Slashdot Mirror
The Oil Industry's Covert Campaign To Rewrite American Car Emissions Rules (nytimes.com)
When the Trump administration laid out a plan this year that would eventually allow cars to emit more pollution, automakers, the obvious winners from the proposal, balked. The changes, they said, went too far even for them. But it turns out that there was a hidden beneficiary of the plan that was pushing for the changes all along: the nation's oil industry. From an investigation by The New York Times: In Congress, on Facebook and in statehouses nationwide, Marathon Petroleum, the country's largest refiner, worked with powerful oil-industry groups and a conservative policy network financed by the billionaire industrialist Charles G. Koch to run a stealth campaign to roll back car emissions standards, a New York Times investigation has found. The campaign's main argument for significantly easing fuel efficiency standards -- that the United States is so awash in oil it no longer needs to worry about energy conservation -- clashed with decades of federal energy and environmental policy.
"With oil scarcity no longer a concern," Americans should be given a "choice in vehicles that best fit their needs," read a draft of a letter that Marathon helped to circulate to members of Congress over the summer. Official correspondence later sent to regulators by more than a dozen lawmakers included phrases or sentences from the industry talking points, and the Trump administration's proposed rules incorporate similar logic. The industry had reason to urge the rollback of higher fuel efficiency standards proposed by former President Barack Obama. A quarter of the world's oil is used to power cars, and less-thirsty vehicles mean lower gasoline sales.
"With oil scarcity no longer a concern," Americans should be given a "choice in vehicles that best fit their needs," read a draft of a letter that Marathon helped to circulate to members of Congress over the summer. Official correspondence later sent to regulators by more than a dozen lawmakers included phrases or sentences from the industry talking points, and the Trump administration's proposed rules incorporate similar logic. The industry had reason to urge the rollback of higher fuel efficiency standards proposed by former President Barack Obama. A quarter of the world's oil is used to power cars, and less-thirsty vehicles mean lower gasoline sales.
You know, it's one thing for Republicans to lie to our faces about this stuff, fraud and treason etc, but when a trusted business sector like Big Oil lies, that kind of betrayal is truly inexcusable. (Unless well-paid to excuse it, of course.)
You are making a wonderful world for my grandchildren.
Air infused with toxic carcinogenic combustion byproducts.
"When the Trump administration laid out a plan this year that would eventually allow cars to emit more pollution, automakers, the obvious winners from the proposal, balked. The changes, they said, went too far even for them."
Sorry lying Kendal, we know you're not QUITE illiterate and this is just more of your patented head-up-ass dishonesty. You cried too much wolf, even for a known traitor. Blow.
im mean it wouldnt be hard. think of the benefits to humanity.
Kendall is job 1.
But, but what about "enhancing shareholder value", that is what Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics have taught our business leaders is their ONLY ethical concern.
Could it be that our entire business educational system has been corrupted by people who do not care if "people" live or die?
Maybe, Milton Friedman was the real Terminator
Conveniently omitting to mention pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as remaining concerns.
Kill them. Kill them all before they kill us. It is clearly THE moral thing to do.
I'm thinking that you should have referred to it as a "Poorly regulated industry", or "Under regulated industry"
If that's true then the rules are not too harsh.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
In the end it will not matter as electric car adoption will more than make up for any extra emissions from rolling back the rules.
With oil prices dropping, and electric prices rising, I'm not sure who you think will be adopting electric vehicles.
The American auto industry is barely moving forward on EVs -- not that they're the be all to end all, but c'mon. The tech has been around longer than gas-powered vehicles and yet, even with modern lithium-ion batteries, car companies don't offer more than two models each -- most only offer one.
It's going to take regulation to force their hand; that seems obvious. With the current administration kowtowing to big business, though, we won't be seeing any movement on this for at least another two years.
Oil prices are going up, you're obviously stuck in a time warp from 2 weeks ago. EV is going down all the time. Trucking and shipping are moving to EV investments also. Everything will go EV, it's better all around.
Go figure, dinosaur is unhappy with progress, aww.
30 MPG city and 40MPG highway are GOOD targets. We were able to hit them decades ago, but only with lower performing engines, unusual aerodynamics, or reduced vehicle speeds. Today these ratings are possible in a car cruising at 65-90 mph with a fraction of the dangerous pollution emitted of the vehicles from the 70s to 80s which hit those numbers.
Without making engines which are effectively one use (which the majority of the new high efficiency engines are turning into) this amount of rollback will allow vehicles that don't turn into garbage when someone doesn't change the oil, has a radiator leak, etc. Personally, I would like to see some of the thermoplastic parts regulated against and replaced with polymer coated metal designs, for safety and long term maintenance reasons. The modern plastic intake manifolds have a bad tendancy of exploding if a car ever backfires, and cooling system parts made out of the same material have a tendency to critically fail if overheated or used past their lifetime, unlike the older metal parts, which could corrode and even fail catastrophically, but generally only as a result of corrosion rather than a combination of age and heat cycling, which the modern ones are notorious for doing.
Source: Time as a mechanic with a LOT of thermoplastic related repairs, including a few engine replacements directly caused by thermoplastic failures. No use in having an engine that theoretically lasts 400k miles if a key part of it failing drops that number to 50-100k.
And just think of the increased revenue from gas taxes! That ought to soothe any ruffled liberal feathers.
