SCOTUS blocks Obama climate change rules

[K1052]

Prove it.

Btw, vw isn't the only one making deisel fueled cars, how were those car manufacturers able to reach these unrealistic unachievable goals? Hmm...I smell bullshit and I don't see bobberfet posting in this thread so it's not him

Obama made VW intentionally defraud their customers and lie to regulators across the globe. Why didn't I see it before...seems so obvious.

 

[ivwshane]

Obama made VW intentionally defraud their customers and lie to regulators across the globe. Why didn't I see it before...seems so obvious.

Well, it is a fact that had there been less restrictive regulators, vw wouldn't have had to violate them!

 

[zinfamous]

I propose a deal between liberals and conservatives.

We agree that any "green energy solution" that is twice as costly as the next option is no solution at all. BUT you guys have to acknowledge that environmental laws and regulations still are necessary on some level, even if it means business can't maximize margins by simply dumping their hazardous waste in the local drinking supply, in the interests of stopping our lands from becoming the polluted cesspool China is rapidly becoming.

yeah, we're good with that one, for sure. We just ship out some cow-herding rednecks to guard our precious and pristine arboreal back country treasures.

Just send them care packages of dildos and Funions, and not only will they keep corrupt government rangers off of public, yet patriotic "private" land, they'll be sure to keep that DooPont fella from spilling nitric acid and phosphorous into their drinking holes...which are our drinking holes.

YeeeeeeHaw!

 

[Roflmouth]

I'll never understand the conservative war against the environment. Seriously, why do you people hate clean air and water and a sustainable environment so much? I mean, I get that in order to be a Republican you have to be so fucking stupid as to be unable to put on pants without a Youtube tutorial,

At least they're able to get photo IDs, unlike Democrats who party leaders loudly and repeatedly insist are too stupid to do so

 

[dank69]

At least they're able to get photo IDs, unlike Democrats who party leaders loudly and repeatedly insist are too stupid to do so

Love to see small-government conservatives advocate forced registration.

 

[glenn1]

The way I see it, there is no option not to focus R&D on green energy and other related tech.

And you know, government does these things pretty well and generally comes out on top:

catalytic converter, seat belts (two necessary and roundly-accepted technologies that were, at the time--"the doom" of the industry if the car manufacturers had their way, complaining about how the imposed costs would bankrupt them).

Not focusing on something "until it is mature" is a good way to hope that it never matures. I don't like that.

I like NASA. I like space exploration, going to the moon. I like colliding Hadrons. This is what advanced economies should be doing. This is what makes humans awesome. And, quite frankly, we really do not have a choice. I wouldn't worry about anyone lighting a match to the existing fossil fuels and forcing our hand to turn green energy into the next NASA project--that's somewhat of a populist detraction, imo.

Hell, all we have to do is convince Congress that, as always, green energy innovation is the best path to shiny weapons and blowing shit up, and they'll just toss bags of money at it. Presto! Innovation. It's why we have NASA, why we have/had Fermi labs and almost had that massive accelerator in NM (blame the Russians for going non-commie for the loss of our accelerator. )

The Obama 50 mpg is hardly an overreach, and certainly will not fail. This marks the third (4th?) time that the gov't has mandated better efficiency in cars. Every time the makers bitch and moan about cost. Every time they convince some segment of the population that this will, indeed, doom the auto industry.
It never happens. Cars become more efficient. The makers make more money. Everyone is happy. It's one thing to make such a prediction, it's quite another to consider the long history of that very same prediction and continue to make the wrong prediction.

There aren't any current non-hybrid cars that I'm aware of that meet that standard, even a Honda Fit or Fiat 500 don't. Car and Driver estimates "efficient, modern, mainstream sedans such as the Hyundai Sonata will need to improve their fuel efficiency by about 50 percent by the end of the program" (2026 CAFE standards); do you foresee some quantum leap forward in materials technology, aerodynamics, or physics that's going to make that possible? Are you just so wedded to your green power wet dreams that you no longer give a damn about the impacts to actual citizens anymore or whether people can actually even meet their needs with what you're trying to force them to buy, that is if anyone but the rich childless can afford to buy cars when you're done?

