California Leads States In Suing the EPA For Attacking Vehicle Emissions Standards (theverge.com) 247
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.
Golden Age of Lawyers (Score:2)
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 inte
Rules and Abuse (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Yeah I know. We solved all the pollution issues, and exposed global warming for the Chinese conspiracy that it was, so environmental regulations no longer seem like a good idea. They were just a relic from an era of stupidity. *cough*. No that wasn't me coughing due to sarcasm it's just my lungs are really irritated *cough* *cough* and I don't know why.
'muerika!
Re:Rules and Abuse (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, but you also have to remember that every time a rule is introduced someone lost the opportunity to make some profit, had to pay for some safety gear, was forced to fit a filter, had to internalize a cost. That regulation injured someone's wallet. It was enacted to reduce someone's bottom line.
And that someone was probably a major donor. /sarcasm
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but you also have to remember that every time a rule is introduced someone lost the opportunity to make some profit, had to pay for some safety gear, was forced to fit a filter, had to internalize a cost. That regulation injured someone's wallet. It was enacted to reduce someone's bottom line.
Unless they just let shit flow downhill, do you think it's SUV manufacturers or SUV owners who get to bear the bulk of the cost? Of course you could say that's the right place to internalize it as it's the users who create the demand for the gas guzzlers but there's also a whole lot more of those than car company stock holders and they got the right to vote. And the math on this is seriously wonky, say VW cheated on their emissions test and didn't internalize the cost. Can we get an itemized bill showing wh
Re: (Score:2)
Alas, this is what happens when one tries to rule by rule/regulation rather than by law. The next guy gets to do the same, and his rules/regulations may not match your guy's ideas.
IOW, the rules/regulations in question should have been codified in law by Congress, since what one Pres
Re:Elections have consequences (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Well, stricktly speaking (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, well if you want to be literal, then no manufacturers have any skin in the game either, because corporations don't have skin, and don't breathe.
But we're not being literal, the idiom 'skin the game' simply means to have a stake in the outcome. Whether it is your physical body at risk, or money, or political capital, or social reputation... whatever its all 'skin in the game'.
Bull (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
At the time the "endorsement" happened, the Obama administration owned two of the big three, or was just finishing off selling their last shares, if memory serves. It's hard to call that an independent endorsement when the fate of the company was very clearly being menaced by the government.
You call it menaced, I call it being rescued from oblivion. Of the big three, the only carmaker that didn't need a bailout to avoid going out of business was Ford.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Elections have consequences (Score:3)
Mostly input from about 100,000 rust belters (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh. If only California+NYC could decide the presidential elections... this country would have its second civil war.
Re: (Score:2)
Smartphone apps written in Rust, derivatives trading and an endless supply of leftie smugness versus agricultural and industrial base and a population that likes their guns...it would be a short war.
Re: (Score:3)
That whole state can fucking burn.
It often does.
Re: (Score:2)
If something is illegal, does that automatically make it morally wrong?
Really? (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (tha
Re: (Score:2)
it's 19th century tech (that alone should be a death sentence!)
This is a non-sequitur at best.
Re: (Score:2)
"80 Mpg isn't that hard. Tesla is getting Zero MPG."
Zero MPG is the easiest fuel economy to achieve by a zillion miles. Even in an armchair.
Re: Really? (Score:2, Troll)
Tesla is getting Zero MPG.
The fact that you think zero MPG is better than 80 MPG tells me all I need to know about how seriously to take your opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
2. 80 Mpg isn't that hard. Tesla is getting Zero MPG.
Zero MPG is not what you want. The phrase you're looking for is either "infinite MPG" or "miles per zero gallons". You're wrong, though. Electricity is a fungible commodity and some of it is produced by burning petroleum, so Teslas are running [partly] on oil like everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
2. 80 Mpg isn't that hard. Tesla is getting Infinite MPG.
Fixed that for you! It is not Zero MPG for Tesla cars.
Technically, MPG = miles / gallons, in the case of Tesla no gallons are used (on the road) and therefore you are dividing by a zero and at the maths limit gives an infinite MPG, (assuming miles is also not zero).
Re: Really? (Score:2)
Tesla is getting Zero MPG
...just standing still!
