EPA Prepares To Roll Back Rules Requiring Cars To Be Cleaner and More Efficient (nytimes.com) 378
Coral Davenport and Hiroko Tabuchi, reporting for The New York Times: The Trump administration is expected to launch an effort in coming days to weaken greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy standards for automobiles, handing a victory to car manufacturers and giving them ammunition to potentially roll back industry standards worldwide. The move -- which undercuts one of President Barack Obama's signature efforts to fight climate change -- would also propel the Trump administration toward a courtroom clash with California, which has vowed to stick with the stricter rules even if Washington rolls back federal standards. That fight could end up creating one set of rules for cars sold in California and the 12 states that follow its lead, and weaker rules for the rest of the states, in effect splitting the nation into two markets.
Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, is expected to frame the initiative as eliminating a regulatory burden on automakers that will result in more affordable trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles for buyers, according to people familiar with the plan. An E.P.A. spokeswoman confirmed that Mr. Pruitt had sent a draft of the 16-page plan to the White House for approval. Further reading: EPA to its employees: Ignore science when talking about climate change (ArsTechnica)
Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, is expected to frame the initiative as eliminating a regulatory burden on automakers that will result in more affordable trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles for buyers, according to people familiar with the plan. An E.P.A. spokeswoman confirmed that Mr. Pruitt had sent a draft of the 16-page plan to the White House for approval. Further reading: EPA to its employees: Ignore science when talking about climate change (ArsTechnica)
Disadvantage US manufacturers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely this change in regulation would do more to hurt US car companies that help them? If they don't design and build for efficiency, then surely this would limit their ability to export to any market that cares about efficiency or where fuel costs are already high? This feels like another short term action, just like trying to protect the coal industry, that will end up hurting more in the long run, than doing any real good.
Re:Disadvantage US manufacturers? (Score:5, Funny)
No, no, it's MAGA! Making Americans Get Asphyxiated!
Re:Disadvantage US manufacturers? (Score:5, Funny)
That's
Mueller
Ain't
Going
Away
Disingenuous and Sensationalist (Score:4, Insightful)
The headlines on this story have all been uniformly Disingenuous and Sensationalist.
Twelve Mile a gallon cars are NOT going to be coming back, Standards are not going to be weakened.
What is changing is that the highly unrealistic target of 50 mpg for fleet average requirements in 2025 are going to be scaled down to something that is actually achievable.
Re:Disingenuous and Sensationalist (Score:5, Interesting)
Unrealistic? Really? The Prius does better than that right now. And AFAIK, all EVs do *much* better than that in terms of miles per gallon-equivalent-amount-of-power. All it takes to hit that target is to produce more electric vehicles, more hybrids, and fewer gas hogs. It literally requires nothing more than changing the number of vehicles in each category that you build, while working to push down the price of electric vehicles to be more affordable. How is that unrealistic? Beyond, I mean, the possibly unrealistic goal of getting automakers to stop dragging their heels and whining and screaming like petulant children....
Re: (Score:3)
Hell... my plain old last-generation, not-hybrid, 2013 Mazda 3 tops 40 MPG on the freeway. First car I've owned, actually, that not just meets it's EPA estimate, but routinely beats it. The current gen already does better. And the new engine going into the next generation is even more efficient. No way is 50MPG unrealistic.
Re: (Score:3)
A lot simpler way to solve the demand for more fuel efficient vehicles would be to scrap the regulations and instead tax the fuel. A tax would be painful for the population but will also be beneficial in the long run - maybe that could help paying off the debt?
Re: (Score:3)
California already does that, in spades (about a third of the cost of gas at present). All it achieves is making poor people poorer, since it's largely working-class people who have to live far enough away from jobs that they're forced to commute (and no, it's not practical to have mass transit handle that when no two people go the same direction at the same time all over a metro area over 50 miles wide). And selling 'em all new efficient hybrids isn't such a good solution either. Most can't quality for a n
Re: (Score:3)
Not exactly.
https://taxfoundation.org/stat... [taxfoundation.org]
This is just the gas tax, tho. CA also charges sales tax (not included in the totals), and not just on the price of gas, but on the price after all other taxes are tacked onto it.
