EPA: The Government Needs to Tell Car Makers What to Build

[Gone4Good]

These processes are not well understood, and we certainly don't know them with enough certainty to warrant the destruction of the livelihood of millions of people and to degrade the quality of life for the remainder.

What if you're wrong?

 

[unclemick]

What if you're wrong?

Easter Island.

Even though Firebird 2015 was voted by some as one of the 50 worst movies ever - I always liked that Night Stalker guy.

I hope to live long enough for 'The Earth Rise Over The Moon' to become popular again.

heh heh heh - let's hope the blue marble stays blue. .

 

[Midpack]

These processes are not well understood, and we certainly don't know them with enough certainty to warrant the destruction of the livelihood of millions of people and to degrade the quality of life for the remainder.

What if you're wrong?

 

[samclem]

Ummmm, ok, but that wasn't my point. The quote is from the EPA press release and I used it just to show that methane was one of the gasses covered by their rule (in response to an earlier post of yours).

It might not have been your point, but it was the EPA's point. It is inaccurate information from the EPA about a fundamental issue in which they now claim to have some expertise. This fundamental mistake does not inspire confidence in those about to feel the lash of their regulatory zeal.

What if you're wrong?

What if they are wrong? This is not just about something trivial like choosing a Prius over a Buick. The proposed regulations are going to cost hundreds of billions of dollars. That' is money that is not available for other uses, and some of these uses save lives, reduce human suffering, and make the tme we have on this lovely blue orb more enjoyable.

We need to know a lot more about these climate systems before deciding on a course of action, especially a drastic one like this. "Doing something" for its own sake is stupid, and possibly counterproductive. While it might seem that "just" reducing US burning of coal and oil is the conservative, safe thing to do, it could actually make things worse. Is it at least possible that reduced US demand for fossil fuels would lower the price sufficiently worldwide so that more of it gets burned in China and other places that use it less efficiently? Will these low prices speed or hinder the development and fielding of more efficient electricity production and use technology in the developing countries?

It is the government that is proposing the action, so the onus to prove that their actions are beneficial and worth the cost is on them. In my view, they are nowhere near meeting the threshold.

 

[Gone4Good]

What if they are wrong?

I don't ever expect my house to burn down but I buy fire insurance nonetheless.

Now I'm not a climatetologist, and I suspect you aren't either, so I don't consider myself qualified to render an informed opinion about whether climate change is real, or not (no matter how many politically motivated web sites I visit). It does seem to me, though, that most of the people who study this for a living generally come down on one side of the argument (from Wiki) . . .

With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[68]

Despite this, statements by individual scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming do include claims that the observed warming is likely to be attributable to natural causes.

So if most of the people who study this for a living say its real, I'll take their word for it. The question then becomes one of cost and benefit. Certainly hyperbole abound on both sides. And the truth is you don't know that the "proposed regulations will cost hundreds of billions of dollars" because the critical portions that will determine compliance costs haven't been decided yet (like whether carbon credits will be auctioned or allocated, what the emission limit is and how it changes over time, what industries are covered, etc. etc). So maybe a deep breath is in order.

But if "no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change" then it would seem prudent to try and change our behavior to reduce our impact. Paying something today to do that sounds like a reasonable idea.

 

[Zathras]

As does CO2.

This is true, CO2 does self regulate. The problem is the self regulation takes decades to centuries.
With CO2 we are capable of adding enough so that the levels increase faster than earth's natural capability to reabsorb it.
So nature's regulation of it will work eventually, it won't happen before the potential damage happens.

 

[haha]

"Doing something" for its own sake is stupid, and possibly counterproductive.

Well then that is certainly what the government will do. A clear mandate!

Ha

 

[samclem]

Paying something today to do that sounds like a reasonable idea.

So, you are in favor of "doing something." That's a very popular position.

I'm not willing to defer to the "experts" ("The science clearly shows that concentrations of these gases are at unprecedented levels" Ha!). As you correctly point out, we're now talking about national policy, cost/benefit, tradeoffs, and the very real possibility that a US reduction in fossil fuel use will result in greater anthropogenic additions of CO2 to the environment overall.

This "problem" of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is clearly amenable to an individual market-based solution--there's no particular advantage or moral basis for collective mandatory government action. Those who believe there's something to this stuff can make personal decisions to cut their own carbon footprint, and feel good in the bargain. But some people want to force this on everyone at tremendous cost, while they eschew personal actions to make a difference. We had one presidential candidate like that-- made a killing in the Global Warming show circuit, wanted laws to force everyone into his hairshirted vision of a low carbon nirvana, but enjoyed a lifestyle that used more than twenty times the national average for residential electricity. Yet, he was and is a hero to many. Incredible.

