EPA To Propose Vehicle Emissions Standards To Meet 'The Urgency of Climate Crisis' By July's End (thehill.com) 100
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Hill: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing to propose stricter emissions standards for vehicles by the end of July, EPA Administrator Michael Regan said Tuesday. Regan told Bloomberg News in an interview that the new standards would be sufficient to meet "the urgency of the climate crisis." "We need to go as far as we can to meet the demands of the day," Regan added. "The science indicates we have a short window in time to reverse the path that we're on and mitigate against certain climate impacts."
An EPA spokesperson told The Hill that the timeline was dictated by an executive order from President Biden that requires the administration to review the former Trump administration's rule that relaxed the emissions limits by July. The spokesperson confirmed that the EPA is on track to meet that timeline. That rule also loosened the requirement for fuel economy standards, which dictate how much gasoline per mile that the U.S. fleet can consume, which the Biden administration could also tighten.
The executive order also requires a review this month of the decision to revoke California's ability to set its own tailpipe emissions standards, which have been stricter than the federal government's standards and adopted by a number of other states. Regan told Bloomberg that he is "a firm believer in the state's statutory authority to lead." According to the news outlet, he also did not rule out the possibility for additional regulations in the future that would essentially ban new conventional gas-powered cars.
An EPA spokesperson told The Hill that the timeline was dictated by an executive order from President Biden that requires the administration to review the former Trump administration's rule that relaxed the emissions limits by July. The spokesperson confirmed that the EPA is on track to meet that timeline. That rule also loosened the requirement for fuel economy standards, which dictate how much gasoline per mile that the U.S. fleet can consume, which the Biden administration could also tighten.
The executive order also requires a review this month of the decision to revoke California's ability to set its own tailpipe emissions standards, which have been stricter than the federal government's standards and adopted by a number of other states. Regan told Bloomberg that he is "a firm believer in the state's statutory authority to lead." According to the news outlet, he also did not rule out the possibility for additional regulations in the future that would essentially ban new conventional gas-powered cars.
Ban states from setting rules... (Score:3)
Ban the states from setting the rules (no more "California Emissions" BS) but set federal rules that are strict enough that there is no need for states to set their own rules...
Re:Ban states from setting rules... (Score:4, Insightful)
The CA emission rules have pushed the manufacturers to do better. Legacy Auto wants federal rules only, so this doesn't happen.
Re:Ban states from setting rules... (Score:5, Insightful)
State's Rights! Unless it's inconvenient to me personally.
Re: (Score:3)
Well if it is a case where a State Law will effect the people outside that state, then it may need federal oversight.
If you allow cars that causes air quality issues, that air quality problem will not just stay within that state border but spread across to different states.
So if say New York had lax emission standards, and the people in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and Canada are effected, then the regulations should move up to be federal, So Canada can deal with the US a
Re: (Score:2)
Well if it is a case where a State Law will effect the people outside that state, then it may need federal oversight.
Isn't that why the Fed needs to review the California exception regularly? Because it falls under the Commerce Clause, one of the few powers explicitly enumerated in the US Constitution.
Re: Ban states from setting rules... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually this is the reason why. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Allowing people to directly vote on measures.
Re: (Score:3)
Allowing people to directly vote on measures.
That's mob rule. And its rule by people who are clueless on the issue being considered.
Of course people are going to vote in favor of banning carcinogenic substances. But I doubt most voters are familiar with the epidemiology involved or how the testing is done. Or what substances are exempt from Prop 65 labeling (because something grown and harvested by hippies isn't a 'chemical' and must be pure and healthy).
Re: (Score:2)
Allowing people to directly vote on measures.
That's mob rule. And its rule by people who are clueless on the issue being considered.