 

[Strk]

There aren't any current non-hybrid cars that I'm aware of that meet that standard, even a Honda Fit or Fiat 500 don't. Car and Driver estimates "efficient, modern, mainstream sedans such as the Hyundai Sonata will need to improve their fuel efficiency by about 50 percent by the end of the program" (2026 CAFE standards); do you foresee some quantum leap forward in materials technology, aerodynamics, or physics that's going to make that possible? Are you just so wedded to your green power wet dreams that you no longer give a damn about the impacts to actual citizens anymore or whether people can actually even meet their needs with what you're trying to force them to buy, that is if anyone but the rich childless can afford to buy cars when you're done?

It may not be easy, but they are managing. They've just had to add features to cars that they hadn't bothered with for a long time, even if they've been available for a long time (6-speed/CVTs, direct injection, cylinder deactivation [seriously, Cadillac did that one in the 80s] to name a few). Of course people will continue to bitch at the loss of the land yachts.

 

[glenn1]

It may not be easy, but they are managing. They've just had to add features to cars that they hadn't bothered with for a long time, even if they've been available for a long time (6-speed/CVTs, direct injection, cylinder deactivation [seriously, Cadillac did that one in the 80s] to name a few). Of course people will continue to bitch at the loss of the land yachts.

They're managing now because lifting CAFE mpg by a smaller fraction given the 30 years of technology advances since the last increase is a lot easier. Now that the low-hanging fruit of MPG improvements have been made, you can't just decree that technology magically appear to allow those improvements to continue indefinitely.

For example, all those features you mention are in current model Honda Fits (except cylinder deactivation obviously) and you'd still need more than 20% improvement in fuel economy to reach 2025 standards (61 mgp CAFE = ~43-45 EPA window sticker mpg, depending on who you listen to for how to perform the calculation). And again, that's not some "land yacht" but instead what's probably the smallest vehicle that's likely feasible to sell to U.S. consumers (due to safety requirements, etc) and using pretty much every possible technology short of making it a full hybrid. Hell, the hybrid Honda Insight don't meet those standards (EPA sticker 41/44/42 combined MPG).

While I personally appreciate the CAFE standards effectively subsidizing my preferred car body style (own a Honda Fit myself) it's still a ridiculously absurd standard. Not to mention that people like me getting a subsidy for buying small cars is directly fucking over some other consumer for which a technologically advanced high MPG car isn't an option due to family size, cost, or other considerations. You can't just act like Marie Antoinette and say "let them drive Nissan Leafs" when that is a completely unworkable option for them and the vast majority of consumers. Do you plan on allowing millions of people run a long-ass extension cord into your house so they plug in their cars just so you can have the smug satisfaction of saying "at least now you can't buy a land yacht"?

 

[K1052]

While I personally appreciate the CAFE standards effectively subsidizing my preferred car body style (own a Honda Fit myself) it's still a ridiculously absurd standard. Not to mention that people like me getting a subsidy for buying small cars is directly fucking over some other consumer for which a technologically advanced high MPG car isn't an option due to family size, cost, or other considerations. You can't just act like Marie Antoinette and say "let them drive Nissan Leafs" when that is a completely unworkable option for them and the vast majority of consumers. Do you plan on allowing millions of people run a long-ass extension cord into your house so they plug in their cars just so you can have the smug satisfaction of saying "at least now you can't buy a land yacht"?

Your entire argument boils down to think of the (poor) children.

The average american household is composed of 2.5 people, hardly "a vast majority". You're confusing a want for a big vehicle with actual need since all these people could quite easily live with an efficient 4 or 5 seat car (with or without hatch if carrying stuff is an issue). Also if you want to get into arguments about subsidy then you probably don't want to talk about driving much because it is highly subsidized to the tune of many billions not paid for out of fuel tax or tolls.

