Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States

EPA Issues New Rule To Curb Tailpipe Pollution, Fight Climate Change (theverge.com) 223

The Environmental Protection Agency issued a new rule today aimed at reducing tailpipe pollution from cars and light-duty trucks -- an effort by President Joe Biden to return to the fuel economy standards put in place by Barack Obama nearly a decade ago. From a report: Under the rule, passenger vehicles would be required to achieve an average of 55 miles of travel per gallon of gasoline (mpg) by 2026 -- slightly over Obama's goal of 54 mpg, but a major increase over the 38-mpg rule put in place by President Donald Trump. The EPA estimates the new standard would prevent the release of 3.1 billion tons of carbon dioxide through 2050 and will save car owners $420 billion in fuel costs. EPA Administrator Michael Regan called it "the most ambitious vehicle pollution standards for greenhouse gases ever established," adding, "The standards are achievable, affordable, and will deliver a significant pollution reduction." The new fuel economy standards are the latest effort by the Biden Administration to reduce air pollution in the broader fight against climate change. Earlier this month, Biden signed an executive order directing the federal government to spend billions of dollars to purchase electric vehicles, upgrade federal buildings, and leverage the power of the government to shift to cleaner forms of electricity.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EPA Issues New Rule To Curb Tailpipe Pollution, Fight Climate Change

Comments Filter:
  • by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Monday December 20, 2021 @04:18PM (#62100395) Journal

    an effort by President Joe Biden to return to the fuel economy standards put in place by Barack Obama nearly a decade ago [and loosened by Trump]

    Yay! An adult is in charge again. Under Don, anything that hurt big biz profits in the short term was "fake, rigged, or bugged".

    • by leonbev ( 111395 ) on Monday December 20, 2021 @04:45PM (#62100499) Journal

      Is a fleet average of 55 MPG even achievable by 2026? The only cars that can meet that standard now are full electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids. Even mid size hybrids would struggle to meet that MPG target, let alone non-hybrid vehicles.

      This really feels like greenwashing to me... grandiose statements that have no basis in reality.

      • by K. S. Kyosuke ( 729550 ) on Monday December 20, 2021 @05:14PM (#62100623)

        The only cars that can meet that standard now are full electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids.

        BEVs and PHEVs it is, then!

      • by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Monday December 20, 2021 @05:15PM (#62100625)

        Is a fleet average of 55 MPG even achievable by 2026?

        It's less efficient than my girlfriend's all gasoline car. Maybe in America where every car needs to be able to fit a normal European car on the back seat you may struggle to achieve it, but really it's not the size that matters.

        grandiose statements that have no basis in reality.

        Reality is that America has a sick fetish for oversized monster trucks, and no doubt there will be string of replies to this comment claiming safety or some other reason why those insane oversized tanks American cars are "necessary" for picking up groceries or dropping the kids to school.

      • Since the Obama administration was mandating 54 mpg by now, I'm guessing the manufacturers already have designs in the pipeline that can hit this target.
        • No, they planned for Obama's replacement to revise the CAFE standard down, and he did. Now they just need to get Biden's replacement in 2024 to do it again.

          • And if Obama's successor wouldn't have revised it, they would have just stopped selling cars then due to a lack of having a "Plan B" when "Plan A" is in no way a guarantee?

            What an unbelievably asinine statement that shows a total incomprehension of how to run a business.

            They very likely have designs that would achieve this, but haven't put them to production because of costs and insufficient demand for increased fuel economy. Sure, everyone likes spending less money on fuel, but not usually at the expense

      • Is a fleet average of 55 MPG even achievable by 2026?

        Yes. The 55 MPG is the AVERAGE. Not every car needs to get that mileage.

        The only cars that can meet that standard now are full electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids.

        That is how you do it. If half the cars sold in 2026 are EVs, that lowers the average enough to still make some gas guzzlers for the Slashdotters who will absolutely positively DIE if they have to stop for more than five minutes in the middle of an eight-hour road trip.

    • by BoB235423424 ( 6928344 ) on Monday December 20, 2021 @04:56PM (#62100547)

      If you make the goal too high, it increases the cost of new cars. If the cost increases enough, fewer new cars replace existing cars. The net result is the in service fleet average emissions remain higher than if there's more turn over with a more reasonable reduction. Pulling a mpg number out of your arse to make a political statement does not automatically improve things. It can make things worse than a more pragmatic number. But it does make you a hero to your political base. That is what matters after all...

      • If you make the goal too high, it increases the cost of new cars. If the cost increases enough, fewer new cars replace existing cars.

        Or people just buy cheaper new cars. The average new car cost isn't determined by a basic need for the car but rather by the budget available to spend. Maybe you'll be settling for something smaller and more compact rather than F150s.