Well isn't that kind of the problem at all levels. The people are indeed clueless. The solution is we put in politicians.... but we select the politicians by votes from the clueless, so instead of letting the clueless people, we let the clueless elect a representative... So, we have science pannel members that believe the earth is under 10,000 years old. Maybe half of congress agrees with the 97%+ of scientists that say human caused climate change is a fact. Hell we've got one representative proposing wild
Re: (Score:2)
So while the Feds should deal with emissions, the State should be concerned with say car safety, and reliability.
Car safety? Emissions is at least limited to the engine and emission system. Car safety is, at this point, entwined into the whole vehicle. Today they basically make the safety standards to fit the most stringent market they're willing to work in, with maybe minor changes elsewhere.
Unless you're talking about things like car maintenance, suppression of the "rolling coal" nonsense, and otherwise dangerous vehicle modifications*.
*Truck nuts don't count. A badly done lift, removing the muffler, that sort o
Re: (Score:2)
But if New York has lax environmental laws are car companies really going to build cars just for New York that pollute more than the cars they sell in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Massachusetts, et al?
Re: (Score:2)
set federal rules that are strict enough that there is no need for states to set their own rules...
The only way that would be possible would be to allow zero emissions.
Re:Ban states from setting rules... (Score:5, Informative)
The California waiver is written into law, so changing it would require an Act of Congress, not just Executive Order. Good luck with that.
Re:Ban states from setting rules... (Score:5, Informative)
Ban the states from setting the rules (no more "California Emissions" BS) but set federal rules that are strict enough that there is no need for states to set their own rules...
While there is value in the sort of clarity and simplicity that can only come from having national laws, the benefit of having local jurisdictions such as states, counties, and municipalities is that they can set laws that are specific and appropriate to their region, condition, and preference.
I grew up in a hurricane zone where building codes required that homes were built like bunkers. We’re talking cinderblock construction instead of wood frame, steel reinforced walls, laminated windows that can take direct hits without shattering from objects at highway speeds, roofs that are anchored down, etc.. When I moved to another part of the country, I was shocked to see wood frame construction on new builds. I thought it was madness: how would the homes survive?! I now realize it makes sense, because hurricanes aren’t the threat here that they were where I was growing up. A national set of building codes that forced everyone to build bunkers would needlessly increase expenses in most places, without providing any real benefit.
Likewise for many, though admittedly not all, of environmental regulation. A desert region needs to go to greater lengths to conserve water than a region with an ample supply of water, so it makes sense that they would be forced to spend money on high efficiency faucets and the like. We design our homes to eliminate heat as efficiently as possible where I live, because heat is a far greater concern than cold, but the opposite concern is true in much of the rest of the country, so it makes sense that local governments should be able to set regulations appropriate to their geographic location and conditions. Cities frequently contend with smog due to the cumulative effect of having so many vehicles in close proximity, so it makes sense to set strict emissions standards, but rural areas where tractors outnumber cars suffer far fewer problems of that sort (though we all live on the same planet and those emissions still go somewhere, so I would agree with a plan that stops externalizing environmental costs).
All of which is to say, local governments serve an important purpose. Stop trying to make national the things that should remain local, and stop trying to keep local the things that need to be dealt with nationally (or globally).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Most states have adopted some version the International Building Code and modified it to their requirements. Only California, Arizona, Missouri and Mississippi have their own bespoke building codes AFAIK.
Likewise, they have also adopted international fire, plumbing, fuel gas, energy and mechanical codes. And of course, there's the National Electric Code (NFPA 70). NFPA and ASHRAE are essentially de-facto laws because local jurisdictions enforce them, even though those standards have no legal weight on their
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly right, but I think you missed the point. I wasn’t suggesting national laws can’t work or have no place. I was responding to the previous poster who was saying California’s laws are ridiculous and shouldn’t be allowed to exist. I was suggesting that they should be allowed to make the laws they want to make, and you seem to agree.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh my god, you can't build houses from cinderblocks! What if there's an earthquake!?
