In big climate move, EPA set to unveil tough limits on auto emissions

[Zorro]

The proposal aims to speed the transition to electric vehicles, but could threaten to sour an alliance with U.S. automakers.

The Biden administration will soon unveil stringent limits on auto tailpipe pollution, aiming to ensure that as many as two-thirds of all new passenger vehicle sales are electric by 2032, according to three people briefed on the proposal.

The Environmental Protection Agency plan — the toughest ever from the EPA on auto emissions — threatens to spark a fight with several automakers, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss proposals that have not yet been made public. That battle could determine how quickly and cheaply Americans can purchases EVs and grow what’s now just a small fraction of the country’s auto market.

Environmental groups see the auto emissions rules as enormously consequential in meeting the overall U.S. climate goals. The transportation sector is the country’s biggest source of planet-warming gases, and Detroit and President Biden have often aligned on boosting the sales of EVs — which have no tailpipe emissions — as their fastest way to address climate change.

But the most aggressive options in the EPA’s proposal are so stringent that many automakers, especially those slowest to adopt electric cars and trucks, will see it as more aggressive than what they can realistically meet, the people said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/04/09/epa-auto-emissions-rules-climate/

[CoopersDad]

1. End car culture, EVs only marginally better. Public transit, 15-minute cities.

We were better 100 years ago with planning and transportation patterns.

Homes were smaller, streetcar systems were in many cities, and you could live without a car.

Let's incentivize smaller homes, more transit, and better planning.

And also move toward discouraging mass consumption.

I know, the economy will suffer but it's an unsustainable economy so it must be done.

[MichMan]

12. Rural residents will be required to move to cities unless they get a horse ?

[Model35mech]

16. This creates a sense of existential crisis for Rural people.

In Wisconsin we HAVE NO COMMUTER RAIL, we have a few busses per day that go from Madison to the airport in Milwaukee.

THOUSANDS of people live where my home is 35-40 miles out from both Madison and Milwaukee.

Without truly MASS CAPACITY transport communities of 10s of thousands are fucked without cars.

It gives me no pleasure to tell Democrats they will be hated for killing cars.

[CoopersDad]

18. There will always be cars, the difference is that we will not all be required to own one.

That's the point.

[Model35mech]

20. Hardly true for people in rural communities

Because of the need to commute 25 to 40 miles each way when there is NO mass transit even in the relatively well populated corridor between Madison and Milwaukee, people must have personal transportation that can carry them in all manner of weather to where the jobs, doctors, grocery stores are.

BUT you say they can of course E-commute. Hardly. That same area has almost no internet or cable service. If you aren't in a town of at least 10 thousand you can dream about someday earning enough to afford bottom end satellite service with poor capacity to work or school from home.

And because the work-arounds to personal transportation aren't being solved, rural people are quite anxious about being soon left out. Because their experiences have shown that is the way things go. Like free lunches for low income elementary age kids in the summer. The kids around me need to travel 15 miles each way to get to the schools that serve them. Fifteen miles, no school bus, no public bus, no train. So no lunch program for them.

Rural folks are a bit anxious about killing the affordable personal transportation their lives now require.

[CoopersDad]

23. Nobody said that rural people have to change a single thing, keep whatever works for youo.

I find it difficult to understand why you seem to think I want to change all things for all people.

Many are rural, public transit doesn't work for them, clearly.

You stay with what works, OK?

[Model35mech]

30. I don't think that, I think rural people are threated by trashing ICE's and gasoline

Sorry I didn't reply sooner

I was actually out AT my hobby farm on overnights. Good weather is a necessary but limited resource.

[CoopersDad]

17. Nowhere did I suggest that. eom.

[MichMan]

19. What public transportation is available in rural areas?

"End car culture, EVs only marginally better. Public transit, 15-minute cities"

The closest grocery store or pharmacy is 7 miles from my house. The closest city is 20 miles away. I'm 65, so too far to walk or bike.

When can I expect a train or bus stop within walking distance of my house, so I wont need a car ?

[Amishman]

28. I'd rather die than relocate to a city

Even suburbia would be intolerable.

Sorry, not everyone wants to live with crowds.

