Possible progress in combating the Climate Change LIE ...

[Gepetto 1,372]

https://www.npr.org/2025/07/29/nx-s1-5463771/epa-greenhouse-gas-regulations-cars-pollution

For years the Environmental Protection Agency has pushed carmakers to reduce how much vehicles contribute to climate change.

Today the EPA laid out plans to not just weaken those rules, but end them entirely.

In 2009, the agency determined that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are a form of air pollution that the agency can regulate under the Clean Air Act. That's because those gases contribute to climate change, which harms human health.

That determination, called the "endangerment finding," underpins major regulations — including strict tailpipe standards for carmakers that envisioned at least half the new cars sold in the U.S. being electric or plug-in hybrids by 2030. The transportation sector is the largest source of direct greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.

President Trump campaigned against "electric vehicle mandates," and once in office, pledged to roll back such rules. Three sets of regulations that push companies to build cars that burn less gasoline — or no gas at all — were in his sights. His administration and Congress have already eliminated or weakened two of them.

First, the administration asked Congress to revoke the EPA waiver that allows California to set the state's zero-emission vehicle mandate. That was an unprecedented move, and in May, Congress did as requested.

The federal CAFE standards, meanwhile, are still in place — for now. But the Department of Transportation is currently reviewing those rules, after stating that it costs automakers too much to comply with them, and that they drive up prices for consumers. Rewriting the rules "will lower vehicle costs and ensure the American people can purchase the cars they want," Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy wrote in a statement in June. (The regulations do increase the cost of cars, but consumer groups have repeatedly found they save drivers far more in fuel over the life of the car than they create in upfront costs.)

In the meantime, Congress has defanged the CAFE standards by removing the fines for carmakers who fail to meet them. That change, passed in the mega tax and spending bill that President Trump recently signed into law, could save hundreds of millions of dollars for automakers like General Motors and Stellantis that have chosen to make less efficient vehicles and pay the resulting penalties. And it removes the incentive for other automakers to comply; they face no consequences if they don't.

That leaves the EPA's tailpipe standards.

Under the EPA's proposal, tailpipe rules about pollution that directly harms human health, such as particulates, would remain in place; so would requirements for labels about fuel economy. But all the regulations related to cutting greenhouse gas emissions from cars would be removed.

Public comments and lawsuits 

While the rollback of the California waiver and the elimination of CAFE fees have both been signed into law, the EPA's change is just a proposal. There will be a comment period, when companies, organizations and members of the general public can tell the agency what they think, and the EPA is required to take those comments into consideration before it finalizes any changes.

Public comments will be accepted through September 21, while a public hearing will be held in August.

The deregulatory push is also being challenged in court — and will almost certainly face more lawsuits.

California has sued over the revocation of its EPA waiver.

States and environmental groups have also asked the federal courts to review some of NHTSA's changes to the CAFE standards.

The Environmental Defense Fund has repeatedly sued the Trump administration over changes that weaken environmental protections. Asked whether this latest change is likely to prompt litigation, Vickie Patton, the group's chief counsel, paused for a moment.

"This would be one of the most damaging actions, really, ever taken in the history of the Environmental Protection Agency, if they move forward with an effort to just walk away from protecting the American people from some of the most dangerous pollution in our lives," she said, pointing to the ongoing effects of heat waves and fires made worse by climate change, in addition to smog and soot from vehicles. "It is EPA's responsibility to carry out the law and ensure that the American people are protected from harmful tailpipe pollution."

Uncertainty for automakers

Rolling back vehicle standards has long been a priority for the oil and biofuels industries, with focus on the issue intensifying as the rules grew stricter. In a statement last fall, the American Petroleum Institute called the standards an "intrusive government mandate," while the American Farm Bureau said it would "pull the rug out from underneath farmers" growing crops for renewable fuels.

