Trump To Do Uturn On Obama Era ‘Climate Change’ Vehicle Rules

This has made the NY Times, which uses lots of fossil fuels to gather the news and never had a problem with the enormous amount of fossil fuels used by Mr. Obama to take long trips for short speeches followed by fundraisers and golf, very upset

From the article

The Trump administration is expected to begin rolling back stringent federal regulations on vehicle pollution that contributes to global warming, according to people familiar with the matter, essentially marking a U-turn to efforts to force the American auto industry to produce more electric cars.

The announcement — which is expected as soon as Tuesday and will be made jointly by the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Scott Pruitt, and the transportation secretary, Elaine L. Chao — will immediately start to undo one of former President Barack Obama’s most significant environmental legacies.

Sigh. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

Under the Obama administration’s vehicle fuel economy standards, American automakers were locked into nearly a decade of trying to design and build ever more sophisticated fuel-efficient vehicles, including electric and hybrid models. The nation’s largest auto companies told Mr. Trump last month that they found those technical requirements too burdensome.

The E.P.A. will also begin legal proceedings to revoke a waiver for California that was allowing the state to enforce the tougher tailpipe standards for its drivers.

Hey, Democrats keep stating that federal law trump state law, and, if you remember, the argument against Arizona’s SB1070 illegal immigration law was that it was more stringent than federal law, which was, according to Democrats, a big no no. So, if California is more stringent, then that would also be a no no, would it not? (Personally, I think California should be allowed to keep the standards if they want)

They complained about the steep technical challenge posed by the stringent standard, noting that only about 3.5 percent of new vehicles are able to reach it. That even excludes some hybrid cars, plug-in electric cars and fuel cell vehicles, the automakers wrote. “Even today, no conventional vehicle today meets that target.”

The automakers estimated their industry would have to spend a “staggering” $200 billion between 2012 and 2025 to comply and said the tailpipe emissions rule was far more expensive for the industry than enforcing the Clean Power Plan.

Guess who pays for the cost increases?

The tailpipe pollution regulations were among Mr. Obama’s major initiatives to reduce global warming and were put forth jointly by the E.P.A. and the Transportation Department. They would have forced automakers to build passenger cars that achieve an average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, compared with about 36 miles per gallon today.

From the same guy who jumped in a helicopter, flew to an airport, took a fossil fueled flight on a jumbo jet, along with a backup jet and several fighter jets, then got in a low MPG limo to head to a fundraiser with almost two dozen fossil fueled low MPG vehicles, causing traffic jams which force Other People to use more fossil fuels.

Those regulations are locked into place for vehicle model years through 2021, and just before Mr. Trump took office, the E.P.A. put forth a final rule intended to cement them for vehicles built from 2022 through 2025. However, the E.P.A. did not jointly release its plan to do so with the Transportation Department, leaving a legal loophole for the Trump administration to take advantage of.

Oops.

Look, if manufacturers want to build hybrids, then that is their choice. There’s certainly a market for them. If they want to make a big V8 muscle car, they should also be able to do that and not worry about silly rules. CAFE standards have long put drivers in danger due to making lighter and lighter vehicles. Manufacturers have done a great job using technology to avoid going even lighter. But, why not let drivers get what they want without government interference over silly ‘carbon pollution?” Especially when those rules artificially raise vehicle costs. And those rules hurt the poor and middle class more than the rich folks, like Obama, who push the rules.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

21 Responses to “Trump To Do Uturn On Obama Era ‘Climate Change’ Vehicle Rules”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Sigh. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

    Sigh. CO2 introduced into the atmosphere by human activities is a pollutant. We humans have caused atmospheric CO2 levels to increase from 280 ppm to 400 ppm, in turn causing the Earth to warm unnaturally over the past century. There is nothing “natural” about the CO2 introduced into the atmosphere by we humans.

    Cow manure is all natural and in the right amount can be a valuable fertilizer. But dumped in a stream cow manure is a pollutant.

  2. drowningpuppies says:

    Sigh. The little guy’s solution to tailpipe emissions AND dodging military service…

    http://www.zombietime.com/zombie113.jpg

  3. Rev.Hoagie® says:

    Cow manure is all natural and in the right amount can be a valuable fertilizer. But dumped in a stream cow manure is a pollutant.