National building codes (Score:3)
The answer here is actually very simple, and already done. National building code/recommendations changes up the amount of insulation that is standard depending on "bands" for the USA. Your thing about rejecting heat in the south and conserving it in the north is actually already at least somewhat accounted for, it would just need to be expanded.
You can still have national building codes, just keep them about requirements, rather than method, and have regional clauses like - flood zone, hurricane zone, co
Re: (Score:2)
I apparently didn’t communicate my point clearly enough, since yours is not the first post attempting to make the point you’re making, even though it’s already something with which I agree and that I didn’t think I was arguing against in the first place.
I was trying to refute the previous poster’s assertion that there isn’t a place for state-level laws. I am not advocating the opposite extreme view that there’s no place for national-level laws. I agree with everythi
I wish (Score:2)
For some types of regulations it certainly makes sense to mandate results, not methods. I've written pretty much the same thing myself.
Building codes need to be implemented daily by construction workers and enforced on-site by building inspectors who are looking at real buildings in the process of construction. So they very specifically say 2x4 studs on 16 inch centers for exterior walls, 24 inch centers for partition walls. A carpenter can put studs every 16 inches. He can't test the wind-load capacity o
Re:Ban states from setting rules... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not BS if you live in Los Angeles, where local weather conditions trap emissions in temperature inversions to create smog. That's why California has its own emissions standards, it has the most vulnerable to smog generating conditions.
You *could* solve California's smog problem by adopting sufficiently strict emissions standards in all 50 states, but arguably that's *over-regulation* because not all states need that level of emissions control. California, if it were a separate country, would be the fifth largest economy in the world; it's a big enough market to support its own standards.
Now CO2 is a somewhat different kettle of fish. CO2 is a global problem, it doesn't matter whether a ton of CO2 is emitted in LA or in Omaha or Boise, it has the same effect. But again there are local conditions. Not every state has commutes of the same length; California in particular has massive, pollution-spewing traffic jams. So the same regulation is going to have a different impact in LA than it would in Omaha or Boise.
The fastest possible reduction in CO2 emissions is going to focus on the greatest marginal opportunities -- the low hanging fruit -- and that may be different in different states.
Re: (Score:3)
Ban the states from setting the rules (no more "California Emissions" BS) but set federal rules that are strict enough that there is no need for states to set their own rules...
That's a good idea, but the truth is that the rules would actually be stricter than the California Emissions "BS". Are you sure that's what you want to ask for? Remember, we set these standards because we are the most populous state, with the most vehicle-miles traveled, and they were necessary in that context.
(Well, most of the rules are necessary. Prohibiting equipment changes like headers replacing manifolds without a CARB EO number is pure corruption.)
Re: (Score:2)
In other words. make it easier to get lax environmental laws by only needing to capture one legislative body instead of worrying about what each state might impose.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice utopian thought, but one political party thinks that more pollution is the tax every American should pay to Corporate America for the privilege of keeping Corporate America in business.
So, what happens when... (Score:2)
They come up with magic regulations that the majority of vehicles will fail?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Straw releases CO2 when burned. So they'll ban those too.
Give it some thought. (Score:2)
So, what happens when... They come up with magic regulations that the majority of vehicles will fail?
They aren't stupid so it's more likely they will be looking at how US companies currently manufacture cars. From that they may and create a schedule that will immediately cut the most polluting vehicles in a couple years to force companies to retool to build EVs instead. It's likely they will get government assistance to do so.
Just because you disagree with their approach doesn't mean they are stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we have learned a lot in the past 45 years or so. A lot of us are mentally still stuck in the Carter late 1970's mindset.
The manufacturers are actually turning around on the idea of regulations. A federal set of regulations allows them clear rules to follow, plus knowing their competitors will need to follow those rules too. So saying a Light Truck needs to get 30Mph in the next 5 years, isn't a big problem anymore, as they can either go All Electric (like Tesla, Ford, GM) or apply a hybrid driv
Re: (Score:2)
Right this way they don't have to guess about what products people might want to buy, where they run the risk of guessing wrong while a competitor guesses correctly. Much better to just have the government dictate what products you are allowed to sell - well if you an entrenched player anyway :-).