Re:Disadvantage US manufacturers? (Score:5, Insightful)
American car companies make money on trucks and SUVs, not high MPG cars.
Re: (Score:2)
The cowards are correct. In general, a heavy vehicle will win in a collision with a light one. p=mv. If you disagree, drive headlong into a train as a test.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's true. It also makes trucks very dangerous since the majority of drivers aren't in trucks. If a car is an accident with a truck, they will be on the opposite end of that equation and will have a much worse time during that accident.
Then of course trucks block sight lines, making it much harder to see what's ahead. They take up more space. Are more sluggish to respond. And my personal favorite, have large tires and high backends that allow them to pickup things/rocks in the road and fling them at
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
At any given speed I would rather be in a smaller more maneuverable car.
However, the stats suggest that drivers of cheap SUVs die less than drivers of cheap saloon cars: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topic... [iihs.org]
(Drivers of luxury cars are pretty safe, whatever their vehicle style).
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, it's safer. If you're the one killing the other person. Drive a tank and run them over, I guess.
Re:Disadvantage US manufacturers? (Score:4, Informative)
No, not "only because." Another big reason is because of these new laws requiring child safety seats. Try getting your triplets into a regular car. Ain't happenin'. You need an SUV or van for all those huge child safety seats, esp. when you can't put any in the front because of the accursed air bag (I've NEVER been in a situation where an air bag would have done me the slightest bit of good, and I've been driving for 54 years.) So, you get kids, and want to go somewhere as a family all in the same vehicle, can you say "SUV?" I knew you could...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
As someone who has been shopping for a new vehicle lately, I am dismayed by how many of the new vehicles have implemented desperate measures to achieve the higher CAFE requirements. The low hanging fruit in efficiency improvements seems to have all been picked. Now things like start/stop, exotic transmissions, and some poor turbo implementations are making the vehicles drive worse than the previous generation. And with electric/hybrid vehicles, many hidden costs remain a question, including rumored safet
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I first drove a car with start/stop in it in Germany over 10 years ago. It worked great. There's no reason for it to be a detriment to driving. Fast forward 10 years, my current car, a 2014 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid has start/stop flawlessly integrated and not even noticeable. No jarring or jerkiness.
I get 37 mpg combined mileage (based on 4 years of real world driving) and because of the electric assist I get instant torque whenever I want to pass grandma on the freeway. The hybrid drivetrain is a clean a win
Re: (Score:3)
I think start/stop is questionable at best. My car consumes .6L (that's .15 gallons) of gas per hour of idling. An hour of idling at traffic lights etc is a lot of start/stop cycles causing wear on the starter motor/magnet switch and all related moving part, as well as consuming significant juice from the battery that the alternator has to resupply (which means increased gas consumption while driving). I'm not sure whether it's a net positive or net negative, but I suppose even if it eventually saves you
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately fuel efficiency and emissions are often slightly at odds, depending on what you're trying to achieve. Higher compression ratios, more ignition advance, and/or leaner mixtures give better performance and efficiency, but cause more NOx, possibly more CO and HC.
To function properly, catalytic converters need cycling- they intentionally cycle the engine from rich to lean. Not the best for mpg.
Diesels have been a huge offender on our highways, and since they _finally_ forced them to be cleaner, t
Re:Disadvantage US manufacturers? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
US automakers have subsidiaries in quite a few non-US countries
For some reason, that phrase amused me and brought up an interesting question. I can grasp what non-US countries are . . .
. . . but what are US countries . . . ? Besides the US itself, of course.
Re: (Score:3)
US automakers have subsidiaries in quite a few non-US countries
. . . but what are US countries . . . ? Besides the US itself, of course.
Would Puerto Rico be a US country?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, sure, if you limit the competition to a gas guzzler category, an American company can compete.
Re: Disadvantage US manufacturers? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I almost bought a Volt at one time. They were a little under-performing when compared to my Subaru WRX. The reason for my road trips is that I road rally with the Sports Car Club of America, and although road rallies are not the races you see on TV on regular roads, but instead more of a game of Simon Says done with cars at fairly low speeds, there are still some advantages to be had with a "quick" car. Even I didn't used to believe it, and considering the rallies I was running it didn't make sense, bu
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They just run two production lines (Score:4, Insightful)
Umm, no.