    Your oh, so condescending “Sigh” Jeffery fails to conceal the fact that the thoughts in your head may well be valuable fertilizer to you but once written as a comment serve only as manure and a pollutant to others. Plus, it’s voodoo science.

  4. Zachriel says:

    William Teach: But, why not let drivers get what they want without government interference over silly ‘carbon pollution?”

    Because exhaust emissions affect others, and your freedom ends where another’s nose begins.

  5. Rev.Hoagie® says:

    Because exhaust emissions affect others, and your freedom ends where another’s nose begins.

    That’s not a viable reason since almost everything affects others. And whatever the “allowed” emissions affect others too. So what? That’s an excuse frequently used by radical Ctrl-leftists to pass all kinds of freedom killing laws. As a matter of fact you guys pass laws to deliberately affect others and frequently undesired by those affected and often to their disadvantage.

    You’re very big on forcing others to acquiesce to your demands while considering their freedom unworthy of consideration. It’s the very essence of the Ctrl-left radicals.

  6. Zachriel says:

    Rev.Hoagie®: That’s not a viable reason since almost everything affects others.

    “Your freedom ends where my nose begins” is an almost universally accepted statement of the limits of liberty.

    • Rev.Hoagie® says:

      I know it is. If you tell a lie over and over people buy it. But it’s still a lie. Do you mean you can’t think of anything where your metaphorical nose is punched?

  7. Uncle Dan says:

    Love Trump! The left wing scream and he gets things done. Every day is like Crristmas morning for Trump supporters!

  8. jl says:

    Poor J. Still thinks the earth is warming unnaturally. We go back to the same un-answered question “unnaturally compared to what”? On top of that, the alleged warming doesn’t prove the cause of any warming. Except for all that, you’re really on to something there, J.

  9. jl says:

    “Cow manure dumped into a stream can be a pollutant.” Nice comparison there, J. Only problem is that manure doesn’t belong in a stream, where CO2 does belong in the air, and is essential to life. The planet is actually CO2 starved compared to it’s history.

  10. Jeffery says:

    Poor j. Still denies the fact that the Earth is warming. Why is the Earth warming?

    CO2 starved? What is the optimum CO2 level? All of human evolution and the development of human civilization occurred at CO2 levels lower than 400 ppm. Or do you deny that too?

  11. jl says:

    Experts say 2 degrees of warming will kill us, which explains why humans evolved in Africa. “What is optimum CO2 level”? You’re the clowns saying it should be somewhere below 400ppm, with absolutely no proof, not us. “Why is the earth warming”? The way science works it would be the new kids on the block with the new theory that would have to prove it isn’t natural, which they haven’t done. “All of human evolution and development occurred at CO2 below 400ppm”. Did you just say that? My. And didn’t human delopment expand as CO2 expanded? And are we done evolving at 400ppm? No, so the 400ppm is irrelevant, as there’s no reason to believe human development won’t continue as CO2 continues to rise.

  12. Jeffery says:

    2 degrees C will be a serious challenge but as every expert will tell you, humans and the Earth will survive. So stop lying.

    You made the claim that the Earth is CO2 “starved”, so we logically assumed you had an optimum CO2 level in mind. Is it 400 ppm? 600 ppm? 1000 ppm?

    Our point is, as we correctly pointed out, that this is the first time in human experience that the Earth has seen 400 ppm CO2. You seemed surprised. Do you think the changed CO2 and warming will stop at 400 ppm and 1C, respectively? Human evolution doesn’t occur in 100 years. Or 200.

    What evidence would persuade you that the Earth is warming from human generated CO2? If you answer is none, you are not thinking scientifically. Do you have a hypothesis addressing why the Earth is warming?

  13. Zachriel says:

    jl: We go back to the same un-answered question “unnaturally compared to what”?

    Compared to if humans were not emitting large quantities of greenhouse gases. See Meehl et al., Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate, Journal of Climate 2007
    https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/meehle_2004.jpg

    jl: The planet is actually CO2 starved compared to it’s history.

    The concentration of atmospheric CO2 has been relatively stable since the advent of human civilization.

    jl: Experts say 2 degrees of warming will kill us

    Few experts claim that. Rather 2°C warming will significantly disrupt agriculture, human settlements, and ecosystems. The key is that the sooner humans mitigate the problem, the lower the economic cost, and the lower the permanent damage to ecosystems.