The auto industry's position has been more nuanced, with the major automaker trade group the Alliance for Automotive Innovation stepping up a few years ago to defend the EPA's right to set strict standards — but also frequently pointing out that it would be far easier and more efficient to have one set of standards instead of three.

 

Recently, as EV demand grew more slowly than expected — now expected to be made worse by the administration's elimination of consumer EV tax credits — traditional automakers had been vocally warning that the Biden-era standards are unfeasible.

On Tuesday John Bozzella, the president of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, issued a statement saying the group is "reviewing" the proposal "to understand what it means for U.S. vehicle emissions rules going forward." He added that "there's no question the vehicle emissions regulations finalized under the previous administration aren't achievable and should be revised to reflect current market conditions."

The trade group representing auto dealers, generally more skeptical of EVs than manufacturers, said that the existing rules would raise the cost of cars and trucks and that dealers "share the administration's concerns regarding vehicle affordability and customer choice."

Ford, in a statement emailed to NPR, said that it appreciated the work to address the "imbalance" between the current regulations and the market, adding: "America needs a single, stable standard to foster business planning."

Having a "stable" rule is a key concern for companies. While many automakers would welcome an easing of the rules, the flip-flopping between administrations and the drawn-out lawsuits create enormous uncertainty for them, even as companies have to make decisions about their product lineups five years or more into the future.

As for consumers, Beia Spiller, an economist and a fellow at Resources for the Future, a nonpartisan think tank, points out that drivers like having more efficient cars. "People would prefer to have a vehicle that costs them less to operate," she says. But, she says, research shows that new car buyers focus more on up-front prices (especially now, when those prices are so high) and under-value their future fuel savings.

That means market forces alone won't push cars to get clean as fast as regulations. So the rollback, in addition to increasing emissions, would also increase long-term fuel costs for drivers.

But, she says, it also wouldn't send the market into an immediate U-turn toward gas guzzlers. Automakers have made major investments in cleaner car technologies. Some of those investments might be reversed, and just written off as lost money; others might be carried forward. Even as EV sales flag, she says, hybrids, in particular, are likely to stay strong.

 

 

[Cdub100 3,930]

Let's pretend global warming is real and not a scam that it actually is. 

When looking at world history, the best times for life are during warmer periods. Life explodes when the earth is warmer. 

If anything, global warming is a good thing. 

But it's a scam.

[Strike 5,590]

I would be okay with eliminating the new regulations Biden added but I don't think we need to go further than that.  And you know as soon as a Democrat is elected again they're just going to reverse this stuff again.   God I hate politicians.

[SUXBNME 1,516]

Ice age a commeth
Global Warming 
MAN MADE Global warming
CLIMATE CHANGE !@#

 

3 of the above are proven falsehoods...Place your bets

[Maximum Overkill 2,015]

The same science that says Men can have babies?  

[Frozenbeernuts 2,270]

8 hours ago, Cdub100 said:

Let's pretend global warming is real and not a scam that it actually is. 

When looking at world history, the best times for life are during warmer periods. Life explodes when the earth is warmer. 

If anything, global warming is a good thing. 

But it's a scam.

Well it's good for the US. If you're a dumbass European who refuses to get air conditioning, life is going to be rough.

[Frozenbeernuts 2,270]

Let the market naturally move towards more efficient fuel standards.

Maybe we should address how car makers have bought and buried patents that would have already produced more efficient fuelf sources.

[Fnord 2,293]

Cool. Now we can choke on dirty air, get sick from dirty water, watch crop supplies dwindle, food insecurity increase, and really stick it to those stupid bastards that live within 30° of the equator.

Kids and grandkids? Fock those little freeloaders.

[Mike Honcho 5,295]

When I read the headline, I thought the progress was in the lie being about global warming denial, but now I see that one is still going strong.   

[Hardcore troubadour 15,508]

Yeah, not really looking to be lectured by pot heads about the environment. Marijuana grow farms are terrible for it. 

[MDC 7,492]

What’s the lie?

