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 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.