  14. jl says:

    “2Degree change will significantly disrupt agriculture, ecosystems, etc…” Proof of that happening, please? Fact is, there is none. Those are simply assertions of what “could ” happen in the future, not born out by any facts. Only perceivable effect so far is a greening of the earth. “Compared to If humans were not emitting large quantities of ghg.” Actually, no. We have a thermeometer temp record of about 150 yrs that is used to say “it’s happening at this rate”. Therefore, without thermometer data it is impossible to compare prior 150 yr periods of the rate of change using much less precise proxie data. In other words, can anyone show what the rates of temp. change were in all the other past 150 yr time periods in the earth’s history with the same degree of accuracy? Of course not

  15. jl says:

    “Earth CO2 starved.” Over the last 600 million yrs, CO2 has been higher than it is now most of the time. “Do you have a hypothesis addressing why the earth is warming? Again, it’s up to the ones with the new theory to prove that it’s not the natural factors that have been in effect for the last 4 billion yrs rather than the other way around. In last 600 million yrs CO2 has been as high as 7000ppm with no catastrophic warming, and earth also fell into an ice age with CO2 at about 4000ppm. So it’s obviously not the giant temperature control knob in the sky

  16. Jeffery says:

    J,

    Cutting and pasting your past comments, LOL. It would be great if scientists could go back 10,000 years and use thermometers to accurately measure the global mean temperature, but alas we have to use the data available. The best evidence supports the hypothesis that the Earth is warming.

  17. Jeffery says:

    J,

    Human civilization is barely 10,000 yrs old, not 600,000,000 yrs old. The genus Homo is less than 2 million years old. We understand the selfishness inherent in our position that human societies are important.

    The ENTIRETY of human civilization evolved within a very narrow temperature range. Agriculture, cities, religion, philosophy, medicine, education and cultures are recent developments. That’s not to say that humans won’t adapt to 2, 4, 6 or even 10C warming, but it will be on a radically different Earth. And it’s a change that we caused.

    Why do you trust the geologic CO2 record but not the geologic temperature record?

  18. Zachriel says:

    jl: “2Degree change will significantly disrupt agriculture, ecosystems, etc…” Proof of that happening, please?

    There have been multiple studies of the effects of a 2°C rise in global mean surface temperatures. Consider just sea level change.

    Jevrejeva et al., Coastal sea level rise with warming above 2°C, PNAS 2016: “Warming of 2 °C will lead to an average global ocean rise of 20 cm, but more than 90% of coastal areas will experience greater rises. If warming continues above 2 °C, then, by 2100, sea level will be rising faster than at any time during human civilization”.

    This will cause human migration on a large scale, with the attendant cultural dislocation and political friction.

    jl: Those are simply assertions of what “could ” happen in the future, not born out by any facts.

    Science allows us to reach reasonable conclusions concerning future events.

    jl: Only perceivable effect so far is a greening of the earth.

    That is incorrect. Sea levels have already risen, and are already causing social dislocation.

    jl: can anyone show what the rates of temp. change were in all the other past 150 yr time periods in the earth’s history with the same degree of accuracy?

    We don’t have the same degree of accuracy concerning temperatures before thermometers, but we are not completely ignorant either. You can’t just wave your hands concerning what we do know.

    jl: Over the last 600 million yrs, CO2 has been higher than it is now most of the time.

    That’s right. However, human civilization didn’t exist in the vast majority of that time. Consider a Floridian in the Paleogene.

    jl: In last 600 million yrs CO2 has been as high as 7000ppm with no catastrophic warming, and earth also fell into an ice age with CO2 at about 4000ppm.

    Funny. Now you are pointing to temperature changes in the ancient past just after having waved your hands concerning the subject. And you cite climate scientists to boot!

    To answer your point, there are many factors which affect climate, including solar irradiance, volcanism, orbital variations, continental drift, albedo, mountain building, variations in sea currents, changes in greenhouse gases, even cometary impacts. So, while greenhouse gases tend to warm the climate, change in the Earth’s orbit may still result in a cooler climate. It’s the interrelation of all these factors which determine climate.

  19. Zachriel says:

    On sea-level rise, see Kopp et al., Temperature-driven global sea-level variability in the Common Era, PNAS 2016, which finds that more than half of the current sea-level rise is attributable to anthropogenic climate change.

Bad Behavior has blocked 10863 access attempts in the last 7 days.