They make enough money. GM does not need to make cleaner cars? Why would they? They just make the cars more expensive. That way the consumer pays with both money AND health.
It is like saying you can buy credits from companies that are safe, so you can sell unsafe food. Fuck the people who die because of it. You have your credits, so all is well.
If I sell an unsafe products, I should not be allowed to sell that product, not buy my way out of it.
And if you really think that they company should be able to buy its way out. Let the money go to the people, not other companies. And up that price. By a lot. e.g. 50% of the sales price of a car per year, for the period that that car is registered.
And for the people who think that is a tax. It is not a tax. People in Guantanamo bay are not prisoners. Uber is not a taxi company. In newspeak this is an incentive.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
The Church of Carbontology now sues EPA for survival (they need state power to make their moral misery a monopoly, like any church)...instead of dreaming up new ways to sue Exxon et al for an endless sinecure by said fiat.
You mean the Exxon that acknowledges AGW? Congratulations, son. That was the hardest failure I've ever seen on Slashdot, and I've seen a lot.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Life's a trade-off. You can have good mileage, good safety, good cargo capacity, good reliability, low emissions, and low cost, but you can't have all of them at once.
Of course you can. It's called a train. A rail line has ten times the carrying capacity of a freeway lane, costs twice as much to put in, has far lower recurring maintenance costs, and doesn't generate any tire dust.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
There have been inventors since the 70's that have got older american vehicles to 70 mpg and above.
[citation needed]
The technology is easy.
If that were true, it would a) likely be unpatentable b) have been invented so long ago the patents would have expired c) be done regularly by hobbyists, with clear instructions posted to the internet, like everything else in this world which is easy to do yourself.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Fuck EPA standards. I don't want 40MPG car, I want a car that will last 15 years, has leather, and some pick up and go.
Get yourself a 1997/1998 A8 Quattro with a broken slush box, limp it home, and convert it to a stick. Replace the coil packs with those from the 2001-2003 model, install the Bufkin aluminum cooling pipe, and install the Polish fuel pump. It only has fine Nappa leather (which AFAICT means "fake AF") but most people can't tell the difference anyway. There's no immobilizer to go wrong (there is one, but it's only in software and only actuated when the alarm goes off.)
Or get a 1981-1991 Mercedes built on the W126 chassis, and if it's not a diesel, LS swap it. That'd actually be more reliable, but I wanted AWD and a modern rear suspension. Semi-trailing arm is from the seventies.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
They should stop selling these extra credits. And I mean "Make it illegal ;" Because the wrong people (meaning you and me) are getting the benefits.
The whole world gets the benefits of moving towards EVs. We're investing in that because we believe it's beneficial.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
With internal combustion engines we've just about reached the work limits, there isn't any more energy to be had in a gallon on gasoline with 93 octane.
Engines can be cleaner, and all automakers are pushing for higher-octane fuels, though not all of them are pushing equally hard. All of the automakers think there's a few percentage points left in the ICE, although I think that's a jerkoff waste of time. That energy and money is better spent improving EV range and cost.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
California is just making cars more expensive for everybody AGAIN...
If that means they use less gasoline and emit less pollution then GOOD. All for it.
Look, I'm all for saving the planet, but there are just some things that violate the laws of physics. You can only aspire to gas mileage levels that are so high and after that you are doomed to fail or compromise other areas like safety.
Nice strawman. We are no where close to the sort of engineering compromises you are suggesting.
You are left improving energy consumed in other ways like making the vehicle lighter (and weaker), decreasing drag by making cars smaller or the tires harder and shorter.
Lighter does not necessarily mean weaker and it certainly does not equal unsafe. Formula 1 cars are incredibly light and yet drivers can literally walk away from crashes at high speeds that would result in a fatality in your family sedan. Convenient that you ignored the most obvious way to reduce fuel consumption which is to make a car that has less horsepower. No you do not "need" 500 horsepower. Most people don't even need 100 most of the time. They might want it but want does not equal need. Or you can switch to something like an EV to improve fuel economy with less HP trade off.
You are costing me money, money I don't think is necessary and largely impossible to accomplish given the laws of physics.
You obviously are motivated by money because your grasp of physics and engineers seems lacking.
Why have cars gotten so expensive?
Because they have increased content to compete with other makes and models because all cars are now basically competent. They're not all great, but now no car (or even truck) is expected to have squeaks and rattles, wind noise, road noise, unwanted engine noise, etc. We used to forgive these things from certain brands, but nobody is amused by that nonsense any longer. It's also more expensive to produce a more complex chassis which has more crash-resisting features. There are literally more parts in the modern unibody. Engine, suspension, transmission, infotainment... all of these systems have become more complex.