[seafoam1 3,080]

42 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Cool. Now we can choke on dirty air, get sick from dirty water, watch crop supplies dwindle, food insecurity increase, and really stick it to those stupid bastards that live within 30° of the equator.

Kids and grandkids? Fock those little freeloaders.

 

13 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

When I read the headline, I thought the progress was in the lie being about global warming denial, but now I see that one is still going strong.   

 

3 minutes ago, MDC said:

What’s the lie?

Liberals are so dumb. 

 

Early 80s: "GLOBAL COOLING!!! "

2010s: "GLOBAL WARMING!!! "

2020s: "CLIMATE!!! "

 

Please try to keep this lie going. It only helps the normals win more elections. 

[Fnord 2,293]

16 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Yeah, not really looking to be lectured by pot heads about the environment. Marijuana grow farms are terrible for it. 

Have you suddenly found yourself not needing to eat, drink, or breathe? Care to counter my assessment?

"Ad hominem attacks are the first and last refuge of a limited intellect that is unwilling or unable to engage with the ideas rather than the person." - Paul LoSchiavo 

[seafoam1 3,080]

9 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Have you suddenly found yourself not needing to eat, drink, or breathe? Care to counter my assessment?

"Ad hominem attacks are the first and last refuge of a limited intellect that is unwilling or unable to engage with the ideas rather than the person." - Paul LoSchiavo 

What this libtard fails to realize is that he's not smart.

What is the point of conversing with a brain dead cult member of the liberal collective? 

Just call them what they are and move on. 

[RLLD 4,254]

I think we need to accept that climate is not static and changes.  And I think it gets warmer and cooler, and has done so for the entire history of earth.

Setting that aside, I think there is an arrogance among humans that presumes they influence it to a significant degree, and can change it.  So we have those who presume themselves enlightened who have decided to motivate the weak minded with embellished notions of a threat.  This they do because there is a financial reward in scaring people.

[Mike Honcho 5,295]

35 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I think we need to accept that climate is not static and changes.  And I think it gets warmer and cooler, and has done so for the entire history of earth.

Setting that aside, I think there is an arrogance among humans that presumes they influence it to a significant degree, and can change it.  So we have those who presume themselves enlightened who have decided to motivate the weak minded with embellished notions of a threat.  This they do because there is a financial reward in scaring people.

What about the arrogance of people who presume to know more about a subject than the people who have dedicated there lives to study it?  

[RLLD 4,254]

2 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

What about the arrogance of people who presume to know more about a subject than the people who have dedicated there lives to study it?  

If the ones you are referring to are also the ones who said disaster was coming, then we can safely assume those dedicated people are either morons, or are being paid to make false assertions.  This is where the logical fallacy of appeal to authority will fail......just so you know....

 

 

[Fnord 2,293]

3 minutes ago, RLLD said:

If the ones you are referring to are also the ones who said disaster was coming, then we can safely assume those dedicated people are either morons, or are being paid to make false assertions.  This is where the logical fallacy of appeal to authority will fail......just so you know....

You can claim climate change has nothing to do with human activities, fossil fuel use, farming practices, etc. I will disagree. Put that aside.

Rolling back these laws and protections WILL result in more pollution and less safe water, air, and food. This is not being denied or debated. How do you envision that somehow being a positive?

[RLLD 4,254]

Just now, Fnord said:

You can claim climate change has nothing to do with human activities, fossil fuel use, farming practices, etc. I will disagree. Put that aside.

Rolling back these laws and protections WILL result in more pollution and less safe water, air, and food. This is not being denied or debated. How do you envision that somehow being a positive?

I never said human activities do not influence climate.  But I DO,,,,assert that human influence does not contribute to a significant extend.  Similarly, we do not have the power to really influence it in a positive way as well.....again, this is pure arrogance, though I cannot discount that they could be paid to say such trite nonsense.

