3 ms·

"The draft statement, issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), was written to justify President Trump’s decision to freeze federal

"The draft statement, issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), was written to justify President Trump’s decision to freeze federal fuel-efficiency standards for cars and light trucks built after 2020. While the proposal would increase greenhouse gas emissions, the impact statement says, that policy would add just a very small drop to a very big, hot bucket." Unbelievably evil.

SamReidHughes 8y ago
Fuel efficiency standards kill people by reducing crash safety.
- anigbrowl 8y ago
  That's a claim in the report, but it's not well supported by evidence. A fuller examination (which you should have written or linked to in some way) in this article: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/08/epas-rationale-for-slicing-fuel-standards-rife-with-logical-fallacies/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/08/epas-rationale-for-slic... On a related note, I can't help observing that the same people who complain about the uncertainties in climate science tend to have a childlike faith in economic models that say the cost of mitigating it is just going to be too much.
  - SamReidHughes 8y ago
    There is an intrinsic trade off between cost, fuel efficiency, and crash safety. Let's not resort to a childlike claim things are complicated, thus agrees with whatever you want to be the null hypothesis.
    - throwaway5752 8y ago
      Since 90% of humans will die in the described climate outcome where we don't drastically change fuel efficiency it seems like - while you're right - there's really only one logical choice. Also, your went right to the "accuse your opponent of some reductionist version of their point" disappointingly quickly (acknowledging that their "child like" jibe wasn't altogether called for, although it's not clear it was completely directed at you). Arguing seems like a very poor use of a very limited time to solve this for the sake of the next few generations of humans.

SamReidHughes 8y ago

Fuel efficiency standards kill people by reducing crash safety.

anigbrowl 8y ago
That's a claim in the report, but it's not well supported by evidence. A fuller examination (which you should have written or linked to in some way) in this article: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/08/epas-rationale-for-slicing-fuel-standards-rife-with-logical-fallacies/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/08/epas-rationale-for-slic... On a related note, I can't help observing that the same people who complain about the uncertainties in climate science tend to have a childlike faith in economic models that say the cost of mitigating it is just going to be too much.
- SamReidHughes 8y ago
  There is an intrinsic trade off between cost, fuel efficiency, and crash safety. Let's not resort to a childlike claim things are complicated, thus agrees with whatever you want to be the null hypothesis.
  - throwaway5752 8y ago
    Since 90% of humans will die in the described climate outcome where we don't drastically change fuel efficiency it seems like - while you're right - there's really only one logical choice. Also, your went right to the "accuse your opponent of some reductionist version of their point" disappointingly quickly (acknowledging that their "child like" jibe wasn't altogether called for, although it's not clear it was completely directed at you). Arguing seems like a very poor use of a very limited time to solve this for the sake of the next few generations of humans.