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. PC1LT3: 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.
While the recommended alternative is inferior to “do nothing” on measures of some pollutants (e.g. SO2), it is superior on others (mainly CO2).
The objective of the CAFE standards is to attempt to optimize fleet fuel economy. The health effects of pollutants, which Mish focuses on, is only one dimension.
The NHTSA’s preferred alternative is actually fairly modest in terms of aggressiveness on reducing fleet MPG. “Fearmongering”? Not in terms of the actual result.
For example, if the Feds had applied a reasonable “social cost of carbon (SC-CO2) ” a much more aggressive MPG target would have been chosen as the preferred alternative. According to a recent (Sept. 2022) study in Nature, the Feds use a value of $51/mtCO2 while a value of $185 (range $44-$413) is much more appropriate considering more recent research findings since the lower value was developed. See link to nature.com
Therefore, one could argue that these standards are ridiculously lenient to the fossil fuel industry given the “commitments” the U.S. says it is making to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
I enjoy watching people who formerly mocked Prius drivers as libtard pantywaists now advocating hybrids.
It’s almost as fun as watching said pantywaists bragging about how they’re saving the environment by driving their sorry butts around alone in a 3000 pound vehicle.
“ mandating ever-more-stringent fuel economy for passenger cars will harm society.”
I don’t think you can infer that, or much of anything,
from that collection of gibberish. Looks like the GOP healthcare plan, with more pages.
We are ruled by middle schoolers.
Mish this is perhaps one of your worst hit pieces ever. A grade schooler could fathom that if the vehicle fleet is INCREASING and you DECREASE per vehicle emissions at a comparable rate that the TOTAL emissions overall will be FLAT.
You also ignore the long running trend of a shift from high mpg passenger cars to low mpg SUVs and LT.
Honestly I am really, really disappointed in you.
Mish just made the case for going 100% EVs. Congradulations Mish.
Care to explain how he did that? If you can, I will “congratulate” you.
I’m gonna guess the logic is:
More stringent emissions combined with higher gas mileage isn’t really going to help in any meaningful way. Therefore EVs are the only answer.
Okay. You could look at it that way I guess.
Regardless, its going to take a decade before the number of ICE vehicles worldwide begins to drop. And then two more decades before ICE vehicles are outnumbered by EVs.
It’s a long term process.
We should go to 120% EVs.
Maybe even 135% EVs.
It would be great for the car makers and the economy.
Maff is so hard.
A chicken in every pot and two EVs in every garage.
Oh my gosh Mish it’s a little bit late and I wish you would stop working quite so hard all the time and let me cut up a little bit, and have a little bit of fun, as I used to on your blog years ago before you became so famous as a celebrity rock star economist! Last time I kinda let the weekend helpful happiness provide joyful inspiration, you got so fussy at me if you surely remember I was very concerned. Meanwhile my wife emphatically told me to stop calling her little buddy, she said you can call Mish little buddy all you want, but don’t call me little buddy ever again!
Correction.. apart from the electric motor and powertrain
I think hybrids are much superior to BEV for the reasons that PapaDave stated. I believe ‘hybrid’ means a vehicle that has an IC engine AND a powertrain apart from the EV and powertrain. This diminishes the benefit. I propose a tweak on PapaDave’s suggestion about a hybrid with 40 mile range. Just stick a genset in the vehicle to run the AC and charge the battery as and when needed. When I suggested this earlier, someone said that this was what the Chevy Volt was, but that had the IC engine actually driving the car via a gearbox and differential. The point is to avoid the cost and weight of these. I think a car’s alternator is about 55% to 60% efficient, but a genset is probably much more efficient as it operates at near constant speed unlike a car’s alternator. Even if it were not much more efficient, the point is that it would be used very little for range extension ( and if it was used for the AC then that ‘problem’ is removed). The benefits of a smaller battery requirement, removal of range anxiety, reduction in the charging network required would definitely offset that downside.
