The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NHTSA did an impact assessment of 4 fuel standard proposals and compared them to the cost of doing nothing. Guess what.
The Wall Street Journal reports: Buried deep on Page 56,342 of volume 88 of the Federal Register, the agency makes this concession about its latest proposed rules: “Net benefits for passenger cars remain negative across alternatives.” In plain English, this means that mandating ever-more-stringent fuel economy for passenger cars will harm society.
No-Action and Action Alternatives
- Alt. PC1LT310: 1 percent increase per year, year over year for Model Year (MY) 2027–2032 passenger cars, and 3 percent per year, year over year for MY 2027–2032 light trucks
- Alt. PC2LT4: 2 percent increase per year, year over year for MY 2027–2032 passenger cars, and 4 percent per year, year over year for MY 2027–2032 light trucks (Alternative PC2LT4 is NHTSA’s Preferred Alternative)
- Alt. PC3LT5: 3 percent increase per year, year over year for MY 2027–2032 passenger cars, and 5 percent per year, year over year for MY 2027–2032 light trucks
- Alt. PC6LT8: 6 percent increase per year, year over year for MY 2027–2032 passenger cars, and 8 percent per year, year over year for MY 2027–2032 light trucks
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
The 362 page Draft Environmental Impact Statement is a bit more readable.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
NHTSA is proposing these new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans (HDPUV) FE standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Environmental impacts analyzed in this Draft EIS include those related to fuel and energy use, air quality, and climate change.
This EIS compares the potential environmental impacts of the No-Action Alternative and four action alternatives for setting fuel economy standards for MY 2027–2032 passenger cars and light trucks and the No-Action Alternative and three action alternatives for setting FE standards for MYs 2030–2035 for HDPUVs.
NHTSA has consistently interpreted “the need of the United States to conserve energy” to mean “the consumer cost, national balance of payments, environmental, and foreign policy implications of our need for large quantities of petroleum, especially imported petroleum.”
Following roughly 150 pages of fearmongering discussion of things like gasoline spills, 27 references to cancer, and the hypothetical benefits of proposed actions, we arrive at this amusing table.
Doing Nothing vs Four Alternatives Year 2035
Doing Nothing vs NHTSA Preferred Alternative PC2LT4
There is a slight negative benefit on NOX, Particulate Matter, and SO2. There is a slight positive benefit on CO and Organic Compounds.
Stricter standards makes things much worse for sulphur dioxide SO2 (think acid rain).
The report comments “Under each CAFE standard action alternative compared to the CAFE No-Action Alternative, the largest relative increases in emissions among the criteria pollutants would occur for SO2, for which emissions would increase by as much as 16.8 percent under Alternative PC6LT8 in 2035 compared to the NoAction Alternative.“
Health Impacts of No Action vs Alternatives, Trucks
In 2050 there will be one fewer case of lower respiratory symptoms under the administration’s preferred action. Hooray?!
Greenhouse Gasses
Surely, there is a huge greenhouse gas improvement. Right?
Let’s check out page 238 (Section 5-16) of the report for the answer.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Doing Nothing vs 4 Alternatives
Through 2040, the total reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from passenger cars and light trucks would be a mere 2.01 percent less vs doing nothing at all with emission standards!
Through 2060 the benefit is even less, barely above zero.
Q: How can that be?
A: Improvements are expected anyway.
Bottom Line Assessment of Biden’s Preferred Energy Fuel Standards
Recall the NHTSA considers more than just greenhouse gasses.
It also considers impacts on the economy including “consumer cost, national balance of payments, environmental, and foreign policy implications.”
Here is the NHTSA’s bottom line: “Net benefits for passenger cars remain negative across alternatives” vs doing nothing at all.
China Abandons Clean Energy Goals Making U.S. Efforts Painful and Pointless
Q: What about China?
A: China Abandons Clean Energy Goals Making U.S. Efforts Painful and Pointless
Bidenomics and the EPA have America on a path of inflationary and environmental madness that’s all pain and no gain.
Clean Energy Exploitations and the Death Spiral of an Auto Industry
It’s not often I agree with Michael Moore on anything, but his video ought to be an eye opener for those who mistakenly believe EV will do anything for the environment.
The video start at the 36:44 mark, a good spot for the exploitation that goes into producing the minerals needed for EVs and how solar energy is destroying the desert.
For discussion of the video please see Clean Energy Exploitations and the Death Spiral of an Auto Industry
What to Expect When Politicians Try to Pick Technology Winners
On May 25, with a spotlight on the EU, I commented on What to Expect When Politicians Try to Pick Technology Winners Part 1
Biden’s Solar Push Is Destroying the Desert and Releasing Stored Carbon
The Left ignores environment destruction, even in the US.
On May 28, 2023, I noted Biden’s Solar Push Is Destroying the Desert and Releasing Stored Carbon
Biden is so clearly wrong, even the extremely liberal Guardian sees it. But it’s full speed ahead with massive subsidies for something counterproductive for the goal.
Beware of Government Cost Estimates
Costs are always much greater than expected, and in this case we are already starting from a negative benefit.
We have no assessment of battery, environmental costs, and inflation under Biden’s goals.
Electric Vehicles for Everyone?
On July 19, I asked Electric Vehicles for Everyone? If the Dream Was Met, Would it Help the Environment?
My follow-up post was What Do MishTalk Readers Think About “Electric Vehicles for Everyone?”
Math Does Not Add Up
None of Biden’s mandates scale and that is on top of already expected negative benefits.
The cost of minerals to produce a battery now is one thing. The cost of a battery after Green advocates force more EVs down everyone’s throat is another. Infrastructure requirements are another huge problem.
Expect an economic disaster if we stay on the current path.
"about" - Google News
August 27, 2023 at 04:30AM
https://ift.tt/0kcFgaV
The Shocking Truth About Biden's Proposed Energy Fuel Standards – MishTalk - Mish Talk
"about" - Google News
https://ift.tt/CjUWH0J
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "The Shocking Truth About Biden's Proposed Energy Fuel Standards – MishTalk - Mish Talk"
Post a Comment