      • by smap77 ( 1022907 ) on Monday December 20, 2021 @06:04PM (#62100843)

        If the tailpipe emissions were taxes commensurately to their effects, we would see some amazing technology come out of the internal combustion engineering industry as the costs would be aligned. Currently, those costs are not aligned.

        As a business owner, I can make more money knowing what my regulatory runway looks like. When I get jerked backward and forward with requirement floors, it does not help my bottom line.

        • Iâ(TM)m convinced this is how the solar industry was sabotaged in decades past. First, subsidies to encourage solar investment. Then yank the subsidies and let solar investors feel the pain. Do this a couple times and nobody wants to bet on solar.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 20, 2021 @04:18PM (#62100399)
    Ridiculous and unreachable pie-in-the-sky mandates from people in Washington who do not understand the trade-offs and engineering involved to comply with their fantasy numbers. They are, in effect, legislating the internal combustion engine out of existence. Except the cowards won't simply pass a bill that outlaws ICE because they understand they would all be voted out of office if they did, so they take the sneaky way. I am not fooled.
    • by lsllll ( 830002 )

      Plus it's not going to save consumers any money even if it's achievable. You see, the government thought process goes like this: "Oh, shit. Cars are using 33% less gasoline and we've lost that tax revenue? Well, we can't have a shortfall. Increase the taxes so that we continue to get the money we used to.

      But don't take my word for it. [ncsl.org]

      • Plus it's not going to save consumers any money even if it's achievable.

        Usually an implied fuel savings assumes the vehicle purchase price is a sunk cost. I can go on Tesla's web page right now and see some big imaginary number indicating how much money I'd ostensibly "save" by buying one of their cars, except for the pesky little fact that my present economy car will likely be completely worn out before it ever consumers enough gasoline to equal the purchase price of a Tesla.

        • Precisely. I have a perfectly good 96 Honda Civic, with a manual transmission, that I plan on driving forever.

        • You aren't making the right comparison, and actually are constructing a straw man.

          Tesla isn't saying that the purchase of a new EV will be completely offset by fuel and maintenance savings - that would be ridiculous. They are making a basic and reasonable assumption that because you're there on the website of a car manufacturer looking at their car, that you're in the market for a new car. And, with that assumption in mind, they're showing that the fuel and maintenance savings from buying an EV will show

    • by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Monday December 20, 2021 @04:39PM (#62100473)

      They are, in effect, legislating the internal combustion engine out of existence.

      Some recent hybrids get mileage matching/exceeding the 55mpg standard, others are very close. So, not "fantasy numbers". It would seem this is intended to incentivize an increased shift to those types of vehicles.

      Fuel Economy of New Hybrid Vehicles [fueleconomy.gov]

      • How are sales of those hybrids? Does demand outstrip production, driving prices up, or are dealers discounting them to move them off the lot?

        A green (plug-in or hybrid) Trabat is not the American dream.

        • I love my Honda Insight 2019. I did get the touring edition so it's super comfy with lots of bells and whistles. In San Diego summers without running the AC I get average 55mpg. In winter with minimal heater use I'm getting closer to 47mpg. I also drive 66-68ish most of the time so I'm not in a hurry to get anyway.

          We'll see how things go over the years, but these first 2.5 have been great.

    • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      They are, in effect, legislating the internal combustion engine out of existence.

      You say that like it's a bad thing; but it's probably not true. Research is improving mileage because other big nations want such even if USA doesn't. US manufacturers better keep trying if they want to keep up with the international Joneses. Manufacturers have always claimed doomsday under new restrictions, and have usually been wrong. "Wolf!"

      Further, another way to meet mileage guidelines is to make smaller cars. Thus, even i

    • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Monday December 20, 2021 @04:52PM (#62100529)
      This is specifically targeted for Force manufacturers to get off their duffs and make affordable electric vehicles, which don't have any tailpipe emissions.

      Everyone's focused on climate change and ignoring the elephant in the room that is the health impacts of breathing all that smog. Competent politicians don't ignore that as it has a huge negative impact on our economy for a wide variety of reasons.
    • They are, in effect, legislating the internal combustion engine out of existence.

      Very similar to Barack Obama's desire to legislate coal power out of existence. Recall that he said,

      "If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them... Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."

    • Even accounting for the difference in gallon sizes, UK vehicles have no problem exceeding the supposedly "ridiculous and unreachable pie-in-the-sky mandate."

      http://www.fuel-economy.co.uk/... [fuel-economy.co.uk]

      Of course they aren't pushing high profit margin SUVs and trucks the way American auto sellers do. Smaller cars are (get ready to clutch your pearls) ... accepted there because 99.99% of the time, you don't need a truck and you can hire one for the 0.01% of the time when you do far cheaper than you can buy one and maint

  • My car ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by PPH ( 736903 ) on Monday December 20, 2021 @04:21PM (#62100405)

    ... emits practically no tailpipe emissions. There's a big crack in the exhaust header upstream of the catalytic converter.