Hey, gotta cover the shortfall from the Republican's trillion dollars added to the deficit.
Oh they care... some folks care a lot: The US Chamber of Commerce cares. They want to keep republicrats and democians fighting over a border wall like a bullfighter wants to keep the bull focused on the red cape instead of his crotch. The good folks at The Chamber know that keeps them from debating using E-Verify which would actually work and shut down their free pipeline of cheap labor.
Consider that automakers would have to make an entirely different set of vehicles for Paris accord countries (like Canada) and the U.S.
Then consider automakers would have to make different cars for states with strict standards and cars violating those standards would not be allowed in the state as they would not be grandfather claused.
Then consider that if automakers were to have 6 years to bring new fuel guzzling designs to market before (worst case scenario) Trump leaves office. And since almost universally, republican president = Democrat Congress and vise versa. So, within 6 years, either the executive or the legislative branches will be in opposition to the new regulations.
So, any car company who would take advantage of this opportunity would be run by idiots with no foresight. This would be corporate suicide. I mean I am sitting here laughing my ass off wondering who would invest years of R&D in a new drive train that would almost certainly be made illegal within weeks of it reaching market and could not be sold or operated in more than a small region.
Any leasing company willing to back these cars would be criminally incompetent and any banks willing to finance these vehicles would be suicidal.
I mean, who thinks these things up?
Oh what a fucking issue, making the planet better for all of us.
Go fuck youself you gigantic turd and stop sucking daddy Trump's dick
I am going to call bullshit on this. The proposed regulations were still on a path that was behind China, India, the EU, Japan, Korea, etc. The Obama regulations were still pretty weak compared to the world. Trump has knocked us down from being a C- student to a straight F. Source: https://www.nytimes.com/intera...
eat shit and die
Even if you don't care about CO2 and global climate change, there's still the localized issue of actual air pollution in cities especially which kills. I drive a plugin electric and notice gas fumes and other nasty things in the air from cars.
"If you are *truly* an environmentalist you wouldn't want to risk further environmental damage from continuing to try and force other people into behaving environmentally responsible"
-Retard tries hand at logic, fails, news at 11
Your lede is incorrect. "When the Trump administration laid out a plan this year that would eventually allow cars to emit more pollution". He's relaxing FUTURE standards, not current standards. Unobtainable future standards.
Sorry lying Kendal, we know you're not QUITE illiterate and this is just more of your patented head-up-ass dishonesty. You cried too much wolf, even for a known traitor. Blow.
"When the Trump administration laid out a plan this year that would eventually allow cars to emit more pollution, automakers, the obvious winners from the proposal, balked. The changes, they said, went too far even for them."
The majority of people with an income need to focus on life's basics such as keeping their family under a roof and providing them with food. The overpaid CEO's etc earning ridiculously huge incomes don't need to worry about these things, and coincidentally they are the same people who get to make important decisions about how much a company should care about pollution, energy conservation, or looking after the planet and it's occupants. Your wishes about the little people making a difference are all very cute and invoke images of fluffy bunnies being petted by happy children, but just remember, those children will have no homes and will probably need to eat those fluffy bunnies cos daddy is too preoccupied with saving the environment to buy them food.
"With oil scarcity no longer a concern," Americans should be given a "choice in vehicles that best fit their needs," read a draft of a letter that Marathon helped to circulate to members of Congress over the summer
And?
Of course those who sell oil have the most incentive to make arguments. Doesn't automatically make the arguments invalid.
Implying that "oil scarcity" is the reason behind these regulations seems like such an obvious straw man that at first I figured everyone would see through it immediately... but then I realized this letter was targeted at Congress.
#DeleteChrome
Call me skeptical, but if the automakers had really balked, they'd simply continue moving towards better and tighter emission control standards exactly as if they *had* been legally required to do so, regardless of any legislation that may be permitting them to implement workable solutions at a cheaper financial cost here and now. I know of no law that *requires* cars to pollute a certain minimum amount, after all.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
We have a culture where we tolerate lying when someone is trying to make a quick buck.
Businesses should tell the truth? Why do you hate capitalism? insert other facetious arguments here, etc
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Boy are you going to get it...
My personal perspective is that we need to work on Fusion reactors for electric power generation. It would produce nearly unlimited power for very little environmental impacts and nearly zero CO2 emissions. All we need is more R&D dollars... We KNOW it can be done, we just haven't fully figured out the engineering to make it happen. Also, why are we not shoving up Nuclear power plants as fast as mini-malls until then....
I'm guessing that the idea here is to control folks, not actually fix the stated issue, and THAT's why we are not really serious..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The choice isn't between oil and no oil. There is a middle ground where we regulate industry, control pollution, and use resources in a way that compensates everyone for the damage it causes. Wild west, zero responsibility bullshit isn't a serious business model even if idiots are serious about defending it.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Because there is no better alternative. If you think EVs will drop down to the $20.000 range to be as affordable as ICE cars, you are deluding yourself. And Lithium is already a rising commodity BTW.
IMO what doesn't work is half-assed government coercion, like raising the gas mileage requirements for cars, but leaving a loop-hole in there (on purpose) for trucks and SUV's.