We should really take care about believing people just based on credentials

[seafoam1 3,080]

All this climate crap is liberal fear mongering 101. They disguise this practice in many ways over various obsessions but this one is flat out obvious. Liberals are a bunch of slimy old hucksters. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,508]

38 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

What about the arrogance of people who presume to know more about a subject than the people who have dedicated there lives to study it?  

Aristotle studied a lot. He was the smartest man in the world. 

[Fnord 2,293]

33 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I never said human activities do not influence climate.  But I DO,,,,assert that human influence does not contribute to a significant extend.  Similarly, we do not have the power to really influence it in a positive way as well.....again, this is pure arrogance, though I cannot discount that they could be paid to say such trite nonsense.

We should really take care about believing people just based on credentials

How many credentials does one need to understand that dirty air + dirty water + dirty food = unhealthy humans? You guys keep talking about common sense, how about you display some?

[Hardcore troubadour 15,508]

Less pollution should be the goal. Maybe they should have stuck with that.  But there’s a lot more money in doomsday. I drink from a paper straw. Taylor swift flies a private jet. She’s the good guy.  Huh? 

[MDC 7,492]

I don’t think there’s much we can do to reverse climate change so it’s not something I get worked up about. And I 100% understand the idea that the green new deal and initiatives like it are scams.

But you’re a stone cold moron if you don’t believe manmade emissions are contributing to the problem. 

[seafoam1 3,080]

4 minutes ago, MDC said:

I don’t think there’s much we can do to reverse climate change so it’s not something I get worked up about. And I 100% understand the idea that the green new deal and initiatives like it are scams.

But you’re a stone cold moron if you don’t believe manmade emissions are contributing to the problem. 

This dope wants no climate change. Let's just stop the earth from moving too. 

[Mike Honcho 5,295]

3 minutes ago, MDC said:

I don’t think there’s much we can do to reverse climate change so it’s not something I get worked up about. And I 100% understand the idea that the green new deal and initiatives like it are scams.

But you’re a stone cold moron if you don’t believe manmade emissions are contributing to the problem. 

It's fairly simple actually. Different elements have different sizes, which in turn will reflect a certain amount of light waves back towards the earth, that's the greenhouse effect.  Adding more of those elements to the atmosphere will change the amount of light that is reflected back to earth.  Humans have added a measurable amount of those elements. People who don't believe that man has had an effect on climate are the same type of people who believed that scientists and doctors who said there were no negative health consequences to smoking. 

[seafoam1 3,080]

2 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

It's fairly simple actually. 

The climate changes. Has always changed. And always will. 

Yep. That is very simple. 

[seafoam1 3,080]

People who think there is a climate crisis are low IQ people. Those type of people usually vote Democrat. 

[MDC 7,492]

Some people think there’s a climate crisis. Some people disagree. Other people think there’s a crisis we can’t fix.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All people hate Peefoam.  

[seafoam1 3,080]

14 minutes ago, MDC said:

Some people think there’s a climate crisis. Some people disagree. Other people think there’s a crisis we can’t fix.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All people hate Peefoam.  

Here in reality, there is no climate crisis. 

All people hate mdpee.  

And look how much less space I took up on the page to say the truth. 

[Fnord 2,293]

56 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

 I drink from a paper straw. 

Pretty sure admitting this in the GC is grounds to be called an effeminate cuck.

Not by me, of course, I'm above such tawdry games. Just sayin though. 

[thegeneral 3,253]

Cheering dirtier air? SMH

[Hardcore troubadour 15,508]

11 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Pretty sure admitting this in the GC is grounds to be called an effeminate cuck.

Not by me, of course, I'm above such tawdry games. Just sayin though. 

Two of the problems with the present day left: they aren’t intellectually curious anymore, and they can’t grasp nuance.  Trump wrecked them. 

[seafoam1 3,080]

8 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Cheering dirtier air? SMH

Genpee. Yet another cultist following the liberal collective's lies. 