    • by Sebby ( 238625 )

      There's a big crack in the exhaust header upstream of the catalytic converter.

      Which means you're not only polluting more, but also needlessly using even more fuel due to the exhaust leak(s).

    • In an emissions test? Unless your car is so old it doesn't have one of the plug-in computers. But my bother's 96 Honda Accord had one of those. If you manage to keep something older than that running and it's not a classic that you're maintaining and babying then good for you, but I don't think anyone's that worried about it.
  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Monday December 20, 2021 @04:36PM (#62100463)

    Any such restrictions are going to ensure that many, many poor people will never be able to afford a car and will be at the mercy of government transportation.

    All while doing just about nothing in the grand scheme of things to reduce CO2 emissions in any measurable way.

    I guess I'm fine with it since I'll still be able to afford cars after all this is done. I just feel like we should at least acknowledge the severe level of shit we are heaping on the poor with all these regulations, just so we can feel better while doing nothing of substance.

    • by Sebby ( 238625 )

      Any such restrictions are going to ensure that many, many poor people will never be able to afford a car and will be at the mercy of government transportation.

      Ok, I'll admit some public transportation could use upgrades, both in actual service and customer experience, but overall I don't see a push toward public transit as a negative (and hopefully higher use would drive for more improvements and better infrastructure).

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Brymouse ( 563050 )

        Public transportation is nothing but a meeting place for addicts and a toilet for the homeless.

        As an example say I want to go from St Pete Beach to Clearwater, our county seat. Perhaps I need to go to court or pay taxes.
        I walk 8 blocks from my house to a bus stop. I take the bus to downtown St Pete (7.5 Miles, or 70 minutes) , to transfer to the north county bus to Clearwater. I have to wait for 30 min at the transfer station (where I'm harassed by the homeless, propositioned to buy "Spice" and other dru

        • Yes, buses suck in most places.

          We could either make them not suck or you could take a bike. A reasonably fit person can sustain 15 mph for a long time. So you could get there in 80 minutes, with no emissions and no cost, plus get exercise.

          • by taustin ( 171655 )

            An fuck those people who aren't able to ride a bike? They deserve to die, right?

          • Where does he store the bike upon arrival at his destination? Most places have practically no secure spot for a bicycle and those that do still expect you to have your own lock. Anything less then one of those metal bar U locks will just get cut with bolt cutters.

            Also, what is he going to smell like when he arrives at his destination? Does it have a shower? Let's not even get started on how unsafe cycling is in most cities. Almost any kind of bicycle accident is going to hurt you more then most kinds of car

      • A push towards public transport is a fine concept, if they also push towards making public transport usable. In my area, public transport is sort of there, but it's really difficult to plan any sort of activity around them as you never really know for sure when the busses are gonna arrive outside of strict commute times in the morning and evening. Maybe if we had coordinators with a modicum of ability to plan routes and schedules it'd be better, but there doesn't seem to be any move towards that anytime s

    • Any such restrictions are going to ensure that many, many poor people will never be able to afford a new car

      I fixed that for you. The overpriced hybrids and EVs will still depreciate just like cars always have, and eventually trickle down to society's dregs. My prediction is poor people driving around in Nissan Leafs? Leaves? Leaii? with nearly-shot batteries and a Harbor Freight generator in tow.

      Seriously though, I've watched a few YouTube videos where someone bought a used hybrid with a depleted traction battery, and for the most part the car still works (just not efficiently). We're not really into SHTF for

    • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Monday December 20, 2021 @05:01PM (#62100571)
      The cost of breathing and all that smoke is extremely high. You can find articles here on slash Dot that put a dollar amount on it.

      If Biden wasn't doing anything for poor people you'd have a point, but he's got trillions of dollars of government spending targeted directly to the bottom 70% (the number of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, or what I would consider poor). Including direct Cash subsidies that were passing off as child tax credits.

      Could he do more? Sure, there's quite a bit of student loan debt he has the power to discharge. Though to be fair if you tried to discharge all of it you probably face a legal challenge that he lose in our current Supreme Court thanks to the people who have been recently seated.

      But it's not fair to say we don't know what to do to address the problems you're raising, the only issue is are we as a nation going to do it? Because if we're not either way the poor are screwed. How do they die in their 50s of lung cancer and we slightly reduced the cost of used cars or we do stuff like this and then have additional programs to pick up the slack we're creating.

