The model-year 2032 standards are still strict, but there's a more gentle ramp-up.
See full article...
See full article...
New EPA, DOE fuel regs give automakers longer to reduce CO2 emissions
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
The EPA fails the public again. This is a standard strategy - for companies to make no changes and then hold themselves hostage, begging for the regulations to be "put off for a time". Saving the environment means possibly making this mildly tough for companies. Its about saving the world, not their stock options.
Upvote
76
(91
/
-15)
"Hey we know you said we should do something, but we didn't wanna. Can we get a mulligan?"
Oh well, at least we have nationwide fiber optic Internet thanks to regulators staying on ISPs like a hawk.
Oh well, at least we have nationwide fiber optic Internet thanks to regulators staying on ISPs like a hawk.
Upvote
51
(56
/
-5)
Getting the battery costs down (just need time) and the $1.50 gal avg electricity will get the consumers there willingly. It'd totally blow up in our faces politically forcing consumers into EV's (think GOP House, Senate and Pres as a result and dismantle all climate change legislation "for freedom" but really at the behest of the fossil fuel industry).
We'll still get there even with these standards. JMHO
We'll still get there even with these standards. JMHO
Upvote
42
(48
/
-6)
This won't be a popular rebuttal, but the fucking world will go on without us. What we need to do is save civilization. And I do NOT mean the shit we call civilization TODAY.
With the inevitability of tipping points being crossed (with some likely having BEEN crossed) within the next few years, CO2 mitigation standards are going to do precisely jack-shit about altering the severity, or the speed of onset, of climate change.
They COULD have, if we'd been where were are today roughly 40 years ago, but that ship sailed the moment the first tipping point wavered past recovery. Based on the dire superlatives used in describing the situation about tipping points NOW, and the amount of time and effort it would take for mitigation to have an effect on slowing them down, there's really no point anymore.
All we realistically have left is adaptation. And the reason why I say that this altering of the EPA standards won't change anything is because adaptation will not include the continued use of privately owned vehicles. I don't care if it's an EV or an ICE, they are a HUGE part of what caused the problems we have today. The entire transportation industry is the predominant problem, along with the power industry, but the latter is being adapted far faster because that's the future for that industry (it's more cost effective in the long run, so the economics there make sense to switch to greener pastures). And it's also the future for adaptation for that industry.
POV's are NOT the future for personal transportation. The way we do civilization MUST change, because the way we do it is not sustainable. A huge amount of that non-sustainability is in how we get around today. Since we have to change civilization to adapt, changing how we get around is a no-brainer follow-on.
Once you throw out the option of POV's, other FAR more sustainable options become self-evident, and even suggest designs for how humanity can "civilization" in the future. It's very doable, but it will take immense effort and gigatons of CO2 emissions to remake civilization in a sustainable manner.
If we want to survive as a species, we have to prevent civilization from falling. THAT is a "tipping point" as well. And Sudan is a picture-perfect example of how civilization can fall. And what happens when it does. To be clear, I mean war. And with global climate change, it will be a global war. And it will go nuclear FAST. That's what will destroy civilization. With it, and with climate change, and with the effects of both, there's an excellent chance humanity will be too scattered and genetically similar in isolated pockets of survivors to be genetically viable. I expect extinction through inbreeding will be the ultimate fate for humans.
Either way, if we can't prevent the fall of civilization, it won't matter at all whether or not POV's will be a thing in the future, because it's a dead-on certainty there won't be any way to power them, and exceptionally unlikely there will be anyone around to drive them.
Our focus should be on changing civilization now, adapting it for the world ahead. EV's don't have a place there. They're a huge waste of time and resources that could be far better used for adaptation. And since the future is fucked anyhow, and our puny efforts to mitigate climate change have been laughably insufficient, it's best to focus on the ways and means of surviving what's coming than trying to preserve the paradigm that (in a large way) got us in this situation in the first place.
If that sounds too dire, or too much in the future to think about, well, I expect both of those opinions will be radically different by the end of the decade. And that's 6 years we will have wasted dithering about what to do, and bickering over preserving an utter failure of timing and commitment in what might have prevented what's going to happen to humanity.
Upvote
-7
(25
/
-32)
Saying a reversal of the Chevron doctrine would leave "the EPA unable to regulate pollution" is a pretty massive overstatement.
