SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
US Appeals Court Says California Can Set its Own Low Carbon Fuel Standard:
Late last week, the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit published an opinion (PDF) stating that California's regulation of fuel sales based on a lifecycle analysis of carbon emissions did not violate federal commerce rules.
Since 2011, California has had a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) program, which requires fuel sellers to reduce their fuel's carbon intensity by certain deadlines. If oil, ethanol, or other fuel sellers can't meet those deadlines, they can buy credits from companies that have complied with the standard.
California measures "fuel intensity" over the lifecycle of the fuel, so oil extracted from tar sands (which might require a lot of processing) would be penalized more than lighter oil that requires minimal processing. Ethanol made with coal would struggle to meet its carbon intensity goals more than ethanol made from gas.
Plaintiffs representing the ethanol and oil industries have challenged these rules in the court system. Most recently, they challenged California's 2015 version of the rules. (In September 2018, the state's Air Resources Board announced new amendments to the Low Carbon Fuel Standard rules, but those are not discussed in the 9th Circuit's most recent opinion.)
[...] The opinion noted:
The California legislature is rightly concerned with the health and welfare of humans living in the State of California... These persons may be subjected, for example, to crumbling or swamped coastlines, rising water, or more intense forest fires caused by higher temperatures and related droughts, all of which many in the scientific communities believe are caused or intensified by the volume of greenhouse gas emissions.
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Thursday January 24 2019, @09:10PM (13 children)
The cost of safety measures required by government regulation add approximately nothing to the cost of a new car. The additional cost is negligible.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Thursday January 24 2019, @10:18PM
Depends on how you look at it. I think ESC and ABS have probably significantly reduced the purchase of new cars. The car companies would count that as a cost.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Thursday January 24 2019, @10:34PM (9 children)
Seatbelts and airbags have negligible costs?
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday January 24 2019, @11:35PM (5 children)
Compared with the value in saved lives and fewer injuries? I'd say so.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Friday January 25 2019, @12:50AM (4 children)
But that wasn't the point.
Yes, there is value to society in fitting seat belts and airbags. But, in the case of these safety initiatives, it took government regulations for widespread adoption. Adopting these technologies cost real money. Now, of course, no one would buy a car without them, even if they were not required by regulations, but that wasn't initially the case.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday January 25 2019, @01:08AM (3 children)
In that case, whoosh!
And no, I'm not being sarcastic. What seemed unnecessary sixty years ago isn't really relevant, is it? Or am I missing something?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Friday January 25 2019, @01:53AM (2 children)
Just read the thread already.
I was refuting this claim:
It has nothing to do with value and everything to do with cost.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday January 25 2019, @02:13AM (1 child)
Point taken. I don't know how much additional cost airbags and seat belts add to the manufacturing process. Given the materials involved, I imagine those costs would be a pretty small fraction of the cost to manufacture a car.
That said, it's unclear (at least to me) whether or not the cost is "negligible." I guess it depends on what the cost difference would be (not that you can do so, at least in the US) to purchase a car without those features and one's own relationship with, and access to, money.
From a philosophical standpoint, I have to disagree that
Value (at least to me) is of paramount importance. Cost is a consideration only to determine if sufficient value is being provided.
However, I guess that's a different (although significantly more important,IMHO) topic.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 25 2019, @05:11AM
Given the high cost to replace deployed airbags and the tendency for disreputable car repair shops to remove them from unsuspecting car owners' vehicles and reselling them, I'd say that airbags probably add a significant cost.
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Sunday January 27 2019, @06:56AM (2 children)
Compared to the other costs involved in producing a car, yes, seat belts and airbags have negligible cost.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Monday January 28 2019, @06:36PM (1 child)
You are wrong.
It's that simple.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Friday February 01 2019, @07:02AM
No you.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 5, Informative) by insanumingenium on Thursday January 24 2019, @11:00PM (1 child)
We can even go further than that, we can take a "fairly" accurate historical comparison.
a 1964 1/2 Mustang has a base price of $2,368 or according to usinflationcalculator.com $19,181.33 today
a 2019 Mustang has a base price of $26,395
In those 55 years we have seen the rise of robotic manufacturing (which by all accounts lowers costs), and the rise of safety and emissions tech.
The Mustang is still a compact FR sport coupe. More or less equivalent to what you would have gotten in 64 1/2. It is true the base is now an i4 making 310hp/350ftlb on 21/31mpg, vs an i6 (or bigger) at 105hp/156ftlb on let's just say considerably worse fuel economy. You also get airbags (and airbags for your airbags almost anymore), ABS, aforementioned environmental controls (platinum in every car), AM/FM radio (no simple AM for me), better crash survivability, better handling, LED lights. But it really is the same car we are talking about. Sources are wikipedia for gen1 Mustang and ford.com for modern.
In that same 55 years, we have went from having "smog days" where you didn't go outside if you could help it, to such a thing being unthinkable again in about a generation. We went from 5.36 fatalities per million vehicle miles in the US to right around 1 (latest stat shown is 2017 at 1.16) according to the stats on wikipedia.
It is trivially obvious that emission controls add significant expense (hence why we have people chopping catalytic converters off cars to harvest that platinum). The question then, is 55 years of tech progress, and safety equipment, and environmental equipment worth a ~30% price increase (based on CPI)?
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Sunday January 27 2019, @06:58AM
I was talking about the cost of safety measures being negligible. Emissions control is not what I had in mind, but as you pointed out, it is unlikely that emission controls are the main element driving the increased cost of a new car.
You are still welcome on my lawn.