If we didn't have government coercion forcing companies to stop polluting our water whenever they felt like it, most of us probably wouldn't be here today. It sounds like the fresh water in the US, while still somewhat polluted, is a hell of a lot cleaner than it used to be back before the EPA. When it comes to really large corporations, I don't think anything really works except for government coercion. Government wouldn't be forcing them today if they had cleaned up their act willingly in the past.
Some common sense emissions rules out of DC. Unreal
Damn gas tax. Having paved roads is so unnecessary and is part of the liberal agenda of dependency.
I'll simply use my 4x4 on dirt roads or pay tolls along a beautiful private road system.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Bobbied = trolling moron exhaust breather, disregard the idiot. (https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=13053288&cid=57799714)
Too many grandchildren is THE basis of future pollution and resource scarcity. Everything else is just a tailpipe in the wind.
Congress does CAFE because they are cowards. A car with higher efficiency can be driven more on the same gas. It does not reduce consumption by existing cars. If you genuinely believe in the cause, the only thing to advocate is taxation of fuel. A tax increase for the social cost of gasoline is something like $3.80 a gallon, more than doubling the current price. C'mon true believes, don't put off saving the planet for decades, bite the bullet and advocate that tax increase.
Fun fact: if Big Oil hadn't done this, we'd be paying half as much for filling our tanks, and those of us who would have already transitioned to $6000 EVs made in China and Taiwan would be paying between 1/10th and 1/40th as much, plus paying half the maintenance fees.
You got ripped off big time.
(caveat: I have invested and owned direct stocks in fossil fuel firms (oil,gas,ethanol,coal,biomass) and in automobile and airplane firms)
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
It seems to be impossible to read any post expressing a conservative viewpoint without the word "tax" appearing at least once in it.
Boy, you guys seem to really, really hate taxes, don't you ? In fact, you're beginning to sound like a broken record.
But still, I'll try to give an answer to your question:
Why not convince folks to switch to greener tech because it's *better*, rather than trying to ram it down their throats as a tax? The latter has a legacy of 40+ years of failure and division.
Because the former has a legacy of tens of thousands of years of failure and division. Special interest groups (particularly the filthy rich ones, like the oil industry) will always make sure that fails. Always.
But I'll agree with you on one thing though: We really should try something new.
Good point, you should stop trying to force me to breathe dirty air.
I should just exercise my 2nd Amendment remedies.
Nice drive-by there! But the "Obama" standards are trivial to meet. But now we overtly let the industry run the government. Unfortunately it is politically incorrect to place the blame where it belongs. Introspection is not a thing to be discussed in mixed company.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
with CAFE
You mean like Obama's trillion dollars he added?
"When the Trump administration laid out a plan this year that would eventually allow cars to emit more pollution, automakers, the obvious winners from the proposal, balked. The changes, they said, went too far even for them."
Yeah, they supposedly said that.. but coming from a biased New York Times article, I'd take that portrayal with an entire salt shaker.
Succ
That's just it, though. Lithium is a commodity, and it is not that rare. Its price is set by the countries that mine the stuff, but the only thing preventing new mines from starting up is cost. Until the price hits certain points, some Lithium isn't worth bothering with. The moment it crosses certain thresholds, companies will start mining, and the price will stabilize. It won't go up forever.
BTW, the reason BEVs cost more is primarily economies of scale. Tesla's battery costs have come down fairly dramatically as their production volume has increased, in spite of rising Lithium prices. At this point, the packs cost somewhere around a third as much per kWh as they did eight years ago.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
And he sure as fuck doesn't control DOJ/FBI or ADX FLORENCE, lol. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/421043-senate-votes-to-end-us-support-for-saudi-war-bucking-trump
I am going to call bullshit on this. The proposed regulations were still on a path that was behind China, India, the EU, Japan, Korea, etc. The Obama regulations were still pretty weak compared to the world. Trump has knocked us down from being a C- student to a straight F.
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/intera...
Interesting chart but I think it is meaningless. US CAFE standards are about the average fuel economy of cars produced for sale in the US. If the standard isn't met there is a low penalty per vehicle sold. In effect it's a tax on autos.
So in effect the US taxes autos less than some other countries do. What else is new?
Everytime I drop in, I see your idiocy.
Still haven't learned how to write a trollbot?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
After the debt hit 21 trillion, at this point, what's another trillion? We're eventually headed for 3rd world status anyway, with forced globalization, terrorism, and encroaching socialism. That, and the reliance on digitalization for everything. All we need then is a good solar flare (MCE) to knock out the grid for a few months, and modern society collapses. Mad Max anyone?
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
I mean granted, they both start with the letter E, but other than that they are completely different concepts. Even this lunkhead at NYT should've been able to grasp the difference.
Yes Trump administration sought to reduce the fuel-efficiency requirements. Yes the oil industry lobbied hard for it, more fuel used by people = more money for them. But this is a fuel EFFICIENCY issue. Not emissions. Emission means air pollution. You can have an inefficient car that gets very low miles per gallon, and yet have a very clean tailpipe that does not contribute to smog.
You understand that in 2010, engineers demonstrated a car capable of carrying two adults, two children and a load of luggage at 100 mph with a fuel efficiency of 100 mpg?
X-Tracer managed a 205.3 mpg motorcycle carrying a comparable load.
We could be driving those, today. In eight years, that could have been mainstream.
