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

[samclem]

Yesterday I heard this NPR interview with the new EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson. There's no doubt about her vision for government's role.
-- First she glosses over the immense costs of her decision to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. The Clean Air Act, which EPA is using as the legal vehicle to implement these CO2 limits, is entirely inappropriate. That Act is designed to address air quality on a regional basis--when, say, carbon monoxide levels in LA are at unsafe levels, the government is allowed to step in to limit sources of CO, until the level are reduced to safe levels in that area. So, how can this possibly work with CO2? Putting aside the whole (huge) issue of whether CO2 is a health threat, the CO2 levels are the result of worldwide CO2 production (natural and manmade). EPA restrictions on US CO2 output will not have any impact on Chinese or Russian CO2 emissions, so I guess the more they put out, the higher the levels will go and the more the EPA will issue fines to ranchers and everyone else in the US who produces CO2. "You boys cut that out! Billy, if you throw another mudball I'm going to spank your brother!"

-- At about 3:05 in the intervew she starts into the auto industry. (Paraphrased) "We need a single national roadmap . . . that tells automakers what type of cars that they need to building for the American people". Really. I thought the American people got to communicate this directly to the automakers through their purchasing decisions. I don't think the American people want the government taking away their voice in this issue. The (sympathetic) NPR interviewer asks if that's really the government's proper role, "it doesn't sound like free enterprise." EPA Adminstrator Jackson's response has to be heard to be believed.

At least no one can claim to be surprised about where we are heading.

 

[Abreutime]

Everyone needs to hold their breath, together, for 30 seconds. All you FIREd folks can do sets of 4, every hour.

 

[Abreutime]

"Well... It it it is free enterprise in a way. Um, you know, first and foremost the free enterprise system has us where we are now <chuckle chuckle snort> and so some would argue that the government already has a much larger role than we might have when Henry Ford when rolled the first cars off the assembly line." Then she says we do indeed need new laws.

Yes, these regulations are the embodiment of free enterprise. She can't even make that argument without laughing.

 

[nwsteve]

Samclem
Thanks for posting this. I have already fired off emails to my Senators that they need to bring this progress under control or they will find Lisa Jackson running the show.
If you review her bio and articles you will find her as one of the more radical enviromental advocates for govenment control of all things.
nwsteve

 

[armor99]

Yup... a crisis is always the time when certain people will try to seize as much govt power as they can. They will swear to you that it is only "for your own good". From what I have seen of our elected officials, I do not believe them to be so much smarter than me or anyone else.

So let's see here... the govt gets to tell US automakers what sorts of cars they are allowed to make. If that happens to coincide with what people WANT to buy, then that will go well. But what if to meet govt decrees the automakers come up with a whole line of gas efficient green cars that are uglier than the pontiac Aztek, and take 15 sec to get to 60mph? Does the govt then start making laws that US citizens can ONLY buy US cars? Or make the import taxes on foreign cars so high that we are forced to buy US anyway?

Where the govt intrudes the free market dies... that is the truth of it. Personally I hope they all go bankrupt as they should. Then maybe younger, stronger, smaller auto companies will take their place. There are many small auto companies in the US that would love to be able to fill that void... and no govt coersion or tax dollars would be needed to MAKE it happen...

 

[Zathras]

So let's see here... the govt gets to tell US automakers what sorts of cars they are allowed to make.

No, the government is telling the car companies that they must make something. That is inclusive of anything else they want to build as long as it meets safety and environmental regulations (which has been the case for decades).
The whole argument is based on a false premise.

 

[Gone4Good]

-- First she glosses over the immense costs of her decision to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. T

Don't you worry. They're getting ready for that fight.

Just so you know what to expect in terms of a cost / benefit threshold, here is what Obama said this Wednesday . . .

If the temperature of the planet goes up five degrees, you're now looking at coastlines under water. You're now looking at huge, cataclysmic hurricanes, complete changes in weather patterns. Some places will get hotter; some places will get colder.

Our economy would be disrupted by tens of trillions of dollars.

CNN.com - Transcripts

 

[Gone4Good]

The Clean Air Act, which EPA is using as the legal vehicle to implement these CO2 limits, is entirely inappropriate.

Didn't the Supreme Court tell the EPA it had to regulate green house gases?

In one of its most important environmental decisions in years, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases in automobile emissions. The court further ruled that the agency could not sidestep its authority to regulate the greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change unless it could provide a scientific basis for its refusal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/washington/03scotus.html

The Bush EPA slow walked the requirement and the Obama EPA fast tracked it. Ultimately I don't think EPA regulation is the end game. Any regulation that comes out of the EPA will be tied up in the courts for decades. That's not what the administration wants. Instead they are using the threat of EPA regulation to coax and coerce recalcitrant Congressmen from coal heavy states to support legislation that is presumably more agreeable than what the EPA might do.

