I just read an incredibly bias article about that lawsuit.
EPA requiring 56% cars be electric by 2032 is an outrageous overstepping of its authority yet that article is extremely bias towards EPA being justified to stop planet warming emissions. There is no proof that if car emissions were reduced to absolutely zero, that the change in climate could be measurably altered.
There are not 56% of drivers that would ever lower themselves to be seen driving an EV, no matter how much the purchase is subsidized with my tax money.
Until electric vehicles can tow 11000 lbs, have a 950 mile range, and recharge in 15 minutes, I will stick to my 7.3 Powerstroke diesel.
12 replies (most recent on top)
EPA oversteps its legal boundaries constantly and must be stopped.
EPA creates rules for which technology does not exist.
The root cause of the Volkswagen diesel gate is the EPA set emissions targets that were impossible to achieve without cheating. Not a single news channel told that part of the story. Most manufacturers simply quit making diesel engines when the impossible rule went into effect but VW tried to keep selling diesel cars despite the impossible hurdle, but had to cheat to do it.
Nobody at the EPA was disciplined for setting impossible standards and costing the industry billion$.
The EPA should not have such boundless authority.
@6ojn Because when you’re investing billions in capital you play the long game, not the short one.
Interesting that someone thinks operating an existing coal plant would be less economical that building a new gas plant, assuming EPA never moved the goal post. Existing coal plants kept having to upgrade every time the EPA changed the rules without any consideration of cost of upgrades or even if the technology existed to upgrade. The EPA intention was to put coal out of business.
As for Hydrogen, nothing is economical about Hydrogen production without artificial government tax credits. Gas wins in this case assuming no government interference.
Without government incentives and EPA constantly changing regulations, ICE vehicles would be nearly 100% through 2050 easily.
@5fep Nah, the market was done with it.
Even if you control for the EPA emissions standards for coal (which you clearly haven’t bothered to look up), natgas is still cheaper and produces more energy per unit volume. It’s also much easier (and cheaper) to transport.
This is capitalism at work. Maybe next time hydrogen replaces natgas. The market will decide.
Coal would still be significant if EPA had never changed emissions requirements.
EPA does not care about protecting anything. They are promoting their own agenda in big money.
@1pcb The free market is what destroyed coal power.
The fracking bo-m of 2008-2014 ushered in the era of cheap and abundant natural gas, and this became the preferred fuel for power generation.
The EPA is destroying coal power. USA has 210 coal power plants with 170 of those scheduled to be decommissioned in the next 5 years.
China has 1100+ coal power plants with 300 new coal plants under construction.
The EPA and the Paris Accord are combining to harm America and build up China.
The EPA is also pushing to 100% electric cars while closing 170 power plants. Pure Genius.
The EPA creating such destructive regulations must be stopped.
@1lvf Read the court filings and go to the EPA website to read the (free and publicly available) text of the rule.
I don’t see the imminent destruction of any industry happening because of it. I do see a tiny dent in shareholder profits though. Not sure why you’re so worked up about that.
EPA should not have the authority to destroy entire industries.
Non elected id--ts in the EPA are acting like law makers with all the regulations they are inventing.
If it is a lawsuit from API to EPA, it more likely the Oil companies that owns API against EPA.It is a fact!
Seems like a lot of highly-paid people at ExxonMobil don’t have very much to do.
@OP Try reading a less bias article. Better yet, try reading the court filings to see what is actually being litigated. While you’re at it, look up the actual rule. Chances are, neither one says what you think it says.