After Signing US Climate Bill, Biden Plans More Executive Actions to Cut Emissions (spokesman.com) 90
Senior White House officials say even more action is coming on climate change. They're telling the New York Times that U.S. President Joe Biden plans "a series of executive actions to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help keep the planet from warming to dangerous temperatures."
Biden is on track to deploy a series of measures, including new regulations on emissions from vehicle tailpipes, power plants and oil and gas wells, the officials said.
In pushing more executive action, Mr. Biden is trying to make up for the compromises his party made on climate measures to pass the Inflation Reduction Act, which includes the largest single American investment to slow global warming. Democrats had to scale back some of their loftiest ambitions, including by agreeing to fossil fuel and drilling provisions, as concessions to Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, a holdout from a conservative state that is heavily dependent on coal and gas. Gina McCarthy, the White House climate adviser, said that regulatory moves, combined with the new legislation and action from states, could help Mr. Biden meet his promise to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent, compared to 2005 levels, by the end of the decade. The climate bill, she said, was "a starting point."
"The president has not chosen to just look at Congress, he's chosen to recognize that he has presidential authorities and responsibilities under the law to keep moving this forward," she said. "And he's going to continue to use those." [...] Ms. McCarthy noted the E.P.A. still has "broad authority" to regulate emissions from electricity generation. She also said the government is forging ahead with new regulations on soot and other traditional air pollutants, which will have the side benefit of cutting carbon emissions.... Mr. Biden has the executive authority to issue regulations through federal agencies, and under the Clean Air Act of 1970 can establish rules to address air pollution.
Biden is on track to deploy a series of measures, including new regulations on emissions from vehicle tailpipes, power plants and oil and gas wells, the officials said.
In pushing more executive action, Mr. Biden is trying to make up for the compromises his party made on climate measures to pass the Inflation Reduction Act, which includes the largest single American investment to slow global warming. Democrats had to scale back some of their loftiest ambitions, including by agreeing to fossil fuel and drilling provisions, as concessions to Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, a holdout from a conservative state that is heavily dependent on coal and gas. Gina McCarthy, the White House climate adviser, said that regulatory moves, combined with the new legislation and action from states, could help Mr. Biden meet his promise to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent, compared to 2005 levels, by the end of the decade. The climate bill, she said, was "a starting point."
"The president has not chosen to just look at Congress, he's chosen to recognize that he has presidential authorities and responsibilities under the law to keep moving this forward," she said. "And he's going to continue to use those." [...] Ms. McCarthy noted the E.P.A. still has "broad authority" to regulate emissions from electricity generation. She also said the government is forging ahead with new regulations on soot and other traditional air pollutants, which will have the side benefit of cutting carbon emissions.... Mr. Biden has the executive authority to issue regulations through federal agencies, and under the Clean Air Act of 1970 can establish rules to address air pollution.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Tax and Spend already takes a dump in every poor person's mouth.
Taxing people to give some % back to people who buy EVs or solar is just wealth redistribution, and the government skims off the top.
Re: (Score:3)
Remember, only EVs below ~$50k.
Re: (Score:3)
No, only cars below 50k, and now it also includes PHEVs. Trucks can be up to 80k. However your single income has to be under 150k to qualify, so presumably a relatively small number of people will both qualify and be buying an EV over 50k. Still, if they have good credit, the lower TCO should let them pay off more per month (as they won't be paying for fuel.)
Re: So, in order to get what the Senate would not (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That takes a large percentage of EVs off the tax credit list though.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so? It only affects models that are only going to be bought by people who can afford to not get the credit. They don't need a handout.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:So, in order to get what the Senate would not p (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, that's the purpose of government: Those highways and clean water aren't free, someone has to pay.
Has right-wing whingeing changed from "no new taxes" to 'no taxes'? We saw what 'no (corporate) taxes' did to Kansas but right-wing fanatics don't talk about that. They talk about what 'patriots' they are, toting guns, waving the flag, and shouting "evil gubbermint" and "my guy will fix it". Russia has a name for them: Useful idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
No, "they turn a blind eye to the [taxes] that benefit their own constituents." [baconsrebellion.com].
