Trump's EPA formally attacks CA FE rules, CA wildfires getting worse

Discussion in 'Environmental Discussion' started by cycledrum, Aug 2, 2018.

  1. cycledrum

    cycledrum PSOCSOASP

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    8,245
    1,197
    0
    Location:
    NorCal
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    I just hate Trump. He seem to love money more than anything, certainly more than the planet he lives on. Trump / EPA says, oh cars with lower fuel economy standards will be more affordable, pffft. They will still be expensive as now. Trump just wants to boost oil, gas and coal companies. Ugh.

    Trump's EPA formally launches attack on California's fuel-economy rules; Gov. Brown vows to fight

    Wildfires in West have gotten bigger, more frequent and longer since the 1980s | University of California
     
  2. bisco

    bisco cookie crumbler

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    95,324
    43,213
    0
    Location:
    boston
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    spot on. isn't california immune to federal meddling?
     
  3. cycledrum

    cycledrum PSOCSOASP

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    8,245
    1,197
    0
    Location:
    NorCal
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    Trump / EPA going to try to eliminate that.

    "The administration’s plan would freeze miles-per-gallon targets in 2020. It would also move to end California’s power to set its own, higher standards"
     
  4. bisco

    bisco cookie crumbler

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    95,324
    43,213
    0
    Location:
    boston
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    get the vote out.
     
  5. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    24,795
    14,101
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    Mother Nature doesn't care. Voters and precinct workers should.

    Bob Wilson
     
  6. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    8,288
    3,208
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    I gave some thought to where to post this as it may lead to political responses. May get the thread relegated to relative obscurity of our political arena. I chose not to do that to any of our longer discussions here as they contain much interesting material posted by others. So, here goes.

    Much has been said about how current US government might revise its interpretation of effects of CO2 on climate and related environmental aspects. Specifically, that regulatory agencies in the Executive Branch might begin to distance themselves from scientific consensus in those areas. A recent report from the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration sheds light on this:

    my2022-25_cafe_nhtsa_noi_07212017

    is the name of this 16.8 MB, 500-page pdf. It can be downloaded here:

    http://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/ld_cafe_my2021-26_deis_0.pdf

    Starting in July 2017, it was prepared to examine climate consequences of different fuel economy (CAFE) standards in later decades. To do this they had to start with future global CO2 emissions, anticipate future climate (etc.), and vary those according to CAFE effects on total CO2 emissions.

    And so they did. Chapter 5, unless anyone can convincingly argue otherwise, represents current US Executive Branch's position on this issue. It may come as a surprise. It certainly has not risen high on media radar since its release earlier this month.

    Another reason to read Chapter 5 is that is a clear summary of IPCC and related research on climate. Yes it goes 'all in'; temperature increase of ~4 oC by 2100, sea-level rise of ~1 meter, and all the rest of it. No assertion of any overstatement there, much less of any foreign government's "hoax".

    None of that, by the way, are certain expectations. They are simply best that can be done with current understanding of the earth system, and current-generation models. But I was surprised to find them in no way disputed in this official document of US Executive Branch.

    Elsewhere in report, NHTSA concludes that various CAFE scenarios would have little effect on climate through 2100. That may be correct; I certainly don't find it objectionable. I am much more interested in this broader statement of agreement with scientific consensus.
     
    cycledrum likes this.
Loading...