Even the European cars, generally twice as economic as American ones, would be an improvement. American cars aren't instigated for poor reliability and high cost, they're not as efficient as anyone else's.
Worsening that competitiveness won't help.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Hey, if fusion was a reality today, I'd be cheerleading it, too. However, the truth is economical energy-positive fusion is still a pipe dream. It may be humanity's future, but it's simply not viable yet and we need solutions NOW. Flip over and talk about fission reactors... well, that's a completely different problem. The main problem is one that leftists and preppers should *both* understand - when shit hits the fan the badly designed reactors melt down and explode. The superior designs are safer but much more expensive and thus how can we be sure that corporations won't cut corners? Most of our nuclear power is the "melt down and explode" type in the USA and Japan. The more stable reactors they use in France, for example, mostly aren't approved by the NRC in the USA. Stupid yes, but still true.
from two wars he inherited from bush the repubtard stooge. Next?
Dey gotZ WmDz. OmgZ. Misshun acomplishd!
Quit using any of the following products then idiots.
https://www.innovativewealth.com/inflation-monitor/what-products-made-from-petroleum-outside-of-gasoline/
The roads you drive on, to the computer you are bitching and moaning on. All use oil.
Quit being hypocrites and shut the fuck up. You quite obviously can't offer alternatives to oil in any of these process's. So you are nothing but fucking hypocrites.
The point, apparently lost on you, was that the oil companies were pushing the reduced pollution controls, not that a regulated industry lobbies for its own interests.
Maybe so. It's a thought at least. That's how a Libertarian would look at it. Pollution is some corporation externalizing costs onto someone else. The former being one of the main thing Libertarians are against. They should be sued out of existence by the people they hurt, but they've rigged the system to prevent that. If that doesn't work, then the 2nd Amendment might be the only recourse. That's why it's there.
For an environmentalist, you don't seem to recall the Montreal Protocol, or in the US EISA. Among others. Insulation standards may not be sexy, but they do work.
The fact is, you are simply uneducated and ignorant. We have both legislation to end certain practices and put money into research and technological development. It has had a lot of success.
Go drink some R-1234yf. Good stuff.
and yet have a very clean tailpipe that does not contribute to smog.
Until you redefine 'air pollution' to include the products of perfect combustion. Then, the more fuel you burn, the more emissions you produce.
Since the goal is to get the maximum amount of performance out of a certain quantity of fuel burn (not to burn a certain amount of fuel), there should be no conflict between improving efficiency given that performance delivery. As long as the regulators are honest about their goals. But if the agenda is to reduce the performance (and utility) of vehicles, then they will invent more regulations to handicap them. Until (they hope) we all just give them up and become content with breathing bus exhaust.
Let me know when any EV is cheaper than my gasoline powered vehicle and works in all the same situations.
My IC vehicle is 18 yrs old. Liability insurance only. Runs perfectly all these years. I bought it new with 26 miles on it.
I generally fill up the tank every 6-12 weeks.
Why would I get some other vehicle when I probably have another 10-15 yrs on the current one before any major overhaul is needed.
I'm not stupid and I don't need to keep up with people in California.
Because they already spent the money to lower emmisions, and expected to get that money back in car sales. Now their cars will cost more than cars from China that don't have those polution control costs.
The Republicans are planning on cutting medicare and social security to balance the budget, not more taxes. If anyone talks about tax increases they will eventually suggest raising taxes on the rich, and that must be avoided.
Just so it's TOTALY clear... When you say "explode" you are discussing hydrogen explosions which are only possible concerns in very extreme situations in nuclear power plants. Modern designs do NOT suffer from the same issues as the various operating reactors in the USA today.
The only reason why we don't have modern nuclear reactors in operation here in the USA is because the "environmentalist" lobby has basically made it too expensive. It's not dangerous.
I remember being a college student during the final phases of licensing for the Sharon Harris plant outside of Raleigh. At the time "equal time" was a rule the media had to practice, so the environmentalists where given free TV Time all over the place. "It's not too late!" was their campaign slogan. I asked one of them to go pull their electric meter if they really where serious, live off the grid, prove you are really concerned.... Needless to say, the lights stayed on at home.
IF we are serious about climate change and environmental concerns, these folks should be marching at every fossil fueled power plant demanding it be replaced with a nuclear one. They should be demanding dollars for fusion R&D. Where are they?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Road tax revenue does not have to come from a tax on any particular fuel and you damned well know that, ya deceptive cunt.
ORANGE TIDE BAD!
Also ICE car production will reduce (such as Ford and GM now no longer making most of their sedans) causing "new" car buyers to wait for a suitable EV to come to market or to buy a second-hand ICE car. Some people predict a short-fall in the number of new cars produced around 2023 when the total number of available new cars reaches a minimum. Also at this point an oil crisis occurs due to an oil glut due to fewer ICE cars being on the road and the oil price collapses.
You would of thought low oil prices will hit EV sales but it won't because new ICE cars will be rarer than previous years. You might see a temporary boom in getting old ICE cars back on the road.
Lithium production will increase due to supply and demand economics. But note Lithium is not the main component (by mass) of Lithium ion batteries.
"In the end it will not matter as electric car adoption will more than make up for any extra emissions from rolling back the rules."
This is not unlike saying that StuporKendall's idiot takes can be more than made up by his posting volume. Electric car adoption is not a given, rolling back regulations is an effort to thwart it.