US Military budget is around 630 billion dollars. Total Federal budget is north of 4 trillion dollars.
Even if you only count discretionary spending, the military budget is maybe 40% of the budget, at most.
the military budget is maybe 40% of the budget (Score:5, Funny)
> the military budget is maybe 40% of the budget, at most.
Phew. The OP almost got me worried. I feel very much relieved now. Thanks a bunch for that!
Re:the military budget is maybe 40% of the budget (Score:4, Insightful)
" A lot of countries spent far less on defense, and remain oddly uninvaded."
Because WE are protecting them with OUR (very expensive) military. Before he was elected, before he was even running for election, Donald Trump mentioned in interviews that some big benficiaries of our defense spending should start coughing up for its creation and maintenance. I favor that. If you're in such a situation that you're in danger if the US military goes home, then you should be paying for it.
CAFE standards (Score:5, Insightful)
CAFE (Corp Average Fuel Economy) standards were always a silly way of doing things, since they specified average economy within a given class of vehicle. Car, truck, later there were more categories based on wheelbase and width. It encouraged automakers to make more "trucks" that were used as cars, actually lowering real-life average fuel economy for the cars on US roads.
Better solution would be to tax fuel at a fairly high rate and let the markets decide what to buy. Use the tax money to subsidize clean (electric) transport like electric cars and trains, roll out charging stations, encourage solar installation, maybe even subsidize the (relatively clean compared to fossil fuels) nuclear power industry.
Tax fuel to mitigate pollution (Score:5, Insightful)
I totally agree, but then...
No, wait, no, stop. Don't subsidize anything with this money. And you can't afford to subsidize things anyway, once you look closer at your true liabilities.
Use this money to mitigate the effects of the pollution. Plant forests with it. Build atmospheric scrubbers. Use it to treat people who are sick from pollution. Use it to build multi-trillion-dollar projects to put our coastal cities on stilts. That sort of stuff.
The goal of the tax should simply be end the subsidy that we're currently giving to everyone who burns things. You won't need to give incentives to cleaner tech, because they'll already have the incentive of their users accruing less tax to clean up after themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
US government has been picking winners and losers since the 60s. See also: the US's unhealthy willingness to go on military homicide sprees (aka wars) to preserve access to oil, and to help stabilize oil-rich Middle Eastern "allies" like the Saudis and Kuwaitis.
If all of the money spend on Middle Eastern homicide sprees over the past 50 years were spend on rolling out electric vehicles and the power generation/delivery structure for them, we wouldn't be driving gassers today.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes and no. Trucks, SUVs, crossovers, and vans were finally included in CAFE by legislation passed by the Bush admin, but they use a "vehicle footprint" formula to adjust their ratings. Despite that, only passenger cars are included for the purposes of the federal "gas guzzler" tax. Everything else is excluded.
Small trucks are kept out of the US market by a 25% tariff known as the "Chicken Tax". Many of these available in other markets will get about 35mpg and can carry 1500 pounds of payload. Because
Corporate benfactors... (Score:3)
"EPA Prepares To Roll Back Rules Requiring Cars To Be Cleaner..."
Armor All and Simoniz are going be very upset about this.
If Obama had found the cure for cancer (Score:4, Insightful)
I swear to God, if Obama had found the cure for cancer, these f.cking trumptards would repell it, and in a sickening display of intellectual travesty, they would somehow claim that this is a Good Thing (tm).
Seriously, you can't be more ideological than this. Way more than those so called leftist SJWs they condemn and whine about all the time.
Trumptards are hell-bent on bringing society back to the dark ages, when humanity basically acted like a cancer of the planet. And they're proud of it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, Obamacare/ACA plans are severely restricted from rating people for anything other than 3 factors:
(1) Age.
(2) County of residence.
(3) Smoking status.
In any case, the ratio between highest rate and lowest rate can't exceed 3:1 in a given state. Lower in some states that set their own limits -- NY state is 1:1.