If you only drive off-road, you'll soon be able to get a base (steel wheel) Mahindra Roxor for $15,000. It's got no turn signals or any of that jazz, but it's otherwise a full Jeep (the vehicle is literally based on an old CJ, maybe a CJ-4?) with a 2 liter turbo diesel which brings in 30 mpg. Maybe it's time to move into the BLM land :D
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
That's just a half-assed design, typical of Generic Morons. A high-power starter/alternator would work fine, if chain-driven or geared to the crank. A cogged belt like a timing belt might even work.
It had better, because virtually all vehicles will be mild hybrids by 2025. Bosch flushed their 12V starter and alternator division (sold it off to the Chinese, who get to keep using the name!) to focus on 48V mild hybrid systems. Magna also has a complete stick-on system to sell to automakers. And both are using belt drive, AFAICT.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Careful, you might trigger them. The delusion is strong and the lie pervasive.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
another way is that they're pushing the real cost of driving onto the driver. Right now we've got heavily subsidized gasoline. And not just from direct subsidies or even tax breaks. We haven't been in Iraq and Afghanistan for over a decade just to make democracies. We're over there because they have oil and we want it. Our military empire is basically the biggest subsidy in human history. Reducing our dependency on oil imports is how we get away from all that.
This tired old lie? Again?
As another poster points out, we EXPORT oil these days and most of the imported oil we use doesn't come from over there. Could it be that we *like* stable oil prices and that's a benefit for the whole world? Naw, that might be seen as a noble intent for the USA to do things like toss Iraq out of Kuwait...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
What do you suggest we use? Steam?
There is a reason we use internal combustion engines and it has a lot to do with the efficiency they have in turning heat into work under the varying load conditions in an automobile application. Other options, such as turbines or steam just don't work all that well or are inefficient under the varying loads.
I think the internal combustion engine is here to stay though the fuel being used may eventually change form, especially in the long haul transportation and freight markets.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
They should stop selling these extra credits. And I mean "Make it illegal ;" Because the wrong people (meaning you and me) are getting the benefits.
The whole world gets the benefits of moving towards EVs. We're investing in that because we believe it's beneficial.
The problem with this perspective is people are literally starving TODAY and you are discussing a future that is decades out.
Those who claim compassion as their motives for this kind of environmental regulation are deluding themselves about the true affects of what they are advocating or why the leaders of such movements are pushing for this. Al Gore was into carbon offset trading and the "Inconvenient truth" about his activity was that he was motivated to make money, not save the polar bears. Other such "leaders" are in it for the research grants that pay their salaries and keep their "labs" in work, and the rest are missing the forest for the trees.
Then we do stupid things like burn food (corn) in our cars as fuel, making food more expensive and pushing more poor into starvation, or making transportation costs rise, driving inflation in commodity prices, though unreasonably strict fuel efficiency and emission standards related to CO2, forcing our poor into lower standards of living.
How's all this compassionate today? People are starving to death right now and don't really care about 20 years in the future because they will be dead before that bright future arrives..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
They can acknowledge unicorns for all I care. Just so long as the leach unicorn priests don't get a free check I'm fine.
And if that's the hardest anything you've seen on Slashdot your world must be rather soft - in all kinds of ways.
The problem with this perspective is people are literally starving TODAY and you are discussing a future that is decades out.
Today is important, but if you sell out tomorrow for today, you're not going to have a tomorrow.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If you give people an opt-out with payments, they won't be invested, they might be involved. Ham and eggs: The chicken is involved, the pork is invested.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
If you give people an opt-out with payments, they won't be invested, they might be involved. Ham and eggs: The chicken is involved, the pork is invested.
If the people want to be more involved with their government, they should start by showing up to vote in some significant numbers. Until then, they're volunteering to be the pork.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
like start and stop, hybrid systems that do nothing but make car more complex
Yeah! Let's get rid of all those things that make cars more complex. Like power steering, power brakes, anti-lock brakes, catalytic converters, air conditioning, seat belts, air bags, etc, etc.
Model Ts for everyone!
You are left improving energy consumed in other ways like making the vehicle lighter (and weaker),
Or we could just stop making 3 ton SUVs with huge V8s. Just a thought.
Yea, there is a balance.. But, as I keep saying, if you are poor and starving, you don't care about anything but eating today and rightly so.