Yes, I replaced "subsidies" with "taxes" in the quote above, but you can't have a subsidy without a tax so they're practically the same.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no need to disarm them first. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Yet another useful idiot that thinks everything turns to communism if you collect a dollar in taxes. That slippery slope keeps getting buttered. You will note I hope, that Europe has a higher standard of living than the US, with a higher rating of happiness.
You want to talk about power in the US: Nixon, a conservative, still considered so even today, got in serious trouble for trying to grab too much power. Even Trump, when asked to return classified docs replied "they're mine" as if he was a monarch. I
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
>Just pay your fair share! If you're against it I can apply this laundry list of labels and thought-terminating cliches to you--if you're even human!
Is that the only defense you have? You look at the massive amount of wasted money, kickbacks, military black budgets, and other forms of Federal criminal corruption and your answer is that we need to give even more money to those same people, and if you don't like it you're evil?
Who hurt you and why can't you break out of this cycle of abuse?
Re: (Score:2)
The waste needs fixing. But lowering taxes doesn't necessarily do that. The US already has a relatively low tax rate. Europe taxes more, but also has a higher standard of living and happiness rating than the US. People get distracted from the problem, which is that the benefits of the taxes aren't being returned. We spend an unthinkable amount of money on the military, but it's considered unthinkable to touch that, meanwhile people focus on wasted millions rather than the pointless billions and trillio
Re: So, in order to get what the Senate would not (Score:2)
Re:So, in order to get what the Senate would not p (Score:5, Insightful)
Tax and Spend already takes a dump in every poor person's mouth.
Bullshit. I pay taxes. In return I want services. You cut funding and then say Look how the government is failing in order to hand services over to for profit companies.
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.politico.com/f/?id... [politico.com]
Re: (Score:2)
What we don't have are good funding methods. Ie, how do you pay for medicare and social security? Think of income other than income taxes. Excise tax on natural resources (the land belongs to the people remember, not the corporations, so let's get paid for it). Change laws so that government can own stock when they bail out companies.
But since that doesn't happen, cut backs do help. It's just that cutbacks are focused on the wrong thing. We don't need a cold-war style military when that's not the sort o
Re: (Score:2)
The US Post Office is self sufficient at times, and yet it becomes the focus of the anti-tax anger. Meanwhile the military is a bloated mess and yet it remains the darling of the anti-government crowd. It's like people trying to save money by clipping coupons while having a Hummer parked out front.
Re: (Score:1)
The USPS is helping to destroy the environment by delivering crap that no one even looks at before they throw it in the recycling bin and start the cycle over again.
Re: (Score:2)
Except we prefer our roads to stay single payer.
Re: (Score:2)
Tax and spend doesn't exist at the federal level. Money taken by the IRS is thrown in a furnace and burned. All money spent on government programs is freshly printed.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, the poor are already hurting from rising energy costs. It can't get any worse than we already have now.
Re: (Score:2)
The SPR isn't that big. Most of the price reductions we're seeing are from significant reductions in demand for gasoline. Usage levels have fallen to April/May 2020 levels.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it really isn't. Not as a share of yearly consumption.
Re:So, in order to get what the Senate would not p (Score:5, Informative)
FYI in 2021, the United States consumed nearly 20 millions barrels of oil per day. The SPR hasn't even got a month's worth of petroleum in it, not taking into account sweet vs. sour crude etc.
So no, releasing a few hundred thousand barrels of oil per day from the SPR isn't going to lower prices by as much as we've seen since June/July. It's due to demand reduction:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news... [bloomberg.com]
Re: So, in order to get what the Senate would not (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean
Okay?
That has nothing to do with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Re: So, in order to get what the Senate would not (Score:1)
Usage levels are going down because the economy is slowing down significantly. If people arenâ(TM)t producing anything because of increased taxes and regulations, usage will naturally go down, but inflation is going up to 50% (it is currently at over 20% for most staple products).
Re: (Score:2)
You win a cookie. Consider this:
Gasoline usage has fallen to lockdown-due-to-pandemic levels. Yet it's at least $1.50 higher now than it was in Spring 2020 when things were getting bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Biden will attempt to use executive orders to make it happen.
OK.
Yeah, those executive orders Trump issued to build new oil/gas pipelines through protected land were much better.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What do you think would happen if we didn't build those pipelines? That we'd leave the oil in the ground? No, that's not what happens. They still drill for the oil but they move it by trucks, trains, ships, and barges. Methods that involve burning more petroleum fuel to move, and raises the risks of an oil spill considerably.