It would remove their legal basis for their ability to choose how to interpret the law when the law is ambiguous. That's not the same as making "the EPA unable to regulate pollution." The EPA has authority to regulate pollution from congress. The downside to overturning the Chevron doctrine would be that the EPA would find themselves in court over their interpretation of the law more often, and they would have a higher chance of losing those cases.
That may be a terrible thing, but it is far from them being "unable to regulate pollution."
* Edit to add a link. The Natural Resources Defense Council as about as vehemently opposed to weakening the power of the EPA as you can get, but their discussion of the Chevron issue is still much more nuanced. *
Last edited:
Upvote
-18
(16
/
-34)
Unfortunately there just isn't going to be a quick-turnaround mass adoption in the US, even if the price of EVs and PHEVs came crashing down. There is another big factor to the equation: how many people live in MDUs (multi-dwelling units) and cannot charge a car at home, how many people can't afford the infrastructure upgrades to their home to add a level 2 charger, communities that can't handle the extra draw of level 2 chargers, the (like me) rural folks who trickle charging in their apartment/condo garage just isn't feasible for a 100mile round trip each day, etc.
A big push on regular hybrids in the meantime might be a good step. I would like to move in to a normal hybrid for my next car if possible.
A big push on regular hybrids in the meantime might be a good step. I would like to move in to a normal hybrid for my next car if possible.
Upvote
-12
(9
/
-21)
YetAnotherAnonymousAppellation
Ars Praefectus
This just cements my determination to never buy a vehicle from an American manufacturer.
Upvote
-10
(11
/
-21)
I found a graph on another site of the difference between the two proposals.
It's not a huge difference. Maximum about 10% fewer EVs sold in 2029.
It's not a huge difference. Maximum about 10% fewer EVs sold in 2029.
Upvote
50
(50
/
0)
If only you had read any of the dozens upon dozens of prior EV threads where this gets discussed just about every damn time. Maybe you could have come up with something new to discuss.
Stop trying to make mountains out of molehills. Oh, and EV prices have come down quite significantly over the last year or so. With CATL doing another major price cut this year, expect EV prices to continue to fall.
Upvote
44
(44
/
0)
Tesla manufactures the top 4 "Most American Made" cars.
But I presume you were talking about Ford, GM, Stellantis. Who don't even make the list.
Upvote
21
(22
/
-1)
I think the Car Industry realized they can not compete against the Chinese, probably in the USA is not common yet, but in rest Of the World Cheap Electric Cars from China companies are Invading as a new Mongol Horde ...
BYD is Elon's Nitemare
BYD is Elon's Nitemare
Upvote
-6
(7
/
-13)
Upvote
7
(8
/
-1)
Or... they could try to fix the reasons behind all the driving we currently do instead of forcing a certain product on the market. Here are just a few ideas off the top of my head.
Why aren't employers punished for switching away from WFH friendly policies? Dell recently said people can't be promoted anymore if they don't come in to an office an average of 3 days a quarter.
Why don't we have housing already near restaurants, hair cutters/stylers, and other regularly needed destinations? Suburbs only work with lots of driving.
Why aren't we funding effective, useful mass transportation? At least in urban/suburban areas, and between them. Allowing a mobile populace is a public good for a free market, and isn't being serviced well by "for profit" companies.
Should communities be forced to sell/rent housing that is affordable to people who work there? If not, they should pay for the time and other costs of transporting people from elsewhere (tax them). Companies won't raise wages to cover the costs, so the poorest among us are being forced to.
Why is it common for people to buy and drive a 4+ seater car by themselves? What if vehicle rentals, or shared pools/fleets, were much more common? Then people could use only what they needed at the time.
Why aren't employers punished for switching away from WFH friendly policies? Dell recently said people can't be promoted anymore if they don't come in to an office an average of 3 days a quarter.
Why don't we have housing already near restaurants, hair cutters/stylers, and other regularly needed destinations? Suburbs only work with lots of driving.
Why aren't we funding effective, useful mass transportation? At least in urban/suburban areas, and between them. Allowing a mobile populace is a public good for a free market, and isn't being serviced well by "for profit" companies.
Should communities be forced to sell/rent housing that is affordable to people who work there? If not, they should pay for the time and other costs of transporting people from elsewhere (tax them). Companies won't raise wages to cover the costs, so the poorest among us are being forced to.
Why is it common for people to buy and drive a 4+ seater car by themselves? What if vehicle rentals, or shared pools/fleets, were much more common? Then people could use only what they needed at the time.