Without surviving today, there is no tomorrow, good or bad.
When we make decisions that make food more expensive and hard to get, it may not affect us, but it DOES effect others less fortunate. I think this is often forgotten in the mad scramble towards "save the planet" ideology and the people who suffer the most for the regulations on this are the ones who are least able to pay.
But hey, to be fair, it's the poor who ALWAYS pay the most for society's ills, isn't it.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
You are left improving energy consumed in other ways like making the vehicle lighter (and weaker),
Or we could just stop making 3 ton SUVs with huge V8s. Just a thought.
Why? So my family of six has to take two vehicles when we go someplace?
What's wrong with letting the market decide what sells and what doesn't? Why do we have a default setting that says "Make a federal law!" for things like this? IF somebody wants to have a huge SUV with 8 seats and 8 cylinders, why does the government need to have a say in this?
Are we free people or are we regulated into oblivion "for our own good?" There comes a point when we will have to stop regulating stupid stuff like soda cup sizes sold by 7-11 or we might as well just toss the constitution out and go full communalist manifesto. Maybe we've gone too far with cars now? I think so.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Was your vehicle already certified as a gross polluter? If not, wrench up.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Truly low-income people mostly buy used cars, whose value is largely unaffected by minor differences in the cost of new cars.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
And we could divert every penny of those credits towards aid for the nations where people are literally starving, and they would still be literally starving. People don't starve because of a lack of money. People starve because their leaders are skimming food aid money and using it to enrich themselves.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
So, you're saying the market is willing to pay more for quality and features. Why not fuel economy too? It was certainly a major factor with my last car purchase.
Ah yes.. So let's just condemn folks to a quicker death in horrible places like..... Mexico... Yea, that's the ticket.
Nobody is starving or poor in the USA either? Hmmm...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Which is it? Is it a lie that we're in the middle east because of oil, or are we there because we like stable oil prices?
The problem is, people don't just go to where expressways and freeways go, just like they don't just go to trains go.
But, in the case of a freeway or expressway, though, when they get to the closest point, they already have a vehicle that can take them the rest of the way... Whereas the train leaves you to walk or find other transportation.
The LIE is that we are there for oil, to take it by force...
We are there for our interests, to be sure, but it's not to take oil by force. Our protection of the resources in the region is in our own interest, but it also serves the interests of the rest of the world, including those who own the oil.
I know you want to slice that distinction pretty fine, but the line is clear to me. We are there in force, not to take what we don't legally own, but to protect the owners so supply can be assured. We are there to protect, not take, an action that accrues to the benefit of all people, not just the USA.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
If that reply was to me I think you're missing the point.
1 MPG is pretty poor, right?
So how good is 0 MPG?
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
Mexico's problems are largely a failure of the war on drugs. Don't get me started on that train wreck.
Poor, yes. Starving, no, not typically. The U.S. has countless organizations that provide food for people who are unable to afford it or get it for themselves—soup kitchens, food banks, meals on wheels, and so on. And federal assistance (food stamps) is also available to pay for food (unless you're here illegally, of course). The extent of services that homeless have access to in most cities is really quite amazing. And even in rural areas, you'll rarely find an area with more than a few thousand people that doesn't have some sort of food bank.
In bigger cities, they even often have programs that help you learn how to interview for jobs, provide loaner clothing that you can use for your interview, and so on, to help the homeless get back on their feet, rather than just ensuring that they don't starve.
Mind you, I'm sure some people fall through the cracks for one reason or another, but that usually has to be solved by identifying the people in question and committing them to mental institutions, drug rehab programs, etc. until they are able to function well enough to ask for food on their own. You can't force people to take advantage of free food if they don't want to. And that largely isn't the result of a lack of funding.
Giving them shelter, of course, is another matter, and money could help with that. But that's an entirely different question than the issue of people "literally starving today".
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
The main reason for selling the credits is to let the market help allocate resources efficiently. If Tesla can do something good more cheaply than GM, then Tesla can make more money by doing the good and picking up payment from GM.
Tesla has been moving towards cheaper cars. They started with the luxury market, and are going for less and less expensive cars. Currently, they sell cars that are only moderately expensive. They're not going to drop the Model 3 just because they can make some money selling credits.
GM is going to try to make its cars cleaner, so they won't have to buy credits, or at least won't have to pay as much for them. GM cars are not directly killing people in the sense that you mean, and we simply don't have what we'd need to eliminate burning fossil fuel for transporation.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
At the moment. The US used to be a net oil importer, and could be again.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Burning gasoline in cars actually inflicts a lot of external costs on other people. Use some means to internalize the cost, and I'm happy to let the market sort itself out.