If you don't like the idea of oil spills in protected land then you want those pipelines. If you like lower energy costs then you want those pipelines. It doesn't matter if you be
I see what you're getting at (Score:5, Informative)
So let's talk numbers.
https://www.federalregister.go... [federalregister.gov]
Since we live in the ...But Obama era of politics take a peek at the above link. Trump issued 220 executive orders in his four years. Obama issued 276 in his eight years. Safe to say Trump would have easily broken that had he won another term. Biden is up to 94 so we'll have to wait and see where he ranks.
Re: (Score:2)
Biden will attempt to use executive orders to make it happen.
OK.
So certain people seem to think I only post "flame-bait" replies? The long and short of the matter is that senators had to "give in" to the demands of one of their more petulant people to come up with a tie that Harris could break in their direction. And they're still dependent upon Biden to over-write that "give" to get what his people wanted him to pass.
If this bill were truly what congress wanted, there should not have been this much fight to get it. But it is what they need to pay back the people that g
An excellent move (Score:5, Insightful)
Encouraging to see that Biden is willing to take this step, and very necessary in light of the recent extremist SCOTUS ruling that hampers the EPA's ability to regulate carbon emissions from power plants.
"cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50%, compared to 2005 levels" would be an amazing accomplishment.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
The extremists in SCOTUS struck down decades of established law and put the clamps on the EPA in service of dirty energy. Shameful!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the Supreme Court reviewed the legal basis that these laws were based on and determined that either the law was flawed or the agency did not have the authority to regulate or dictate as the law was written. What is needed is either better worded laws or explicit authority given to those agencies. I'm guessing there are also some laws that the FAA, FCC, and ICE are enforcing that might not stand up to constitutional review.
The more telling issue is WHICH challenges the Supreme Court decides to revi
Re:An excellent move (Score:5, Insightful)
Four justices disagreed.
Justice Elena Kagan, joined in her dissent by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, said the decision disarms the EPA at a time when the country is facing “the most pressing environmental challenge of our time.”
“The Court appoints itself — instead of Congress or the expert agency — the decisionmaker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening,” Kagan wrote.
Re: (Score:2)
Read the decision. Hell, read many of the recent activist rulings.
Their arguments are weak at best. It reads more like a lawyer defending a client they know is 100% guilty.
The EPA going beyond it's oversight by the congress (which created it) and the exec which heads it would result in congress and the exec passing laws to change the EPA. SCROTUS [youtube.com] makes a BS argument that congress can't delegate whatever they call "big" when congress can change any agency's direction with new laws.
If CO2 regulation is too
Re: (Score:2)
What's with the hate-talk, anonymous coward?
Re: (Score:2)
We don't have king in the USA, and Biden can't do everything all by himself that would be good for the country. Maybe the GOP could help, are they proposing any legislation?
Re: (Score:2)
We don't have king in the USA, and Biden can't do everything all by himself that would be good for the country. Maybe the GOP could help, are they proposing any legislation?
From your posts it sounds like you might be happy living in a diktatorship. Give Venezuela a whirl for a few months, then get back to us on your experiences there.
Re: (Score:1)
Nasty remark all you got, boy?
Re: (Score:2)
Obvious lie, the southern US border is more heavily patrolled than ever before and many thousands are apprehended trying to cross.
It should be also... (Score:3)
Executive Actions (Score:2)
If Biden cured cancer (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny because it is true.
They just recently stopped a Vet healthcare bill purely out of spite; mass outrage at how blatant they were saved the bill.
Inflation Creation Act ... (Score:3, Informative)
Biden’s inflation bill includes $7,500 EV tax credits. Ford and GM immediately raised their EV prices by similar amount, citing ... inflation.
Citing “significant material cost increases and other factors,” Ford’s announcement [ford.com] revealed price hikes between $6,000 and $8,500 for its electric vehicles. The F-150 Lightning Pro, for example, will sell for $46,974 — a $7,000 increase from the $39,947 charged for last year’s model. GM likewise increased [cnbc.com] the cost of its electric Hummer by $6,250 last month.
Re: (Score:3)
Who cares about those two cars. All auto manufacturers have committed to move to EV and there will be loads of new products on the market over the next few years, some with sub-$30k prices.