Upvote
25
(30
/
-5)
I would be curious if an analysis has been done, since surely it is much easier to connect and EV charger when you have a parking structure already present. Is there an estimate of costs compared to say a Tesla supercharger, assuming one is low and the other high?
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
While I wish we could do it faster, we always knew this would be the issue. If we had not been so ridiculously idiotic for the last 50+ years that science told us this was coming it would be fine. Right now our current economy is rated much much higher than the future economic damage of climate change because it's the economy stupid is still very true.
This will keep happening because people are such selfish a holes that they won't even give something up today to help THEMSELVES in the future.
This will keep happening because people are such selfish a holes that they won't even give something up today to help THEMSELVES in the future.
Upvote
12
(15
/
-3)
NACS/SAE J3400 actually makes it easier for high density residential and many parking garages to provide EV charging. NACS allows up to 277V AC L2, up from our current range of 208-240V. Since many apartments, parking garages, commercial, retail and light industrial facilities have 480V/277V 3-phase coming from the power company, they can hook up their chargers directly to that power, instead of needing a set of transformers, breaker boxes, etc to drop the voltage to 208-240V. As a bonus, you can put more power through the same size wires (or the same power on smaller wires) - and you don't have power wasted going through another transformer.
Upvote
19
(20
/
-1)
EPA has different groups concentrating on different things. The group getting the press here concentrates on individual vehicle emissions. In the real world, that's important, and in the US for political reasons it's the most important means of reducing transportation emissions. To a first approximation, it's the ONLY effective method. Which is why the current politics of the courts and the rabble are focusing on eliminating it.
Rant hidden in
Why aren't employers punished for moving away from WFH? Because they're a privileged class in the US pseudo-capitalist system. Private businesses are not democracies (with very rare exceptions, and only to a limited extent even there).
Why don't we have a more energy-efficient land use pattern? Because that's governed by local governments' ("municipal corporations" for the most part - think about that moniker) and states' police power, not federal law or even policy. And local/state governments are not in the business of limiting the use of private property, very much. After all, the amount of tax they end up having available to do things for local residents AND BUSINESSES depends on how lucrative in the short term the use of that land is. Suburbs supported by solo vehicles sell. Prices go up. Taxes go up to match. Everybody's happy except those who think about what they're breathing and their childrens' prospects.
Mass transit in the US is, frankly, a social service. The days when it made economic sense to build it as a private enterprise are long gone. But accepting that such a social service is necessary for the functioning of an urban (including its suburbs) area is also impossible in an individualistic society. So we get the bare minimum, if that.
Communities don't control much of the housing production and provision process, other than at the front end by making land available for it through zoning regulations and plans. The process is largely privatized. We don't have large government-funded and -regulated 'estates' for working folks as many European countries do. It's a different economy and society; attempts to do that have mostly been disastrous for the agencies attempting it. And companies' only true focus is on profit; employees are (in most cases) a cost center that must be controlled.
As for why most cars are 4+ seaters, that's the minimum size that will meet all reasonable expectations for use. 2-seaters (or one, e.g. motorcycles) don't meet enough needs; much larger than 4 seats don't either, for modern households, but are found desirable for other reasons. Private vehicles are mostly not purchased to meet a physical need; they're purchased to meet a psychological one. That's hard for a government that doesn't have extreme coercive power to control.
Example: why do I have a Chevy Bolt? Because it was the smallest EV with reasonable range at an affordable price at the time I was ready to replace an old ICEV, that could comfortably hold the 2 of us plus either a bunch of stuff (ugly old Americans like us have to move Stuff around relatively often) or 1-2 additional adults (when local friends or visiting kids want to go someplace with us). Do we need that much space? Not on a regular basis. But we need it often enough that it's not convenient to drive around in something smaller (if it could be found, and also be safe) then rent something bigger frequently. Why didn't we get something bigger? Because I didn't feel the need to intimidate everybody else on the road (psychology), and I didn't want to pay every day for capability that I'd use, maybe, once a year (economic rationality). And why did I get a EV? Because I felt like it, and the price (used, so somebody else dealt with the 3 years needed to cover the manufacturing emissions) was right, and on the margin it was better for the overall society and environment that I do so rather than getting another ICE beast for, mostly, running around town because the place is a barely-walkable suburb.
