7 ms·
Trump revokes landmark ruling that greenhouse gases endanger public health
- ndsipa_pomu 8mo agoIs this another Epstein distraction?
- acdha 8mo agoNo: they’ve campaigned for years on behalf of their fossil fuel industry donors. The major oil and coal companies started a multi-decade push when the climate science debate was settled around 1980, with an end goal of protecting profits for as long as possible. The Republican Party has been trying to protect those donors but never had such strong backing to just ignore the scientists and EPA rule-making process before.
- jshier 8mo agoThey still don't have strong backing to do this, they just don't have anyone to stop them.
- mothballed 8mo agoI think it's largely supported by the rural/agriculture community. I have zero emissions controls on my diesel engine because it's more reliable out in the middle of nowhere and it lets you fall back to gloriously almost purely mechanical engine without ECU which is easy to work on. For the same reason, the government themselves exempt themselves from emissions controls which is why most the diesel trucks you can buy from government auctions are 'deleted.'
- dangus 8mo agoI think the idea that vehicles with emissions controls are inherently less reliable in any statistically meaningful way is highly suspect. In addition, the most common failure points of vehicles are usually not related to the engine being unable to operate. It’s usually accessory and wear issues: batteries, belts, tires, alternator, etc. As a counterexample for you, the third generation Prius (2009-2014) has about the most bulletproof powertrain imaginable. Every UberX on the road is driving one with 300,000 miles on it and complete neglect-level maintenance. eCVT transmissions in plug-in hybrid vehicles are simpler and more reliable with fewer wear parts (basically no wear parts) than pretty much every other transmission type, including manual transmissions. I will also point out, being in the middle of nowhere should be ideal territory for electric vehicles if rural society had a little bit more imagination. They need minimal maintenance compared to any sort of combustion vehicle. You can avoid trucking gas and oil to remote locations, instead installing solar panels/batteries once (lord knows you’ve got plenty of land), set and forget it. Panels are dirt cheap and last 25+ years, batteries last 15+ years. Your oil deliveries are used once and depleted. Even without solar and battery, rural locations are far more likely to have electric utility service than any other utility.
- mothballed 8mo ago300,000 is a joke compared to what most (non-hybrid) diesel engines last. Those are the ones that are most impacted by DPF and SCR systems that reduce reliability (in case of SCR, also DEF fluid you have to have accessible and add). Gasoline engines are not nearly as much impact by emissions controls IMO since as you say even the best case they normally not last past 300,000 (Toyota Tundra an exception that might even curb stomp the Prius, non-hybrid though) and emissions controls for those are more likely to last the life of the engine. It seems based on your comments that gasoline engines must be what you were familiar with but perhaps limited experience with [the usually more reliable] diesel engines. The other bit about electric I see as a red herring. Obviously electric is superior if you have capacity and grid or battery for it, but it's a sideshow from emissions controls on outputs of petroleum engines. It's not an emission control on the output of the engine but rather displacing much of the work the engine is doing. It's still far from ideal for many rural/ag purposes. I've ran ag machinery in places where there isn't even roads let alone power panels or a place to hook in, either you haul diesel or you are fucked, and in fact it is often there so you can establish infrastructure in the first place.
- dangus 8mo agoI have owned a diesel passenger vehicle, if that makes me sound more qualified ;-) I didn't realize we were talking about this level of heavy equipment, this level of remoteness (e.g., you're basically playing SnowRunner in real life), so yeah, obviously electric doesn't really make any level of sense there. For my comments on electric, I was really thinking about some of the farmer-types I know who are close enough to civilization to have electric service but far out enough to have no piped natural gas, no city water/sewer, etc. From what I read/understand about SCR and DPF systems, you do your maintenance properly and follow your service manual and there shouldn't be that much of a longevity difference. And what I gather, SCR in particular can improve engine longevity. As a generality, I'm highly skeptical of the motivation to disable things like this. A lot of times it's done just because it's the new fangled thing, not really because the person is actually benefiting by disabling it. Or it's just groupthink, people do it because everyone they know swears by it. Do I take the little safety thing off my Bic lighter because I really need to or is it because someone showed me how and it felt good to do it? And, I dunno, maybe after all of this, you’re still right as I’m wrong, but maybe more of us should believe that sacrificing some reliability is worth it to reduce NOx emissions by over 95%? NOx is a horrible emission from diesel engines. I do realize there are technologies worth rejecting, like the cylinder deactivation on the V6 Honda Odyssey which is worth disabling.
