Their last dying grasps at holding onto what once was will be the end of us all....
this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2024
125 points (98.4% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5298 readers
486 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
What's the basis of the lawsuit, that they're entitled to continue earning profit by killing us all?
No, the basis is that the EPA has exceeded its regulatory authority by coming very close to ending ICE vehicles with its new rule. While I agree with what the EPA is doing with it's new tailpipe emissions rule I also wonder at the advisability of letting politically appointed technocrats make such sweeping changes.
It will be a good thing THIS time but will it always?
I mean, regulating air pollution and managing air quality in cities was literally the reason Republican president Richard Nixon created the environmental protection agency in the first place, and it has managed vehicle emissions standards for decades, so this very much feels like the agency doing exactly what it was created to do and has long done.
This echoes generic fear mongering of regulation from the conservative side. The EPA operates according to specific rules, it's not just out there making random policies. Legislation creates the mandate, they promulgate within the law. What does "but will it always" do good things even mean? What are some bad things the EPA has done in your mind? Saying the government shouldn't have the power to regulate emissions that are destroying the biosphere is absurd. There's no right to ICE vehicles in perpetuity enshrined in the constitution. If the EPA ever start doing truly asinine things, then we elect leaders to change the laws dictating their mandate. This is just basic democracy stuff.
This echoes generic fear mongering of regulation from the conservative side.
No it acknowledges that changes that can be made from one administration to the next.
What are some bad things the EPA has done in your mind?
Saying the government shouldn’t have the power to regulate emissions that are destroying the biosphere is absurd.
I haven't said that nor would I but $GovernmentAgency isn't a synonym for "The Government". What's being discussed are the limits of an Agency attached to the Executive Branch relative to the power of the Legislative Branch.
What does “but will it always” do good things even mean?
This, this right here is what it means.
The Trump Administration Rolled Back More Than 100 Environmental Rules.
That's what can happen when an Agency of the Executive "does things" on its own authority.
If the EPA ever start doing truly asinine things, then we elect leaders to change the laws dictating their mandate.
How's that been working out for the last 20 years?
The reality is everything is at risk with a fascist anti-environmentalist leader, especially if they have a majority of Congress and the courts. I just don't see how exercising additional restraint with respect to fuel economy standards, as if that creates opportunities for abuse down the road, helps anything here. The EPA is following the law, and should keep doing that. Your example with asbestos is just the EPA not regulating harder, so let's applaud harder regulation.
As to the last 20 years, considering the makeup of Congress, I'd say the IRA was monumental.
EVs are coming whether or not they want it. Globally distributed car manufacturers won't bother making gasoline cars when the rest of the world won't buy them.
So, American brands can do whatever they want. Always did. The decision is on state level and with 12 states already pledging to follow the global goals, it's only up to the manufacturers if they bother running dual production to cater to the decreasing market in USA while attempting to keep exports up with EVs or entirely miss out on exports. It's a losers game already.
It doesn't matter if Biden does this or that in this regard.
ICE cars are phased out globally and there's nothing the oil industry, the car manufacturers nor the American president can do about that.
It does matter. Last year 15.5million new cars were sold in the US. Besides the US being a rich country, it has a below average share of EVs in sales. So Biden pushing this will make the transition faster, as companies set up new production.
It also matters for another reason. US oil production is likely to decline in the coming years. Currently the US is an oil exporter, but this is going to change unless the US lowers consumption. EVs are a key part of doing that. If done successfully, that means the US has less interest in protection global oil production and flows to keep prices low. So less US interventions and higher oil prices.
Of course it matters, but not much. American car export is not very important. The flow is in the other direction. There are more European cars in USA than American cars in Europe, and then there's all the Korean, Japanese and Chinese cars all over the world, all import. A little UK in there too.
The American automobile business is a hollow shell of past dreams. Grossly speaking: Nobody but Americans buy American ICE cars and they also don't themselves.
When the foreign car manufacturers switch to electric engines, so does USA, unless you desperately want to drive a '98 Pontiac Sunfire baby.
People worldwide buy American Tesla, though they're produced in China and Germany or wherever, but at least it's still electric, so..
Exactly the two American car manufacturers are able to survive rather well so far with pretty much no sales abroad. They are still some of the largest in the world. That is besides the US being a large enough market for companies to seriously consider keeping their combustion engine technology around, if they believe it will sell. This obviously means they might lobby their home markets to keep them around as well. Stellantis is the most obvious company to maybe do that.
Bidens action turns 10% of global car sales electric(not counting other countries actions here) and forces GM and Ford to go electric.
I think you're right in terms of the overall trends, but how we get there matters. Every single day matters, and the wrong policies could result in years of missed opportunities.
There's still oil to be pumped, land to destroy, and people to displace. There's no need for EV's yet.
/s
Gotta say, hope those oil companies mysteriously explode :/
Okay sure we can do that but you are now fully liable for any and all negative effects known and unknown related to the burning of fossil fuels in perpetuity, cool?
Even if they lose they will have bought themselves two or three extra years if not more if Biden doesn't remain in the presidency.