More authoritarian horse shit. Hopefully someone takes the EPA to court and Chevron goes DOWN IN FLAMES. Its time America gets some freedom back!
Re: (Score:2)
The manufacturers are actually turning around on the idea of regulations. A federal set of regulations allows them clear rules to follow, plus knowing their competitors will need to follow those rules too.
This is a very important point.
Note that it is not the car manufacturers who are fighting fuel economy regulations: as long as the rules apply to their competitors too, car manufacturers are fine with this.
It's the oil companies that have been fighting fuel economy rules. The oil companies really don't want cars to be more effective.
Re: (Score:2)
They come up with magic regulations that the majority of vehicles will fail?
Poor headline. Should have said "new vehicle emissions standards" because this is not for your existing vehicle. However, you should also know that, because that's how it always works.
More expensive for all (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Please elaborate on this expensive maintenance you speak of. Possibly a timing belt but you should be doing that proactively to begin with. Old cars were lucky to even reach 100k miles it was something to be celebrated. Today I wouldn't hesitate to buy a care with 100k miles, I have on several occasions actually. Everything from Acura to Mercedes.
Re: (Score:2)
Most vehicles of any type need expensive maintenance around 100k. We tend to forget this because we focus on the counterexamples. We see "lots" of older vehicles still hanging around for one reason or another, which is often NOT that they are in good condition, and we assume they are reliable. But we are only seeing the percentage that survived. The crushed vehicles are out of mind.
There is nothing special about small turbo motors that requires expensive service, especially if you have a Garrett turbo. Thei
Cars are better [Re:More expensive for all] (Score:2)
The small displacement turbocharged engines make better fuel economy numbers butt end up being scrapped sooner due to expensive maintenance after 100k miles.
I haven't noticed that. I remember back in the '70s it was unusual to see a car still running when the odometer turned over 100k. Now pretty much every car on the market is good for more than that.
Re: (Score:1)
Really, I noticed just the opposite. I routinely bought Chevy's with over 100K on the clock and sold around 200K. The only major work I ever had to do was a timing chain on my 1971 Impala, and all it cost me was $35 and a weekend of wrenching. So where does this idea of unreliability come from?
New cars can do just as well, of course -- but it's gonna cost a *lot* more than $35 and a weekend when something lets go.
Disclaimer: I work in a semi-truck shop, (welder/machinist/mechanic)so I know a few things abou
I've noticed a pattern (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
(Although, this might be the dumbest "graph" I have ever seen)
https://www.epa.gov/sites/prod... [epa.gov]
Source
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehic... [epa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resourc... [ca.gov]
Think Cuba (Score:2)
"According to the news outlet, he also did not rule out the possibility for additional regulations in the future that would essentially ban new conventional gas-powered cars."
Without a reliable renewable infrastructure and cars that can be re-fueled in minutes, I can see this plan backfiring. People won't give up their gas guzzling cars without a viable alternative so they will fix (or not) their old ones. Without manufacturers pouring research dollars into more efficient engines, I can see people going bac
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People won't give up their gas guzzling cars without a viable alternative so they will fix (or not) their old ones.
As time goes by the cost of restoring a vehicle approaches and even surpasses the cost of buying a new one. And it's not long before it surpasses the cost of a new one AND a place to plug it in.
Without manufacturers pouring research dollars into more efficient engines, I can see people going back to simpler, easier to fix, but less fuel efficient engines as costs to repair rises.
You cannot make an ICE much more efficient without adding expensive and bulky additional equipment, or without changing the whole driving experience to be inferior. That's why we're moving back to EVs. They are the next step in price:performance ratio.
Think points, plugs and a carburetor.