If anything, Obamacare has made insurance LESS intrusive on private lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: If Obama had found the cure for cancer (Score:4, Funny)
FTFY
I thought we already had this (Score:3)
There's like, the 49-state version and then there's a California version with extra emissions equipment. At least that's the way it's been in the motorcycle world since.... the 80's?
But I don't think any of this matters, what Trump EPA does or what Obama EPA did. World will pretty much be all electric in the near future. Not because of ideological beliefs, but because of the march of (technological) progress means it will simply make more economic sense for people to buy electric cars than petrol burning cars.
Re:I thought we already had this (Score:4, Informative)
Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico , New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia.
So it's not quite 49 to 1.
Re: (Score:3)
But I don't think any of this matters, what Trump EPA does or what Obama EPA did. World will pretty much be all electric in the near future.
Depends on what you think matters. You're right the world is moving towards electric. What trump is doing here is giving USA car makers incentive not to play along and get involved. Fast forward 20 years and you'll all be driving Chinese and European cars and still blaming Obama for killing the car industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Well yeah, most people drive used cars. I drive a 2016 Toyota Highlander SUV, that's certainly a used car (we are in the year 2018).
The relevant factor is, what is the median age of all cars on the road today. I'll be it's hell of a lot younger than your 1994 Dodge. Most likely 6 years, that would be my guess. But let's say the average car is 10 years old. If electric cars became cheaper to buy and maintain than comparable petrol cars, and batteries improved to a point where range anxiety was a nonfactor fo
(C)EPA (Score:2)
Well it's clear what they're charged with "protecting" now.
(Corporate) Economic Protection Agency
Pro-business, pro-Dominionist, anti-science.. (Score:3)
Let's roll back the calendar to the Good Olde Days (approximately 50 to 75 years, that is), when we were totally ignorant about the impact we have on the planet we have to live on, we did what we wanted because that's the American Way, and God had the last word on everything!
That's also what this is.
The Dominionists should love this, it's one more thing to check off their to-do list: hasten destruction of the Earth, so Zombie Jesus will come back to them and take them Home that much sooner.
We have to get the Trump administration out as soon as possible, while it may still be possible to repair the damage being done to pretty much everything.
What winning looks like (Score:2, Informative)
1. Cut taxes adding another trillion to the national debt we spent years rallying against. Make sure 80% of tax reduction goes to top 1% all the while giving a massive one finger salute to our children.
2. Gut any environmental regulation our billionaire buddies want
3. Give Putin locations of US nuclear submarines
4. Allow traitors to covertly change republican party platform to be PRO-Russia
5. Allow traitors who will now likely spend the rest of their lives in jail to run your campaign
6. Install a traitor i
Sad... (Score:2)
All party of the Trump philosophy (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Technically, it is possible to build a vehicle that gets over 100mpg, but the regulations won't let you drive it on the street.
And the trade-off is people are now walking away from accidents that used to guarantee death.
About time. (Score:2)
Personally I am done buying gasoline engine vehicles. I've got my last SUV and motorcycle in 2011. I'll be picking up an electric car if I have to commute more than 10 miles. These days I mos
Re: (Score:3)
Solar grand minimum just delays the problem until the next solar cycle. It doesn't go away.
Plus, oil has a limited supply. The goal should be to use it efficiently and eventually move to other tech for transportation. Leave the remaining oil for chemical processes that actually require it.
Re: (Score:2)
Strict emissions rules have resulted in companies cheating (eg VW)...
It results in higher prices for cars..
It has resulted in various other ways to game the system - eg there are rules on CO2 emissions, but no rules on emission of other things so cars now generate less CO2 and more things which aren't so heavily regulated, which are potentially worse for both health and the environment.
I don't drive much, maybe 1000 miles per year... I have an old car which is not terribly efficient, if i were to replace it
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Victors (Score:5, Informative)
In the spirit of Good Friday, I'm not going to call you a dumb sonofabitch.
http://time.com/money/4702421/... [time.com]
OK, you're a dumb sonofabitch.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/rese... [nasa.gov]
Re:Victors (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
It's not a logical fallacy to point out hypocrisy, bigger problems, or other shit that in turn show the point of some retard to be stupid or moot.