 

[fskimospy]

Your entire argument boils down to think of the (poor) children.

The average american household is composed of 2.5 people, hardly "a vast majority". You're confusing a want for a big vehicle with actual need since all these people could quite easily live with an efficient 4 or 5 seat car (with or without hatch if carrying stuff is an issue). Also if you want to get into arguments about subsidy then you probably don't want to talk about driving much because it is highly subsidized to the tune of many billions not paid for out of fuel tax or tolls.

Glenn has emphatically declared he doesn't care about any of these people in the past. He's only using this line of argument because it is convenient.

 

[glenn1]

Your entire argument boils down to think of the (poor) children.

The average american household is composed of 2.5 people, hardly "a vast majority". You're confusing a want for a big vehicle with actual need since all these people could quite easily live with an efficient 4 or 5 seat car (with or without hatch if carrying stuff is an issue). Also if you want to get into arguments about subsidy then you probably don't want to talk about driving much because it is highly subsidized to the tune of many billions not paid for out of fuel tax or tolls.

And as I just said, even that efficient 4 seat car with hatch can't meet the standards. I'm not against CAFE standards, I'm against ridiculously unreasonable standards that are set solely to meet some ideology.

To use an analogue, technology advances have continually lowered the age of viability for premature babies. To the point where many states are setting the ambitious and technologically unachievable 20 week standard for restricting abortion. Now imagine those same legislators set a target standard of 10 weeks by 2025, saying " let the technology folks figure out how to do it." What would you think of such a plan?

 

[dank69]

And as I just said, even that efficient 4 seat car with hatch can't meet the standards. I'm not against CAFE standards, I'm against ridiculously unreasonable standards that are set solely to meet some ideology.

To use an analogue, technology advances have continually lowered the age of viability for premature babies. To the point where many states are setting the ambitious and technologically unachievable 20 week standard for restricting abortion. Now imagine those same legislators set a target standard of 10 weeks by 2025, saying " let the technology folks figure out how to do it." What would you think of such a plan?

I'd object because I disagree with restricting abortion at 20 weeks and 10 weeks, not because of some technology requirement. You need a better analogy.

 

[glenn1]

I'd object because I disagree with restricting abortion at 20 weeks and 10 weeks, not because of some technology requirement. You need a better analogy.

Well then I guess you can't complain when conservatives reject your climate change policies or other ideas out of hand for ideology reasons also. Okay with me if we do things that way since GOP owns Congress and already use that approach. It will just be a brute force imposition of temporary majority will on the opposition, their concerns be damned.

 

[K1052]

And as I just said, even that efficient 4 seat car with hatch can't meet the standards. I'm not against CAFE standards, I'm against ridiculously unreasonable standards that are set solely to meet some ideology.

That your Fit wasn't designed to meet a standard that isn't yet in force and won't be until 2025 in no way indicates that it's not achievable. The general conclusion people have come to is that it's achievable without implementing hybrid technology.

You are against CAFE, at least be honest.

 

[fskimospy]

And as I just said, even that efficient 4 seat car with hatch can't meet the standards. I'm not against CAFE standards, I'm against ridiculously unreasonable standards that are set solely to meet some ideology.

To use an analogue, technology advances have continually lowered the age of viability for premature babies. To the point where many states are setting the ambitious and technologically unachievable 20 week standard for restricting abortion. Now imagine those same legislators set a target standard of 10 weeks by 2025, saying " let the technology folks figure out how to do it." What would you think of such a plan?

One is a constitutional right, the other is car emissions standards.

Invalid analogy.

 

[glenn1]

One is a constitutional right, the other is car emissions standards.

Invalid analogy.

Do you even remember what the purpose of an anology is, or does the word "abortion" make you retreat into your partisan no-thinking-allowed zone? Pick any unrealistic, technologically unachievable sans historic scientific breakthrough goal. Say the "Star Wars" missile defense system; you and other progressives argued against its technological feasibility then and now. if instead of unrealistic CAFE standards Congress passed a law mandating an SDI deployment by 2025 that would shoot down 100% of incoming missiles would you just say we need more R&D and presume it will happen since as another poster here said in this thread "government does these things pretty well and generally comes out on top"?

