Elections have consequences. The American center has been lulled into thinking that nothing matters.
It honestly feels like we are adrift at sea, nobody sensible is in change, and there is little way to get back in control of our destiny. I suppose this is what it felt like for most sensible folks for most of history before liberal democracy took hold.
I continue to be confused as to how one dimwit can make so many consequential decisions for all of us. And we just have to sit here like idiots and can't seem to do anything about it.
Because a bunch of other dimwits voted for him and then another group of dimwits have no scruples and are too scared to stand-up to him and then these other dimwits… you get the point.
Because it isn't just one person? And I'm being serious right now, if all you contribute and believe is that the dude who got himself elected leader of the free world is a simpleton dimwit: You are the Problem
I mean, presumably some future Democratic administration will reinstate the rule. But with this precedent set, this might become a switch that turns on and off every time the political winds change. When Republicans are in power, the US will do nothing at all to fight climate change. When Democrats are in power, they will belatedly try to undo the damage.
And of course there will be knock-on effects from other countries. Why should (for example) Mexico do anything at all to fight global warming, when the US (which is much richer, and a much larger polluter) declines to help?
China is building so fast it won’t matter. They destroy 1M barrels a day in global oil consumption for every 24 months they build EVs at current production rates (which continue to increase), for example. ~25% of global light vehicle sales are EVs as of 2025, ~50% in China (the largest auto global auto market). The world is approaching 1TW/year of global solar PV deployment. Solar and storage are the cheapest form of generation, and will only continue to decline in cost.
Consider it a case study in governance failure. The US' failure is China's opportunity, and they appear to be taking it.
I hope you are right but China needs to block the US' influence on international policy. Its strange to see countries adopt policies in a direction the US has obviously chosen to screw everyone else instead of going so far into free trade the US can't stay relevant.
Certainly, diplomacy is the art of saying "good dog" until you make it to the rock [to throw at the dog] as the saying goes. Counterparties are still headed towards the rock. Once they have sufficiently decoupled from the US, their policy and destiny are in their hands. Easier to say no to a bully when you're beyond their reach and the harm they can cause is immaterial.
It sucks that Congress don't do their job of making reasonable laws. I hate that the executive and judicial branches have to do so much work that should be done by Congress.
> I hate that the executive and judicial branches have to do so much work that should be done by Congress.
In recent years the Supreme Court has turned against the use of regulatory agency rule making authority to stretch the meaning of older statutes and accomplish what Congress is too gridlocked to do. Most notably was the 2022 decision striking down Obama-era EPA power plant carbon emission limits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_v._EPA), but there are many other decisions in a similar vein (e.g. overturning Chevron), and more coming down the pipe (see https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/10/supreme-court-allows-epa-...).
Between SCOTUS decisions limiting how older statutes can be reinterpreted to encompass global warming on the one hand, and fundamental economic incentives on the other (the West Virginia decision didn't result in a rush back to coal), this move by the Trump administration is unlikely to change the course of things, except to perhaps spur Congress to involve itself more heavily one way or the other.
Rather than handwringing, the left needs to finally accept that relying on lawsuits and aggressive Federal regulatory agencies, rather than the ballot boxes (plural--not just the presidential election), to enact their social and environmental policies is no longer viable. But it's going to be a difficult change because the Democrats sacrificed a ton of grass roots support (real, substantive support, as opposed to professional class and social media popularity contests) as they came to rely almost exclusively on imaginative legalistic and technocratic solutions, an evolution that started decades before the courts took their sharp conservative turn.
I, for one, invite diminished environmental regulatory agencies. In so far as it concerns global warming, renewable energy, and land use (e.g. mass transit, housing, etc), they've become impediments much more than enablers of (net) environmentally friendly change. What does it matter if an agency favors one set of policies over another when it takes years if not decades for projects to make it through the thicket of red tape? For energy policy specifically, the economics favor renewables, so less regulation can only hasten the transition.
The administrative state worked extremely well before Trump dismantled it.
Do you really want Congress to use legislation to make decisions about day to day technical rules and regulations that they quite obviously have no chance of understanding?
The whole point of the administrative state is to put non-political experts in charge of hashing out the specifics of rules and regulations while Congress legislates the broad process of making those rules.
