If we don't kill us, the earth will.

@OwnerOfMany Almost every pollution point source worldwide is negligible by itself. But in combination, they contribute to the global problem. We have the technology to implement the rule, the fuel efficiency standards save lives, and there is no reason why they shouldn't be implemented. Except Trump.

@windinhishair To a large degree I agree with you. However when you are talking about 1% to 2# of 14% of two specific gasses, in the infamous words of Hillary Clinton, "What difference does it make?"
Now, if that attitude was adopted to all pollution that would be a different story.

@OwnerOfMany You are technically correct, but this is an area where it shouldn't be reversed. It impacts lives, energy independence, and can be implemented because the technology is and will be available. The only effects of reversing it are negative.

@windinhishair Not necessarily true. If you drop those gasses as a reference you can re-tune a vehicle to get better mileage, more power, with less total emissions than they run now.
I know this because we did it with a modified 2002 Firebird LS6. It passed every test we put it through except the California Emissions.

@OwnerOfMany Yes, you can fine tune emissions, but that doesn't get you anywhere near the point the future emission standards will. The emission standards are needed for the reasons I've already outlined. And they will make a difference.

[quote]On June 19, 2015, EPA and NHTSA announced proposed rules for the second phase of fuel economy standards for medium and heavy-duty vehicles. The phase two standards, which were outlined as a key strategy in President Obama’s Climate Action Plan, call for an 8 to 24 percent increase in fuel efficiency, depending on the vehicle’s size and purpose, between the years 2018 and 2027. The standards are projected to save 1.8 billion barrels of oil, or 75 billion gallons of fuel, over the lifetime of the vehicles sold during model years 2018-2027, saving vehicle owners $170 billion. The economic benefits do not end with the vehicle owner. Since the trucking industry hauls 70 percent of all U.S. goods, and the standards will significantly reduce trucking costs, the EPA concludes that the average U.S. household will save nearly $150 a year by 2030 and $275 by 2040.

Additionally, the standards will cut carbon emissions by 1 billion tons over the lifetime of the vehicles sold during model years 2018-2027, which is “roughly equivalent to the GHG emissions associated with the electricity and power use from all U.S. residences for one year.” Tackling carbon emissions from trucks is becoming ever more urgent: according to the EPA, “heavy-duty trucks are the second largest and fastest growing segment of the U.S. transportation sector in terms of emissions and energy use” and, globally, greenhouse gas emissions from heavy-duty vehicles are growing so rapidly that they are expected to surpass emissions from passenger vehicles by the year 2030.[/quote]

@windinhishair 8% to 10% maybe, 24% can not be done with current fuels. I don't care how you squeeze it there is not but so much power in an ounce of fuel and we have already pushed it to within 8% of its capacity.
Maybe with hydrogen/oxygen injection or similar but not with petroleum. And saving money would be a pipe dream.

@OwnerOfMany Any way you slice it, it is a big benefit to the nation, and to the world. Not inconsequential. And once we are rid of the anti-environmental administration, there will be similar standards put in place again. Of course, there will be years lost, because of the regulatory process, but at least we'll be moving in the right direction again.

@windinhishair I follow your logic but it doesn't matter what kind of regulations you put in place if they can't be met. Not to mention you are talking about the US alone, not the world, and the rest of the world for the most part doesn't give a shit. WE alone can not solve this problem, period.
Add to that most of the regulations put in place have nothing to do with anything other than politics and money shifting. The problem may be real but the political solutions are a hand job. The same holds true for the reasons and realities of most of the warts we have had to fight.

@OwnerOfMany These regulations CAN be met. And technology developed here does make its way to other countries where it is used. I agree that we can't solve the world's problems alone, but certainly we can do everything we can for something that poses a long-term problem.

You are fundamentally incorrect that most regulations [quote]put in place have nothing to do with anything other than politics and money shifting.[/quote]. That's just incorrect. Regulations are promulgated to address real problems with viable solutions. Have you ever been involved with the rulemaking process? There is a very formal and lengthy process that requires input from all affected parties. And I can assure you that corporations DO make a difference in what gets promulgated. As do individuals. I've submitted comments myself on certain proposed regulations on behalf of industries and seen the subsequent versions modified to incorporate them. It is a very democratic process. And the resulting regulations are science-based.

@OwnerOfMany Efficiency and emissions standards are not the same thing.

@windinhishair If you remove the personal gain from the political process you would see an entirely different set of regulations. That I will guarantee.

@QuixoticSoul I KNOW this...but if you increase the overall efficiency you reduce emissions automatically. And if they are so concerned with emissions why is it every time a better fuel or better system is submitted they either tax it or regulate it out of existence in favor of big oil.

@OwnerOfMany These measures are aimed at reducing total greehouse output which is not the sort of emission that is handled by catalytic converters, etc, and pretty directly translates from the amount of gasoline burned.

Honestly, people keep talking about these better fuel systems, etc. But when they bring up specifics it's always pretty obvious why a system failed, and it has nothing to do with taxes. And now that EVs are on the scene, the tax man isn't trying to kill them.

@QuixoticSoul I was not talking about catalytic converters, they are acually part of the problem. And you are wrong that it translates to the amount of gasoline that is burned but more to how efficiently it is burned. The more efficiently it is burned the less emissions you have.
As for alternate fuels, ethanol, methanol, methane, hydrogen/oxygen injection, could all be cost efficient but are taxed beyond petroleum or regulated out of existence.
As for EVs, that is a whole new set of pollution problems waiting to be dealt with down the road not to mention the cost of creating the power to feed them.

@OwnerOfMany It's about carbon going into the atmosphere, total gasoline burned is about the only metric that counts in this context, and that's what those efficiency standards are aimed for. Nothing to do with catalytic converters.

All those alternate fuels have many of their own problems, and some don't even address the carbon situation. Taxes is not the reason why they haven't taken off.

@QuixoticSoul For crying out loud...can you read? I said, the more efficient the LESS FUEL, I also said converters were part of the problem.
ANY of those fuels are cleaner that petroleum and H/O injection is absolutely clean to burn, your exhaust is water vapor.
I did not say JUST taxes, I said taxed and or regulated out of existence.
Any way you slice it, big oil money will not let them "take off" as you so put it.