Truckers Sue Biden Regime Of Climate (scam) Rules

Did anyone think slapping “green” rules on the people who move goods, including food, around the country was a good idea? Well, except those who want to intentionally skyrocket the cost of goods (via Green Jihad)

From the article

A coalition of energy and trucking groups is suing the Biden administration over its recently-finalized emissions standards for heavy-duty trucks.

The groups — which include the American Petroleum Institute, the American Farm Bureau, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association and the National Corn Growers Association — filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to block the agency’s tailpipe emissions rules for heavy-duty trucks, which the agency finalized in March. Provided it withstands legal challenge, the rules will require truck manufacturers to considerably increase the share of their fleets that are electric vehicles (EV) or zero-emissions models by 2032, a timeline that critics say is far too tight given that green trucking technology is in its infancy and costly.

“EPA’s final rule exceeds the agency’s statutory authority and is otherwise arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law,” the complaint states. “Petitioners accordingly ask this Court to declare unlawful and vacate EPA’s final action.”

So, pretty much what most federal agencies do, especially under Democratic administrations

Specifically, the EPA’s rules will force manufacturers to ensure that up to 25% of new long-haul trucks sold and 40% of all new medium-sized truck sales are electric or zero-emissions models by 2032, according to The New York Times. The regulation is “entirely unachievable” because of inadequate charging capacity and the present lack of commercially viable technology that would be needed to get to the EPA’s targets, according to American Trucking Association CEO and president Chris Spears.

Too bad the lawyers won’t mention in court how Biden uses a large number of fossil fueled and low MPG SUVs in convoy all the time.

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

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

17 Responses to “Truckers Sue Biden Regime Of Climate (scam) Rules”

  1. Dana says:

    As our esteemed host noted just yesterday, liberal Scotland has misse3d its climate goals. There are no evil, reich-wing Republicans governing Scotland, and the nefarious Donald Trump is not there, yet the more-liberal-than-Americans Europeans keep missing and missing and missing their pledged goals. Could it be possible, just possible, that it is far easier for politicians to make promises than keep them?

    The activists have decided that we must completely change our energy and transportation infrastructure, something built up over more than a century, in fifteen years, without any of them asking the simple question: is it actually possible?

    • L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon! says:

      or the even more important question: what cheap and plentiful energy are we going to replace it with?

      Cheap energy built America even more importantly it built the entire western civilization. Without cheap energy you can’t build societies. It’s not gonna happen with wind and sun. At least not with the current technology. We need dreamers but we also need practical people to keep the wheels on the track. Currently we are allowing the dreamers to make policy decisions. That’s just plain stupid. And the result is the stagflation and sad state of our country right now.

      Do you think America is a better place than it was five years ago? Do you think America is heading in the right direction?

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        And when we run out of cheap energy? Then what?

        Once we burn all the oil (57 years), gas (49 years) and coal (140 years), what do we use? (acknowledging these are KNOWN reserves).

        Energy costs will increase as the costs of extraction increase.

        The world’s population continues to increase, just as the demand for energy continues to increase. By 2100 it’s estimated the world’s population will level at about 10.5 billion (30% increase from current), mostly increases in Africans and Asians.

        Even IF global warming is a hoax/scam as Mr Teach avers, doesn’t it make sense to plan ahead and start converting to nuclear, solar, wind, fusion, fuel cells etc?

        BTW, it’s predicted that the global temperature will increase another 2 to 4 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit).

        If all the scientists, religions, governments, universities and corporations are wrong about global warming what’s the greatest harm from transitioning from fossil fuels? A cleaner world? But what if they are right and Mr Teach is wrong?

        Cassandra or doomsdayer? Our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will let us know in their prayers…

        • drowningpuppies says:

          Eight rhetorical questions in this one comment.

          • Brother John says:

            That guy is a fucking idiot. He’s like trying to explain the concept of escape velocity to someone who thinks the earth is flat. He’ll piss on your shoes and insist it’s raining. The kind of douchebag that makes the internet a shitty place.

          • david7134 says:

            Notice he is using information about depletion of fossil fuels that is no longer appropriate. Seems fossil fuels are rejuvenated much more rapid than previous thought.

            Do you think Jeff will simply face economic destruction or be compelled to serve time in jail?

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            Still didn’t look up the meaning of “rhetorical question”, did you.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            Questions are intended to get one think about things.

  ’s hardly surprising you have such a hard time with them. LOL

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            Brother Johnny,

            We understand how frustrating it is to have so little to add to any discussion.

            You’re the kind of douchebag that makes the internet a shitty place.

      • Professor Hale says:

        Cheap is relative. The correct term is “affordable”. Most of the working families around the planet (except India, Pakistan, and China) can afford the retail prices for energy in their area. If the price of energy goes up, they suffer a decline in their standard of living. The price being roughly where it is now sustains not just every part of our economy, even the Vegan green hippies, it is essential for the quality of life we enjoy. A small change in prices pushes millions into the unsustainable zone. larger changes punish tens of millions. The Biden Administration’s inflation has pushed us well into that territory.

        “Cheap” energy, normally only exists where it is subsidized. (Iran gasoline 36 cents/Liter).

        But that is relative. A $300 electric bill for a family of 5 living on minimum wage is back breaking. the same bill to people earning 100K a year is only annoying. The same bill to a Democrat politician is insignificant.

  2. H says:

    Scotland missed its goal by only 3%
    3% it looks like they came pretty close to their goal.

    Mr Teach we already are replacing it with renewables. Coal use is declining every year. Renewables are now cheaper than building a new coal plant, which is why no one is willing to risk building any new coal plants. And the average age of a coal fired plant in USA is 45 years old. They have already been rebuilt once.

    At least you have learned not to try and tell people that electric costs are “skyrocketing” when they have only gone up 2 or 3 % per year on average over the last 20 20 years.
    And remember ! Only 1/3 of your electric bill goes for generation, 2/3s goes for transmission costs and overhead (including profits)
    Mr Teach has no problem paying the fossil fuel prices that are set by the good friends of Mr Trump, the Russians and Arabs.

  3. wildman says:

    the laws of thermodynamics FORBID zero emissions. that would be the equivalent of producing a perpetual motion machine. these people are insane and just looking for more rank stupidity to justify their jobs.

  4. unklc says:

    First law of thermodynamics: You can’t win.
    Second law of thermodynamics: You can’t break even.
    Battery electric [BEV] trucks are in service now. Limited service. Fuel Cell [FCEV] trucks are also in service. FCEV’s are very limited in service area due to fuel availability. These low emission trucks simply aren’t ready to go to the show yet. Electrics are too limited in range and charge rate/availability. FCEV’s simply don’t have enough hydrogen stations available. If you haven’t noticed, we live in a very large country. The food is often produced thousands of miles from the consumer and travels by Class 7 and 8 trucks. Everything moves by truck at some points along the trip from production to consumer. All these schemes add time and expense to everything. Do the math.

  5. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    The Invisible Hand may not be adequate to guide the world today, perhaps requiring a nudge from the predictive value of scientific theories.

  6. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    mr david,

    Those estimates are from the past 2 years. Notice I added the parenthetical (acknowledging these are KNOWN reserves) that new reserves may be found.

    Fossil fuels can be rejuvenated??

    Why do you believe Jeff should go to jail? Why would Jeff face economic destruction?

Pirate's Cove