 

[Midpack]

Yup... a crisis is always the time when certain people will try to seize as much govt power as they can. They will swear to you that it is only "for your own good". From what I have seen of our elected officials, I do not believe them to be so much smarter than me or anyone else.

So let's see here... the govt gets to tell US automakers what sorts of cars they are allowed to make. If that happens to coincide with what people WANT to buy, then that will go well. But what if to meet govt decrees the automakers come up with a whole line of gas efficient green cars that are uglier than the pontiac Aztek, and take 15 sec to get to 60mph? Does the govt then start making laws that US citizens can ONLY buy US cars? Or make the import taxes on foreign cars so high that we are forced to buy US anyway?

Where the govt intrudes the free market dies... that is the truth of it. Personally I hope they all go bankrupt as they should. Then maybe younger, stronger, smaller auto companies will take their place. There are many small auto companies in the US that would love to be able to fill that void... and no govt coersion or tax dollars would be needed to MAKE it happen...

Mandating mpg via CAFE or forcing automakers to build efficient cars won't work by themselves - it's just more doing things for appearances or other reasons from the same brilliant folks who brought you E85.

We need to increase the cost of gasoline 50¢ gallon every year until it's $4-5/gallon. The higher cost will be via federal gas taxes imposed at the pump. And then the free market will work in our long term interests.

1. If we do nothing, gas will become more expensive, ultimately much more expensive - not a question of if, just when.
2. And we have a revenue shortfall now, and it is only going to get worse with the current recession, increasing deficits/debt and runaway entitlement programs. We are all going to be taxed more anyway, so we might as well accomplish something specific like energy policy while we are at it. If it's unfair to low-income folks, that can be offset with via income tax rates.

Buyers will know gas prices are going to increase steadily, which will induce them to demand more efficient cars and thereby induce automakers to build more efficient cars. Consumers and manufacturers will have the opportunity (adequate time) to adjust accordingly, instead of waiting for the next sudden increase in gas costs where US automakers don't have the products people suddenly demand (again). Higher gas costs have caused this behavior all over the world - in Europe and most of Asia. What is the downside of reducing our dependence on foreign oil? Flame away...

 

[armor99]

No, the government is telling the car companies that they must make something. That is inclusive of anything else they want to build as long as it meets safety and environmental regulations (which has been the case for decades).
The whole argument is based on a false premise.

Just a shell game.... The govt will set up the safety and environmental laws in such a way to ensure what sort of cars they are making. Consider this analogy. Imagine a chess board. The govt says you can move your pieces any way you want, as long as you follow a very long and complex set of rules. I would suspect that by the time you got through reading all of the rules involved of what you could NOT do, you would discover in short order that there was only a path or two left in which your pieces could move.

Or to put this more simply, the govt would be pulling a Henry Ford "Any colour - so long as it's black." when referring to his Model T.

 

[Gone4Good]

We need to increase the cost of gasoline 50¢ gallon every year until it's $4-5/gallon. The higher cost will be via federal gas taxes imposed at the pump. And then the free market will work in our long term interests.

No self respecting politician is ever going to vote for something so transparent as a gasoline tax. That's just crazy talk. Every time people fill up their tank they'll be reminded of why they're not going to vote for you in the next election. It's much better to support a Cap and Trade program under which industry buys emission allowances from the government, or from other industrials who have banked vintage credits, that allow for a pre-determined, and declining, aggregate amount of emissions thereby inducing scarcity and encouraging investments in cleaner technology or certain designated carbon offset projects.

 

[Zathras]

Just a shell game.... The govt will set up the safety and environmental laws in such a way to ensure what sort of cars they are making.

So why haven't they done this already with the environmental and safety regulations in place now?
Yes, there will be higher CAFE standards. No, I don't see the government telling anyone they can't build a hummer or something of that sort.

 

[samclem]

Instead they are using the threat of EPA regulation to coax and coerce recalcitrant Congressmen from coal heavy states to support legislation that is presumably more agreeable than what the EPA might do.

Ah, so the EPA will make up and then enforce bizarre and crippling regulations as a means to maybe get Congress to tell them to do things in a less crazy way. Meanwhile, while the game continues, where does that leave all of us who drive cars, ride trains, use electricity, and participate in the real economic activities in this country? Just pawns in the game, I suppose. The EPA has adopted the "we had to destroy the village to save it" technique.

I've heard others say EPA was doing this to hold the economy and public hostage to get Congress to write a law the administration likes. It just seems to be the most cynical tactic imaginable.

We recently had a candidate who decried the cynicism of Washington and said he was going to change it. Where did that man go? I guess "change" could be an increase or a decrease.

 

[samclem]

Didn't the Supreme Court tell the EPA it had to regulate green house gases?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/washington/03scotus.html

The Bush EPA slow walked the requirement and the Obama EPA fast tracked it.