- GaryBluto 8mo agoTwo separate things can occur without relation.
- ppap3 8mo agoAu contraire The guy is slick. Sleight of hand trick. A magician makes you look where they want while the magic happens elsewhere. I would be surprised if he was not in charge in 2030 still. It seems everybody else ate too much plastic too be able to think straight. At this point I would be surprised if he wasn't still there in 2036. Unrelated, but it reminds me that he captured maduro, and Chavez and maduro were able to stay in charge by destroying the Congress, support of lobbying companies and accusing other parties of corruption and frauding the elections. Because of that, like many others. He was able to push elections far from view and there was always a war to be fought or an enemy to defend against. At some point, I kid you not, those guys accursed every single immigrant living in Venezuela of being a conspirator. All those who questioned any of this were accused of treason and the army was right there to defend the president. Sorry I mean country. Maduro lost too much gas to keep it going
- ndsipa_pomu 8mo agoI'd be surprised if he lives that long. He's clearly declining quickly.
- ppap3 8mo agoI hope not. It might be worse if it happens.
- mothballed 8mo ago>Reversing the finding would reduce automobile manufacturers' spending by $2,400 per vehicle, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters. If this is true, that is a monstrous 5% of an average new vehicle. And it's not just the cost of the vehicle, emissions equipment also can make the vehicle slightly less reliable, especially diesel engines, so it's likely to reduce the cost of vehicles by more than the initial 5%. ----- edit since I am throttled ----- I know for a fact the prices are lower non-emission vs emission. I own a tractor that is detuned 0.1 HP under the emission limit and with zero emissions controls. They sell the exact same tractor with the exact same engine with a fuel screw turned up over the limit to increase hp, plus emissions controls, and it's about $4,000 more. Manufacturers absolutely will charge more for emissions models than non-emissions models.
- ceejayoz 8mo agoNow do the cost of unchecked emissions. (And Leavitt is hardly a reputable source.)
- insane_dreamer 8mo agoWonderful. And will these amazing cost savings offset the costs of future disasters related to climate change? Or are we taking more of "the band played on" Titanic approach, now?
- fragmede 8mo agohttps://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995 https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995
- xorbax 8mo agoSo what? Are you fantasizing that they'll reduce the price of cars because of this and somehow benefit people? And they'd have to take the time to redesign. And Democrats will (hopefully) reinstate it in a few years, and carmakers probably recognize that. Along with the threat of legal challenges by environmental groups. And, further, if we eventually do get these inefficient polluting cars - who's going to want to buy them? They certainly wouldn't be able to sell them in same countries. Seems pointless overall for carmakers, generally. Just a gift to polluting corporations and billionaires who want profit at our expense.
- insane_dreamer 8mo agoOf all the terrible things that the Trump Admin has done, this is perhaps the worst of all, with the gravest repercussions for humanity. But who cares about science, or humanity for that matter, so long as big companies can increase their profits and keep greasing the wheels of corrupt politicians!
- mothballed 8mo agoI doubt it will end up accomplishing much more than letting 'delete' kits go legal again which have relatively weak penetration into the market. 3 years isn't enough runway to start manufacturing things without emissions unless they can get green-light to import foreign models that fast, which due to protectionism will probably get delayed as much as the admin can.
- insane_dreamer 8mo agoIt’s not just cars, it’s everything else
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- Taikonerd 8mo agoThis is awful news. I mean, presumably some future Democratic administration will reinstate the rule. But with this precedent set, this might become a switch that turns on and off every time the political winds change. When Republicans are in power, the US will do nothing at all to fight climate change. When Democrats are in power, they will belatedly try to undo the damage. And of course there will be knock-on effects from other countries. Why should (for example) Mexico do anything at all to fight global warming, when the US (which is much richer, and a much larger polluter) declines to help?