 

[dank69]

Well then I guess you can't complain when conservatives reject your climate change policies or other ideas out of hand for ideology reasons also. Okay with me if we do things that way since GOP owns Congress and already use that approach. It will just be a brute force imposition of temporary majority will on the opposition, their concerns be damned.

You are talking about rejecting a clean environment for ideological reasons.

 

[fskimospy]

Do you even remember what the purpose of an anology is, or does the word "abortion" make you retreat into your partisan no-thinking-allowed zone?

I know exactly what the purpose of an analogy is, you just made a dumb one. Speaking of not thinking, you should think before trying to make analogies in the future. Abortion restrictions are about constitutional rights. CAFE restrictions are about ROI and environmental/economic impact. Totally different.

Pick any unrealistic, technologically unachievable sans historic scientific breakthrough goal. Say the "Star Wars" missile defense system; you and other progressives argued against its technological feasibility then and now. if instead of unrealistic CAFE standards Congress passed a law mandating an SDI deployment by 2025 that would shoot down 100% of incoming missiles would you just say we need more R&D and presume it will happen since as another poster here said in this thread "government does these things pretty well and generally comes out on top"?

Great! SDI was stupid for many reasons, the least of which being its expense and technological difficulty. It was a fundamentally destabilizing technology. All that aside, I'm absolutely down with passing aggressive targets for standards so long as there is a willingness to revisit them if it doesn't work out. Don't see a problem, especially since these standards appear to work out just fine.

What you've done here is just declare CAFE standards to be unrealistic. If you would like to show objective, peer reviewed analysis of the standards that shows them to be unreachable that's fine, but I haven't seen any such research.

Let's note that showing research doesn't mean just furiously googling until you find some poorly thought out product from a right wing think tank as you did earlier in the thread.

 

[glenn1]

You are talking about rejecting a clean environment for ideological reasons.

Hysterical much? I guess you don't know how ridiculous you sound right now. Yep, this is me below and I can't wait to personally see to it using my fact-based arguments that you, Dank69, are poisoned by my emissions and are forced to live in an unclean environment.

 

[glenn1]

I know exactly what the purpose of an analogy is, you just made a dumb one. Speaking of not thinking, you should think before trying to make analogies in the future. Abortion restrictions are about constitutional rights. CAFE restrictions are about ROI and environmental/economic impact. Totally different.



Great! SDI was stupid for many reasons, the least of which being its expense and technological difficulty. It was a fundamentally destabilizing technology. All that aside, I'm absolutely down with passing aggressive targets for standards so long as there is a willingness to revisit them if it doesn't work out. Don't see a problem, especially since these standards appear to work out just fine.

What you've done here is just declare CAFE standards to be unrealistic. If you would like to show objective, peer reviewed analysis of the standards that shows them to be unreachable that's fine, but I haven't seen any such research.

Let's note that showing research doesn't mean just furiously googling until you find some poorly thought out product from a right wing think tank as you did earlier in the thread.

Nope, I just prefer to have Congress and SCOTUS stop you instead, e.g. the news story in my OP. Much easier, and without needing to try to use reason and logic on those immune to it.

And oooooh, destabilizing. How scary. We didn't want stability, we wanted to win and the Soviet Union to lose.

 

[fskimospy]

Nope, I just prefer to have Congress and SCOTUS stop you instead, e.g. the news story in my OP. Much easier, and without needing to try to use reason and logic on those immune to it.

I feel exactly the same way. You've been largely immune to reason or logic and you've made multiple pronouncements based on zero evidence from what I can see. You've also been easily duped by incompetent studies and then functionally refused to admit fault even when buried under an avalanche of rebuttals.

I think it's because we probably fundamentally don't get what motivates you. You don't seem to actually care about what the right answer is, you prefer pride, culture war, and spite. Once we view your stance through that lens all the lack of evidence, logic, or brainpower makes a lot more sense.