“ Instead General Motors describes the Volt as an electric vehicle equipped with a “range extending” gasoline-powered internal combustion engine (ICE) as a genset and therefore dubbed the Volt an “Extended Range Electric Vehicle” or E-REV.”
That’s what the Chevy Volt does. No multi speed transmission or differential, which would add weight. However, GM discontinued the Volt in 2019 to focus on straight EVs.
I don’t know why it was discontinued because it seemed like a good idea. But I don’t get to make the decisions.
If you have the means, buy a V8, preferably a truck. They may hold their value better than any other vehicle going forward. If you need to tow, these crappy little turbo charged engines can do it for a while, but the maintenance and repairs will be killer. Biden is going to create a “Cuban automobile fleet”, where the V8’s are kept on the roads forever! Diesel trucks a good bet too, especially Cummins.
When will those who voted for Brandon, regardless of their crappy reasoning, finally take responsibility for putting this maniac in power? They all had their “reasons” but now we see just how foolish they really were.
I don’t vote. Waste of my time. Because it doesn’t matter who wins.
Biden will be gone eventually. Then most Americans will complain about his replacement. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
From my view point, Biden is doing everything he can to make sure the USA collapses ASAP. I can’t think of one thing he’s done that is good for the people of the USA.
The environmental impact assessment considered four proposals mandating higher ‘gas mileages’ vs. doing nothing. It did not consider any proposal to make Americans drive their cars less, or not at all.
Considering the entire subject, the only way to meet Biden administration and environmentalist goals (stated and not-stated) will be to make Americans drive their vehicles less, or not at all. ?Will Americans agree to that? And what will be the economic dislocation / cost of doing that?
Every administration also wants to win the next election. Which means they need to make voters happy. Which means a good economy, lots of jobs, good pay, low prices, high standard of living etc.
They would not likely state that their goal is to reduce driving. Better to provide improved public transit, more bicycle and walking friendly city centers, HOV lanes to encourage ride sharing, etc.
and paper bags:
link to npr.org
ROSALSKY: But so, actually, there are multiple studies – they all show that, actually, paper bags are worse for the environment than plastic.
VANEK SMITH: Really?
ROSALSKY: Yeah. So paper bags have this one really great thing for them, which is they are biodegradable. They will eventually break down. But you have to use way more energy to create them.
Too late. Plastic bags are being banned in more places, whether that is the right decision or not.
As always, I cannot influence the decisions, but I can profit from them.
Regarding energy, the world is demanding and using more energy every year. More renewables, more nuclear, more fossil fuels.
Yet the focus of the big decision makers is to try to reduce fossil fuel use. Which is leading the oil and gas industry to reduce Exploration and Production spending. Which will tighten supply in the face of rising demand. Hence higher prices for oil and gas and higher profits for the companies.
Got oil?
PapaDave, what are your thoughts on hybrid technology, not that your thoughts or mine matter.
Thank you for asking my opinion Mish. And you are correct. Our opinions don’t matter much because we are not in charge of making the big decisions.
In MY opinion Hybrid autos are a far better alternative to EVs, AT THE PRESENT TIME.
You can build 10 plug-in hybrids with a 40 mile battery, using the same amount of (nasty) battery materials as one full EV with a 400 mile battery.
Roughly 98% of trips are less than 40 miles, to and from home. Plug in your vehicle at home. Charge the battery fully and 98% of your trips are all electric. The rest will require “some” fuel.
This reduces “range anxiety”. It also reduces the need to rapidly build out charging infrastructure.
So for every EV running 100% on electric, you have 10 plug-in hybrids running 98% on electric. The math says that is better for the environment, our health, pollution, and our psyche.
I recognize that hybrids are more expensive and heavier because of their duel systems. But their advantages make them a better way to transition our vehicle transportation system to full electric in a few decades.