No, YOU think. There are not enough of those vehicles to go around
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's an interesting question. A quick search led to some wildy varying numbers. Autotrader said a survey of it's user found 72% do their own maintenance. A fox article said 25% did self repair with 54% feeling intimidated by the idea. Another said 48%. So it's something probably hard to nail down. Changing your oil is one thing but engine work, recall work, fuel system, ECM diagnosis and the like is another.
That said while I would assume the number of people performing a majority of their own repair
Re: (Score:2)
ban new conventional gas-powered cars
Cars and light trucks. So, bring on the bro-trucks [tumblr.com].
That's how we got SUVs in the first place. Congress got its panties in a bunch over vehicles like station wagons. So we got a gas guzzler tax and everybody moved to truck-based vehicles. They liked them and never went back. Congress moved the GVWR tax exemption line up and we got Excursions. During the Obama administration, another increase was contemplated, but local truck shops started building the above bro-trucks on commercial chassis. And selling them
Re: (Score:2)
Are ICE cars really simpler and easy to fix?
How many average drivers actually fix their own vehicles?
EV cars actually have less normal maintenance due to less moving parts so it could be argued that their are actually easier to fix since there is less that needs to be fixed. On the other hand (currently) they may be harder to fix since there aren't as many on the road and not all auto service centers are equipped to repair them. This may change though as electric vehicles become more dominant.
I have a plan (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You must work for AT&T.
Re: (Score:2)
No, he works for the government and his name is Pete Buttgig.
I'll believe this is a "climate crisis" when... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'll believe this is a "climate crisis" when politicians act like it. That means things like shifting the US Navy to have more nuclear powered ships than just aircraft carriers and submarines. The US Navy had nuclear powered cruisers and other surface ships from about 1960 to 1995. The claim was that they cost too much to operate, meaning they were replaced with fuel oil burners. If there's a national security issue on oil imports, a claim that the many wars in the Middle East were just wars for more oi
Re: I'll believe this is a "climate crisis" when.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Getting new nuclear power plants, or even civilian nuclear powered cargo ships, does not require government subsidies. People have been standing in line (figuratively) to get permission from the government to build nuclear power plants for decades in some cases. They didn't want anything from the federal government but permission to build.
Democrats have had this open hate for nuclear power for nearly 50 years but at the same time quietly supported them when pushed on it. I'll see people complain about nu
Re: (Score:2)
So how many of the last 50 years did the Democrats hold total control over the US government (i.e. a Democratic President and a majority Democrat House and a super majority Democrat Senate)?
It is impossible for the Democrats to enact policies that would have implemented your suggestions without at least some co-operation from the Republicans. It is hard (if not impossible) for Republicans to even admit that the climate can be influenced by humans so how exactly do propose to get them to agree to enact legis
Re: (Score:2)
It is hard (if not impossible) for Republicans to even admit that the climate can be influenced by humans so how exactly do propose to get them to agree to enact legislation that would curb climate change?
WTF? I just gave examples on what the Democrats could have done to address climate change that the Republicans have been asking to get for a very long time. The Republicans wanted more powerful, more capable, more durable warships for the Navy and the Democrats killed it. This is because the Republicans wanted nuclear powered ships but the Democrats cut the budget. So, instead of zero carbon nuclear powered ships the Navy got oil burners. If the Democrats were serious about the risks of global warming
Re: (Score:2)
So the only way to combat climate change (that the Republicans can agree on) is to implement nuclear ships in the military?
Of course the Republicans will agree on spending on the military. The US already spends more on the military than the next 10 countries combined why not add to that with even more spending.
How many Republicans really wanted civil nuclear power? Then why didn't they implement a policy to do so when they have had control of the legislative branch of the government?
Pipelines that go throug
Re: (Score:2)
So the only way to combat climate change (that the Republicans can agree on) is to implement nuclear ships in the military?
That was merely one example among many. I was quite clear on that being a single example among many.
Then why didn't they implement a policy to do so when they have had control of the legislative branch of the government?