An analogy to “making Congress do it” would be like if you had to raise every pull request you wrote to the board of directors of your company and check if they were okay with it. That is insanely inefficient and your board of directors would make the wrong decision most of the time. Instead, your company’s board of directors hires competent people and sets the general goals of the company and directs everyone to work toward them, trusting them with the implementation details and putting in places systems that ensure good performance is rewarded.
In the past we just trusted presidents to operate at some bare minimum level of basic good faith that they were non-traitor citizens who actually wanted this country to succeed, rather than being completely apathetic to the future and viewing American society purely as an asset to exploit.
The idea of a president who would make the country worse on purpose, going as far as making it worse for the wealthy in addition to common people, was unheard of.
But then we elected the New York Russian mafia’s real estate guy. And now we have found out that it’s very likely that his best friend’s sex trafficking operation was potentially used to compile kompromat [1]. The probability that the Russian intelligence apparatus is directly instructing Trump to sabotage the geopolitical position of the USA is astronomical. Part of that sabotage is almost certainly the dismantling of the administrative state.
Call it a conspiracy theory if you want, but we’ve crossed this conspiracy theory bridge many times with Donald Trump and he has never really given any of us a good reason to not trust the idea that “oh, it’s actually worse than we thought…”
The idea that AGI will care to fix this, or that the US government will allow an AGI who wants to fix this to exist, feels a little like escapism to me.
Then why don’t you imagine that and tell me instead of just making a comment that says “nuh uh!”
I submit the idea that even if the AI can electronically secure the building, lock the doors, and has automatic defensive weapons, humans can physically cut power as in cut power lines. Or they just stop feeding the power plant with fuel.
The computers don’t exist in physical space like humans do.
Humans would also not ever design critical physical systems without overrides. E.g., your MacBook physically disconnects the microphone when the lid is shut. No software can override that.
you're asking about what a hypothetical smart-than-myself adversary would do against me, it should be expected that any possible answer I could ever provide would be less clever than what the adversary would actually do.
in other words, when dealing with an adversary with a known perceptual and intellectual superiority the thought exercise of "let's prepare for everything we can imagine it will do" is short-sighted and provides an incomplete picture of possibility and defense.
My 0.02c : given that the thing would operate at least partially in the non-physical world, I think it's silly to pre-suppose we would ever be able to trap it somewhere.
Some fiction food-for-thought : the first thing the AGI in 'The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect' does it miniaturize its' working computer to the point of being essentially invulnerable and distributed (and eventually in another dimension) while simultaneously working to reduce its energy requirements and generation facility. Then it tries to determine how to manipulate physics and quickly gains mastery of the world that its' physical existence is in.
The fear here isn't that the story is truthful enough, the fear here is that humans have a poor grasp on the non-linear realities of a self-improving & thinking entity that works at such scales and timespans.
One theory is that since China "won" the green energy race, the current US regime plans are to keep others dependent on oil and hence US shale, which would explain Trumps asinine comments about EU wind power. Not sure I buy it, but it seems to fit the bigger picture.
I have a feeling you're right, and I actually think the rest of the world will continue to move on with renewables just because they're cheap, effective and reduce dependency on terrorist petro states.
No: they’ve campaigned for years on behalf of their fossil fuel industry donors. The major oil and coal companies started a multi-decade push when the climate science debate was settled around 1980, with an end goal of protecting profits for as long as possible. The Republican Party has been trying to protect those donors but never had such strong backing to just ignore the scientists and EPA rule-making process before.
I think it's largely supported by the rural/agriculture community. I have zero emissions controls on my diesel engine because it's more reliable out in the middle of nowhere and it lets you fall back to gloriously almost purely mechanical engine without ECU which is easy to work on. For the same reason, the government themselves exempt themselves from emissions controls which is why most the diesel trucks you can buy from government auctions are 'deleted.'
I think the idea that vehicles with emissions controls are inherently less reliable in any statistically meaningful way is highly suspect.
In addition, the most common failure points of vehicles are usually not related to the engine being unable to operate.
It’s usually accessory and wear issues: batteries, belts, tires, alternator, etc.