If the court mandates that the EPA do something impossible, then I'd hope the executive branch would take steps to at least do something reasonable. And, clearly, enacting meaningful regulations on the most significant greenhouse gasses is impossible. Water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas (per unit and cumulatively) than is CO2--it is responsible for approximately 95% of the greenhouse effect. CO2 contributes approximately 3.6%, while methane contributes about 0.36%--but each unit of methane warms the earth 21 times as much as each unit of CO2. Now, we can debate as to whether (weather?) the water vapor is a forcing a feedback function, but there's no doubt that it is in the atmosphere heating things up, and by God the EPA should be doing something about that! And the methane! Why the hell the EPA has not clamped down on the sale of beans is quite beyond me.

Maybe the former EPA chief was simply trying to figue out how to comply with the idiotic SOCUS mandate. That seems like a brilliant course of action compared to butchering the economy for the sake of a political goal.

 

[Midpack]

No self respecting politician is ever going to vote for something so transparent as a gasoline tax. That's just crazy talk. Every time people fill up their tank they'll be reminded of why they're not going to vote for you in the next election.

Fair enough, unless they tie the gas tax to offsets in income taxes. I concede there is no easy answer, but it's clear from Europe and parts of Asia that if gas costs more, people demand more efficient cars. How did politicians in Europe and parts of Asia do it without being thrown out? Probably broad energy policies with stated long term goals, so all politicians were unpopular for a time - they look smarter than we do right now, and they certainly did last summer.

It's frustrating to think our politicians might play with CAFE or just force automakers to supply more efficient cars without doing anything to get customers to demand more efficient cars. People who bought Suburbans & Excursion walked right by Cavaliers, Aveos and Focus(es) to do so. Just forcing automakers to make small cars will kill off the D3 for sure with the next gas price spike if not sooner, and gas will go up --- not if, just when...

 

[Independent]

No self respecting politician is ever going to vote for something so transparent as a gasoline tax. That's just crazy talk. Every time people fill up their tank they'll be reminded of why they're not going to vote for you in the next election. It's much better to support a Cap and Trade program under which industry buys emission allowances from the government, or from other industrials who have banked vintage credits, that allow for a pre-determined, and declining, aggregate amount of emissions thereby inducing scarcity and encouraging investments in cleaner technology or certain designated carbon offset projects.

As far as I know, there is one exception. The Online Office of Congressman John B. Larson - AMERICA'S ENERGY SECURITY TRUST FUND

This bill would impose a per-unit tax on the carbon dioxide content of fossil fuels beginning at a rate of $15 per metric ton of CO2 and increasing by 10% each year,

Only 267 to go!

I'm sure that opponents of cap-and-trade will point out that it would increase gasoline, natural gas, electricity, and lots of other prices. I'll agree that cap-and-trade has more political legs. But I think that a simple carbon tax is much better public policy, and I'm not sure that it's that much tougher politically. I'd sure like to see someone with more clout try pushing the tax idea.

 

[Gone4Good]

Water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas (per unit and cumulatively) than is CO2--it is responsible for approximately 95% of the greenhouse effect. CO2 contributes approximately 3.6%, while methane contributes about 0.36%--but each unit of methane warms the earth 21 times as much as each unit of CO2. Now, we can debate as to whether (weather?) the water vapor is a forcing a feedback function, but there's no doubt that it is in the atmosphere heating things up, and by God the EPA should be doing something about that! And the methane! Why the hell the EPA has not clamped down on the sale of beans is quite beyond me.

EPA’s proposed endangerment finding is based on rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific analysis of six gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride – that have been the subject of intensive analysis by scientists around the world. The science clearly shows that concentrations of these gases are at unprecedented levels as a result of human emissions, and these high levels are very likely the cause of the increase in average temperatures and other changes in our climate.

So methane is covered.

My understanding is that human activity doesn't impact water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere, except by way of the positive feedback loop you mentioned.

 

[samclem]

The science clearly shows that concentrations of these gases are at unprecedented levels

This is inaccurate. There's nothing "unprecedented" about the present CO2 level, and these levels also are fairly poorly correlated with global temperatures. Over the last 250 milion years (see chart below) CO2 has averaged approx 1000 PPM. Today, the level stands at just 387 PPM. So, if the EPA now believes it has a mandate to "correct" the CO2 levels to what they were before man began producing it, they need to switch gears and embark on a campaign to double or triple C02 levels over the next decade.

Or, maybe the IPCC and the EPA have picked a particular moment as their CO2 baseline that represents an historic anomaly, a period of especially low CO2 levels. Why would they do that?