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- nerdsniper 8mo agoIt sucks that Congress don't do their job of making reasonable laws. I hate that the executive and judicial branches have to do so much work that should be done by Congress.
- wahern 8mo ago> I hate that the executive and judicial branches have to do so much work that should be done by Congress. In recent years the Supreme Court has turned against the use of regulatory agency rule making authority to stretch the meaning of older statutes and accomplish what Congress is too gridlocked to do. Most notably was the 2022 decision striking down Obama-era EPA power plant carbon emission limits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_v._EPA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_v._EPA), but there are many other decisions in a similar vein (e.g. overturning Chevron), and more coming down the pipe (see https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/10/supreme-court-allows-epa-emissions-rule-to-stand-while-litigation-continues/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/10/supreme-court-allows-epa-...). Between SCOTUS decisions limiting how older statutes can be reinterpreted to encompass global warming on the one hand, and fundamental economic incentives on the other (the West Virginia decision didn't result in a rush back to coal), this move by the Trump administration is unlikely to change the course of things, except to perhaps spur Congress to involve itself more heavily one way or the other. Rather than handwringing, the left needs to finally accept that relying on lawsuits and aggressive Federal regulatory agencies, rather than the ballot boxes (plural--not just the presidential election), to enact their social and environmental policies is no longer viable. But it's going to be a difficult change because the Democrats sacrificed a ton of grass roots support (real, substantive support, as opposed to professional class and social media popularity contests) as they came to rely almost exclusively on imaginative legalistic and technocratic solutions, an evolution that started decades before the courts took their sharp conservative turn. I, for one, invite diminished environmental regulatory agencies. In so far as it concerns global warming, renewable energy, and land use (e.g. mass transit, housing, etc), they've become impediments much more than enablers of (net) environmentally friendly change. What does it matter if an agency favors one set of policies over another when it takes years if not decades for projects to make it through the thicket of red tape? For energy policy specifically, the economics favor renewables, so less regulation can only hasten the transition.
- dctoedt 8mo agoGOP dēlenda est.
- hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 8mo agoPeople are worried about AGI, I am worried what will happen if we don't achieve AGI.
- gcr 8mo agoThe idea that AGI will care to fix this, or that the US government will allow an AGI who wants to fix this to exist, feels a little like escapism to me.
- asacrowflies 8mo agoThe idea that the us government (OR ANY HUMAN)would have any control over AGI at all is silly.
- dangus 8mo agoHow do computers in a data center stop humans from rolling up with the keys to the building and turning off the power?
- bamboozled 8mo agoComputers that can out think you? Doesn't seem hard to imagine how that might play out ?
- dangus 8mo agoThen why don’t you imagine that and tell me instead of just making a comment that says “nuh uh!” I submit the idea that even if the AI can electronically secure the building, lock the doors, and has automatic defensive weapons, humans can physically cut power as in cut power lines. Or they just stop feeding the power plant with fuel. The computers don’t exist in physical space like humans do. Humans would also not ever design critical physical systems without overrides. E.g., your MacBook physically disconnects the microphone when the lid is shut. No software can override that.
- user____name 8mo agoOne theory is that since China "won" the green energy race, the current US regime plans are to keep others dependent on oil and hence US shale, which would explain Trumps asinine comments about EU wind power. Not sure I buy it, but it seems to fit the bigger picture.
- bamboozled 8mo agoI have a feeling you're right, and I actually think the rest of the world will continue to move on with renewables just because they're cheap, effective and reduce dependency on terrorist petro states.
- scoofy 8mo agoElections have consequences. The American center has been lulled into thinking that nothing matters. It honestly feels like we are adrift at sea, nobody sensible is in change, and there is little way to get back in control of our destiny. I suppose this is what it felt like for most sensible folks for most of history before liberal democracy took hold.