As a counterexample for you, the third generation Prius (2009-2014) has about the most bulletproof powertrain imaginable. Every UberX on the road is driving one with 300,000 miles on it and complete neglect-level maintenance.
eCVT transmissions in plug-in hybrid vehicles are simpler and more reliable with fewer wear parts (basically no wear parts) than pretty much every other transmission type, including manual transmissions.
I will also point out, being in the middle of nowhere should be ideal territory for electric vehicles if rural society had a little bit more imagination. They need minimal maintenance compared to any sort of combustion vehicle. You can avoid trucking gas and oil to remote locations, instead installing solar panels/batteries once (lord knows you’ve got plenty of land), set and forget it. Panels are dirt cheap and last 25+ years, batteries last 15+ years. Your oil deliveries are used once and depleted. Even without solar and battery, rural locations are far more likely to have electric utility service than any other utility.
300,000 is a joke compared to what most (non-hybrid) diesel engines last. Those are the ones that are most impacted by DPF and SCR systems that reduce reliability (in case of SCR, also DEF fluid you have to have accessible and add). Gasoline engines are not nearly as much impact by emissions controls IMO since as you say even the best case they normally not last past 300,000 (Toyota Tundra an exception that might even curb stomp the Prius, non-hybrid though) and emissions controls for those are more likely to last the life of the engine. It seems based on your comments that gasoline engines must be what you were familiar with but perhaps limited experience with [the usually more reliable] diesel engines.
The other bit about electric I see as a red herring. Obviously electric is superior if you have capacity and grid or battery for it, but it's a sideshow from emissions controls on outputs of petroleum engines. It's not an emission control on the output of the engine but rather displacing much of the work the engine is doing. It's still far from ideal for many rural/ag purposes. I've ran ag machinery in places where there isn't even roads let alone power panels or a place to hook in, either you haul diesel or you are fucked, and in fact it is often there so you can establish infrastructure in the first place.
Au contraire
The guy is slick.
Sleight of hand trick.
A magician makes you look where they want while the magic happens elsewhere.
I would be surprised if he was not in charge in 2030 still. It seems everybody else ate too much plastic too be able to think straight.
At this point I would be surprised if he wasn't still there in 2036.
Unrelated, but it reminds me that he captured maduro, and Chavez and maduro were able to stay in charge by destroying the Congress, support of lobbying companies and accusing other parties of corruption and frauding the elections.
Because of that, like many others. He was able to push elections far from view and there was always a war to be fought or an enemy to defend against.
At some point, I kid you not, those guys accursed every single immigrant living in Venezuela of being a conspirator. All those who questioned any of this were accused of treason and the army was right there to defend the president. Sorry I mean country. Maduro lost too much gas to keep it going
Of all the terrible things that the Trump Admin has done, this is perhaps the worst of all, with the gravest repercussions for humanity.
But who cares about science, or humanity for that matter, so long as big companies can increase their profits and keep greasing the wheels of corrupt politicians!
I doubt it will end up accomplishing much more than letting 'delete' kits go legal again which have relatively weak penetration into the market. 3 years isn't enough runway to start manufacturing things without emissions unless they can get green-light to import foreign models that fast, which due to protectionism will probably get delayed as much as the admin can.
>Reversing the finding would reduce automobile manufacturers' spending by $2,400 per vehicle, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters.
If this is true, that is a monstrous 5% of an average new vehicle. And it's not just the cost of the vehicle, emissions equipment also can make the vehicle slightly less reliable, especially diesel engines, so it's likely to reduce the cost of vehicles by more than the initial 5%.
----- edit since I am throttled -----
I know for a fact the prices are lower non-emission vs emission. I own a tractor that is detuned 0.1 HP under the emission limit and with zero emissions controls. They sell the exact same tractor with the exact same engine with a fuel screw turned up over the limit to increase hp, plus emissions controls, and it's about $4,000 more. Manufacturers absolutely will charge more for emissions models than non-emissions models.
> I know for a fact the prices are lower non-emission vs emission. I own a tractor that is detuned 0.1 HP under the emission limit and with zero emissions controls. They sell the exact same tractor with the exact same engine with a fuel screw turned up over the limit to increase hp, plus emissions controls, and it's about $4,000 more. Manufacturers absolutely will charge more for emissions models than non-emissions models.