Nothing wrong with full EV, but until we overcome the environmental issues with EVs, I would rather see 10 plug-in hybrids than a single EV.
My only issue with hybrids is it means there are twice as many things to go wrong (the ICE engine and the electric component) compared to an ICE or an EV vehicle.
So while the idea in general is great, I suspect that in practical terms it doesn’t work out so well for anyone keeping their car past the 5 year / 80 thousand mile mark. Given todays cars need to last 10 years and 150 thousand miles to justify their crazy costs (and 8+ year new car loans) that doesn’t bode well.
Fortunately, cars are lasting longer and longer.
An ICE vehicle lasts an average of 12 years and 200,000 miles. Which is double the ICE vehicles from the 1960s and 1970s. EVs, 300,000 miles and an estimated 18 years.
They are.
But I wonder how hybrids are holding up (the earliest ones now from 2007/2008 time frame would be just over 12 years old). More importantly, what’s the average cost of maintaining them vs a ICE vehicle over that time frame (12 years). As I said, twice as complex means twice the expense to repair.
How long will plug in hybrids last? That will depend on many variables but I will focus on two.
If the owner never charged the battery and used the electric motors, one would expect the hybrid to last as long as a typical ICE vehicle. 12 years
If they only used the battery, it will probably last the same as a typical EV. 18 years
Most likely, the actual result will lie somewhere between those extremes.
Papa, You make a good point about hybrids!
Thanks. I am unaccustomed to praise on this blog. Its a nice change.
Better personal choices such as replacing an SUV with economy car will cut fuel consumption by at least 20% INSTANTLY, without lifestyle disruption, and without asking for a technology improvement. Building EV’s without first expanding not just charging stations, but the entire power grid FIRST is as close to putting the cart before the horse. This is why I am highly suspect of the goals for green energy policies; they fail to implement the simplest solutions NOW in order to buy some time for better solutions LATER. Green policy is heading for a scenario of the supermajority of society losing. Only the corrupt benefit.
Fabulous expose Mish. Gosh I never would have expected such negative results.
All the cost and anguish to comply and for nothing. Sure hope the next president dismantles the so called “administrative state”
The next president will be just as useless as all the others. They can have all the best of intentions. But they can’t actually accomplish much.
Which is why it is a waste of time to worry much about politics. And an even bigger waste of time if all you are going to do is complain about it.
Better to focus on improving your own life. Because a president sure won’t make it any better.
Yes, but a president can definitely make it worse. Biden is a prime example of that because everything he’s done from tariffs to green energy policies to immigration has been to make thing worse for the average American.
The best we can hope for from a president is that they do nothing or next to nothing which means they get out of the way and let the economy and country run itself which means the market sorts things out.
It doesn’t matter what you want. You’ll get what you get. And you won’t like them no matter who it is.
What you CAN do however, is take advantage of whatever each president does, good or bad.
I have never “liked” any president. But I keep growing my wealth during each presidents tenure.
since this was posted:
“Already we are going back to paper straws, grocery bags, etc etc.”
there is this:
A new European study has found that 90% of so-called eco-friendly paper straws contain “forever chemicals,”
link to newatlas.com
link to tandfonline.com
Yep. But less plastic. Which was the point I was making.
If you want to talk about “forever chemicals” you shouldn’t be worried about paper straws. Worry about every piece of refrigeration equipment all over the world. Every refrigerator, freezer, cooler, air conditioner etc. not to mention every insulator in the power grids all over the world. They are all full of “forever chemicals” which are 10,000 time worse than CO2 and CH4 as greenhouse gasses.
The energy department made an $11b loan to Ford to build several battery making factories. I think that is the largest ever investment in a private company. Of course a dollar isn’t what it used to be.
Yep. Governments all over the world are making huge investments in the “energy transition” that the entire world is attempting. And China is leading the way. They are producing more renewable energy, EVs and batteries than the rest of the world combined. The US is no slouch, but we are trailing China rather badly in this area. Fortunately, we are reducing our coal consumption, while China is forced to keep increasing theirs, because even with all their investments, they still can’t meet their growing energy demands.
