|Image Replies||0 ()|
|Lifetime||9d 1h 6m 8s|
usa-epa-autos/epa-rejects-fuel-effi ciency-standards-for-automobiles-id USKCN1H91OD
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Monday rejected an Obama-era plan to make automobiles more fuel efficient in a win for car and oil companies and the latest move by the Trump administration to roll back environmental regulations.
The corporate average fuel economy, or Cafe, standards, were not appropriate and should be revised, the EPA said in a release. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said the Obama administration “set the standards too high” and “made assumptions about the standards that didn’t comport with reality,” but he did not offer any specifics on revising them.
The standards called for roughly doubling by 2025 the average fuel efficiency of new vehicles sold in the United States to about 50 miles (80 km) per gallon, and were seen by proponents as a way to spur innovation in clean technologies.
Innovation? Keeping the prices down for consumers? NEVER!
I don't understand how the anti-regulation propaganda worked so well in this country. Like how the fuck are people okay with reverting to China-levels of smog and river pollution. How the fuck do people see big oil and gas giants as the plucky protagonists fighting against evil anti-pollution activists? The fuck's wrong with ya'll?
In this particular case it's the balance between up front cost and long term costs. More fuel efficient cars are more expensive, but you spend less money on fuel over time. Less fuel efficient cars are less expensive, but you spend more money on fuel over time. As it stands most consumers benefit more from the first option, as most people will use their vehicles long enough to see substantial savings on fuel. Of course, the second option is cheaper to produce (requires less R&D investment) and easier to sell (cheaper price), so in an unregulated market which typically favors short term outcomes you will see things move that direction despite being more expensive for consumers in the long run.
Then there's the separate issue that a lack of federal level regulation means a bunch of different state regulations. California has a weird official exception that lets them set whatever standards they want, so California is sticking to the old rules. This creates two (or more) separate sets of regulations, and thus two different markets within the US. That either increases production costs because you need two different product lines for two different standards, you make one production that sticks with the most stringent standard, or you only make cars for the lower standard thus ignoring the high standard market. All of these things can increase cost on the consumer's end.
The loudest supporters of anti-regulation are either rich people who assume that they'll be able to keep away from it with money and poor people who either assume that everyone else but them will be affected, it's all a hoax, or that they'll be rich by the time the problems start cropping up.
How about farmers? Do you think their priority when it comes to the pickup truck at their farm is the car's fuel economy?
What about carpenters? Or any contractor who works in construction? Do you want your new tile flooring to be carried in the back of a Prius over 5 trips or one in a pickup?
CAFE standards on passenger vehicles had a big unintended consequence—the rise of sport utility vehicles (SUVs). Mileage standards for light trucks were set lower at 20.7 mpg and SUVs and minivans qualified as light trucks. In 1975, only 20 percent of vehicles sold were light trucks, but by 2002, that had risen to more than 50 percent of vehicles. In 2002, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the EPA's 10 most fuel efficient models constituted less than 2 percent of auto sales. As recently as 2007, none of the top 10 vehicles chosen by consumers voting at the popular website CarGurus.com had an average gas mileage that met current federal CAFE standards
If people wanted fuel efficient cars so much why so you have to force people to buy them
If you really want to know why anti propoganda works so well, you got cum guzzlers like this.
They're the same idiots thought we should still use Incandescent light bulb and you can bet your ass if the it happened sooner, they'd reverse that decision too.
Incandescent lightbulbs are the worst fucking example for your point m8. CFLs and LEDs produce shit light and don't last a fifth of the advertised lifetime while costing 10x more than incandescents.
And honestly, lightbulbs in private households are the least of concerns when it comes to electricity being wasted.
>shit light and don't last a fifth of the advertised lifetime
Dunno what the advertised lifetime on your bulbs are but LED are way more energy efficient than incandescent bulbs, so there's no reason your LED shouldn't be able to output the same or greater intensity for a longer life and less energy than an incandescent.
>If people wanted fuel efficient cars so much why so you have to force people to buy them
Because people don't typically take a macroeconomic perspective when making purchases. They might recognize greater fuel efficiency is good for them, but with the opportunity cost of probably paying more upfront.
But that calculus doesn't take into account the environmental impact of low fuel efficiency vehicles. That's why we need regulation.
People in some abstract sense realize it's in the interest of some greater economic or ecological good (and even their own long-term interest) to do things that are good for the environment. But since that requires a collective effort, they're less likely to volunteer to take that extra initial hit to their wallet if they don't have a guarantee that everyone else will follow suit.
>They live in a country that has decades of regulations cleaning it up. They think its always been this way and the EPA is just a waste of money.
This! I work in environmental science and there is a lot of work (and jobs) that goes into making sure that your streams, creeks, and rivers aren't running black with chemical and industrial sludge.