This is flawed logic.
BMW tried charging a subscription fee for heated seats (https://www.thedrive.com/news/bmw-commits-to-subscriptions-e...). All the cars had the seat heaters; "exact same [car] with the exact same [seats]". (I'd also note that you yourself acknowledge that people are paying for the extra horsepower, not the emissions controls.)
No they're paying for the emissions controls. The people that buy the tractor I have, usually illegally turn the screw and get the horsepower back. Nothing is stopping them from doing it, it is all over youtube, can be done in a few minutes.
If it was actually about "price discrimination" they would do something to stop you from tuning them back to the full horsepower other than "please definitely don't do this thing we made it super easy for you to do, hint at in your repair manual, and is plastered all over youtube probably indirectly by advice of our own mechanics."
To use your BMW analogy, it would be "we put a screw to turn on the heated seats, but please don't do that". That would not indicate someone actually seeking price discriminations, but rather providing people a way to save money getting around an expensive rule, but also they will charge you $4000 if you really want to comply with the law and add a big "save the environment" doohickey on to the seat heater.
----------- re: below due to throttling-----------
You cutoff my quote to change the context of what I was saying. Preponderance of the evidence is pretty clear what you're saying doesn't apply here, even if it applies to something else.
> If it was actually about "price discrimination" they would do something to stop you from tuning them back to the full horsepower…
No, not necessarily. Plenty of price discrimination is the exact same thing sold to different crowds at different prices, like pink razors or "dude wipes".
Wonderful. And will these amazing cost savings offset the costs of future disasters related to climate change? Or are we taking more of "the band played on" Titanic approach, now?
Acidified oceans, poisonous air, and frequent multibillion dollar extreme weather events are a small price to pay for a purely hypothetical $2,400 off my next car, which I am forced to own because the same companies that lobby against climate change regulations are the ones that tore up all the public transit infrastructure that would otherwise allow me not to own a car at all. Americans love getting fucked by our corporate overlords, we can’t get enough of it, it’s our way of life.
You really think big business will pull back pricing with this? It is as reasonable to believe that removal of the tariffs will bring back the lower prices on goods.
CEOs want to maximize their golden parachutes and their stock value ... prices will be the same or go up. USA capitalism is about maximize profits not the buying power of their citizens.
Are you fantasizing that they'll reduce the price of cars because of this and somehow benefit people?
And they'd have to take the time to redesign. And Democrats will (hopefully) reinstate it in a few years, and carmakers probably recognize that. Along with the threat of legal challenges by environmental groups.
And, further, if we eventually do get these inefficient polluting cars - who's going to want to buy them? They certainly wouldn't be able to sell them in same countries. Seems pointless overall for carmakers, generally.
Just a gift to polluting corporations and billionaires who want profit at our expense.
Elections have consequences. The American center has been lulled into thinking that nothing matters.
It honestly feels like we are adrift at sea, nobody sensible is in change, and there is little way to get back in control of our destiny. I suppose this is what it felt like for most sensible folks for most of history before liberal democracy took hold.
Truly maddening how we have not been able to come together as one during this critical time.
The time is critical because the only time in American history we've been more divided was arguably in the lead up to the civil war
I continue to be confused as to how one dimwit can make so many consequential decisions for all of us. And we just have to sit here like idiots and can't seem to do anything about it.
Because a bunch of other dimwits voted for him and then another group of dimwits have no scruples and are too scared to stand-up to him and then these other dimwits… you get the point.
Because it isn't just one person? And I'm being serious right now, if all you contribute and believe is that the dude who got himself elected leader of the free world is a simpleton dimwit: You are the Problem
I don’t think anyone believes that in its entirety. But if you don’t think green house gases are a problem you are, on that topic, a dimwit.
This is awful news.
I mean, presumably some future Democratic administration will reinstate the rule. But with this precedent set, this might become a switch that turns on and off every time the political winds change. When Republicans are in power, the US will do nothing at all to fight climate change. When Democrats are in power, they will belatedly try to undo the damage.
And of course there will be knock-on effects from other countries. Why should (for example) Mexico do anything at all to fight global warming, when the US (which is much richer, and a much larger polluter) declines to help?