And virtually every major corporation in the world understands and is planning around this energy transition. And then that filters down through the rest of the economy.
One can choose to accept that this is the direction that world is moving, and attempt to profit from it. Or one can stick their head up their *ss and complain about it.
PAPA, thanks for all your expertise and your willingness to post the information and investing ideas. MISH, thank you too. much appreciated. i have not clue why anyone would down vote opinions and investment ideas. but one of our generations greatest traders, ed seykota, a practicing scientist, too, who also is a genius philosopher and commenter on humans, sums up an ugly truth about majority of investors. losers win by losing. i learned this as a young teen and early 20s hanging out at horse race tracks in nyc area……..where i met so many men who were constant losers but loved the opera of it all. they hated their jobs and lives and wives……..usually, but loved their loser lives of being bad gamblers(traders). Thanks mish and papa dave.
You’re welcome TT.
Lots of losers here. I can tell by the number of thumbs down that my posts generate. Lol!
I consider that a plus. And in my own small way, I am generating a bit more interest for Mish’s excellent blog.
I don’t always have time to read every story and even less time to comment. But I try.
Give anyone who believes in Climate Change, a blank piece of paper, and pencil. Have them mathematically prove that manmade climate change is possible. 99.9999% will be blank stares….
Lol! Failed all your science classes, did you?
How about if YOU scientifically explain why the world has been warming? I would like to see your scientific explanation. And I’m sure the tens of thousands of climate scientists could learn something from you.
Go ahead. It will be fun!
For the exact same reasons it has warmed in the past. Are we to believe that the Medieval Warming Period was caused by SUVs? What about the Roman Climactic Optimum? Or the Holocene Climactic Optimum? Were they caused by humans emitting CO2? All those periods featured decades warmer than this one. Hell the 1930s were worse.
During the last Ice Age CO2 was higher than it is today. If we want to get all science-y, correlation doesn’t prove causation, but lack of correlation does prove no causation. CO2 is clearly not a cause of global warming.
During the past fifteen years or so, CO2 emissions have been steadily dropping worldwide. Meanwhile CO2 in the atmosphere has been rising. Again lack of correlation proves no causation. Human activity is clearly not the principal cause of CO2 levels.
During the pandemic lockdowns, when CO2 emissions plummeted, there was again no effect on atmospheric CO2. Lack of correlation proves no causation.
This places the burden of proof on the so-called climate scientists (who are not a monolith on this matter, many think there is no anthropogenic global warming) to demonstrate the mechanism by which humans have their finger on the global thermostat.
Whenever you see “Science” conducted by funding one side of the hypothesis to the tune of $3T dollars, while the other side gets no money and fired and silenced for their troubles, “Science” never actually happened.
Gosh. How do you know about all those past climate events? Could it be from all the climate scientists who have painstakingly done the work to explain the climate history of our planet. The same scientists who can explain not only what the climate has been over the last 4.5 billion years, but why? The same climate scientists who can explain why our current climate is changing so rapidly because of human influence.
You seem to believe them when they tell you about the past, yet you try to spin that info into discrediting what they are telling you now.
Fortunately, it doesn’t matter what fantasies you want to believe. Because you aren’t in charge of any of the 195 countries who signed onto the climate accords and are making decisions based on the science. Nor are you in charge of any of the world’s largest and most influential corporations, insurance companies, banks, pensions, oil companies etc. The people that run them are also on board with the science and are making important decisions based on that science.
As a big investor, I pay attention to what the most influential people in the world are doing. My wealth grows substantially when I do.
Yet somehow you seem to think I would ever give a sh*t about what your misguided opinion is.
Let me know when you are in charge of making decisions for the countries of the world or the biggest corporations. Then, perhaps I will pay attention to your opinion.