I guess if everyone lowers their standards enough then no one will be disappointed. Here StuporKendall is way out front.
CONSEQUENCES ARE COMING FOR YOUR LIES NAZI INCEL KEN DOLL FOR YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Fusion is dead. Even when they figure out how to make it work, it's going to cost at least 10x what solar or wind costs now and those are still getting cheaper. Fision can't produce power below 25 cents per KWH and it doesn't use massive cryogenically cooled super conducting magnets.
And luckily you're an old fuck, so you won't be around much longer. If you're gonna be a dick, I can be a dick too.
This is called "balance". President Obama leaned way to the eco side and made rules known to drive industry in a direction. The idea is good, which is better fuel economy, but how it is written would make a number of vehicles unable to be made. There is only so much energy you can pull our of gas. President Trump disagrees with how this should be and is changing it.
Why do people think it's so horrible. My opinion is the goal set by President Obama were unrealistic and with no avenue to get there, which I also thought was done on purpose. Just the same as his coal power plant requirements, which would have just shut them all down. Ok, good get rid of coal, that'a a good thing, so what is your solid plan to replace them and future growth? Ah, right. Chant Solar, Wind really loud and power will fall from the sky. In other words, no plan. This is the same. That vehicle has to get super great fuel economy. How do we get there? Make non ICE cars, without a plan for infrastructure and how this will cripple the power grid if rolled out without expanding capacity. Oh well.
There great part is everyone can have an opinion, but I would just like to see a plan. Don't care which president we're talking about.
Citation please. Yes really. This is worth knowing.
I believe you about the environmentalist lobby. I know NRC permitting is a bitch and can take decades. However, what about critical mass? No reactors can reach that and cause a thermonuclear explosion? What if the site is abandoned will most plants just sit there and not dump radioactive waste and water into the ground like Fukushima? I want the lights on like anyone and I'd love to see nuclear power solve a bunch of environmental crisis. However, I don't want to do it at the cost of burying my head in the sand and denying that those plants can be very dangerous (especially in a nasty economic breakdown where nobody wants to pay for prevention *or* cleanup). On the other hand I get mighty jealous looking at countries like France having 70% + nuclear power.
This is what liberal morons (redundant, I know) actually believe!
Harsh? Depends on whose perspective you're taking. As the standards currently stand, many cities such as New York are enjoying air quality that would be unimaginably good thirty years ago.. But there are still a number of cities that aren't there yet, like LA, Pittsburgh, and Indianapolis.
One of Obama's major policy goals was energy independence. He was very pro-fracking, despite its extreme unpopularity with the Democratic base. He wanted US natural gas exports would to Russian "gas diplomacy" in Europe. Likewise crude petroleum production nearly doubled under his watch, after years of decline. Last year the US became a net exporter of gas and this year, of oil, both facts which President Trump hailed as an accomplishment for his administration, but these things can't be instantly conjured by sheer mojo; or even by Rick Perry's white-hot intellect. It takes years.
What energy independence that do do with "harsh" emissions standards? All the relatively easy ways of improving ICE emissions are already on every car sold. Further reductions in emissions have to be done by making the car more fuel efficient, or at least by not making them less efficient.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Trump needs to say, "If you like your emissions rules, you can keep your emissions rules."
What was that again about only Republicans lying?
Boy are you going to get it...
My personal perspective is that we need to work on Fusion reactors for electric power generation. It would produce nearly unlimited power for very little environmental impacts and nearly zero CO2 emissions. All we need is more R&D dollars... We KNOW it can be done, we just haven't fully figured out the engineering to make it happen. Also, why are we not shoving up Nuclear power plants as fast as mini-malls until then....
Even when fusion becomes viable, we will still want (liquid) fission plants to produce medical isotopes and other useful materials, like Pu-238 for RTGs, Gd for neutron imaging, tritium for fusion, etc. They are also the most effective way to permanently dispose of stockpiles of spent nuclear fuel, and produce tremendous amounts of energy in the process.
I'm guessing that the idea here is to control folks, not actually fix the stated issue, and THAT's why we are not really serious..
This may be the core reason why nuclear power is not encouraged by those in power, and why the World Bank will not help finance nuclear projects. Abundant and affordable nuclear energy promises to eliminate scarcity, and allow even small countries to become completely self-sufficient in time. This is incompatible with aspirations of global hegemony. Renewables pose no threat; they will not strand fossil resources, will constrain energy supply, and will foster large and interdependent energy systems, which do not allow true independence. Policy will be enforceable by threat of disconnection from the super-grid, which is crucial for actually making use of collected energy.
ALL designed to facilitate commerce - except AGW. That bitch be an equal opportunity hottie. AGW will disrupt ALL.
You and me alone can't stop AGW but sure as hell the collective WE can stop commerce that feeds it. Money matters; its all that matters. Spend unwise, waste your life - waste a planet; Woke, spend wisely, stop AGWcommerce save a planet - save a life.
Well, China's a special case; China has a tendency to write strict sounding but vague laws, then enforce those laws in what *appears* to be a very spotty way. This is, in fact, how the party exerts control over people while adopting a progressive sounding posture. Everyone's guilty of something, so people keep away from things that will seriously antagonize the party. The party doesn't need to install zampolits everywhere like the Soviets did; uncertainty makes people into their own political commissars.