China is building so fast it won’t matter. They destroy 1M barrels a day in global oil consumption for every 24 months they build EVs at current production rates (which continue to increase), for example. ~25% of global light vehicle sales are EVs as of 2025, ~50% in China (the largest auto global auto market). The world is approaching 1TW/year of global solar PV deployment. Solar and storage are the cheapest form of generation, and will only continue to decline in cost.
Consider it a case study in governance failure. The US' failure is China's opportunity, and they appear to be taking it.
Ember Energy: China Cleantech Exports Data Explorer - https://ember-energy.org/data/china-cleantech-exports-data-e... - (updated monthly)
Our World In Data: Tracking global data on electric vehicles - https://ourworldindata.org/electric-car-sales (updated annually)
Bloomberg: China’s Four-Year Energy Spree Has Eclipsed Entire US Power Grid - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-28/china-s-f... | https://archive.today/H0oos - January 28th, 2026
Ember Energy: The EV leapfrog – how emerging markets are driving a global EV boom - https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/the-ev-leapfrog-how... - December 16th, 2025
Ember Energy: Over a quarter of new cars sold so far this year are electric as emerging markets reshape the global EV race - https://ember-energy.org/latest-updates/over-a-quarter-of-ne... - December 16th, 2025
Ember Energy: Solar electricity every hour of every day is here and it changes everything - https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/solar-electricity-e... - June 21st, 2025
Bloomberg: The World Hit ‘Peak’ Gas-Powered Vehicle Sales — in 2017 - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-30/world-hit... | https://archive.today/p2hl1 - January 30th, 2024
Bloomberg: Electric Cars Pass a Crucial Tipping Point in 23 Countries - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-28/electric-... | https://archive.today/e8XSt - August 27th, 2023
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46544375 (citations)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46423660 (citations)
I hope you are right but China needs to block the US' influence on international policy. Its strange to see countries adopt policies in a direction the US has obviously chosen to screw everyone else instead of going so far into free trade the US can't stay relevant.
Certainly, diplomacy is the art of saying "good dog" until you make it to the rock [to throw at the dog] as the saying goes. Counterparties are still headed towards the rock. Once they have sufficiently decoupled from the US, their policy and destiny are in their hands. Easier to say no to a bully when you're beyond their reach and the harm they can cause is immaterial.
Global Trade Is Leaving the US Behind - https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2026-02-12/on-tra... | https://archive.today/CFwlf - February 12th, 2026
(no dogs were harmed in the course of this comment)
It sucks that Congress don't do their job of making reasonable laws. I hate that the executive and judicial branches have to do so much work that should be done by Congress.
> I hate that the executive and judicial branches have to do so much work that should be done by Congress.
In recent years the Supreme Court has turned against the use of regulatory agency rule making authority to stretch the meaning of older statutes and accomplish what Congress is too gridlocked to do. Most notably was the 2022 decision striking down Obama-era EPA power plant carbon emission limits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_v._EPA), but there are many other decisions in a similar vein (e.g. overturning Chevron), and more coming down the pipe (see https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/10/supreme-court-allows-epa-...).
Between SCOTUS decisions limiting how older statutes can be reinterpreted to encompass global warming on the one hand, and fundamental economic incentives on the other (the West Virginia decision didn't result in a rush back to coal), this move by the Trump administration is unlikely to change the course of things, except to perhaps spur Congress to involve itself more heavily one way or the other.
Rather than handwringing, the left needs to finally accept that relying on lawsuits and aggressive Federal regulatory agencies, rather than the ballot boxes (plural--not just the presidential election), to enact their social and environmental policies is no longer viable. But it's going to be a difficult change because the Democrats sacrificed a ton of grass roots support (real, substantive support, as opposed to professional class and social media popularity contests) as they came to rely almost exclusively on imaginative legalistic and technocratic solutions, an evolution that started decades before the courts took their sharp conservative turn.
I, for one, invite diminished environmental regulatory agencies. In so far as it concerns global warming, renewable energy, and land use (e.g. mass transit, housing, etc), they've become impediments much more than enablers of (net) environmentally friendly change. What does it matter if an agency favors one set of policies over another when it takes years if not decades for projects to make it through the thicket of red tape? For energy policy specifically, the economics favor renewables, so less regulation can only hasten the transition.