Re: Really? (Score:2)
it's 19th century tech (that alone should be a death sentence!
Most of your post deserves the '5' it currently has... but the above represents some highly-flawed reasoning, as the electric motor was invented in the early 1800's. Older does not necessarily imply less advanced; if nothing else, the pervasive and desperate misuse "A.I." should be a dead giveaway...
Re: (Score:2)
Remember the good old-fashioned screw-in light bulb? They made them illegal, no matter what the technology of the bulb.
Got a source for that? I managed building out a floor of an office building as a data center in San Carlos, CA and upgrading office space we leased in San Mateo. We encountered tons of stupid rules and codes, but I didn't encounter that one. We did illegally import incandescent bulbs to use in closets and storage rooms.since they're only turned on a few seconds at a time maybe a few times a month so CFLs aren't worth the extra expense. There were so many stupid rules, but I didn't come across that one.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That is incomplete and in effect, incorrect. An E26 fixture will still, as of the 2017 update of the law, be permitted if it has a J28-compliant LED light source affixed at the time of inspection.
An E26 fixture is a medium, or standard size screw-in fixture. So it's still fine, just has to have a compliant LED bulb when inspected. The idea is it will be years before the bulb gets changed after that.
Re: (Score:2)
E26 is a candelabra base. about 3/8" in diameter. I believe you are thinking about an A19 base, a standard Edison light bulb base
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
California politicians are responsible for turning a prosperous equitable place into the state with the nation's largest homeless rate, the nation's craiziest housing prices, and the nation's most insane building codes.
Actually, Hawaii has the nation's highest rate of homelessness, per state, but that number can be misleading. For one thing, it counts homeless individuals that were bussed from other states to get rid of them. With a relative few choosing the better weather. The housing in California is a mixed situation of demand combined with a local law, Prop 13, that discourages sales on the free market. The building code in California is actually sane and reasonable, for local conditions, just like Miami-Dade in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Teslas are currently luxury automobiles. Anyway, in the last four decades at least, if you wanted to get a good quality efficient and economical car your best bet was with a Japanese brand (even if partially made in US). The US Big Three auto makers just don't do a very good job. They're certainly getting better but it's still catching up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Hawaii has the nation's highest rate of homelessness, per state, but that number can be misleading. For one thing, it counts homeless individuals that were bussed from other states to get rid of them.
Those are really good buses!
Re: (Score:2)
Hawaii has the nation's highest rate of homelessness, per state, but that number can be misleading. For one thing, it counts homeless individuals that were bussed from other states to get rid of them.
Those are really good buses!
I assume that part was meant to be about California, where that apparently actually happened [nbcsandiego.com].
Re: Really? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Hawaii has the nation's highest rate of homelessness, per state, but that number can be misleading. For one thing, it counts homeless individuals that were bussed from other states to get rid of them.
States are bussing homeless to Hawaii?
Re: Really? (Score:4, Informative)
New LED light bulbs fit into my old fixtures just fine. They're all screw-in. The price has gone way down since the first days of LED bulbs, and they last a lot long than my old incandescent bulbs used to.
Re: (Score:2)
New LED light bulbs fit into my old fixtures just fine. They're all screw-in. The price has gone way down since the first days of LED bulbs, and they last a lot long than my old incandescent bulbs used to.
Prices have gone down, no doubt, but the cheaper ones in particular tend to flicker like the blazes due to sloppy rectification. Point a high-speed camera at one sometime and wonder to yourself what sort of biological and ecological effects [nih.gov] will come to light a few decades down the road after widespread adoption.
Re: (Score:2)
LED flicker causing issues sounded like bullshit to me, so I figured I'd read the link you provided. The citation for LED stuff in there led here [indiana.edu], and that's hilariously not the evidence you want it to be. From that "research":
Subjects. The authors served as subjects.
So yeah, a real, deep, double-blind, comprehensive study.
And what they found was that a flickering light might cause changes in an electroretinogram that are non-linear, and that suggest a low-pass filter in the retina. So flickering light effects their eyes in interesting ways. No s
Re: (Score:3)
You must be exhausted after so soundly demolishing that straw man. Here's exactly what I said:
Point a high-speed camera at one sometime and wonder to yourself what sort of biological and ecological effects will come to light a few decades down the road after widespread adoption .
