|
Post by epaul on Jan 30, 2024 17:08:08 GMT -5
My first job outta college I was a draftsman. And sitting behind me was a crusty old guy (probably in his 50s) who would rant and rave about rich people, jokingly. He particularly didn't like the Kennedys. He said they were always pushing for public transportation to get the plebes off the roads so they could cruise around unencumbered in their limousines. Modernize his sentiment by changing Kennedys to John Kerry and Al Gore. Then throw in the IPCC. Now you're dealing with evil shit. Or irony.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 30, 2024 17:19:19 GMT -5
< unimpeded >
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jan 30, 2024 19:55:52 GMT -5
Modernize his sentiment by changing Kennedys to John Kerry and Al Gore. Then throw in the IPCC. Now you're dealing with evil shit. Or irony. No irony at all. For instance, this is still America. A nominally free country. But now the US government is choosing for you, and without consulting you in any way, what kind of vehicle you must drive. And even more evil, they're moving to dictate what kind of truck the people who do the hard work in this country must drive. And maybe this is closer to the bone for you, they're telling the farmers who provide the food you eat what kinds of farm vehicles (combines, etc.) they must drive. Note: this is not optional. No, it's extremely unlikely they'll rethink and rejigger anything about these rules. After all, they didn't ask you or anybody else when they made them, why would they care if you complain? No irony. Just pure evil that's been seen through the ages. The tricks of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, right down the line. Like clockwork. No irony at all.
|
|
|
Post by Village Idiot on Jan 30, 2024 20:43:20 GMT -5
I'm kind of looking around for a different vehicle and no one has told me what I must drive. So far I've had the option to buy what I want and no one has interfered with any decision I might make.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jan 30, 2024 21:28:59 GMT -5
You describe the actions being taken to stop/slow global warming as a tricky ploy by the rich and privileged to kill off the poor (the surplus population). In response, Marshall offers an unflattering description of an old crank he knew who would rant and rave that public transportation was just a plot by the privileged (like the Kennedys) to get the poor off the road so they wouldn't be in the way of their limousines. Either missing the parallel, or agreeing to it, you reply, 'Right on. That's what I was talking about. Substitute Kennedys for Kerry and Gore and other elites, and it's the exact same deal!' Either way, irony.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jan 30, 2024 23:10:10 GMT -5
I'm kind of looking around for a different vehicle and no one has told me what I must drive. So far I've had the option to buy what I want and no one has interfered with any decision I might make. The new EPA regs are scheduled to start phasing in in 2027. Buy now if you can. Unless, of course, Chevron gets overturned in June. Then we can all go back to what America has always been- not a totalitarian state.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jan 30, 2024 23:37:07 GMT -5
There are governmental regulations we abide by. We can no longer dump dead cows in public waterways. You can't use leaded paint on baby toys. Drugs must pass tests for safety and efficacy. A 12 ounce can of beer must contain 12 ounces of beer. And new cars must have mufflers. And seat belts. And pollution controls.
Regulations. Love em, hate em, whatever. We have them. And, basically, we have them by common consent.
CO2 regulations are more of the same. We have them. We will have more of them. And we will be able to live with them just as we have learned to live with all the other safety, health, and well being regulations we are currently living with.
And it isn't just the EPA doing this EV stuff. A host of states have passed their own laws and regulations pushing the adoption of EVs... and all of them down the road. 2035, 2040, whatever. Down the road.
And if we get down that road, and EVs just are not ready for full deployment, or if some other form of power (fuel cells, combo gas/electric, mystery newcomer) pops on the scene, regulations will be modified, new laws will be passed. Or maybe Chevron will pull the rug out of all of it. Time will tell.
If something we plan to do ten or twenty years from now just doesn't prove doable come that down the road day, it won't be done. Something else will be done. And it is just that simple. If it can't be done, it won't be. Something else will be. Something that is doable.
