Brad Johnson over at Wonk Room acquired a copy of the EPA's recommendations on regulating greenhouse-gas emissions that the White House has been trying so hard to hide.
The documents give you a good idea why: EPA officials concluded that the benefits of new, tougher standards "far outweigh their costs." In fact, if gas prices stay in the range of $3.50 a gallon, "the net benefit to society could be in excess of $2 trillion" through 2040 if fuel efficiency standards for automobiles are raised "well above 35 mpg."
This, of course, renders false President George Bush's assertion in April that regulating greenhouse-gases under the Clean Air Act "would have crippling effects on our entire economy." This is the edited version of the EPA's recommendations -- the original, which was sent to the White House in an email the administration refused to open, was much tougher, according to EPA officials.
See Wonk Room and Warming Law for more, or download the first 150 pages of the draft, which the Wonks have graciously posted: Part one and two [PDFs].
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Comments
View as Flat
bigTom Posted 2:59 pm
01 Jul 2008
Now, I always thought the Republican CAFE setting mechanism, was ask the auto industry, how high they could make CAFE, without ever actually forcing any restraint on the industry (i.e. if detroit thinks in 2025, that without CAFE they will meet 30mpg, then they will propose 29mpg). But, nobody expected peakoil to come so quickly, we will proceed towards more efficient vehicles far faster than any standards we would have passed.
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 3:30 pm
01 Jul 2008
For example sales of motorcycles and mopeds are exploding. The motorcycle fatality rate per mile is seven times higher than for cars. The fatality rate for bicycles is another seven times higher than motorcycles.
Econobox cars are less survivable than large cars built with the same level of technology.
The cost in human suffering medical bills and lost productivity is not considered in these calculations.
Permalink
morganmghee Posted 4:21 pm
01 Jul 2008
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 10:17 pm
01 Jul 2008
Personal motor vehicles have the negative of their positive - they are so convenient to use (for the majority of the population) that we use them to death - literally. The annual death toll in the US from collisions is 50,000 or so - that's a 9/11 every three weeks of every year of every decade of the last half century - with an even higher number from health problems due to diminished exercise. We are in total denial about the costs in human suffering and loss directly attributable to our transportation choices. If we look at populations in developed countries which have greater bike use and lower car use than our own we invariably see lower overall death rates. There's little doubt that overall we'd be healthier and live longer with fewer cars, lighter cars, slower cars, smaller cars, less powerful cars.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 1:33 am
02 Jul 2008
That may well be. It might be wise to consider the upsides of the EPA report and to suggest improvements. Plans and solutions evolve, they do not spring full grown from the womb.
It would be foolish to toss out a good idea simply because it could benefit from additional refinement.
" For example sales of motorcycles and mopeds are exploding. The motorcycle fatality rate per mile is seven times higher than for cars."
Here I wonder if we need some better data. Are there, perhaps, two classes of motorcycle riders? The 'daredevils' and 'responsible' riders? If so, might not fatality rates per mile drop as more responsible, conservative people begin to use motorcycles?
(The incidents of motorcycle death/major injury with which I am aware involve people driving way too fast for conditions.)
"Econobox cars are less survivable than large cars built with the same level of technology."
Even the most basic consideration of the physics of transportation tells us that vehicles need to become lighter (not necessarily smaller).
Perhaps we need to give serious rethinking to how light cars can be made safer. We certainly could learn something from the crash box design of Formula 1 race cars.
Perhaps we need to significantly reduce speed limits for large vehicles which would decrease the rate of impact with lighter vehicles and increase fuel savings.
The really valuable critic doesn't just find problems, they suggest solutions....
Permalink
archigeek Posted 1:44 am
02 Jul 2008
The mellotron is your friend.
Permalink