So let me get this straight… you have a reading comprehension problem, an inability to stay on topic, a misconception that climate science started with global warming, an asymmetrical view that your opinion is worthwhile but no one else’s is, a lack of understanding of the inherent costs of misallocation of resources into uneconomic outcomes on your life and your children’s lives, and no knowledge that we’re the one’s paying for all these programs in a (admittedly alleged) democratic society… all the while behaving in a rudely defensive manner.
Noted. I promise to ignore your comment spamming from here on out.
https://www.drroyspencer.com
It’s complex….
Normally I wouldn’t waste my time like this, but I will make an exception:
“ During the last Ice Age CO2 was higher than it is today. If we want to get all science-y, correlation doesn’t prove causation, but lack of correlation does prove no causation. CO2 is clearly not a cause of global warming.”
Wrong. CO2 levels have been consistently around 200 ppm in every glacial period (ice age) over the last million years. And 280 ppm in every inter glacial period. Today we are over 400 ppm because of our emissions.
“ During the past fifteen years or so, CO2 emissions have been steadily dropping worldwide. Meanwhile CO2 in the atmosphere has been rising. Again lack of correlation proves no causation. Human activity is clearly not the principal cause of CO2 levels.”
Wrong again. CO2 emissions have been steadily RISING for over 100 years, including the last 15. Other than the one pandemic year where our emissions dropped a teeny tiny amount. But we made up for that year in a hurry. Do you just make all this stuff up?
Perhaps you are unaware that we can determine how much CO2 is added to the atmosphere from fossil fuels by measuring the carbon isotopes. So we can tell how much CO2 is natural and how much is man made.
“ During the pandemic lockdowns, when CO2 emissions plummeted, there was again no effect on atmospheric CO2. Lack of correlation proves no causation.”
Nope. Global emissions dropped only 4.6% in 2020, which means we were still adding over 95% as much CO2 as in 2019. Of course we made up for that in all the years after 2020. And we are still adding more emissions each year, not less.
Scientists have known since the 1800s that the CO2 level in our atmosphere IS the key to earth’s temperature.
Without any CO2 in the atmosphere our planet would be a ball of ice, with an average temp of -18c. When CO2 levels are around 300ppm we end up with nice warm inter glacial periods with temperatures that average 14c. Which is where we have been for the last 10,000 years. When CO2 levels drop to 200 ppm, we end up with glacial periods with a mile of ice over present day NewYork. Of course, these natural changes in CO2 levels happen over tens of thousands of years.
For the last 4 million years, the CO2 levels have naturally ranged from 200 to 300 ppm. Yet in just the last 100 years man has increased CO2 levels to over 400 ppm. And we are beginning to see the results of that increase. But it will take time for the full impact to hit us. There is quite a time lag between when CO2 levels go up and when we feel the full impact. The last time CO2 levels were over 400 ppm was 4 million years ago. At that time the planet was 3c warmer and oceans were 50 feet higher because a lot of the ice had melted. That is where we are headed. It will take a century to get the 3c temperature rise that the elevated CO2 levels will bring, but we will get there. And it will probably take a thousand years for that extra heat to melt enough ice to raise oceans by 50 feet. But even a 2-3 foot rise will inundate many coasts and islands before the end of this century.
As always, there is nothing I can do about what is happening. All I can do is understand it and profit from it.
That is better than denying it is happening and making up sh*t like you do to fool yourself.
You were doing fine until “For the last 4 million years, the CO2 levels have naturally ranged from 200 to 300 ppm.”
Carbon dioxide concentration during the Middle Pliocene has been estimated at around 400 ppmv from 13C/12C ratio in organic marine matter.
link to en.wikipedia.org
The climate cooled steadily from there until it entered the Pleistocene and the recurrent ice ages. There was a hypothesis that the Tibetan uplift exposed so much fresh rock that the weathering process sucked the CO2 out of the air.