Maybe a 100% reduction of emitted CO2 across the entire transportation fleet will just not prove feasible. Period. Then an 80% reduction will be deemed good enough. And there will be a whole new set of regulations to complain about.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jan 31, 2024 1:08:29 GMT -5
But, buy now or next year isn't bad advice. I admit I plan on buying gas while the buying is good. I don't want to get caught in a market transition between this and that. And I absolutely do not want an EV. Good for the country, parts of the country, but not good for me.
And I honestly do not think any of the current EV timelines will hold. Too many issues. Too much buyer resistance. I do think EVs will work, for many, in temperate urban areas, with nice garages, and money. But for many others? Nope.
By 2035, maybe 30% of the new car market. Maybe.
Of the current technologies on the market, I think these new plug-in hybrids are going to be hard to beat once the bugs are worked out and the prices come down a bit. How can you beat a (coming) 100 mile range on a battery with a gasoline engine on board to cover the miles the battery can't? Gas (and CO2) is cut 80%. Car owner has the best of both worlds.
And fuel cells aren't dead. There is pile of money being invested in hydrogen this and that. A really big pile.
The problem with predicting the future is it keeps changing.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Jan 31, 2024 6:55:31 GMT -5
... The problem with predicting the future is it keep changing. Time travel. Go to the future(s) to see what's there, then come back casually 'tweak' some things so that it turns out like you want it to. And your comment about PHEVs -- tho they've been criticized for not going full EV, that seems to be what toyota is betting on (and some other companies).
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jan 31, 2024 9:23:46 GMT -5
Toyota is "all in" on hybrids. Honda is pretty close behind. I think that's the way to go for the next 5 years anyway. I'm watching their product lines. Maybe by years end I'll retire the 9 yo Civic. Though it's still chugging along nicely getting 34 mpg.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Wonder on Jan 31, 2024 10:06:18 GMT -5
Yesterday we took Anita’s twenty year old Camry in to the dealer for her free oil change. Then she decided to take a test drive in a new plug in hybrid Rav 4. It was nice and functional for our life style. About 40 miles of range on pure battery power, if the batteries get low the gas engine kicks in seemlessly. We tried to buy one a year or two ago when the dealers didn’t have any cars, but the dealers wouldn’t accept a down payment, it was first come first served and any time they got one in it would sell within minutes. But things have changed. So the plug in hybrid seems a good solution to me. Most trips will be pure EV mode, we will use just enough gas to make sure it doesn’t go stale in the tank.
BMW is investing heavily in hydrogen fuel cell tech. It’s pretty interesting, if they can get the infrastructure built out.
Mike
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jan 31, 2024 10:11:58 GMT -5
Did you buy the Prime?
(can I drive it? They have some pep to them)
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Wonder on Jan 31, 2024 11:16:40 GMT -5
Yes. No.
Mike
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jan 31, 2024 11:20:45 GMT -5
There are governmental regulations we abide by. We can no longer dump dead cows in public waterways. You can't use leaded paint on baby toys. Drugs must pass tests for safety and efficacy. A 12 ounce can of beer must contain 12 ounces of beer. And new cars must have mufflers. And seat belts. And pollution controls. Regulations. Love em, hate em, whatever. We have them. And, basically, we have them by common consent. CO2 regulations are more of the same. We have them. We will have more of them. And we will be able to live with them just as we have learned to live with all the other safety, health, and well being regulations we are currently living with. And it isn't just the EPA doing this EV stuff. A host of states have passed their own laws and regulations pushing the adoption of EVs... and all of them down the road. 2035, 2040, whatever. Down the road. And if we get down that road, and EVs just are not ready for full deployment, or if some other form of power (fuel cells, combo gas/electric, mystery newcomer) pops on the scene, regulations will be modified, new laws will be passed. Or maybe Chevron will pull the rug out of all of it. Time will tell. If something we plan to do ten or twenty years from now just doesn't prove doable come that down the road day, it won't be done. Something else will be done. And it is just that simple. If it can't be done, it won't be. Something else will be. Something that is doable. Maybe a 100% reduction of emitted CO2 across the entire transportation fleet will just not prove feasible. Period. Then an 80% reduction will be deemed good enough. And there will be a whole new set of regulations to complain about. Which is entirely wrong. Anything that has been done in the past has been done with appropriate Congressional debate and Congressional approval for regulatory agencies to act. That's the heart of our democratic system. The people have the final say on what government can and cannot do. So now I'll ask you a simple question. Who actually voted (either individually or through duly elected representatives) to let EPA regulate CO2? Don't worry, I'll wait. And remember, this has been my job and career for 35 years. So, who voted to say this was OK?