I won't move away my little rural wooded sanctuary under any circumstances.

The 15 minute city concept sounds like torture. It takes me 15 minutes to walk to my mailbox and back, and I wish I had more space than this.

[dembotoz]

2. industry whines before each and every change in regulation. not often the end of the world

that said i hope the epa knows what they are doing

[Takket]

3. car companies are pretty much "all in" on EVs already

Last edited Sun Apr 9, 2023, 02:08 PM - Edit history (1)

the writing is on the wall so to speak, and they know that. they are building battery plants and ramping up scientific research into battery technology looking at fire safety, charging speed, etc.

increasing emissions regulations will "strangle" fossil fuel vehicles so to speak, making it cost prohibitive to sell customers vehicles they want at a price they can afford in a form that meets EPA guidelines. (I.e. if you can't meet the emissions guidelines in anything larger than a roller skate with a motor, then you'll have to go electric to give consumers what they want).

What we need is even more incentives on the consumer end to help move this process along. Not everyone can afford a charging station. Millions of people live in apartment complexes and condos which are going to require management companies to come up with large scale plans to install charging capability throughout the complex. We need even more government infrastructure programs to help incentivize the building of all this. In short, just killing off fossil fuel vehicles with increased EPA emissions isn't going to cut it, and if people think they are going to have to pay double for their next car and thousands of dollars for a charger, they are going to elect people (i.e. rethugs) they think will take those regulations away.

The best way to fund all this work if from the billions upon billions of profit the fossil fuel industry makes by setting their prices at whatever they damn please to ensure they make massive profits no matter how much a barrel of oil costs.

[madville]

9. The cost prohibitive part will hurt low income people

The idea to increase EV market share by making gas vehicles more expensive seems flawed to me. People already can’t afford these current vehicle prices.

Apartment buildings will not foot the bill to install chargers, they could increase rent on tenants to fund them though. Maybe they’ll get some government funding. I was just involved in the installation of two charging station at a local car dealership, cost $120,000 and took two years to complete.

[MichMan]

4. There are millions and millions of gas powered vehicles already out there

Only way to get them off the roads sooner is to get the price of gas up to $10 per gallon. Raise the gas tax $1 per year and people will adjust by driving considerably less and switching to EV.

[madville]

10. Would be devastating for lower income folks

They still have to rely on driving 10-30 year old vehicles, many can’t even afford to buy and operate one at today’s prices. Making gas vehicles and gas prohibitively expensive to force the market to EVs is going to cost the consumer a fortune.

[MichMan]

11. Making gas vehicles prohibitively expensive to own and operate is the goal

The new EPA rules are designed to do just that. Nothing in there will make it affordable for anyone else to own or operate a vehicle.

Only the wealthy will be able to afford to drive wherever they want.

[roamer65]

15. The biggest cut to auto emissions we can make long term is not having children.

Non-existent humans don’t buy and drive cars.

8 billion is too many.

[crickets]

21. Yes, that is a big part of the issue.

When it comes to resources of any kind, the earth only has so much to give, and right now the human race is likely past the carrying capacity of the planet.

https://worldpopulationhistory.org/carrying-capacity/

The ecological footprint is a measurement of the anthropogenic impact on earth. It tracks how much biocapacity (biological capacity) there is and how much biocapacity people use by comparing the rate at which we consume natural resources and generate waste to the planet’s ability to replenish those resources and absorb waste. Today, our global footprint is in overshoot. It would take 1.75 Earths to sustain our current population. If current trends continue, we will reach 3 Earths by the year 2050.

There is some disagreement about the attempt to reach a true estimate of Earth's carrying capacity, and world population growth has slowed but not yet peaked.

https://www.livescience.com/16493-people-planet-earth-support.html

The number of people Earth can support is not a fixed figure. The way humans produce and consume natural resources affects how our environment will be able to sustain future populations. As Gerland said, "When it comes to carrying capacity, it's a matter of mode of production, mode of consumption, who has access to what and how."