Re: Inflation Creation Act ... (Score:1)
According to WEF there simply isnâ(TM)t enough lithium in the world to realize that. We have about 2 decades worth of lithium to mine, then weâ(TM)re out. EV will always be reserved to the rich.
Re: (Score:2)
Lithium is one of the most common elements in the Earth's crust, and you can already buy a very good EV for about the same price as the equivalent ICE vehicle. The Hyundai Ioniq 5 for example starts at about $42k. The average price of a new car in the US is more than $47k.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/18... [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot to add in the EV tax on buying and registration, not to mention the added cost of adding a charging station. Don't forget that EV tax yearly.
Or you could buy a Rav 4 for 20k cheaper.
Re: (Score:2)
A Rav 4 is not equivalent in size or quality to the Ioniq 5, and they start at $28k.You have to pay tax and registration on an ICE vehicle as well.
A Level 2 home charger is optional. You can buy one on Amazon for about $400 and have it installed for a few hundred more. That quickly gets offset by not having to buy gasoline.
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares about those two cars.
The Hummer is relevant to enthusiasts, but not to too many other people, although we can expect the technology to appear in military vehicles in the next generation. But the gasoline-powered F-150 is currently the most popular vehicle on the planet, and therefore an electric version of that is big, big news — and also being watched very carefully by every other manufacturer.
"Inflation Reduction Act" does not impact climate (Score:1)
The "inflation reduction act" has wildly overestimated effect on climate change, will will be almost zero -since the US over time, has already reduced CO emissions and what remains is much harder to get much lower.
No on inflation, there the Act has a huge change - massively boosting inflation, maybe even into hyperinflation levels. Hard to say exactly since we have been inflating the money supply so extravagantly for so long, that the extra 120% or whatever inflation may actually not be that much compared
Re: (Score:2)
And you know this how?
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty simple really.
US emits about 5 billion tons a year out of a global total of about 37 billion tons.
This global total is set to rise to around 45 billion tons a year in the 2040s under business as usual.
So, the IRA drops US emissions by half, let's say? That means that instead of it being 45 billion it will be 42.5 billion.
How much difference will that make to global temps? Too small to measure. And a reduction by 2.5 billion is anyway most hopeful from the IRA.
The subject has been covered in the
Re:"Inflation Reduction Act" does not impact clima (Score:4, Informative)
The IRA is intended to reduce US emissions below 2005 levels. That's in keeping with the Paris Agreement, which was a commitment by 195 countries, so the combined reductions will definitely make a difference in global temps.
As for the IRA: "The legislation is expected to raise $737 billion, require total investments of $437 billion, and result in a deficit reduction of more than $300 billion."
https://www.investopedia.com/i... [investopedia.com]
Increased taxes on private jets per mile flown? (Score:2)
How about really sticking it to the 1% based on their using more energy than the average American? So, he can tax himself and Trump for their extravagant vacations, and Cheney and Kerry and the Bushs and the Clintons when they trot around the globe, grifting.
Re: (Score:2)
Why just private?
It comes down to CO2 per passenger mile flown. Private jets (smaller) are nowhere near as efficient as wide body commercial jets with 100% economy class seating. If you try to target one particular class of user, they will just place their planes in a specially constructed "airline" that only serves one customer. And dodge the tax.
We will need to be drilling for oil for 30 years. (Score:5, Insightful)
The typical large ship for military or civilian work operate for 30 years before it is too costly to keep running. That means to keep our ships going we need to keep drilling for oil for 30 years. That is assuming we have a plan to replace them with something that doesn't burn oil. That's likely to mean nuclear powered ships for anything over 5000 tons. Even then the US Navy and civilian ships that are less than 5000 tons need fuel oil. The math on batteries will not be in their favor in even 30 years of battery development. What the US Navy has up their sleeve is a process to produce JP-5 at sea using the nuclear reactors on the ships for energy and seawater for raw materials. This fuel is suitable for all Navy, USMC, Army, and USAF vehicles. Not only that JP-5 is suited for trucks, helicopters, tanks, generators, stoves, coffeepots, and most anything else in the military inventory. It may even be suited for USSF rockets.