If your point is that guns are dangerous, and I tell you that cars and alcohol and hospitals are more dangerous, you don't get to call "whataboutism" like some schoolyard "nuh-uh" retort that magically enshrines your bullshit as unassailable.
People crying about "whataboutism" are typically actually crying about someone poking holes in their claims, pointing out ho
Re: (Score:3)
One of the logical fallacies is your using regulated things to argue that something shouldn't be regulated. Hospital's are highly regulated with most workers needing various training and licenses as well as regulations on cleanliness and such, which have made them much safer. Cars are highly regulated, with enforced safety features, rules about operating such as seat belts and drivers are licensed, this has made cars much safer over the years as well as saving numerous life's due to cleaner emissions which
Re:Two Words (Score:5, Informative)
California already has stricter emission standards that have held up in court (for new cars, you can still bring a "Federal standard" used car into CA if it exceeds 15,000 miles on the clock).
Some counties ban alcohol sale, others allow it year around. Some states allow AR-15s, others ban them from sale. States don't have an obligation to allow a given item to be sold in their state or city.
Re: (Score:2)
I like your optimism that the EPA will behave differently than the FCC [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
I like your optimism that the EPA will behave differently than the FCC [slashdot.org].
The Internet is fundamentally cross-border, despite the ridiculousness of Pai I can see the FCC having legitimate cause to say that a state can't have their own set of Internet rules.
But cars are different, the EPA shouldn't have any pretext to overrule state regulations.
More importantly, California is a very big and very rich state, big and rich enough that car manufacturers might decide it's better just to make one model that hits California standards rather than investing in a second dirty model, especia
Re: (Score:2)
How does that cause net neutrality rules in one state to affect another state in a way that's different than California emissions rules affecting other states?
Re:Two Words (Score:4, Interesting)
LOL, anyway, I'm sure _this_ will be the time that the courts side with the Trump administration, over the last 50 years of California's regulation of emissions produced by vehicles in their state.
Re: (Score:2)
Requiring cars and trucks in California to have a "California Emissions" package started in the 1970s. CARB still has requirements for cars and trucks in California. Lots of lawsuits, all won by California.
In fact, there is nothing in the Constitution nor Supreme Court precedent that stops California from doing this. It would only be a problem if California was attempting to regulate cars and trucks in other states. It isn't.
Re: (Score:3)
Cheers.
Though calling him an "ADHD clown" gives a bad name to entertainers with ADHD. How about a harmful sociopath?
Re: (Score:2)
California's waver is up for renewal in 2025. One plan is to let that expire in order to force the state's environmental policy to fall in line behind the federal rollback. Until then, expect most US cars to not deviate far from that standard... with some exceptions (like the reintroduction of the small truck in other states).
Trump's up for reelection in two years. If you can get him out of there, and if he doesn't succeed in revoking it early, you can protect California's emission regulations. If you can p
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the middle ages anymore, no matter how much you wish it to be otherwise. Food is a global commodity.
Re:Split (Score:5, Informative)
The right feeds the left, or haven't you looked at the political demographics of the US farming communities?
Those farming communities are heavily reliant on "liberal" areas to fund their existence. That's why CA only gets back 80-someodd cents of every tax dollar, while "farming" states turn a profit on federal taxes.
So I think the evil liberal commies could afford to take some of your subsidy and use it to buy food on the global market.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't handicap us -- cars sold outside the US by the same makers won't be subject to US standards anyway. If anything, it will force them to do research to meet future EU/China/Japan standards NOW, and make them more prepared to compete when those laws come down.
Higher US standards would also favor US manufacturers over foreign ones as far as sales in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"handing a victory to car manufacturers " (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? So if Ford was offering a 10mpg car and Honda was offering a 35mpg comparable car, you gonna buy the Ford? How many car manufacturers are out there? You are free to buy from the most fuel efficient car maker. And buying a more fuel efficient car saves you money, so why would you need a law to force you to buy the more fuel efficient model? Why not a law to force CPU makers minimum flops? Or RAM makers minimum Ram speeds? Or hard driver makers minimum terabytes?
That's a strawman.