- egonschiele 8mo agoTruly maddening how we have not been able to come together as one during this critical time.
- KylerAce 8mo agoThe time is critical because the only time in American history we've been more divided was arguably in the lead up to the civil war
- tw04 8mo agoBut that’s not what is happening. The Republican Party is following project 2025 almost to a t. Their goal is a complete dismantling of government because they think the country should be ruled, not governed. A lack of government functioning isn’t a dysfunction, it is an active plan perpetrated by the absolute worst kinds of people And if you feel disillusioned and like “government doesn’t work” - that’s by design by exactly one party. The democrats frequently don’t help themselves, likely because they know they still need money to win elections. But they aren’t actively trying to subvert democracy. Ultimately we either overturn citizens united, and ban basically all lobbying, or the only way i see this ending is unfortunately through violence. Over the last two months I think a lot of Republican representatives are starting to feel the same way.
- anon291 8mo agoLiterally it doesn't matter though. The answer to carbon emissions is market based. Solar and batteries are cheaper due to the normal cadence of technical improvements. Global climate change is something that will be fixed by technology. It's 2025... You'd think malthusian thinking does decades ago, but I guess not
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- davesque 8mo agoI continue to be confused as to how one dimwit can make so many consequential decisions for all of us. And we just have to sit here like idiots and can't seem to do anything about it.
- halJordan 8mo agoBecause it isn't just one person? And I'm being serious right now, if all you contribute and believe is that the dude who got himself elected leader of the free world is a simpleton dimwit: You are the Problem
- Fezzik 8mo agoI don’t think anyone believes that in its entirety. But if you don’t think green house gases are a problem you are, on that topic, a dimwit.
- davesque 8mo agoIt's not hard to imagine that he did this on a whim; that's his nature. He does it all the time, including with important economic policy, such as tariffs. Impulsively making important decisions without a sound reasoning process is dimwitted behavior. Isn't it obvious that Trump is an impulsive decision maker?
- Fezzik 8mo agoBecause a bunch of other dimwits voted for him and then another group of dimwits have no scruples and are too scared to stand-up to him and then these other dimwits… you get the point.
- rsynnott 8mo agoIt's not really _supposed_ to work that way, but as it turns out, the safeguards against it working that way don't really work properly. See also Weimar Germany in particular, but more generally most failed democracies; it's usually due to an insufficient structure.
- jfengel 8mo agoIt's supposed to be the work of 535 dimwits, but each half of those 535 spends its time ensuring that the other half doesn't get anything done. So the executive branch has assumed a lot of functions that by right belong to the legislative branch. That's not great, but it has mostly worked out, because the executive branch is made up mostly of bureaucratic civil servants who really just want to do their jobs. There were always appointed political functionaries at the top of the departments, who in theory had a ton of power but in practice frequently deferred to the subject matter experts within the department. But that was always tenuous, and now that has broken. Which means that a single dimwit can override all of the experts. They always could, but were generally smart enough not to.
- exidy 8mo agoAs a non-American this seems very similar to what happened with Roe vs Wade. > With a divided Congress unable to agree on legislation to tackle rising global temperatures, the EPA finding became central to federal efforts to rein in emissions in the years that followed. Trying to get the right outcome via (arguably) the wrong process has left these policy initiatives sitting on wobbly foundations and subject to reversal. Moreover, it provides ammunition for those who would rally their base with criticism of the "technocratic elite." Easier said than done, but Americans need to fix their democracy. If the majority of Americans want action on climate change then Congress must reflect and enact the will of the people.
- SilverBirch 8mo agoTo be honest, this is the inevitable downstream result of the dysfunction in US government. If you can't get your policy positions legislated and instead use executive power to regulate through things like the EPA you have to assume those regulations will be reversed by the next executive. It's the same sort of dangerous game the GOP has played by trying to legislate through novel arguments in the Supreme Court - yes you get what you want today, but longer term all you're doing is establishing that the Supreme Court change just dictate policy based on political positions. All of these novel approaches weaken the democratic core of American government.