But China aside, there are no such things as "American car companies" anymore. Letting car companies sell dirty, primitive junk here in the US might help some, but they're still stuck selling better cars overseas. And they probably don't have much faith in the staying power of the more over-the-top deregulation.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Are you literally retarded, or do you just pretend on the internet?
Every other country was straight up cheating. The Obama and Paris regulations are not achievable in a comfortable 5 passenger sedan with modern safety standards. Physics is a bitch and she wins.
Spoken like a true fascist. If coercion worked sometime somewhere _ever_ then just use a lot more coercion! For someone who goes around anonymously calling people ignorant, you don't seem very bright yourself. Forcing individuals to change their unenlightened ways while shaking your finger in their face has worked oh so well *sarcastic smirk*. That's why we have > 400PPM CO2 in the air right this very minute, Mr Coward. The French just had weeks of rioting at least partially related to environmental policy being overbearing. So, I'd say your strategy of being an overbearing judgemental asshole has a very shitty track record in light of that FACT.
"A middle class was not possible until the energy freedom that oil provided" Instantly debunked bullshit, next?
It was so instant that I missed your evidence that debunked it.
Obama added less than 700 billion to the deficit in his 8 years even after inheriting Bush's TARP which ran 1.5 Trillion. In Trumps 2 he had already added 700 billion and is on track for 1 trillion next year. With the tax cut there is zero change for an infrastructure bill unless the king of debt decide to take us to new levels. Even without infrastructure massive cuts will be required to stop the hemorrhaging of money.
There are different forms of critical mass, nuclear reactors do not have the ability to cause a nuclear explosion as they are NOT prompt critical, but moderated critical.
In order to cause a nuclear explosion you have to have a critical mass that is prompt critical, where unmoderated neutrons can sustain the chain reaction. This requires a very fast assembly of the critical mass, because you need to get the device prompt critical before it disassembles itself from the heat of being moderated critical, where moderated neutrons, ones that have been slowed down either by distance or by hitting something sustain the chain reaction.
So, like the pulsar reactor I got to see once, you can actually pull out all the control rods and it will not detonate in a nuclear explosion. The pulsar reactor would actually pulse to a very high power level for a very short period of time and cycle up and down rapidly, but wouldn't explode. A power reactor who's control rods got fully removed would produce a LOT of heat, but as the temperature and pressure went up it would vent water/steam and once the steam bubbles started to form in the reactor core, the nuclear reaction would be inhibited, with less and less moderated neutrons being available. Problem is, for most boiling water reactors, that the decay heat would far exceed the core structure's ability to stay in place, it melts and bad things start happening. You get steam explosions or should the cladding on the fuel rods get hot enough, it starts to break down, producing hydrogen gas from the water and such to get you a chemical explosion if it ignites for some reason.
So no, nuclear plats will not ever produce a thermal nuclear (or just plain nuclear) explosion...It's physically impossible.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Thanks for explaining that so clearly. I'd mod you up if I could.
Guardian - George Monbiot. Great article on the puppeteers that rewrite the rules as they wish.
The average selling price of a new car in the US is $35k. A new Nissan Leaf is going for $31k (local dealer, before incentives or tax credits). So you can already get an EV at a lower price than the average new car. ICE cars have been increasing in price; EVs have been decreasing.
Once there are enough EVs on the road, battery replacements will become commonplace, and prices of used EVs will become very affordable.
Thank you President Trump for our booming economy, oil independence, and major companies like Apple bringing back billions of dollars that went overseas due to leftist demonrats and rinos expecially BHO! Keep America Great! Support Trump and conservative Republicans!
This is what liberal morons (redundant, I know) actually believe!
Yep - That's because we live in a world of FACTS as opposed to Conservative Fantasyland where facts don't matter.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/ma...
"But now we overtly let the industry run the government."
Think of it as cutting out the middleman.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
No, he's right, a middle class was made possible first by coal.
You'll never see such a plan, because that would be socialism. We can't have that, can we? It would mean interfering with the 1%:ers right to profit at the cost of the rest of the society, after all.
Spoken like a true fascist.
Ah, random regurgitation of "fascist" to describe what? Oh, just something you are taking a rhetorical stand against with a demonstrated ignorance on your part.
If coercion worked sometime somewhere _ever_ then just use a lot more coercion!
Oh no, coercion! Horrors! How dare all the nations of the world get together and negotiate agreeable terms to protect the Ozone Layer. What a terrible thing for sovereign nations to unite and ameliorate a concern common to all of the peoples of the world.
You did look up the example given, right?
For someone who goes around anonymously calling people ignorant, you don't seem very bright yourself. Forcing individuals to change their unenlightened ways while shaking your finger in their face has worked oh so well *sarcastic smirk*.
Oh no, confusing finger-wagging with actual force? You don't know how to use metaphors either.
But yes, forcing people to change their ways has worked quite well. You should go to class, or ask to borrow Johnny's notes.
That's why we have > 400PPM CO2 in the air right this very minute, Mr Coward.
World CO2 levels are a result of industrial pollution not being managed, actually. You know, like they could be. Of course, it will take some time to work back down, but yes, we will be having some treaties, and yes, we will be investing in technological research as part of those treaties.