I don’t know if that is still considered valid.
Hi Silicon Guy. The Middle Pliocene was 4 million years ago.
Read what I wrote again:
“The last time CO2 levels were over 400 ppm was 4 million years ago. At that time the planet was 3c warmer and oceans were 50 feet higher because a lot of the ice had melted. “
Now that we are well into the Hubrisocene it is obvious that anything bad is anthropogenic. Well, obvious to the Woke.
Our solar system has an orbit. Every 15,000 years we pass through the plane of our galaxy and are exposed to the opposite magnetic field. The midpoint of the transition was 2012 AD. A change in the magnetic field causes electric current in a conductor such as the core of the earth. Current causes heat. The earth warms. Earthquakes, volcanoes, and a warmer ocean result.
A warmer ocean releases more water vapor into the atmosphere. The extra water vapor travels toward the poles where it precipitates as flooding rain or heavy snow. This year we have the coincidence of a warm ocean and strong el nino. Consequently Asia suffered heavy flooding. The northern latitudes can expect a warm winter with heavy snow and brief periods of arctic cold. These periods of warm oceans progress to snowfalls so heavy that they do not thaw over summer. The snow accumulates as ice age glaciers. Ice ages have a natural period of around 15,000 years.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide does not cause the changing climate. The changing climate changes atmospheric carbon dioxide. Water vapor has a hundred times greater greenhouse gas absorption than carbon dioxide. Climatologist pseudo scientists do not complain about water vapor.
Lol! Sorry to burst your bubble. Over the last million years Ice ages have occurred every 100k years, not every 15k. The last one peaked 20,000 years ago. Previous to that, 120,000 years ago. Funny. According to your theory, we should have had another one 5,000 years ago. And 35,000 years ago. And 50,000 years ago. Try again.
Not all magnetic flux events are the same, and the periodicity of glaciation is not regular. Consistency is the hob goblin of little minds. Several things we can say with certainty. The “greenhouse” absorption of water vapor is a hundred fold the absorption of carbon dioxide. Atmospheric carbon dioxide increase follows climate warming and does not precede climate warming.
When climatologists first created their global warming model the real scientists asked to see the original data and the algorithms used to adjust the data. Climatologists claim they lost the original data and they refuse to share their secret sauce. Global warming is a hoax. Belief is a religion without data to support it. Climate changes. Always has. The energy balance of the Earth is dependent upon celestial events, largely solar variation.
Sorry KGB. I will try to explain it so you understand. I will start with water vapor.
Yes water vapor is very important.But it isn’t the key that you think it is. Water vapor is a function of the “daily” water cycle that we all learn in science class. Water evaporates from the surface into the atmosphere, then returns as rain, snow etc. There is a lot of water vapor in the atmosphere and it is by far the most abundant greenhouse gas. But if the atmosphere was a stereo, water would be the speaker and CO2 would be the amplifier. Without CO2 or other greenhouse gases, water would do very little, like a speaker with no amplifier.
Because water vapor stays in the atmosphere for such a short period of time it’s concentration is subject to high variability. Which is why humidity varies so much.
You cannot correlate the global warming that we have observed over the last century with any change in water levels in the atmosphere. Nor can you correlate any of the temperature changes over the history of the planet with changes in atmospheric water levels.
But you can correlate the current warming with CO2 concentration levels.
In addition, you can correlate the entire climate history of the planet with CO2 levels. A mile of ice over New York in an ice age: 200 ppm. A warm inter glacial period 280 ppm.
Going back to past extremes; 1 billion years ago, almost zero CO2 was snowball earth. 55 million years ago, 1700 ppm was hothouse earth. There was no ice left on the planet, and sea levels were 500 feet higher than today.
You are correct that atmospheric warming precedes CO2 increases. Scientists know this. They also know how it all works.