The administrative state worked extremely well before Trump dismantled it.
Do you really want Congress to use legislation to make decisions about day to day technical rules and regulations that they quite obviously have no chance of understanding?
The whole point of the administrative state is to put non-political experts in charge of hashing out the specifics of rules and regulations while Congress legislates the broad process of making those rules.
An analogy to “making Congress do it” would be like if you had to raise every pull request you wrote to the board of directors of your company and check if they were okay with it. That is insanely inefficient and your board of directors would make the wrong decision most of the time. Instead, your company’s board of directors hires competent people and sets the general goals of the company and directs everyone to work toward them, trusting them with the implementation details and putting in places systems that ensure good performance is rewarded.
In the past we just trusted presidents to operate at some bare minimum level of basic good faith that they were non-traitor citizens who actually wanted this country to succeed, rather than being completely apathetic to the future and viewing American society purely as an asset to exploit.
The idea of a president who would make the country worse on purpose, going as far as making it worse for the wealthy in addition to common people, was unheard of.
But then we elected the New York Russian mafia’s real estate guy. And now we have found out that it’s very likely that his best friend’s sex trafficking operation was potentially used to compile kompromat [1]. The probability that the Russian intelligence apparatus is directly instructing Trump to sabotage the geopolitical position of the USA is astronomical. Part of that sabotage is almost certainly the dismantling of the administrative state.
Call it a conspiracy theory if you want, but we’ve crossed this conspiracy theory bridge many times with Donald Trump and he has never really given any of us a good reason to not trust the idea that “oh, it’s actually worse than we thought…”
[1] https://www.aol.com/articles/exclusive-spy-jeffrey-epstein-p...
People are worried about AGI, I am worried what will happen if we don't achieve AGI.
The idea that AGI will care to fix this, or that the US government will allow an AGI who wants to fix this to exist, feels a little like escapism to me.
The idea that the us government (OR ANY HUMAN)would have any control over AGI at all is silly.
How do computers in a data center stop humans from rolling up with the keys to the building and turning off the power?
Computers that can out think you? Doesn't seem hard to imagine how that might play out ?
Then why don’t you imagine that and tell me instead of just making a comment that says “nuh uh!”
I submit the idea that even if the AI can electronically secure the building, lock the doors, and has automatic defensive weapons, humans can physically cut power as in cut power lines. Or they just stop feeding the power plant with fuel.
The computers don’t exist in physical space like humans do.
Humans would also not ever design critical physical systems without overrides. E.g., your MacBook physically disconnects the microphone when the lid is shut. No software can override that.
you're asking about what a hypothetical smart-than-myself adversary would do against me, it should be expected that any possible answer I could ever provide would be less clever than what the adversary would actually do.
in other words, when dealing with an adversary with a known perceptual and intellectual superiority the thought exercise of "let's prepare for everything we can imagine it will do" is short-sighted and provides an incomplete picture of possibility and defense.
My 0.02c : given that the thing would operate at least partially in the non-physical world, I think it's silly to pre-suppose we would ever be able to trap it somewhere.
Some fiction food-for-thought : the first thing the AGI in 'The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect' does it miniaturize its' working computer to the point of being essentially invulnerable and distributed (and eventually in another dimension) while simultaneously working to reduce its energy requirements and generation facility. Then it tries to determine how to manipulate physics and quickly gains mastery of the world that its' physical existence is in.
The fear here isn't that the story is truthful enough, the fear here is that humans have a poor grasp on the non-linear realities of a self-improving & thinking entity that works at such scales and timespans.
Why could an AGI system not design better robots, convince us we need to give it control of a robot army for our own protection and then mess us up??
Could you imagine how convincing an AGI would be?
One theory is that since China "won" the green energy race, the current US regime plans are to keep others dependent on oil and hence US shale, which would explain Trumps asinine comments about EU wind power. Not sure I buy it, but it seems to fit the bigger picture.
I have a feeling you're right, and I actually think the rest of the world will continue to move on with renewables just because they're cheap, effective and reduce dependency on terrorist petro states.
GOP dēlenda est.
Is this another Epstein distraction?