Because of the filibuster.
Without having 60% of Senate votes the Republicans was still held up by the Democrats. The Democrats held up programs that would have lowered CO2 emissions for 50 years. Every policy the Republicans brought that could lower CO2 emissions the Democrats opposed because they were ignorant morons for not seeing the opportunity to lower CO2 emissions and petty children for not getting
Re: (Score:3)
"ice ages (promulgated by SCIENTISTS, this wasn't just pop-news"
Global cooling was only ever a fringe theory, it was never promoted by a majority of any kind of scientists let alone climatologists, and an EVENTUAL ice age is indeed still one theory of what global warming will eventually lead to.
Your comment is disingenuous and/or ignorant AF
Re: Cry wolf and then wonder why nobody listens (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gaslighting is a thing.
Look, those of us who lived through the time remember what the narrative was.
Did you bother to check my links?
The first was an article that quoted A SCIENTIST FROM NASA. Is he fringe? Non mainstream? Wasn't James Hansen also originally from Nasa?
The second was a serious letter to the president from the Dept of Geo Sciences (Climatology rarely merited a whole dept in 1972) stating (and including) the result of a recent scientific conference held there recently was that mankind was f
Re: (Score:2)
I know this might be asking a lot, but do you want to argue the point or simply attack the sources.
I have a proved quote from a NASA scientist and a letter from Brown University.
NASA = Not Actual Science Administration?
Brown University Geo Sciences reporting on a Geo Sciences conference recently held there. Not mainstream enough?
Unless you're asserting they are both made up by Russian intel (you know who else screams "fake news!" when he hears something he disagrees with, right?), maybe address those?
Re: (Score:2)
>I have a proved quote from a NASA scientist and a letter from Brown University
A scientist. One. Even in the 1970s it was widely known and accepted that CO2 was going to result in global warming, and it was really down to a matter of what effects of other pollution such as particulates and aerosols would contribute to or counteract that effect.
Problem is, there's a lot of out of context quotes and conditionals in that article you're so proud of... so maybe we should skip the newspaper article and try to
Re: (Score:2)
"...the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere..."
Did you miss that part of the quote by accident while you were out accusing everyone else of Cherry-Picking?
I cannot find a mention of that factoid (not sure if it remains true today) in the IPCC reports nor general discussion about global warming. Curious, no?
"...actual quotes explaining how uncertain this all is..."
Yes, this is the 1970s, when actual scientists weren't embarrassed to identify when they wer
Re: (Score:2)
> Did you miss that part of the quote by accident while you were out accusing everyone else of Cherry-Picking?
Do you know what that statement means? It means that if you double the CO2 concentration, you don't necessarily double the amount of heat trapped. It doesn't stop, and it doesn't reverse. And that's 1970s understanding, using a software simulation tool written to analyze the Venusian atmosphere. That's what that sentence is saying, and it's not even right 'cause we know better now...
Contrary wise
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for your actual, considered response. It's refreshing.
Your point is absolutely true. I completely agree.
I don't think, however, that a paper on the melting of Siberian permafrost can be construed to imply that ipso-facto that team of researchers wholeheartedly believes the narrative about anthropogenic sources, either?
As you point out - the cause of the change isn't the point of the paper, any more than a tide-height projection speculates how the moon was created.
Which then calls into question the
Re: (Score:2)
I look at things like Greenland melting, a number of glaciers that have visibly shrunk, chunks of Antarctica falling off, the ice roads in Alaska having a shorter duration and it seems that warming is happenin
Re: (Score:2)
Look, those of us who lived through the time remember what the narrative was.
The Internet and search engines hadn't been invented in the 1970s. So all the nut jobs posting "Nuh, uh. It wasn't so" are counting on the idea that finding any of this stuff would be difficult for all but motivated researchers*. When it became expedient to do an about face, it was believed that no one would notice or remember.
*People whose paychecks depend on parroting the standard narrative.