(One problem is that nobody has a good idea as to exactly what the externalities cost, but we can make estimates.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Electric and natural gas engines are already in wide use. Fuel cells are certainly also a possibility.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
How's that zero rounds per second machine gun working out for you?
Electric cars don't directly cause pollution from their operation. That is not the case with their manufacturing, disposal and electricity generation. I'm not decrying electric cars. Just that those other factors (two out of three apply to ICE vehicles as well) should be taken into account.
US still burns a lot of coal, and that still counts towards AGW. Until or unless we switch to near complete nuclear/solar/wind, it will continue to be a factor.
Outsourcing pollution is not the same thing as no pollution.
Absolutely. The key difference however is that EVs have the potential for 0% pollution while ICEs will always pollute. I don't foresee coal lasting much longer due to natural gas. However, this too will be displaced as energy storage (e.g. batteries) becomes cheaper and regulations become more stringent.
It's possible to reclaim the pollution but that requires even more energy and when you have to start paying reclamators to clean up the pollution you produce then fossil fuels will become a niche product.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
CNG? Is just an internal combustion engine with hardened valves and seats... They produce the same CO2 or more than other carbon based fuels, though emissions wise they are squeaky clean because the fuel is easier to clean. I also don't consider this a switch from fossil fuels... Where I think we SHOULD use CNG more (we have a lot of NG and it burns really clean), this really isn't a different technology.
Fuel cells are horribly inefficient, don't work all that well at varying power outputs. As such, fuel cells are not viable, the physics don't allow it.
Electric is about all we really have that works that's differant, but you have serious range issues and recharge times with current battery technologies. Electric cars may work for a large fraction of daily tasks, but they are not well suited to road trips or long commutes which are prevalent in larger metro areas.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I may believe the money needed to drive this 'benefit' can be used in more immediately constructive ways
Guess you shoulda got out the vote for someone else then, huh?
& further that the purported future 'issues' may or can be addressed in other ways and/or even that this specific policy of selling carbon credits will NOT even accomplish what it's proponents think it will.
It drives EV adoption, which lets us centralize pollution. That makes it in theory easier to fight, although castrating the EPA is the opposite of the way to do that. The EPA is effectively self-funding, too, because if you give it enough money to fight offenders it will go out and fine them.
This whole concept of carbon credits is set up by policy wonks who think they are smart enough to create a game to influence people's behavior without ever recognizing this isn't a game it's reality & that someone, somewhere will always find the hole in the game to 'game the game'.
No, they know it's a game on top of reality, and they've set it up so that if you try to game the game, you still drive EV adoption. That's why it's a good game. It makes reality better.
This is quite literally the concept inherent in the phrase 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'. Intentions don't matter when reality intrudes.
The reality is that burning fossil fuels for transportation is insane and unnecessary.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
They're actively allowing people to remain unlawfully
You can't actively allow someone to remain, only passively.
and they're interfering with a federal process.
Not participating is not the same as interfering.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Truly low-income people mostly buy used cars, whose value is largely unaffected by minor differences in the cost of new cars.
New car prices have been trending upwards for years, though, and when you couple that with a generally soft economy it means that used car prices are also up because people are buying less new cars — but they still need cars.
It's been very interesting to watch waves of different-era cars hit the streets as the economy has worsened. Up here in Lake county, real estate is still cheap enough that a lot of people have old cars tucked away on their land. These cars stayed put for a long time because the German manufacturers finally went back to making cars that would last for a while, and once they became as reliable as other manufacturers' vehicles they were subjectively better than everything else. But once they get old enough, you have to be a mechanic to own one, so the prices still drop on a relatively predictable schedule. They came down to the point that farm labor is now driving Audis and BMWs — in fact, that happened before most of the older vehicles got pried out of the barns and fields.
Anyway, the first cars to show up en masse were 90s Japanese sedans and wagons, and they were followed by 80s vehicles both foreign and domestic. Of late, I've actually seen shitpiles from the seventies turning up. Seventies cars got an uptick in popularity about a decade ago, and the prices went up to match, but these are cars that aren't interesting to anyone. People driving them do not have happy looks on their faces, like they're enjoying themselves. And no wonder; they're probably worried about overheating, or vapor lock.
Anyway, blather blather blah blah blah; the point is, new car prices have definitely gone up enough to affect used car prices.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"