At any rate, the problem the EPA is supposed to be addressing is climate change, not CO2 levels. If water vapor causes climate change, then I demand they do something about water vapor, too. It's been a hundred days already--do something!! Another modest proposal: It's time to put the robber baron oil companies to work reducing global warming. Oil prices are low now, it is the perfect time to act. The plan: The government should buy and immediately release millions of gallons of fuel oil onto the world's oceans. This thin film of oil will immediately reduce the rate of evaporation from our oceans and begin the process of lowering earth's temperature. There's no more economical and effective way to slow the introduction of this greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. As anyone knows who has ever put a small amount of cooking oil into a floor drain to slow evaporation of the water from the trap, this idea will work. It should also be expected that the shimmery coating (aside from being darn pretty) will increase the albedo of the sea's surface, further reducing solar gain and concomitant temperature rise. Also, with governments buying up and dumping into the oceans millions of gallons of fuel, we can expect the price of fuel to go up--another win! Nothing reduces US production of greenhouse gases more effectively than higher fuel prices.

And, to solve two problems at once, I'd propose that we do our first release of fuel oil off the coast of Somalia. If a conflagration ensues, we may be rid of the pirates.

Or, to continue the precedent set by the administration and the EPA in this matter, we can take bold action that so seriously and adversely impacts others that they are moved to act. To do this, we just pump the oil into US waters and explain to our neighbors and the UN that we are doing what we can, in our own little way, to stop global warming close to home. This, hopefully, will prompt them to do something we want. I guess.

 

[Zathras]

If water vapor causes climate change, then I demand they do something about water vapor, too.

It does not.
Water vapor stays in the atmosphere for a period of days (as little as hours, possibly as much as a couple weeks).
We can put more water vapor in the air, and will get more rain somewhere else.
And since we can affect the amount of CO2 in the air, and can't affect the amount of water vapor that stays in the air for more than a few days, seems pretty straight forward.
I agree this is 'bigger' than anything the EPA has tried to address in the past.
However, the EPA has never regulated in the manner of 'you can't HAVE x pollutant in your air/water'. It has regulated HOW MUCH of a pollutant you can put into the air/water. It is doing the same thing here. Seem well within the standards to me.

 

[samclem]

It does not.

I'll agree that we don't know if water vapor provides a forcing function to TTFKAGWBNKACCBIIWSTOPIANGH*, or if it is feedback-driven. But it would be absolutely incorrect to say that the presence of water vapor does not result in higher global temperatures.

*The Thing Formerly Known as Global Warming But Now Known As Climate Change Because It Inconveniently Was Shown That Our Planet Is Apparently Not Getting Hotter.

 

[Midpack]

This is inaccurate. There's nothing "unprecedented" about the present CO2 level, and these levels also are fairly poorly correlated with global temperatures...To do this, we just pump the oil into US waters and explain to our neighbors and the UN that we are doing what we can, in our own little way, to stop global warming close to home. This, hopefully, will prompt them to do something we want. I guess.

Hilarious, thanks...

 

[Zathras]

But it would be absolutely incorrect to say that the presence of water vapor does not result in higher global temperatures.

Of course, that would be silly. Water vapor is the biggest contributor to our planet being warm enough to support our civilization.
But it would also be wrong to state or imply that adding water vapor to the atmospher has affects global mean temperatures.
Again, we can't add water vapor that will remain in the atmospher for more than a few days to weeks if we tried. Water vapor falls out of the atmosphere far too fast, while CO2 remains there for years/decades and Methane can remain for many decades, or even over a century.
Therefore there is no need to regulate water vapor as it regulates itself.

 

[DougViages]

My DW's 2000 Mercury Mountaineer has 145K miles on it, and an increasing amount of problems. We've beaten this 'iron horse' about as long as we can. We have researched smaller, fuel efficient, dependable vehicles which should reasonably maintain their value as replacements . Guess what, that research, with the help of Consumer Reports reviews, eliminated GM and Chrysler completely in these categories.

Yesterday we looked at Ford, Nissan, Honda, Toyota, and Subaru. The Ford Focus got a short glance, she just didn't think that it compared with the other vehicles (I drive a Mercury Milan, and like it, but she does not want to go that large.). I was especially surprised with "Domestic Content" statistics pasted to each vehicle; most of the vehicles that we looked at had 60 - 70% DC regardless of make. There were lots of fuel efficient options out there for us, the Govt doesn't need to 'command' anything IMHO.

 

[samclem]

Therefore there is no need to regulate water vapor as it regulates itself.

As does CO2. After all, this is not some trace "pollutant" that somehow just degrades, it is part of the fundamental carbon cycle of the planet. Higher CO2 levels lead to higher levels of photosynthesis --> lower atmospheric levels of CO2 (this is obviously oversimplified, there are many other factors including temperatures, nitrogen availabilty, etc.) There are homeostatic processes at work, and the present level of CO2 is the result of these processes as surely as the levels of H2O are the result of these processes.

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.

 

[Gone4Good]

This is inaccurate.

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).