And oooooh, destabilizing. How scary. We didn't want stability, we wanted to win and the Soviet Union to lose.

Yes, an unstable situation with multiple nuclear powers is extremely scary. Glad you agree with basically every sane person.

 

[dank69]

Hysterical much? I guess you don't know how ridiculous you sound right now. Yep, this is me below and I can't wait to personally see to it using my fact-based arguments that you, Dank69, are poisoned by my emissions and are forced to live in an unclean environment.

Dude, I'm just distilling your message for you so you can understand what you are saying. It's fine if we disagree about abortion for ideological reasons. That makes sense. When it comes to pollution, we are on opposite sides of the fence again, and you attribute this to ideological differences as well. Since your economical excuses have been debunked, we're left with you just liking pollution for ideological reasons.

 

[glenn1]

I feel exactly the same way. You've been largely immune to reason or logic and you've made multiple pronouncements based on zero evidence from what I can see. You've also been easily duped by incompetent studies and then functionally refused to admit fault even when buried under an avalanche of rebuttals.

I think it's because we probably fundamentally don't get what motivates you. You don't seem to actually care about what the right answer is, you prefer pride, culture war, and spite. Once we view your stance through that lens all the lack of evidence, logic, or brainpower makes a lot more sense.

What motivates me is not screwing the poor and middle class with fantasy technology so you can enjoy a luxury good like "low carbon lifestyle" at their expense. Just because you don't give a shit about people and would be perfectly fine pricing cars out of their budget or saying "you don't need more than a Fiat 500 for your 6-person family" doesn't mean we all feel that way. I also am motivated by scientific literacy that informs me you can't just wish something into existence even if you throw money at it and mutter "Manhattan Project for clean energy." People like you are those who ignore the "little people" who talk about feasibility in favor of you ideology and instead say "failure is not an option" as if that's remotely the truth.

Yes, an unstable situation with multiple nuclear powers is extremely scary. Glad you agree with basically every sane person.

Thankfully we ignored your advice not to get the mean Soviets angry. Unstability was exactly the point of SDI. Again, some of us wanted to win and not them.

 

[glenn1]

Dude, I'm just distilling your message for you so you can understand what you are saying. It's fine if we disagree about abortion for ideological reasons. That makes sense. When it comes to pollution, we are on opposite sides of the fence again, and you attribute this to ideological differences as well. Since your economical excuses have been debunked, we're left with you just liking pollution for ideological reasons.

Yeah, I can see where you'd conclude that after statements from me like "I support CAFE but think the 2025 standards are unrealistic and not achievable absent historic scientific breakthrough." I directly and specifically addressed each of your rudimentary solutions and you want to wave your hand and will into existence 20-50% mpg gains based on nothing beyond your desire for them. Discussions like that would lead anyone to think I like pollution instead of that you were an unrealistic ideologue who no longer accepts reality when it conflicts with your dreams.

 

[fskimospy]

What motivates me is not screwing the poor and middle class with fantasy technology so you can enjoy a luxury good like "low carbon lifestyle" at their expense. Just because you don't give a shit about people and would be perfectly fine pricing cars out of their budget or saying "you don't need more than a Fiat 500 for your 6-person family" doesn't mean we all feel that way. I also am motivated by scientific literacy that informs me you can't just wish something into existence even if you throw money at it and mutter "Manhattan Project for clean energy." People like you are those who ignore the "little people" who talk about feasibility in favor of you ideology and instead say "failure is not an option" as if that's remotely the truth.

Right, so ideological, fact-free ranting. You are doing exactly what you complain about. How are you so oblivious and so irrational all the time?

Thankfully we ignored your advice not to get the mean Soviets angry. Unstability was exactly the point of SDI. Again, some of us wanted to win and not them.

No we didn't, we took my advice basically to the letter. SDI was never implemented and current BMD systems are totally ineffective against a nuclear attack by any real nuclear power.

Again, people aren't as stupid as you are.