Yes, rivers used to catch on fire because they were so full of pollution all the time in this country. I don't want to go back to that--motherfuckers need to educate themselves.
Also, when they talk about all the extra jobs from killing regulation, there is never talk about all the positive employment and economic/environmental impact that comes from industrial waste management and environmental science. All these people risk losing their livelihoods while the suits on top will most likely pocket the additional profits as per usual.
I'm hoping this is a situation where states and frankly, the market will dictate that the direction of vehicles becomes more efficient. Hell, in another 20 years we will all be driving electric cars anyways with the advent of solid state batteries and capacitors. Also, this punishes those companies that have been complying with the rule of law and rewards those that dug in their heels and spend unlimited, 'anonymous' money to get these guys in office.
Putting this guy into the EPA is like putting the executives of known union-busting companies in charge of the NLRB (take a look at the republican's/congressional efforts to keep the highest authority on labor disputes in this country non-functional from 2008-2013).
But low fuel consumption is anti-social in the sense that their owners fuel less, and so pay less fuel taxes which are what pay for our highways.
So by that standard big gas guzzling SUVs are the most socially conscious choice.
And sipping-cup gas drinkers are a public cheat;
using our highways and not paying their share!
>rEgUlaTioNs aRE 2 CoStlY
Minimizing the rate at which American workers are killed or maimed on the job and making sure that I don't find rat shit in my cereal or carbon black in my backyard air justifies the cost of these regulations. You think these regulations just happened overnight? You think the ((((free market)))) meme hasn't been tested over the past several centuries? Nothing exists in a vacuum, and that includes the safety you currently have to spread your assholes for fat corporate cocks. Go fuck yourselves you special snowflake bootlicking faggots.
My millions of dollars collect dividends that pay my annual income for me, so I have a full workday, like 5 hours or whatever once I finish my spa treatment at noon, to peruse over all the choices of individual flour farmers and distributors who may otherwise let a stray rat into their packaging. Same for tomato distributors, carrot distributors, etc. etc. etc., and then I repeat the process every year. Of course in practice I would just probably just pay my servants to do it for me, which means I'd have to figure out some other way to waste time during the day.
The point is I don't need the EPA making these tens of thousands of judgements on business patronage choices for me.
>>How does requiring your car to have better fuel efficiency, which means you need to buy less gasoline in the long run cost the consumer more?
>Are you just a shill, or a retard? Probably both if you think regulations are inherently bad and costly
because liberals cant have one or the other they want it both ways. so not only do cars now have to make 50MPG, but gasoline is not 10x more expensive because "muh environment muh smog..." so while you may not have tor efuel as often, you still end up paying through the nose when you do, as opposed to filling up every 2 weeks for cheaper.
>Because people don't typically take a macroeconomic perspective when making purchases. They might recognize greater fuel efficiency is good for them, but with the opportunity cost of probably paying more upfront.
and so they choose not to.
boy sure is nice living in a free country where you have the right to choose whatever the fuck product you want
thats nice and all, but when you grow a garden from nothing, eventually you have to trim the hedges once in a while or you get a fucking jungle.
it's one thing to appreciate how we've gotten better quality of life from regulations on safety and such, but there comes a point where you have to step back and assess what is an absolute necessity, and what is not, and can be culled, even if only temporarily until it is an absolute necessity again.
strict cafe standards were imposed due to fears of an oil shortage. and then following a global economic downturn and another oil shortage, they got stricter. but now that we have technology that lets us extract it cheaper and more efficiently, those regulations just get in the way of what the consumer wants
everything is relative.
they pay for it more frequently, but way less per fillup.
other way around they fill less frequently, but pay way more per fill up.
its just a matter of pick your poison, and it shouldnt be a one size fits all approach.
if I want a gas guzzling vee ate engine that wastes gas and costs me money, that should be my right to own, but i shouldnt be punished for it either
Biggest non-argument I've heard in this thread so far. It sounds like you wanted to make an unverifiable brag without contributing anything to the conversation itself. I know that's par for the course on 4chan, but still, thank you for wasting everyone's time.
That's fair, I'm all for curbing unnecessary regulations, but take a look at this thread's replies and then tell me with a straight face that retards like >>243732 are advocating for a case-by-case basis when it comes to performing due research and assessing regulation standards.
>but what if the consumer wants less miles to the gallon?
>what if the consumer wants eggs tainted with salmonella?
>what if the consumer wants coal plant runoff in their river?
The argument that repealing regulations is done in favor of consumer choice is pathetic.
By the way, gas mileage standards have different categories for cars, trucks, construction equipment, etc. so no one’s gonna ban your tractor for not running like a Prius, guys.
page took 0.0134 seconds to execute