 

[unclemick]

Sooo - are cow farts in sub Saharan Africa really 26 times worst(methane/CO2 wise) than some Rain Forest burning in the Amazon?

I feel a Red Bead Experiment and a Global model being funded - any day now.

I'm sure we have some little bitty ones that could really use an infusion of big research $.

heh heh heh - and to think I rode to ER on the Space Program. I really love the American taxpayer. Thank you so much. .

 

[Abreutime]

We need to know a lot more about these climate systems before deciding on a course of action, especially a drastic one like this. "Doing something" for its own sake is stupid, and possibly counterproductive. While it might seem that "just" reducing US burning of coal and oil is the conservative, safe thing to do, it could actually make things worse. Is it at least possible that reduced US demand for fossil fuels would lower the price sufficiently worldwide so that more of it gets burned in China and other places that use it less efficiently? Will these low prices speed or hinder the development and fielding of more efficient electricity production and use technology in the developing countries?

Interesting theory. I wonder if this is being considered by lawmakers in the US. Drastic domestic reductions may be a subsidy for our less efficient neighbors.

 

[FinanceDude]

So if most of the people who study this for a living say its real, I'll take their word for it. The question then becomes one of cost and benefit. Certainly hyperbole abound on both sides. And the truth is you don't know that the "proposed regulations will cost hundreds of billions of dollars" because the critical portions that will determine compliance costs haven't been decided yet (like whether carbon credits will be auctioned or allocated, what the emission limit is and how it changes over time, what industries are covered, etc. etc). So maybe a deep breath is in order.

But if "no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change" then it would seem prudent to try and change our behavior to reduce our impact. Paying something today to do that sounds like a reasonable idea.

I think 5 of the worst polluted cities in the world are in China. Yet, by the provisions of the Kyoto treaty, they don't have to cut emissions. Why does the US have to blow apart its own GDP and the most populous country in the world gets a free pass?

 

[armor99]

Why does the US have to blow apart its own GDP and the most populous country in the world gets a free pass?

Because you forget the most important philosophical tenant of many in the govt today. And that is, whoever is poorer or seen as more downtrodden, is always right. And whoever is richer or more powerful, is considered wrong and imperialist. Does not really matter what the facts were.

 

[USK Coastie]

Comrades,Comrades
India and China are the worlds biggest polluters and will not be required to reduce emissions under Kyoto treaty. All of the EU countries that signed on to this farce have failed to meet their emissions targets despite regulations and taxes on industry.

Other than growing government and raising taxes what will the EPA accomplish with this? Unless all economies on the planet adopt the same regulations how do we decrease emissions world wide? I know we'll let the UN run the program. Maybe I can get a job in the Carbon Offset for Food program

I can hardly wait until I can get another Fiat 128/Yugo to travel the USA in as I did in the 1970's

 

[Westernskies]

Other than growing government and raising taxes what will the EPA accomplish with this?

What else would they need to accomplish? This might be the first case on record of the EPA actually doing what it was mandated to do...

 

[ERD50]

I don't ever expect my house to burn down but I buy fire insurance nonetheless.

Not an applicable analogy at all.

We know that houses do burn down. We have a reasonable assurance that the insurance company will pay for the damage if we pay out premiums and are not fraudulent. We have evidence and a history of this.

When it comes to climate change, we don't know:

A) How much is natural (IPCC says some/most is man-made over X time period... what does that really mean?)....

B) Of the amount that is man-made, how much is "that train left the station", and cutting back now has no/little effect?

C) What will be the effect of changes we make now? And as shown in other posts, how many of those changes will actually be counter-productive, creating more emissions world-wide?

D) What will be the effect of NOT making changes (related to B above)?

Has the IPCC updated it's predictions on sea level rise for the various scenarios? The last time I posted on that topic, they predicted a 16.5" rise if we do nothing, and a 13" rise if we take extreme measures. If either scenario comes to pass, we need to adapt - to either 13" or 16.5". BTW, their predictions had so much unknown in them, that the ranges for the scenarios over-lapped - so we might take extreme measures and get 18" of sea level rise, and that fits their model. So we won't even know if those actions really helped. It's a little like doing a rain dance when there is a 75% chance of rain predicted - when it starts raining, did the rain dance help?

Seems that instead of flying around the country telling other people to plug in a CFL, we ought to make plans to move people out of places like NOLA over the next 50-100 years. We can do that without massive evacuations, just start doing a build out now. That seems to get ignored, like plug in a CFL and the problem goes away, but that is NOT what the IPCC says.