The choice will be more like a 35mpg Honda and 25mph Ford that costs $2000 less, has a more powerful engine, but also emits a *lot* more pollutants of all types, not just CO2, but the smog inducing pollutants that have a direct link in killing people.
Many people will take the cheap, faster car even if it kills children since that killing is an indirect link, which is why the regulation is needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the law is to force companies to set the bar higher for what is acceptable. Has nothing to do with saving money. Many people have more money than sense and so money can not be the primary motivator of change.
This is more similar to the laws enforcing mandatory vaccinations. You can't trust people to make the r
Re: "handing a victory to car manufacturers " (Score:2)
More often than not, you are correct, even though you are probably trolling. Consumers are stupid and have proven that they will make the same bad choices over and over again.
Regressive tax (Score:2, Insightful)
Tax will have little impact for people who can afford more fuel thirsty vehicles (SUVs, trucks, and sports cars). Meanwhile it'll hi the working poor like ton of bricks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Couldn't California accomplish almost the same effect by raising the gas tax? That will give residents an incentive to buy more efficient cars, as well as cut down on miles driven by existing cars.
A gas tax doesn't magically make cars reduce emissions -- it can have the opposite effect where manufacturers sacrifice emissions for efficiency. Otherwise we'd all be driving diesels.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So set ceilings for emissions, then tax gas. Manufacturers will be forced to work within the emissions standards and increase efficiency, maybe by (OMG!) selling smaller/lighter cars. Your average hausfrau doesn't need to drive a 18mpg Silverado.
Why not do both? Set emission and fuel efficiency standards? Forcing efficiency through fuel taxes turns into a regressive tax on the guy that can only afford a 10 year old 22mpg sedan instead of a modern 45mpg hybrid. And the guy with the $100K 14mpg BWM doesn't care. But tell BMW that they need a fleet average of XX mpg, and they'll be forced to sell afforable high MPG cars to offset the expensive low MPG cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Just how well do you think "giving away cars to poor people" is going to go over in our current political discourse?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Only the united states and canada has those standards at all...
Kinda fucking stupid to be the only ones doing it.
What are you talking about? Nearly every country has emissions standards:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Even under the stricter Obama led standards, the USA still lags most of the world in efficiency standards:
http://www.biologicaldiversity... [biologicaldiversity.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really -- you can get a Yaris (2300 lb), Versa, or Smart car in the US. European crash safety standards are similar to (or tougher than) US ones these days, and can be met without making the car a heavy porker. Problem in the US is cheap gas, so no market for light/cheap cars.
XL1 is not a real car -- it was a VW concept. But yeah, you can get European-sized cars in the US, and they'll meet safety standards.
Re: (Score:2)
Only the united states and canada has those standards at all...
Kinda fucking stupid to be the only ones doing it.
Somebody has been watching WAY TOO MUCH Faux news!!!
Re:About Time (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where have you been? You have more choices of high performance cars than ever before. Exactly when in history could you buy a Mustang/Camaro that you could set the cruise control to 125mph and just cruise smoothly down the highway at 20+mpg?
Not to mention motorcycles. My not particular fast FZ-1 street bike does 0-60 in 2.9s and tops out around 185mph.
You are liv
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all.
Electric cars are rated at around 120 mpg for the purpose of the law. Let's assume 20% electric car sales.
"Regular" gas sedans now get 35-40 mpg routinely, call it 35. Let's assume 30% gasser sales.
"Hybrid" gas sedans get 50-70mpg average, call it 60, depending on whether they have a "plug in" option or not. Let's assume 20% of sales.
"Other" cars like efficient sports (not muscle) cars can be made to average 40 mpg. 10% of sales.
"Trucks and light trucks" should be able to eke out 25 mpg avera
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Err... no. The memo in question basically instructs staffers to use equivocal language to misrepresent the current state of evidence.
Suppose somebody asks you, "Is a proton more massive than an electron?" and you answer (paraphrasing the Trump administration here) "The ability to measure with precision the mass of a proton is subject to continuing debate and dialogue." Have you lied?
Well let's clarify: You haven't said anything counterfactual; new papers on more precise mass measurements of proton mass a