And why do I live in that suburb? Because I could (stretching a bit, initially) afford it, and it's a more pleasant place to live overall than crammed into an apartment someplace in the inner suburbs, and it had (and has) decent transit connections to the rest of the metro area and for commuting, so most driving involves fairly short trips (up to 15 miles or so each way for occasional longer trips). I did look for (and get) a place that is moderately walkable (20 minutes to groceries, less to Home Depot). And the lot allowed me to build a native plant-oriented low-water-use garden (that for some reason the others who walk by admire but nobody has duplicated). First-world problems...
Why don't we have a more energy-efficient land use pattern? Because that's governed by local governments' ("municipal corporations" for the most part - think about that moniker) and states' police power, not federal law or even policy. And local/state governments are not in the business of limiting the use of private property, very much. After all, the amount of tax they end up having available to do things for local residents AND BUSINESSES depends on how lucrative in the short term the use of that land is. Suburbs supported by solo vehicles sell. Prices go up. Taxes go up to match. Everybody's happy except those who think about what they're breathing and their childrens' prospects.
Mass transit in the US is, frankly, a social service. The days when it made economic sense to build it as a private enterprise are long gone. But accepting that such a social service is necessary for the functioning of an urban (including its suburbs) area is also impossible in an individualistic society. So we get the bare minimum, if that.
Communities don't control much of the housing production and provision process, other than at the front end by making land available for it through zoning regulations and plans. The process is largely privatized. We don't have large government-funded and -regulated 'estates' for working folks as many European countries do. It's a different economy and society; attempts to do that have mostly been disastrous for the agencies attempting it. And companies' only true focus is on profit; employees are (in most cases) a cost center that must be controlled.
As for why most cars are 4+ seaters, that's the minimum size that will meet all reasonable expectations for use. 2-seaters (or one, e.g. motorcycles) don't meet enough needs; much larger than 4 seats don't either, for modern households, but are found desirable for other reasons. Private vehicles are mostly not purchased to meet a physical need; they're purchased to meet a psychological one. That's hard for a government that doesn't have extreme coercive power to control.
Example: why do I have a Chevy Bolt? Because it was the smallest EV with reasonable range at an affordable price at the time I was ready to replace an old ICEV, that could comfortably hold the 2 of us plus either a bunch of stuff (ugly old Americans like us have to move Stuff around relatively often) or 1-2 additional adults (when local friends or visiting kids want to go someplace with us). Do we need that much space? Not on a regular basis. But we need it often enough that it's not convenient to drive around in something smaller (if it could be found, and also be safe) then rent something bigger frequently. Why didn't we get something bigger? Because I didn't feel the need to intimidate everybody else on the road (psychology), and I didn't want to pay every day for capability that I'd use, maybe, once a year (economic rationality). And why did I get a EV? Because I felt like it, and the price (used, so somebody else dealt with the 3 years needed to cover the manufacturing emissions) was right, and on the margin it was better for the overall society and environment that I do so rather than getting another ICE beast for, mostly, running around town because the place is a barely-walkable suburb.
And why do I live in that suburb? Because I could (stretching a bit, initially) afford it, and it's a more pleasant place to live overall than crammed into an apartment someplace in the inner suburbs, and it had (and has) decent transit connections to the rest of the metro area and for commuting, so most driving involves fairly short trips (up to 15 miles or so each way for occasional longer trips). I did look for (and get) a place that is moderately walkable (20 minutes to groceries, less to Home Depot). And the lot allowed me to build a native plant-oriented low-water-use garden (that for some reason the others who walk by admire but nobody has duplicated). First-world problems...
I guess, we don't all want to live the same way. Having relatively clean vehicles lets us live in different ways without fouling our nest as quickly as could happen.
Last edited:
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
Oh great! Now we can look forward to another 6 years of "faster/sooner than expected" effects of climate change...
Upvote
-1
(6
/
-7)
It’s actually an understatement. Our elected representatives are at least smart enough, most of the time, to realize they have little expertise in scientific matters so they pass legislation that is more goal or area oriented and expect the regulators to fill in the details to actually accomplish those goals. Chevron was hailed by conservatives for reigning in activist judges that thought they knew better. Now, just because the conservatives don’t like what the science is saying they want the legislation to be very specific, if not, then unelected, appointed for life judges get to decide what the law means Instead of the federal agencies that are run by people that are nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate. And it better follow the original intent of the Constitution too.