There is nothing that prevents this fuel from being produced on land. Expect to see nuclear power plants on land used to produce hydrocarbon fuels, using the same process as that developed by the US Navy. This can be used by all armed forces. The nuclear power plant provides heat and light for various needs on a military facility while also producing fuel their vehicles and such. Until or unless this technology makes it to commercial application at industrial scale then we will need to keep drilling for oil.
If we don't get out "nuclear navy" back then we need to keep drilling for oil. If we recreate our "nuclear navy" then perhaps we can use that technology on land and drive the petroleum industry out of business. Every hydrocarbon burner becomes carbon neutral, and the USA becomes energy independent, if not a major exporter.
Why does it have to be nuclear power? Because only nuclear power can provide the temperatures required to keep the processes efficient, and still have some heat left over for producing district heating, lighting, and/or water desalination.
The USA needs to go big on nuclear power or be at a serious disadvantage militarily, economically, technologically, industrially, medically, and scientifically. The USA could easily need one thousand nuclear power reactors across the military and civil sectors. There will likely have to be more sharing of people and technology among civil and military sectors.
If the Biden administration can't get the USA on a path to more new nuclear power plants real quick then that will put the USA at a serious disadvantage, and could bring the USA into another large scale war. I don't know how long it would last. I don't know if it could develop into a nuclear war. I feel certain that if the USA does not have as much nuclear powered navy assets, by tonnage and/or number as all adversarial nations combined then war will start. If we can't keep and maintain that lead then we could get another Pearl Harbor, an attack by a navy that believes themselves superior making a first strike to widen that gap to their advantage. Only this time it will be more like China fighting to take Japan than the other way around. The battle will be brutal. The less prepared we are to fight it then the more likely it will happen.
Without nuclear power we can't fight another global war. I don't much care about CO2 emissions but if that's what gets these morons motivated then I guess we will have to point out that is we don't build nuclear power plants like mad then there's no lowering our CO2 emissions.
Take whatever national goal that concerns you and there's a good chance it won't happen without nuclear power, and lots of it. I hope we have a federal government that realizes this before we are the target of a first strike attack. Energy independence will be huge in showing America is able to win in a fight. Getting those ships to the fight, and keeping them there, would be aided considerably by nuclear power plants on those ships. Fuel synthesis technology and capacity will play a part, quite possibly a ver
Re: (Score:2)
The USA needs to go big on nuclear power or be at a serious disadvantage militarily, economically, technologically, industrially, medically, and scientifically.
The nuclear industry is getting desperate now I see.
Bad news is that military nuclear is very different to civilian nuclear, and vastly more expensive. It won't help the civilian guys.
It's always about finding that source of unlimited funding for nuclear, isn't it?
Re: We will need to be drilling for oil for 30 yea (Score:2)
The military has been able to build MW level reactors for under a million dollars. Those nuclear subs and aircraft carriers can be built in under 6 months with enough nuclear power to power a small city (because it is practically a small city) and none have ever caused a mushroom cloud.
So if the military is capable of doing it cheap and quick with high regulation and overhead, there should be no reason that an open market canâ(TM)t create plentiful zero emission energy.
Re: (Score:2)
Gonna need a citation for that claim about a MW level reactor for under a million.
Re: (Score:2)
Both major political parties, Democrats and Republicans, agreed on the need for more nuclear power. The only question left is a matter of scale.
The "desperation" is over Democrats failing to fund nuclear powered ships for national defense and keeping shipping lanes open, while also failing to assure domestic supplies of petroleum in case of war or natural disasters disrupting global petroleum supplies for any extended period of time. The Democrats will approve oil fired ships for the Navy and Coast Guard,
Re: (Score:2)
It should be noted that we've got ships rather smaller than 6 kilotons using nuclear power. Nautilus, for instance, was only 3500 tons...
And executive actions are the problem (Score:3)
Essentially they're acting as a dictator on this.
Beyond the administration, there is no impetus.
So all this crap dies on regime change.
And that's what happens when you try to bypass legislative approval processes.
was this... (Score:2)
...the same bill that was advertised as an "inflation reduction bill" until about 2 seconds after it was passed?
Oh, and didn't reputable scientists calculate that the actual climate impact of this is somewhere between 0.003 and 0.09 Deg F? For how many hundreds of billions, again?
Biden plans? (Score:1)
The only thing Biden is able to plan himself is his next diaper change.