So "just do something, just in case" is a poor answer, IMO, and in the opinion of these scientists that speak on the matter.

-ERD50

 

[armor99]

Interesting conversation. For many people.... they rate their actions based on their intention.... and not the result. I think that is what is going on here. People that subscribe to the philosophy of "I want to do GOOD so I want to take action here", feel the need to "do something". From their point of view, the "something" is somewhat irrelavant. To them.... the results are not really important, it was the intent that their actions would have a positive outcome that was important. This philosophy is made very clear even in elementary school, where for some events, every child is given a trophy. The message being, "it does not matter if you succeeded... just that you tried".

For myself, and I imagine their are others, I only rate my actions on the results that they produce. If I was a medical scientist that created a new vaccine, I would want to make sure it would cure, and not harm my patients. It was the result and not the intention that would give me the feeling that, "I had done some good". I would really like to see more brain power devoted to attempting to figure out the long term effects of whatever it is people are proposing to do. Just like the medical scientist I would want to be as confident as possible that the "result" would not become more harmfull than expected.

 

[Gone4Good]

I think 5 of the worst polluted cities in the world are in China. Yet, by the provisions of the Kyoto treaty, they don't have to cut emissions. Why does the US have to blow apart its own GDP and the most populous country in the world gets a free pass?

A global problem calls for a global solution . . . no complaint from me there.

 

[Gone4Good]

I'm not willing to defer to the "experts".

Science? We don't need no stinking science.

the very real possibility that a US reduction in fossil fuel use will result in greater anthropogenic additions of CO2 to the environment overall.

This sounds like poorly reasoned economics. So the argument is that a reduction in US fossil fuel demand reduces the price of fossil fuels (check), and that the reduced price encourages others to burn fossil fuels (check). But then the argument completely ignores that increased foreign demand will increase the price of fossil fuels. It's not possible to have greater demand, and lower prices, just because the U.S. is burning less. This makes no sense at all.

Differences in efficiency won't explain it either, because the less efficient plants simply burn more fuel (i.e. demand more).

 

[samclem]

I'm not willing to defer to the "experts" ("The science clearly shows that concentrations of these gases are at unprecedented levels" Ha!).
samclem

Science? We don't need no stinking science.

Science can have experts. We're not talking about science here, we're talking about policy. And when it comes to the environment, "policy expert" is the semantic equivalent of "partisan politician."

This sounds like poorly reasoned economics. So the argument is that a reduction in US fossil fuel demand reduces the price of fossil fuels (check), and that the reduced price encourages others to burn fossil fuels (check). But then the argument completely ignores that increased foreign demand will increase the price of fossil fuels. It's not possible to have greater demand, and lower prices, just because the U.S. is burning less. This makes no sense at all.

Differences in efficiency won't explain it either, because the less efficient plants simply burn more fuel (i.e. demand more).

It's not poorly reasoned. If the US is burning the fossil fuels, we do it more efficiently than do the Chinese, the Indians, or the Russians (by whatever measure you want to use: product value per lb of coal burned, BTU produced per lb of carbon released, etc.) So, if the US is burning the fossil fuels, there is more product per lb of carbon released. If the Chinese burn it, the world either has more carbon released to produce the same value of goods, or the world receives fewer goods with the same CO2 release. Neither result is an improvement, in my view. And then there is this: If the US burns the cheap, easy-to-get fossil fuels available now, we get the benefit of the cheaper energy (that's you and me--through lower fuel costs directly and more productive industries=more jobs for Americans, better return on our investments). If the Chinese burn the fuel, they not only pollute more (see above), but they get these benefits. This is still a competitive world, and I am not ashamed to say that we should not deliberately put ourselves at a competitive disadvantage. Green energy is expensive, there is no clearly evident way that any kind of government sponsored alternative fuel program is going to lead to a more productive economy any more than if we suddenly decided that everyone would write and function as a left handed person. We could employ lots of people building new golf clubs and scissors for the "new handedness," and surgeries would take twice as long, so we'd employ more surgeons. There might be a lot of payback in terms of greater societal empathy for challenges faced by left handed people, but all the "new" jobs add zero value to the economy, since we aren't producing anything (goods or services) of greater value than we did before. Same with energy production--doing something differently and less efficiently (i.e. same output but at greater cost) produces no benefit to society from an economic standpoint.

Now, I understand about uncaptured externalized costs and the use of carbon fuel. It only makes sense to address those in a global fashion so as not to reward those players who care least about the problem. When we have a structure like that, then it may make sense to pay the price. But paying the price just to feel good and be worse off for it is ---dumb.