In other words, without chevron, we are back to the dark ages where scientific knowledge was determined by the church interpreting the Bible instead of scientists.
Upvote
17
(21
/
-4)
So.. automakers will be incentivized to start classifying their trucks as "medium-duty", then?
Upvote
21
(22
/
-1)
Soon Americans will be driving full-size buses (THREE ROWS OF SEATS AREN'T ENOUGH!), box trucks (WHAT IF I NEED A PIECE OF PLYWOOD!), and ultimately semis/tractor trailers (YOU CAN'T TAKE YOUR COSTCO RUN ON PUBLIC TRANSIT!!)
Upvote
13
(19
/
-6)
Medium duty vehicles while often running modest engines have far better suspension and brakes than light duty vehicles. Many toy haulers have switched to medium duty trucks modded into RVs or one can yank enough seats out of a school bus to register as an RV (many "schoolie" and shop bus conversions including mine are done that way) for similar result and cheap insurance.
Heavy duty trucks are surprisingly fuel-efficient (loaded they're more efficient than most pickup trucks for weight moved) and commonly get the toy hauler/RV treatment.
Be careful what you ask for.
Attachments
Upvote
-7
(1
/
-8)
Yeah, but you won't be buying American cars by then. Allow an industry to be short term, and they won't be the ones dominating in a few decades. Either that or imports will be taxed so that the end consumer pays way over the odds.
It seems to me that most US (and to a lesser extent EU) car companies are still seeing EV as a premium car. The future is mass produced cheap EVs. And right now Asia (although not Japan this time) is where they are coming from.
In a couple of decades I expect Indian and Chinese brands to dominate car sales. You may still buy a Ford, but it won't be a US company. Just like Jaguar/Land Rover (Indian owned), and MG (Chinese owned).
Upvote
3
(6
/
-3)
thelongdarkteatimeof
Ars Scholae Palatinae
Americans can't get out of their own damn way. No wonder why you're falling behind the world in every aspect. They could have banned conventional ICE vehicles years ago, nope, gotta feed the welfare corporations that will drag you into the ditch and feast on your entrails.
Upvote
2
(8
/
-6)
Or you could quit being a jerk. I have read them, and I have brought up this exact same point before. And I will continue too because of the elitists on this site who think that anyone who "can't afford" an EV is a far-right, coal-rolling, fascist liar who just doesn't want to make the leap.
Upvote
-4
(3
/
-7)
At some point one would hope the majority of buyers would realize that electric cars are superior in every way and stop buying ICE cars.
Upvote
2
(5
/
-3)
Mr. Perfect
Ars Praetorian
The Article said:
Whoa. If this does make it into the final rule, I'd love to read more about this. It's honesty the most interesting thing in this new standard. You know, assuming OEMs don't just start classifying things a tier larger to escape this.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
The car and truck classes are based on gross vehicle weight. You can read about the footprint stuff in the final rule here:
https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emi...ule-multi-pollutant-emissions-standards-model
The PDF is searchable, and written relatively straightforwardly.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
YetAnotherAnonymousAppellation
Ars Praefectus
You presume incorrectly. Tesla is near the top of my boycott list for other reasons.
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
shrug It's been rehashed so many times, I have a hard time believing you actually participated meaningfully in this discussion previously.
But if you want to provide a link, I'm happy to go look and see what answers you got.
Upvote
1
(2
/
-1)
Fear not, we could be starting negative emissions today and we’d still get those six years of faster than anticipated climate change.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Agree for the most part. It's so funny to me that we (we as a society) somehow thinks that climate change cares about our economy and that it's hard to transition. Like climate change says "Oh it's hard to transition and you might not have economic growth this year? That's fine, I'll let of the pressure a bit and wait until you are ready." Yes that's absurd but that is how all the major governments action looks in my eyes.
The Swedish government body Klimatpolitiska Rådet (climate policy counsil) earlier this week released their annual report where they essentially cut down our governments efforts by the feet. In that report they highlighted that the government must work much harder on the "acceptance" part of the policies. In other words, governments need to take some uncomfortable decisions and should focus a lot on getting acceptance from the public by clearly messaging why these decision need to be done but also the upsides of them.
Conversly if there is a large majority of acceptance in the populace for climate friendly policies then a vocal minority shouldn't be allowed to derail or delay the implementation. But that requires politicians with spines I guess and those are red listed at this point in time.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
denemo is just as resistant to reality as fatesrider, so it tracks.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)