Re: (Score:2)
Please, debunk away!
Please show how that article from the news paper quoting a NASA scientist is falsified?
and/or
Please show how the letter from Brown University is fake. Show that it was never created (like a Dan Rather letter, for example), or that the Geo Science Dept never sent it, or that the conference in the early 1970s didn't come to the conclusions the letter claims to communicate.
Tons of low-hanging fruit here, isn't there? Names, dates, everything just waiting for even the faintest shred proof
Wonder why [Re: Cry wolf and then wonder why...] (Score:2)
Why quote Forbes, a popular magazine about business, not science? Since we're talking about science, how about the American Meteorological Society instead?
http://journals.ametsoc.org/do... [ametsoc.org]
Re: (Score:2)
There were multiple links in my post leading to quotes from NASA scientists and the Geo Sciences dept at Brown university, reporting to the President on the results of a recent conference held there.
Yes, I'm sure NASA and Brown are populated by kooks and fringers.
Wait, didn't James Hansen start at Nasa?
Re: (Score:2)
Persuasive debating technique.
Trained by Cicero, were you?
You know who else refuses to listen when something contradicts their dogma? Religious nuts.
Re: (Score:2)
And people who think that any significant number of scientists predicted an ice age, which has been thoroughly debunked again and again. But trolls gonna troll, and idiots gonna idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah so it's the /quantity/ now?
How many scientists does it take to define reality, again? Did we have to have a certain number of mathematicians agree before 1+1 = 2?
I lived in that time. I'm immune to gaslighting.
The conversation was just as much about Ice Ages as it is about warming cataclysm now.
Re: (Score:2)
It always was.
It still is.
You are the one gas lighting, unsuccessfully.
Lose, lose.
Re: (Score:2)
Good God, that again.
Do we have to debunk that myth that in the 70s climate scientists predicted an ice age every single time that anything climate related is posted to slashdot?
OK. Here's the American Meteorological Society debunking [ametsoc.org]
But instead of posting that, you cherry pick an ancient popular article, in which the reporter conveniently leave out the fact that the "prediction" he cites is an article that uses the word "if". The actual scientific article they were referring to actually said that aero
Re: (Score:2)
Do we have to debunk that myth that in the 70s climate scientists predicted
From the first line of TFA:
Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s.
Meteorologists predicted it. Climate science had to be invented to get the answers that politicians wanted.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure which TFA you're referring to, but modern global circulation models --climate science-- are usually considered as having started with Manabe's work, most notably Manabe and Wetherald 1967. So, you're nearly right.
I didn't see that politicians paid any attention to climate science until about the mid 2000's, though; nearly 40 years later. "This effect may be large enough that we'll be able to measure it in the future, maybe as soon as the 1980s" doesn't attract much notice from politicians in
Re: (Score:2)
.... Look, science - esp predictive science about something as vastly complex as climate - is hard, and models are constantly being revised. But a realistic acknowledgement of that would imply that these sorts of speculations would objectively be hedged by caveats and error bars
And if you read the actual science, instead of whatever opinion blog you get your opinions from, you'd see that there is extensive discussion of sources of error, and, yes, error bars.
(And also, of course, new data and identifications where the models could be improved.)
If you were thinking about a new SUV.. (Score:2)
Elected Officials should have to vote on this (Score:3)
The EPA is right to propose. But the final decisions and votes should be done by Congress. They were elected for just this purpose.
The problem is Congress doesn't want to be held accountable. Too bad.
Great! (Score:2)
Excellent! Now, hopefully, none of those lauded grunt workers will be able to afford to drive to work, and I will have a clear road all to myself!
Okay... (Score:2)
And I'm still not convinced that all the modern vehicle complexity used to get better mileage (the sensors, actuators computers, circuit boards, wiring, electricity, software and the huge, global industries required to design, manufacture and support them) doesn't just move this pollution "somewhere else".
Urgency? (Score:1)