The earth has been going through glacial periods (ice ages) in 100,000 year cycles for last several million years. These cycles correlate with the 100,000 year eccentricity cycle of our planetary orbit. The eccentricity cycle results in the planet cooling for roughly 80,000 years, followed by warming for about 20,000 years. This is because of very tiny changes in the amount of solar radiation that reach the surface as the orbit changes. By itself, the change in solar radiation is too small to cause the changes that occur in temperature. Which is where CO2 comes in. Just a tiny boost in CO2, that results from the tiny increase in temperature during the 20,000 year warming cycle, begins a feedback loop. More CO2 begets more warming which begets more CO2, which brings more warming, and so on. Without the CO2 acting in a feed back loop, the planet could not warm up enough in the 20,000 years to melt the ice and create the inter glacial period.
The reverse is true for the 80,000 year cooling cycle. Though it takes 4 times as long to have the CO2 levels decrease enough to cool the planet and form the glaciers that cover present day New York with a mile of ice.
We are presently at the beginning of the next eccentricity cooling cycle. The planet should have already been slowly cooling for the last 5000 or so years. In fact it was slightly cooling for the last 5000 years. And CO2 levels were beginning to decrease. And then 200 years ago, we began burning coal, then oil and gas. And we have completely overwhelmed the natural eccentricity cycle by pumping large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. We are way past the ideal 280 ppm that existed for the last 10,000 years. At over 400 ppm we have built-in a century of warming still to come, even if we could manage to stop adding more CO2 from this point forward. Our target is laid out for us. 4 million years ago CO2 levels were 400 ppm. The planet was 3c warmer and sea levels were 50 feet higher. That is where we are headed. The 3c temp increase by 2100 and 3 feet of sea level rise. And 50 feet of sea level rise within the next 1000 years, because it will take a long time for that extra heat to melt that much ice.
And Papa Dave strikes out again.
“Until this research, it was common knowledge that over the last million years global ice volume, which includes Antarctica’s ice sheets, expanded and retreated every 100,000 years. However, this research shows they actually advanced and retreated much more often – every 41,000 years – until at least 400,000 years ago…”
link to scitechdaily.com
You might tone down your arrogance.
In my opinion Moore is a good showman, but his films/books contain a fair amount of cherry-picked information and are disingenuous too often.
The short-lived series “TV Nation” came before he attained celebrity status and is worth a watch.
link to imdb.com
Same old stuff. Politicians need to be seen to be “doing something “.
But this is pretty much a tempest in a teapot. Proposing improved fuel economy standards sounds good but won’t actually make much difference as the governments own numbers show.
As EV sales increase and ICE sales decline, the fuel efficiency of new ICE vehicles becomes less important over time anyway.
Regarding Michael Moores film. I watched it years ago and laughed my ass off. What a piece of sh*t that was; full of misinformation, mistakes and garbage. You would have to be a moron to believe anything in that “documentary “.
Regarding EVs. Mish, you are a big proponent of autonomous vehicles. Yet you continue to slam EVs. But almost ALL autonomous vehicles will be EVs. How do you reconcile this?
Personally, I accept that eventually “most” vehicles will be EVs and autonomous. But we are at least 2-3 decades away from reaching that point. The total number of ICE vehicles worldwide is still increasing every year, even as EV sales grow.
The world will add 12 million more EVs this year, as well as 65 million more ICE vehicles. The total number of ICE vehicles is 1.5 billion and still growing. Sometime after 2030, the total number of ICE vehicles will begin to decline. Till then, they will continue to consume MORE fuel each year.
Got oil?
“Regarding EVs. Mish, you are a big proponent of autonomous vehicles. Yet you continue to slam EVs. But almost ALL autonomous vehicles will be EVs. How do you reconcile this?”
EVs are coming – no doubt about it.
I suspect hybrid technology would be a lot better.
My problem is governments picking winners and losers rather than the free market.
My second problem is forcing outcomes too soon at great cost, not with EVs themselves.