[jerryskids 6,829]

2 hours ago, RLLD said:

If the ones you are referring to are also the ones who said disaster was coming, then we can safely assume those dedicated people are either morons, or are being paid to make false assertions.  This is where the logical fallacy of appeal to authority will fail......just so you know....

 

 

I think this is unfair.  Most of the people who go into some sort of climate change career truly believe that the earth is in trouble from man-made effects.  That, however, significantly impacts the research they do and the results they publish.  I do not believe there are a lot of truly objective scientists in the field.

It's like a lot of medical fields.  Doctors who perform abortions, shockingly, support abortions.  Doctors who do trans surgeries, shockingly, support trans surgeries.  Some of it is financial, sure, but I think they generally believe in what they do, or else they wouldn't have entered the field.

1 hour ago, Mike Honcho said:

It's fairly simple actually. Different elements have different sizes, which in turn will reflect a certain amount of light waves back towards the earth, that's the greenhouse effect.  Adding more of those elements to the atmosphere will change the amount of light that is reflected back to earth.  Humans have added a measurable amount of those elements. People who don't believe that man has had an effect on climate are the same type of people who believed that scientists and doctors who said there were no negative health consequences to smoking. 

But, wouldn't it also reflect the light as it is first coming in?  

[jerryskids 6,829]

Talking about EVs:  on my recent vacation to the Yoop of Michigan, my nephew drove his Mustang EV.  Very sharp looking, a british racing green.  Anyway, when he got there, we searched around the house and found an outlet such that he could park right next to the porch and reach it with his plug.  But it was a normal 110V, low amp outlet.  Four days later we were out on a boat and for whatever reason he checked an app and announced that his car was almost, but not quite, charged.

I'd consider a hybrid or plug-in hybrid, but full EV?  Fuggeddaboutit.

[Strike 5,590]

New study is out - Liberals are not only less likely to buy Teslas since they decided Elon was the Devil Jr., they're significantly less likely to buy ANY EV.  So much for caring about the environment!!!!

[seafoam1 3,080]

35 minutes ago, Strike said:

New study is out - Liberals are not only less likely to buy Teslas since they decided Elon was the Devil Jr., they're significantly less likely to buy ANY EV.  So much for caring about the environment!!!!

Since liberals started their big push towards EVs, the EV auto sales are now at a massive 8% of all car sales. And....it ain't going up. 

[Mike Honcho 5,295]

Just now, jerryskids said:

I think this is unfair.  Most of the people who go into some sort of climate change career truly believe that the earth is in trouble from man-made effects.  That, however, significantly impacts the research they do and the results they publish.  I do not believe there are a lot of truly objective scientists in the field.

It's like a lot of medical fields.  Doctors who perform abortions, shockingly, support abortions.  Doctors who do trans surgeries, shockingly, support trans surgeries.  Some of it is financial, sure, but I think they generally believe in what they do, or else they wouldn't have entered the field.

But, wouldn't it also reflect the light as it is first coming in?  

Some is reflected back into space, but that's a small percentage of the total.  About 70% of the sun's energy that comes to earth reaches the surface, 30% is reflected back into space.  Of that amount that reaches earth, some is reflected back into the atmosphere, a small percent  that is absorbed into greenhouse gases. But when you take that small percentage and double it, say going from .5% to 1% that's a huge change.  Much bigger change than, even if it was even, going from 70% to 69.5

[seafoam1 3,080]

4 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Some is reflected back into space, but that's a small percentage of the total.  About 70% of the sun's energy that comes to earth reaches the surface, 30% is reflected back into space.  Of that amount that reaches earth, some is reflected back into the atmosphere, a small percent  that is absorbed into greenhouse gases. But when you take that small percentage and double it, say going from .5% to 1% that's a huge change.  Much bigger change than, even if it was even, going from 70% to 69.5

A guy who takes pictures from his phone for a living is telling us about the climate.