Slashdot Mirror
White House Proposal Rolls Back Fuel Economy Standards, No Exception For California (npr.org)
The Trump administration has proposed a rollback of Obama-era fuel efficiency and emissions standards, while simultaneously taking aim at California's unique ability to set more stringent rules. From a report: Under the Obama administration, the Environmental Protection Agency called for the fuel economy standards for new vehicles to ratchet up over time. The increasingly strict standards were designed to combat climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. On Thursday, the EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released a new proposed rule that would instead freeze the standards at their 2020 levels for six years. "Cars and trucks are just part of the basic fiber of the American economy and the American experience, so we take what we're doing very, very seriously," Bill Wehrum, EPA assistant administrator, told reporters on Thursday. The agencies say that increasing fuel efficiency requirements contributes to an increase in the cost of new cars and trucks, which may discourage consumers from buying new vehicles. Because newer vehicles have advanced safety features, the administration argues, increasing fuel economy requirements therefore harms highway safety, as well as having economic effects.
"...and oil wells."
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Modern safety features like stability control, auto-braking, and collision warning add minimum weight and don't affect economy. This is a 1980s way of thinking -- build a safety-box that takes a hit well but doesn't prevent crashes.
Enjoy your world burning to death stupid Earthicans!
oh. wait. crap...
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
The quest for better fuel economy ultimately comes down to physics.
To get even more economy, you need to reduce weight. Take away weight and you ultimately take away strength (unless you can afford a $500,000 carbon composite car.
while simultaneously taking aim at California's unique ability to set more stringent rules
Trump, his Republican cronies, and their voters, are such a collection of hypocrites.
For decades, all Republicans do is bleat "STATES' RIGHTS!" - But when those states actually exercise those rights (emissions / drug policy / guns) the Republicans do everything in their power to stomp all over them.
World standards do not follow US standards. All vehicle makers have to conform to worldwide standards, not just the US. Besides, California standards are not the most strict when compared to international standards. Also California standards have been ratified by 12 other states. Since this is a proposed bill, it will not get out of committee without providing states the ability to set their own limits.
Soon the US could be building gas guzzlers nobody outside the US wants to buy...and then when gas prices go back up, nobody inside the US will want to buy them either...remember how awesome it was last time that happened around the OPEC oil crisis? #MAGA!
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
If everyone would just buy a Tesla we would solve two problems: Tesla's balance sheet and the emissions problem. Solution: buy a Tesla.
When the first round of CAFE standards took effect, car makers managed to increase efficiency by improving engine efficiency.
When the second round happened, they started shrinking cars down to reduce weight. This is why a mid-size sedan from the early 2000's is about the same size, or larger, than most full size luxury cars these days.
Now car companies are skimping on seat fill, or leaving out spare tires, or using glue to hold components together instead of heavier rivets, to shave every possible ounce of weight off of a car to get the MPG up.
There isn't much left to do. Electric cars are great for short haul, but sometimes people need to drive farther. Small cars are fine for a lot of people, but try jamming a rear-facing car seat in one and you'll find the front seat is nearly unusable.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
if the extra air pollution that it will cause would, somehow, be kept within the borders of the USA. It does not: it follows the winds and ends up harming the rest of us. If it did stay within the USA then those who caused it would suffer the consequences; but pollution is a global problem, not a national one - so it upsets me to see those who seemingly put, what they see, as their interests first and do not act in global interests.
Please do not take this as an attack of most who live in the USA, I have friends who live there. Most are good guys who want to behave in a responsible way. It is unfortunate that your current president does not care about the planet, only making money for those who support him.
... when lawn mowers, leaf blowers, construction vehicles, etc, all spew out a lot more pollutants per minute than the hugest SUV or pickup truck.
True... but how long do you run your leaf blower for? Purely in terms of hours per week, most cars run longer than the leaf blower by a huge factor.
spew out a lot more pollutants per minute than the hugest SUV or pickup truck.
Don't forget that the big transition from cars to SUV's was a direct response to fuel economy standard increases, because they effectively banned family station wagons but "light trucks" were in a different class, so people who needed station wagons now needed SUV's, which got worse mileage.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
How many leaf blowers, lawn mowers, construction vehicles, etc. are running simultaneously vs. cars/trucks?
Since the answer is orders of magnitude more, a 0.1% reduction in car emissions is much better for the total environment then if all emissions were eliminated from leaf blowers, lawn mowers, construction vehicles, etc.
A slight bit of critical thinking would do you a world of good.
Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
The top income bracket (the 1%) pulls in about $2 trillion dollars. 0.001% of that gets you $20 million. On an average year, Americans purchase about 17 million vehicles, so your tax will save approximately $1.18 on the sticker price of each vehicle.
Now, if we expand to, say, the top 25% we get a figure of $6.7 trillion. 0.001% of that gets you $67 million, or about $3.94 per car.
"Screw that," you say, "I was just throwing out a number. Increase the tax by 1%". Now we're talking real numbers! A 1% surtax on the top 1% could (theoretically) pull in $20 billion dollars! Split among cars and you get... $1,180 per car. The average car in January 2018 was $36,270, so you would drop that to $35,090.
Whoo hoo! That makes the car only... $180 more than the same car in January 2017. And that's not including the cost to hit the new emissions and safety targets your tax was supposed to cover.
Go right ahead, Trump, play into the hands of the Dominionists if you like. But it won't have the long term effect you think it will. You think you can just roll back the calendar to the 1940's or something? LOL, you're living in a fantasy world, Trump.
Businesses and corporations, even in the energy sector, are already embracing solar and other renewables. You can't halt that without interfering in the free-market economy.
Meanwhile plug-in electric cars and hybrids are gaining more and more of a foothold in the United States, and they're becoming more affordable. More and more infrastructure to support them is being invested in and installed.
Oil prices won't stay low forever. They'll spike up, and driving gas-guzzlers around will become prohibitively expensive. Electrics will become more and more attractive in the face of that.
Clearly and objectively we need to move away from fossil fuel use anyway and everyone except apparently the Trump Administration sees this. Making ICEs less efficient will just help make electrics and renewables more attractive.
breath of fresh air
And now they're working on fixing that.
Regular gas engines do better WITHOUT ethanol - I would say it was actually worse for the environment due to decreased efficiency and decreased life-span of other parts in regular gas engines. Also, gas doesn't keep as long with Ethanol. I have a big gas can for my lawn mower, I use it for a couple of months, then dump what's left in my car and go fill it up again. If it were just plain gas I could just keep it until I emptied it through the lawn mower - could take a couple of years.
I recently rented a flex-fuel vehicle, and I ran it with both E15 and E85. That vehicle probably did produce less pollution running E85, enough to justify the decrease in efficiency, but making us run it in our normal gas engines isn't helping anyone but the corn lobby.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
It was unclear from your very seat-of-the-pants estimates whether you meant top income tax bracket (currently 37%, only collected at income above $500/600K single/married) or the top income bracket.
Fortunately, they are pretty much one and the same - approximately 1% of taxpayers reach the top tax bracket. And you were talking about a surtax - a tax on top of what they already pay.
I gave numbers for total income received by both the top 1% and top 25% - this is before deductions or other modifiers to a taxable amount. So my numbers were super conservative - I was essentially allowing 100% of their income to be subject to your 0.001% surtax. And it pulled in nothing.
Even bumping your percentage 1000 times over came up with numbers that barely move the needle when it comes to new cars. Under a higher CAFE standard, every average new car is better than any average old car, so nearly all cars would be subject to your refund.
I know quite a bit about tax law and income distribution in the US - maybe Germans aren't quite as knowledgeable. At any rate, a 0.001% estimate proves basic innumeracy.
Bawack Ubama Isn't godking anymore. That may come as a shock to California.
California had its own emissions standards before Obama. That may come as a shock to racists looking for a way to pin all America's problems on him.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
A 1998 basic civic got you 107 hp and 103 lb ft of torque. A 2018 basic civic gets you 158 hp and 138 lb ft of torque. The 2018 does push around a heavier can and the result of almost 50% better power and a slightly bigger and heavier car is the same fuel economy. For the most part we've made HUGE gains in fuel economy. We've just wasted them on more power and bigger cars.
the huge spike in car costs is largely down to expensive new safety features. Cars don't kill you when they get in a fender bender like the Tsuru did in Mexico. Fuel economy improvements largely paid for themselves on a month to month basis, especially when you take into account that most people have a car loan. Not sure about you, but I factor the cost of gas into my overall car & driver budget.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
>> It was years ago and the data might be obsolete but i suspect that now it is even worse.
Nope .
Average efficiency of a gasoline car is 15% small-tank-to-wheel
Average efficiency of a fossil powered electricity plant feeding EVs through the grid is 35%, big-tank-to-wheel
You burn over two times less fossil fuel by going 100% fossil electricity.
Germany today has 48% of fossil electricity. This figure decreases yearly.
So your typical EV in Germany is responsible today for only 20% of the emissions of the same gasoline powered car.
aaaaaaa