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jan 31, 2024 12:34:45 GMT -5
The Clean Air Act in 1963 authorized the EPA to set air quality standards, leaving the details up to the EPA. The Clean Air Act was passed by Congress. It has been amended by Congress many times.
In general, the EPA has broad authority to regulate environmental pollutants.
Most recently, the Clean Air Act was amended by Congress in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 which clarified that CO2 was among the "pollutants" the EPA had the responsibility to regulate (within the guidelines stipulated in the original act).
Some question how CO2, a natural and needed compound, can be called a pollutant. (I have wondered myself).
But, "pollutant" is a general term that can refer to anything introduced into an environment that is judged to be degrading and harmful to that environment and the organisms within.
Thus, a pollutant can be darn near anything if it is in excess and that excess is deemed to be harmful or degrading to environment. The poison is in the dose. For example, salt is a natural and needed ingredient for life. But, excess salt discharged into a freshwater environment will degrade that environment and can become a poison to the inhabitants. On a farm field, manure is a natural, useful and 100% organic addition. In an aquifer, manure is an unwanted pollutant. Same with heavy metals. In small quantities, needed for life. Deadly if discharged in excess into drinking water. Ditto sulfer. All natural and needed. All harmful in excess and subject to EPA regulations if so deemed.
The EPA has been granted the authority by Congress to regulate pollutants. But, he EPA must do so in accordance within the fuzzy limits outlined in the Clean Air Act, which fuzzily stipulates that the cure can't be worse than the disease.
Wherein lies the rub.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jan 31, 2024 12:48:41 GMT -5
And where there is a rub, there is a courtroom.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jan 31, 2024 13:12:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 31, 2024 17:12:17 GMT -5
Just cut out the middle man and let the experts decide for us. Congress just does whatever the experts tell them anyway. Congresspeople aren't expert at anything. They have to depend on the experts. Who can blame them for following their instructions? And the institutions that create the experts are in agreement and create agreeable experts who come up with identical findings, so there's no dissension among the experts. Just streamline the whole process. That's how Wilson envisioned it over 100 years ago and his experts weren't half as good as ours (for instance, they kinda dug eugenics).
Democracy is so yesterday anyway. Did I mention that in a country of 350 million people our choice for president comes down to Biden vs Trump and we don't think there's anything wrong?
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Jan 31, 2024 17:51:35 GMT -5
"And where there is a rub, there is a courtroom."