No: they’ve campaigned for years on behalf of their fossil fuel industry donors. The major oil and coal companies started a multi-decade push when the climate science debate was settled around 1980, with an end goal of protecting profits for as long as possible. The Republican Party has been trying to protect those donors but never had such strong backing to just ignore the scientists and EPA rule-making process before.
They still don't have strong backing to do this, they just don't have anyone to stop them.
I think it's largely supported by the rural/agriculture community. I have zero emissions controls on my diesel engine because it's more reliable out in the middle of nowhere and it lets you fall back to gloriously almost purely mechanical engine without ECU which is easy to work on. For the same reason, the government themselves exempt themselves from emissions controls which is why most the diesel trucks you can buy from government auctions are 'deleted.'
I think the idea that vehicles with emissions controls are inherently less reliable in any statistically meaningful way is highly suspect.
In addition, the most common failure points of vehicles are usually not related to the engine being unable to operate.
It’s usually accessory and wear issues: batteries, belts, tires, alternator, etc.
As a counterexample for you, the third generation Prius (2009-2014) has about the most bulletproof powertrain imaginable. Every UberX on the road is driving one with 300,000 miles on it and complete neglect-level maintenance.
eCVT transmissions in plug-in hybrid vehicles are simpler and more reliable with fewer wear parts (basically no wear parts) than pretty much every other transmission type, including manual transmissions.
I will also point out, being in the middle of nowhere should be ideal territory for electric vehicles if rural society had a little bit more imagination. They need minimal maintenance compared to any sort of combustion vehicle. You can avoid trucking gas and oil to remote locations, instead installing solar panels/batteries once (lord knows you’ve got plenty of land), set and forget it. Panels are dirt cheap and last 25+ years, batteries last 15+ years. Your oil deliveries are used once and depleted. Even without solar and battery, rural locations are far more likely to have electric utility service than any other utility.
300,000 is a joke compared to what most (non-hybrid) diesel engines last. Those are the ones that are most impacted by DPF and SCR systems that reduce reliability (in case of SCR, also DEF fluid you have to have accessible and add). Gasoline engines are not nearly as much impact by emissions controls IMO since as you say even the best case they normally not last past 300,000 (Toyota Tundra an exception that might even curb stomp the Prius, non-hybrid though) and emissions controls for those are more likely to last the life of the engine. It seems based on your comments that gasoline engines must be what you were familiar with but perhaps limited experience with [the usually more reliable] diesel engines.
The other bit about electric I see as a red herring. Obviously electric is superior if you have capacity and grid or battery for it, but it's a sideshow from emissions controls on outputs of petroleum engines. It's not an emission control on the output of the engine but rather displacing much of the work the engine is doing. It's still far from ideal for many rural/ag purposes. I've ran ag machinery in places where there isn't even roads let alone power panels or a place to hook in, either you haul diesel or you are fucked, and in fact it is often there so you can establish infrastructure in the first place.
Two separate things can occur without relation.
Au contraire The guy is slick. Sleight of hand trick.
A magician makes you look where they want while the magic happens elsewhere.
I would be surprised if he was not in charge in 2030 still. It seems everybody else ate too much plastic too be able to think straight.
At this point I would be surprised if he wasn't still there in 2036.
Unrelated, but it reminds me that he captured maduro, and Chavez and maduro were able to stay in charge by destroying the Congress, support of lobbying companies and accusing other parties of corruption and frauding the elections. Because of that, like many others. He was able to push elections far from view and there was always a war to be fought or an enemy to defend against. At some point, I kid you not, those guys accursed every single immigrant living in Venezuela of being a conspirator. All those who questioned any of this were accused of treason and the army was right there to defend the president. Sorry I mean country. Maduro lost too much gas to keep it going
I'd be surprised if he lives that long. He's clearly declining quickly.
Of all the terrible things that the Trump Admin has done, this is perhaps the worst of all, with the gravest repercussions for humanity.
But who cares about science, or humanity for that matter, so long as big companies can increase their profits and keep greasing the wheels of corrupt politicians!
I doubt it will end up accomplishing much more than letting 'delete' kits go legal again which have relatively weak penetration into the market. 3 years isn't enough runway to start manufacturing things without emissions unless they can get green-light to import foreign models that fast, which due to protectionism will probably get delayed as much as the admin can.