The French just had weeks of rioting at least partially related to environmental policy being overbearing.
Oh no, French rioting, aka use of coercion! That sure doesn't have a history they make bad porno movies about. Seriously though, that veela is a sexy little thing but that movie is dumb.
Except for you know, I was actually talking about means of treaties and laws controlling pollution by giving actual examples of voluntary negotiations and pointing out the large amount of research actually being funded.
Something you missed.
Because you're railing against fascism. For rhetoric. You remind me of the fellow who wouldn't let the electric company install a new meter because it was wireless.
Right. Like saying "since Carbon Monoxide is so cheap, we really don't need to restrict it."
90 percent of old ice in the Arctic is already gone, which leads directly to a positive feedback loop in the north. Greenland can't melt fast enough.
The only upside to what's happening is that Mar a Loco will soon be under water....
It wasn't just Friedman. You can add William Meckling and Michael Jensen to that list.
A case could be made that the US should restrict exploration and production domestically, as well as keep progressing with auto efficiency standards. The list of oil producers after the US is pretty consistent with a list of our adversaries. Why not use their oil in the present, and leave ours in the ground for the years when oil begins to become more scarce?
Ideally we would be looking out for the long term well being of the United States of America which is why whether it's Facebook or Marathon Oil, we should not, cannot, let corporations dictate governmental policy. Corporations goals are geared towards the short term wealth of a very few people, and do not have the long term interests of the nation at heart.
02 Russia ...
03 Saudi Arabia
04 Iraq
05 Iran
06 China
02 Russia
03 Saudi Arabia
04 Iraq
05 Iran
06 China
11 Venezuela
13 Nigeria
14 Angola
Seems like Meckling and Jensen were more into corporate structure and executive compensation, respectively. Meckling fawned over the greater perfection of the Corporation over any individual or small group of experts, and Jensen won a Nobel Prize for his theories on "financial economics" even though he is best known for promoting tying executive compensation to stock valuations via stock options.
So, yeah the have all played a role, but the redefinition of business ethics by Friedman enables these incredibly powerful and self-centered organisations that Meckling and Jensen defined to become incredibly dangerous, if not innately sociopathic.
Learn to quote. You are quoting yourself as if I'm delivering your childish logic pretzel. Mr. Coward, the phrase "agreeable terms" is mutually exclusive with "coercion". Let's call that AC-full-of-shit-point-number-one. Also, notice also I use the term "while" when describing leftist finger wagging, which isn't indicating a causal relationship as you suggest. Fascists combine commercial private industry with government. Both Hitler and Mussolini both did that and advocated for doing more of it. It's a defining element of fascism not a random regurgitation and it's exactly what you appear to want. Mutually beneficial treaties which outlaw easily replaced chemicals are a helluva lot less coercive than placing big taxes on individual purchase of essential items like fuel. Conflating the two contributes to your pathological reasoning and shows you have a weak argument rather than any real point. You are also a complete fucking retard if you think "World pollution levels are being managed" they weren't being managed in 1900 in the US when we dumped absolute shittons of CO2 and they aren't being managed in China _today_ either. So, you are utterly delusional there. Because you exhibit zero reading comprehension, you remind me of a retarded second grade ESL student, Coward.
Did you get to keep your plan? I sure as hell didn't, and neither did my 80,000 coworkers.
they have bought a little too deeply into the kool-aid that emissions in the U.S. must be reduced, while ignoring what the rest of the world is doing.
So, you advocate *Monkey see, monkey do*? Funny, I never took you for the type that says imitating bad behavior is ok. But I guess, if there's money to be made...
the real collusion is auto-makers trying to hamstring competition by crafting regulations that newer companies cannot follow
Yes, why do we let them do that? Never mnd. Rhetorical question...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Obama added less than 700 billion to the deficit in his 8 years even after inheriting Bush's TARP which ran 1.5 Trillion. In Trumps 2 he had already added 700 billion and is on track for 1 trillion next year. With the tax cut there is zero change for an infrastructure bill unless the king of debt decide to take us to new levels. Even without infrastructure massive cuts will be required to stop the hemorrhaging of money.
You don't know the difference between the deficit and the national debt
You understand that in 2010, engineers demonstrated a car capable of carrying two adults, two children and a load of luggage at 100 mph with a fuel efficiency of 100 mpg?
If JD posted it you can safely assume it's a lie.
The Trump admin is NOT rolling out rules to INCREASE emissions. They are eliminating rules Obama put in place but diid not order into effect until AFTER HE WAS GONE that would have gradually ramped-up regulations to [probably] unattainable levels.
If the Trump admin does everything on emissions they propeosed, the emissions levels allowed for cars will be right where they were when the God-King Obama was in office. This fraudulent wailing about Trumps car emissions policies is exactly like the treatment of Clinton's "clean water" rules during the GW Bush admin in which Clinton set new rules to kick-in after he would be out of office, then Bush got in and stopped those rules (leaving the water regs right where they were under Clinton) and then the leftists all started screaming that Bush was for lead and arsenic in drinking water.
It's impossible to have civilized policy discussions when leftists are so insanely dishonest. The English language contains no mechanism for such conversations between people in the real world and those in the Twilight Zone.
If Americans wanted fuel efficient vehicles, they'd buy Prii.