Or a massage parlor.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jan 31, 2024 21:16:59 GMT -5
The Clean Air Act in 1963 authorized the EPA to set air quality standards, leaving the details up to the EPA. The Clean Air Act was passed by Congress. It has been amended by Congress many times. In general, the EPA has broad authority to regulate environmental pollutants. Most recently, the Clean Air Act was amended by Congress in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 which clarified that CO2 was among the "pollutants" the EPA had the responsibility to regulate (within the guidelines stipulated in the original act). Some question how CO2, a natural and needed compound, can be called a pollutant. (I have wondered myself). But, "pollutant" is a general term that can refer to anything introduced into an environment that is judged to be degrading and harmful to that environment and the organisms within. Thus, a pollutant can be darn near anything if it is in excess and that excess is deemed to be harmful or degrading to environment. The poison is in the dose. For example, salt is a natural and needed ingredient for life. But, excess salt discharged into a freshwater environment will degrade that environment and can become a poison to the inhabitants. On a farm field, manure is a natural, useful and 100% organic addition. In an aquifer, manure is an unwanted pollutant. Same with heavy metals. In small quantities, needed for life. Deadly if discharged in excess into drinking water. Ditto sulfer. All natural and needed. All harmful in excess and subject to EPA regulations if so deemed. The EPA has been granted the authority by Congress to regulate pollutants. But, he EPA must do so in accordance within the fuzzy limits outlined in the Clean Air Act, which fuzzily stipulates that the cure can't be worse than the disease. Wherein lies the rub. Wow. From the NRDC no less. You really should have read that crap more carefully. Specifically, "The Clean Air Act of 1963 aimed to reign in air pollution with expanded research efforts and a new public health program". If you had you'd notice that that piece of legislation was a precursor to the actual Clean Air Act of 1970 that created EPA and gave it regulatory authority. And then there's that stupid bit about the Inflation Reduction Act clarifying that CO2 was among the pollutants that EPA had the responsibility to regulate. Except the complete jackwad that wrote that (typical of a hardcore progressive NGO) is lying. The IRA was a spending bill, not legislation. Since Harry Ried changed the Congressional rules to abandon the 60 vote Senate requirement in order to continue to spend waaayyy beyond anything reasonable (now it has become almost the only thing Congress can do) it means nothing as far as actual legislation goes. They could write into a spending bill that they were all legally now twice as attractive and it still wouldn't make any of them look better. To actually make CO2 a pollutant, the actual current Clean Air Act (last actually amended in 1990) would have to be amended again to somehow include CO2 as a pollutant that EPA can regulate which would still require 60 votes in the Senate. And if anybody had actually done that, the current controversy would have no basis at all since we all would have participated in that through our duly elected Congressional representation. Instead, 1984s Chevron v. NRDC gave us what's called Chevron Deference, where the agencies themselves are given deference when actual authorizing legislation is unclear. Now technically there are supposed limits to how far the agencies can go but Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo is all about Congress being so careless in its legislating that fisheries have to pay the salaries of the government agents who regulate them. Somehow I can't imagine what those supposed "reasonable" limits might be if they can do that. What this means in practice is that the most partisan branch of government can give itself complete authority to do whatever the hell it wants to do, free of any requirement to even acknowledge that there's another side. But then it gets worse. In 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA took essentially the same argument as Chevron and turned it around. In that case, EPA originally argued that, correctly, they did not have Congressional authority to regulate CO2. Massachusetts argued that under Chevron, they sure did. Ultimately Massachusetts won and EPA was ordered to regulate CO2 or come up with a good reason they couldn't. Now pay close attention to how that is phrased. That is exactly how it was presented. I was actually there at the time. This absolutely blew everyone's mind in DC, particularly the Bush Administration who took the unique approach of issuing an ANPRM featuring an opinion piece from every cabinet member on their agencies position on the matter and opened it up to public comment. Ultimately, since it was late in the Bush administration, they punted to the next administration which happened to be Obama. Obama was all over that like a dog humping a football. They got California to write the endangerment finding, and BOOM! just like that CO2 was a pollutant within about 3 months of Obama's swearing in. The rest is history. Obama's EPA raised the equivalent gas mileage requirements (g CO2/mile is the exact inverse of MPG. That helps baffle the public. 0g CO2/mile is infinite MPG) from 27.5 mpg to something like 40 mpg. But they screwed up and Trump revoked those, replacing them with a much more reasonable 30 or so mpg. Now Biden's EPA is proposing requiring a number that requires 67% of all new vehicles be EVs (0g CO2/mile) by 2032 (8 years from now). And that's only light duty. Every other class of vehicle (heavy duty- ie. semitrucks, off-road- ie. combines and road pavers, stationary source- ie. generators, etc.) is regulated not by the vehicle, but by the engine only. Little known fact: 30ish % of an engine's exhaust is CO2, another 30ish % is water, and the remaining 40% is nitrogen like 78% of the earth's atmosphere. Wonder how those idiots at EPA will screw that up. And there you have it. For the first time ever in America the internal combustion engine will end up being banned and not a single person or person's Congressional representative will have voted for it. Ever. So much for democracy. The slide to totalitarianism is almost complete. Except for maybe Loper. We can only hope.
|
|