      The same thing happened with the projects back when we build all that government housing. We built the housing and we brought the people and then a right-wing government got in control and pulled the funding on the social programs meant to deal with the problems created by bringing all those people into the government housing. It remains to be seen if we're going to make the same mistake again and again. What's the definition of insanity again?
    • They're not necessarily going to make the cheapest new cars more expensive - low-end EVs already exist and their prices could be lowered by improving economies of scale through...incentivizing EV production. New economy cars also exist and get good enough MPG that they won't pose a danger to fleet averages. And new car prices have rather limited influence on used car prices in the first place - the only poor people who buy new cars are cartoonishly irresponsible lunatics and those desperate enough to prefer

    • Any such restrictions are going to ensure that many, many poor people will never be able to afford a car and will be at the mercy of government transportation.

      You're overplaying it. Here are some cars available today getting over 50 MPG:

      2021 Toyota Corolla Hybrid - $23,600
      2021 Honda Insight - $23,100
      2021 Hyundai Ioniq Hybrid - $23,400

      The hybrid versions run about $3k more than conventional ICE counterparts, and you'll make that back several times over in fuel savings. These are already the lowest-TCO cars you can buy.

      So this isn't going to hurt the low end market very much. In fact, manufacturers are going to have a strong incentive to create more affordable h

    • Poor people don't make laws.
      Poor people aren't politically active.
      Poor people are ripe for legislative predation because they're less intelligent than the successful (exceptions prove the rule, intelligence distribution is not fair nor a matter of personal choice so be happy if you won the genetic lottery).
      Poor people rely on used vehicles and affordable used vehicles are increasingly difficult to buy.
      Poor people are usually tech-helpless so their repair costs are punitive.

      As a mechanic I'll always have a r

    • Get out of here with this concern trolling.

      Poor people aren't buying new cars and never have. This isn't going to increase the prices regardless, if anything this might get them to sell small cars with small engines again. The best selling vehicle is the Ford F-150 so there's plenty of room to improve efficiency.

  • According to this [fueleconomy.gov] page, about 60% of the energy in gasoline is lost in form of heat. Perhaps it's time manufacturers slap a couple of miniature steam engines in the car.
    • BMW did try this [wikipedia.org]

      This is not a foreign concept, but it is apparently not quite as simple as one may think it is.

    • ... about 60% of the energy in gasoline is lost in form of heat.

      That's because it's a HEAT ENGINE. It gets its power from dropping heat across a temperature difference and throwing it away. Getting about a third of the fuel's energy out as work at the temperatures the fuel can be burned in a portable box vs. the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere is really pretty efficient.

      If you could do substantially better you'd be breaking the first law of thermodynamics. So you could hook the engine to a refri

      • by lsllll ( 830002 )

        That's because it's a HEAT ENGINE. It gets its power from dropping heat across a temperature difference and throwing it away.

        Wait, what? The ICE does not work like that. It has nothing to do with temperature difference and everything to do with expansion. The force comes from the expansion of the lit fuel. The workings of ICE have NOTHING to do with the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere.

        And nobody is talking about breaking the laws of thermodynamics. We're just talking about repurposing the heat generated because of the combustion.

  • by schwit1 ( 797399 ) on Monday December 20, 2021 @04:49PM (#62100505)

    The US Constitution gives law making authority to Congress. The Constitution does not permit Congress to delegate that authority to Executive branch agencies.

    The EPA should create a bill that the elected in Congress have to vote on. This is exactly what Congress was elected to do. It's also what Congress fears. They don't want a voting record that can be used to hold them accountable at reelection time.

    • Congress did not delegate the law making authority. The law is in the hands of congress, the only delegation was the standards which apply. The law itself is very much solely in the hands of congress and doesn't list any specific emission targets.

      Congress can at any point decide to change the law which says follow the standards set by the EPA. Call your elected official if you're worried that they are taking those precious tailpipe emissions away from you.

    • Keep on fighting, sovcit. The rest of us enjoy watching videos of you getting tazed.
  • 1) Passenger cars need to be classified as ANYTHING that is licensed for road use and doesn't require a CDL *
    2) How do the numbers line up at intermittent estimates (say if we take 50% of cars on the road and adjust the lower half of MPG)?
    -At regular gas, the MPG for my wallet has a huge difference between 22 and 24mpg, less so after that.
    3) No more diesel exclusions -- contractors use cheap fuel from job sites for their trucks . . . it's an absolute epidemic in Connecticut where they got rid of commer
  • Does this really need to be spelled out to anyone?

    You do realize that politicians and the wealthy will continue to drive their luxury big gas guzzling SUVs.... And before you go "electric" on me, do we have the infrastructure and "the means" in place to deploy this effectively? Short answer, no. And it will cost the middle class and the poor a fortune. Just because there are few Teslas on the road today doesn't mean we can go "all Tesla" without some pretty major issues. How long before people die (f
  • What's not to like about driving cars that are cheaper to run & don't need filling up as often? Who'd be against that?
    • What's not to like about driving cars that are cheaper to run & don't need filling up as often?

      If you think of a car just as an appliance, nothing.

  • Stuff that in your tailpipe and smoke it

We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts. -- Patrick Moynihan

Working...