With oil prices down, the sales of Prii are down, and SUVs are up. I would think Americans would be more concerned about the potential end of cheap oil, but I was wrong.
When we increased the efficiency of burning coal guess what, we used more. That can be said about a huge number of other things we consume. As we increase the efficiency the usefulness tends to increase significantly faster that the efficiency gain. So we have more efficient engines now, the result has been moving from driving a car to an SUV. Then we drive the SUV even further. If the ICE cars become less efficient then the cost advantage of electric cars will actually increase to the point no one will buy a new ICE car.
This is so stupid for the oil industry to push it's either fake news or the oil industry has really lost anyone who has half a brain and all that's left is stupid psychopaths.
One part of Gasoline requires 14 parts of Oxygen
https://jacoboneal.com/car-eng...
Casteism
No, socialism is how you end up with mass murder and people not able to feed themselves as the voluntary transactions which used to fuel society break down.
then enforce those laws in what *appears* to be a very spotty way.
Yes thats exactly how they ended up getting mass reductions on horrendously dirty bikes in major cities /sarcasm.
If you think China is some spotty ignoring country that is all about talk and no action then all you're really saying is "I haven't been to China more than once and a haven't seen the massive changes over the past 20 years, but I feel qualified to comment anyway."
I never kept my plan, it changed and got more expensive each year. That was BEFORE Obamacare. And the promise was "you can keep your doctor" which 99% of people like me did.
In the 1990s, cars were allowed to use a lot less fuel than they are today. But, Federal emissions rules were rewritten in the 1990s at the behest of, you guess it, California, to decrease the efficiency of gas motors by approximately 30%.
The new rules implemented in the 90s required cars richen their fuel/air ratio to reduce NOx emissions, which in theory should have led to less smog in LA, which is what California was after, but of course we all know how that worked out since NOx emissions aren't what cause smog.
in any case, rather than eat crow, California doubles down on this ridiculous argument every time vehicle emissions come up, while in the meantime our cars are forced to emit 30% more CO2 than they need to.
You don't really need evidence for a prima facie absurd statement, there's been a middle class since before "oil" would've referred to whale oil.
I'm not sure if this is more Informative or Funny (for using Fox as the link). One of the few times I'm glad I don't have mod points to spend here - not ready for tough decisions today.
Or, you could simply use another unknown technology, Google, type in 'x-tracer 100 mpg' and get a whole host of links at your disposal, like this one.
Lazy, much?
Learn to quote. You are quoting yourself as if I'm delivering your childish logic pretzel.
Just a tagging error, it happens, you seem to have figured it out, so you're just showing your own petty temper is getting in your way when it comes to rational discourse. Not that that wasn't obviously the case already, but you keep reinforcing it.
Mr. Coward, the phrase "agreeable terms" is mutually exclusive with "coercion".
Exactly, nobody went to war over the Montreal Protocol. It wasn't necessary. People of the many nations got together and addressed the problem.
What a shock!
Let's call that AC-full-of-shit-point-number-one. Also, notice also I use the term "while" when describing leftist finger wagging, which isn't indicating a causal relationship as you suggest.
You seem really confused about this whole finger-wagging issue, which is actually what you're doing, except I would say you're more like a toddler screaming and stomping your feett What with your ignorance and all, you have the comprehension of said youth, and your demeanor is quite irate.
Fascists combine commercial private industry with government. Both Hitler and Mussolini both did that and advocated for doing more of it. It's a defining element of fascism not a random regurgitation and it's exactly what you appear to want.
See? All this screaming over something that isn't happening. Again, you're like a toddler, all you know how to say is stuff you've learned through repetition, rather than conscious thought.
Mutually beneficial treaties which outlaw easily replaced chemicals are a helluva lot less coercive than placing big taxes on individual purchase of essential items like fuel. Conflating the two contributes to your pathological reasoning and shows you have a weak argument rather than any real point.
You're the one who made easily reputable claims, who has ranted uselessly about fascism and coercion, demanded money put into research, but then, that's why you're still stuck wagging your fingers and stomping your feet as you scream like an upset toddler.
Me, I pointed out the Montreal Protocol and how effective it was, and the investments in technological research. You? Hysterical ranting over coercion and Fascism.
Facts on my side, hot air on yours.
You are also a complete fucking retard if you think "World pollution levels are being managed" they weren't being managed in 1900 in the US when we dumped absolute shittons of CO2 and they aren't being managed in China _today_ either. So, you are utterly delusional there.
Things have changed since the 1900s, believe it or not. Glad you admit there is more to be done though! We are still working on it, and have been, even though you want to pretend something else has been happening.
Because you exhibit zero reading comprehension, you remind me of a retarded second grade ESL student, Coward.
You remind me of a buffoon. Either that, or you come from some alternate reality where Lincoln was assassinated, and some out of work painter took over Germany.
Donâ(TM)t know where you got that info but itâ(TM)s wrong. I had a normal plan with normal coverage for me and my family, but lost it. IIRC, there were a bunch of gotcha rules and one of them made by plan illegal.
https://auto.xprize.org/prizes...
http://edison2.com/the-x-prize...
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/0...
https://phys.org/news/2011-05-...
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
http://edison2.com/the-x-prize...
https://auto.xprize.org/prizes...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Few more links for the collection.
Gratifying to know AC thinks I own Progressive Insurance and Edison2.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)