>Reversing the finding would reduce automobile manufacturers' spending by $2,400 per vehicle, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters.
If this is true, that is a monstrous 5% of an average new vehicle. And it's not just the cost of the vehicle, emissions equipment also can make the vehicle slightly less reliable, especially diesel engines, so it's likely to reduce the cost of vehicles by more than the initial 5%.
----- edit since I am throttled -----
I know for a fact the prices are lower non-emission vs emission. I own a tractor that is detuned 0.1 HP under the emission limit and with zero emissions controls. They sell the exact same tractor with the exact same engine with a fuel screw turned up over the limit to increase hp, plus emissions controls, and it's about $4,000 more. Manufacturers absolutely will charge more for emissions models than non-emissions models.
Now do the cost of unchecked emissions.
(And Leavitt is hardly a reputable source.)
> I know for a fact the prices are lower non-emission vs emission. I own a tractor that is detuned 0.1 HP under the emission limit and with zero emissions controls. They sell the exact same tractor with the exact same engine with a fuel screw turned up over the limit to increase hp, plus emissions controls, and it's about $4,000 more. Manufacturers absolutely will charge more for emissions models than non-emissions models.
This is flawed logic.
BMW tried charging a subscription fee for heated seats (https://www.thedrive.com/news/bmw-commits-to-subscriptions-e...). All the cars had the seat heaters; "exact same [car] with the exact same [seats]". (I'd also note that you yourself acknowledge that people are paying for the extra horsepower, not the emissions controls.)
You're describing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination, not necessarily an actual difference in the BOM.
No they're paying for the emissions controls. The people that buy the tractor I have, usually illegally turn the screw and get the horsepower back. Nothing is stopping them from doing it, it is all over youtube, can be done in a few minutes.
If it was actually about "price discrimination" they would do something to stop you from tuning them back to the full horsepower other than "please definitely don't do this thing we made it super easy for you to do, hint at in your repair manual, and is plastered all over youtube probably indirectly by advice of our own mechanics."
To use your BMW analogy, it would be "we put a screw to turn on the heated seats, but please don't do that". That would not indicate someone actually seeking price discriminations, but rather providing people a way to save money getting around an expensive rule, but also they will charge you $4000 if you really want to comply with the law and add a big "save the environment" doohickey on to the seat heater.
----------- re: below due to throttling-----------
You cutoff my quote to change the context of what I was saying. Preponderance of the evidence is pretty clear what you're saying doesn't apply here, even if it applies to something else.
> If it was actually about "price discrimination" they would do something to stop you from tuning them back to the full horsepower…
No, not necessarily. Plenty of price discrimination is the exact same thing sold to different crowds at different prices, like pink razors or "dude wipes".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_tax / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dude_Wipes
Or how Teslas let you pay for more range in an existing car, with no physical difference, just some code. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/business/teslas-pricing-h...
Wonderful. And will these amazing cost savings offset the costs of future disasters related to climate change? Or are we taking more of "the band played on" Titanic approach, now?
https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995
Acidified oceans, poisonous air, and frequent multibillion dollar extreme weather events are a small price to pay for a purely hypothetical $2,400 off my next car, which I am forced to own because the same companies that lobby against climate change regulations are the ones that tore up all the public transit infrastructure that would otherwise allow me not to own a car at all. Americans love getting fucked by our corporate overlords, we can’t get enough of it, it’s our way of life.
You really think big business will pull back pricing with this? It is as reasonable to believe that removal of the tariffs will bring back the lower prices on goods.
CEOs want to maximize their golden parachutes and their stock value ... prices will be the same or go up. USA capitalism is about maximize profits not the buying power of their citizens.
So what?
Are you fantasizing that they'll reduce the price of cars because of this and somehow benefit people?
And they'd have to take the time to redesign. And Democrats will (hopefully) reinstate it in a few years, and carmakers probably recognize that. Along with the threat of legal challenges by environmental groups.
And, further, if we eventually do get these inefficient polluting cars - who's going to want to buy them? They certainly wouldn't be able to sell them in same countries. Seems pointless overall for carmakers, generally.
Just a gift to polluting corporations and billionaires who want profit at our expense.