If your position is that there's nothing to worry about because the earliest studies about physiological effects of an upstart lighting technology that has now largely displaced incandescent lighting (a sea change forced on society over a remarkably short period of time and with precious little concern for the potential side effects of doing so) didn't conclusively find any, weren't structured to your satisfaction
Re: (Score:2)
So to support your assertion that harm might happen some time in the distant future, you pointed to a study that didn't really support your assertion? My pointing that out is not a strawman. That's not how citing research works. You don't get to claim that something supports your assertion when it doesn't. Your claim was actually stronger without your failed appeal to authority.
If you are triggered to have to make up boogie men about how LEDs are bad as soon as you see the word, you've got some real issues.
Re: (Score:2)
New LED light bulbs fit into my old fixtures just fine. They're all screw-in.
My only real complaint about LED bulbs at this point (since flicker, color, and price seem to have been largely resolved) is heat. They just don't work very well in certain fixtures due to the large amount of heat they generate and have to dissipate or suffer damage.
For example, I have a standing floor lamp that's simply an inverted shade on a pole. With a 40w equivalent LED bulb in it, the lamp will shut off automatically every few hours because it has a heat sensor in it to prevent you from using anythi
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, I wonder if this is localized to the base and it's close to the temp sensor. The lit portion of the LED bulbs I have are cool or slightly warm, whereas a similar incandescent bulb is hot enough to leave blisters if not careful.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only has the price gone down, they use an order of magnitude less power than incandescents. When I made the swap, it was somewhat mind-blowing that a typical hour of lighting at night went from like 600W to like 60W. When my mom visited and was worried about turning off all the lights when we went out for a couple of hours, I pointed out that at $0.12/kWh, leaving them on was going to cost us about one cent, maybe two.
What's even more awesome is that LEDs are coming in all shapes and sizes now. I've pic
Re: (Score:2)
Ya, I never liked the CFL bulbs. I don't see them much anymore in the stores. The LEDs though last a lot longer than many old incandescent bulbs, especially if you turn them on and off a lot, so you're not throwing them away often.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Really? (Score:5, Funny)
The mobile homes are typically around 1800 square feet, and have 2x6 walls covered in drywall, vaulted ceilings, hot tubs, decent carpeting, often hardwood floors, nice porches, etc. Having been in both, California mobile homes are to southern U.S. mobile homes as the Tesla Model X is to a Ford Pinto without fixing the gas tank problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Except there's no mention of race at all.
Re: (Score:2)
I think most Breibart readers would rather California just go away.
Re: (Score:2)
California politicians have that "If you believe it enough, it will come true" mentality.
Most great leaders do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately for me neither does the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:3)
> 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 serpenti
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 W1
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re:Make cars more expensive (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 su
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Truly low-income people mostly buy used cars, whose value is largely unaffected by minor differences in the cost of new cars.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Boo hoo (Score:2)
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 mak
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 s
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 mod
Re: (Score:3)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
Careful, you might trigger them. The delusion is strong and the lie pervasive.
You're right about him not being king (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but I think the argument is going to be that Obama was following the various laws when the rules were put in place
Laws like that are the problem. Congress outsources its duties to legislate to ginormous federal agencies with vague mandates. Then the current president has tremendous leeway to pander to whoever.
Re:You're right about him not being king (Score:5, Informative)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Total number of executive orders:
G W Bush: 291
B. Obama: 276
R. Reagan: 381
Avg number of executive orders/per year:
G W Bush: 36.4
B. Obama: 34.6
D. Trump: 55
Re: (Score:2)
Obama was not the King of Babylon. The next elected head of the executive branch actually does get to reverse his decisions.
Indeed and he should do so ... where it makes sense without harming American competitiveness, the American environment, and ... Americans.
On the other hand policy by: Obama did it so it must be bad is nothing short of absurdity. At this point it is clear that if Obama found a free and 100% effective cure for cancer, Trump would have reversed it somehow.
Re:Who was the real attacker (Score:4, Informative)
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? [wikipedia.org]
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 [exxonmobil.com]? Congratulations, son. That was the hardest failure I've ever seen on Slashdot, and I've seen a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Was your vehicle already certified as a gross polluter? If not, wrench up.