One study published in the journal the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences(opens in new tab) found that if the population of the United States switched to a vegetarian diet, the land used to grow crops for humans rather than animal feed for meat production would feed an additional 350 million Americans. High-income countries, where females have increased access to education and family planning, tend to have lower birth rates and smaller family sizes than middle- and low-income countries, according to Max Roser, director of the Oxford Martin Programme on Global Development in the U.K., writing in Our World in Data(opens in new tab).

Put another way, there may be an upper limit on how many humans Earth could support, but we don’t know exactly what that figure is. It varies based on how we produce, consume and manage our resources. For Cohen, if we want to affect how many people planet Earth can support, we will need to decide "how many people want Jaguars with four wheels and how many want jaguars with four legs."

Lucky us, Republicans are so het up about controlling women and going back to "the good old days" that they're trying to make women pop out more babies at any cost. Ugh.

[Victor_c3]

5. Plug-in hybrids are a great short term solution

Most new ones have a battery with a range of 40 miles or so. I don’t know about everyone else, but much of my daily driving is less than 40 miles total.

Range anxiety and charging station anxiety is alleviated as you still have the option to use gas if needed.

I personally would love to have an EV for my next vehicle, however the lack of functioning and reliable charging stations is a major limitation.

[roamer65]

8. I'd love to see a flex fuel compatible plug in hybrid.

E85 would be a perfect fuel in that case.

[hunter]

25. Agriculture itself has huge environmental footprints, comparable to fossil fuels...

... and generally requires large fossil fuel inputs.

We'd be better off without biofuels.

What we need is a program to buy out certain farms in areas where the environmental costs are especially high so we can restore them to a natural state.

"Family farmers," the few percent of our total population who remain, could be paid to accomplish this, keeping their family homes if that's what they desired.

Simultaneously, we could turn our cities into attractive places where car ownership is not necessary.

In the long run fuels could be synthesized from atmospheric or oceanic carbon dioxide using nuclear power.

With the same amount of batteries we can build one all-electric car or ten plug-in hybrids that run on electricity 90% of the time.

In the larger picture, the earth simply can'd support a personal automobile for every adult human. It's not just the cars themselves but the infrastructure (highways, roads, bridges, parking structures, etc.) required to support them.

[Fullduplexxx]

6. and it will be killed by a republican shopped for judge

[roamer65]

7. This will end up in the courts for a few years.

The automakers will do it to stall the conversion.

[Victor_c3]

13. Remember the outrage over the proposed ban on gas stoves?

That’ll be nothing compared to this

[roamer65]

14. Very true.

The used car supply is down by almost 1 million vehicles from pre-pandemic times.

Forcing some of them off the roads will send prices through the roof on compliant ones.

[flvegan]

22. Awesome! Do animal agriculture next!

Thankful they're working on something...anything.

Even if, you know...ignoring other stuff, but whatever.

[Shanti Shanti Shanti]

24. So, only elites will be able to afford new EVs as personal transportation, the poors get horses?

Buggy whip manufacturing will be the new hotness again in the rural west

[hunter]

26. My nephew lives in San Francisco.

He walks to work and the local grocery markets.

When he wants to go further he uses public transportation, calls an uber, or rents a car.

Billions of people worldwide live like that and generally have smaller environmental footprints than those who own automobiles.

[Shanti Shanti Shanti]

27. Not everyone lives in densely packed urban centers, you could fit a dozen EU countries inside Texas

[hunter]

29. Was I talking about "everyone?"

I'm talking about choices.

Obviously urban living is preferable to low density suburban or rural living to many people or it wouldn't be so damned expensive.

My nephew and his spouse tried suburban living, the nice house and the car and the long commute, but they hated it, moving back to the City as soon as they could.

When my wife and I met we were commuters suffering an hour or more of stop-and-go traffic every day. I could get to work faster on my bicycle, but that was putting my life in danger. By some planning and greater good fortune we've mostly managed to avoid that lifestyle. We live in a high density suburb of apartments and single family homes about two miles from the center of our small city. Many of the single family homes in our neighborhood are occupied by multi-generational families -- grandparents, their children, their grandchildren, and random cousins all in the same house. There's always someone around to watch the children

Our children went to college in big cities and decided they preferred living and working in big cities after they graduated.