My third problem is subsidies. In this case, the subsidies do not even help meet the clean energy goals.
It’s all so stupid.
Completely agree. However governments will keep doing what they do.
I simply accept that. Then I look for the opportunities to profit from what they do.
For example, I also recognize that the worldwide fossil fuel industry has received trillions in subsidies as well. It is hard to find a sector that isn’t subsidized.
I certainly can’t change that. But I can recognize it and take advantage.
Advice government, at all levels, will never, can never take:
“Don’t just do something to do something, Just stand there”
What is the misinformation regarding this documentary besides reducing human population? On whole it is accurate about the environmental damage supposedly green energy is doing.
He claimed that solar panels take more energy to produce than they generate in their lifetime. That is ridiculously false. All sources of electricity cost something to make, whether its a hydro dam, a coal plant, or a solar panel. But to say it costs more to build than it gets back in energy is reason enough to be skeptical about the entire film.
He said that renewables are NOT replacing fossil fuels. Yet many countries, including the US, have reduced coal use by building out more renewables (though we are also using more natural gas to replace coal as well).
He claimed that renewables MUST have fossil fuel backup. But there are other many other forms of backup; pumped hydro, battery backup, hydrogen production, etc etc
He shows footage from a “solar festival” from 5 years earlier, which had to rely on a backup generator because it was the first year and they were not yet ready to go full solar. If he had shown any of the subsequent festivals, they would have shown full solar power. But that wouldn’t have fit his false premise, so he showed old footage.
He showed more old footage of an empty field, where solar panels had been taken down. He didn’t mention that they were replaced with newer, more efficient panels before he released his film.
That’s a small sample. He twisted every example he provided to fit his narrative. But hey. That’s what he does to get an audience. If he came out with the truth, it would be boring, non-controversial, and unsuccessful.
The sad part is that there are a lot of people out there who look to this piece of sh*t to reinforce their views that renewable is all a hoax.
We need ALL forms of energy, including renewable. Without more renewable, fossil fuels would become a lot more expensive. Competition between different energy sources helps keep prices down and the economy humming.
Wind energy farms at sea make so much noise that they have already killed 80 Right whales.
This is not about being green. I think this is all just a way to create diverse energy sources to maintain some moderate standard of living for the country. The Petrodollar link is dying due to our poor financial management of debt and weaponization of dollar as senior currency. Oil production is getting harder and harder and at some point, it’s over folks. Right wing thinks oil is easily obtainable and infinite with technology like fracking and oil sands. Oil actually has better utility as durable plastics which will ALSO be in decline if we just burn it up.
We should however burn single use plastics as fuel. Like Sweden
There are negatives for all energy sources, including renewables. But talking about windmills killing birds and whales, and solar covering desert ecosystems is disingenuous at best. Our use of fossil fuels have resulted in the death of billions of living things over the last hundred years. I’m a proponent of our continued use of fossil fuels, but I realize there is a cost, and I realize why it would be great if we didn’t need to use them. But we still need to use them, warts and all. Which is why I remain heavily invested in oil and gas stocks.
I also think that the long term goal IS to go green. But along the way to that goal, we are indeed diversifying our sources of energy for the next few decades.
China is a good example. They are building renewables as fast as they can. Yet they are still adding coal generation because they have to. As long as their demand for energy keeps growing they will need to use everything.
However, their long term goal is as much renewable as possible so they don’t have to keep importing a lot of their coal and most of their oil and gas. They would prefer to be as self-sufficient in energy as possible in order to reduce their dependence on imported energy.
Oil is currently used to produce thousands of products including plastics, rubber, asphalt, fabrics, etc. If we keep using it for fuel, it will get more expensive as supplies tighten. If we reduce its use as fuel, it will be priced more reasonably because there will be more left to use.
Yeah, because oil tankers never harmed any marine life…
Everything we do has impacts on wildlife and the air/water. There’s no free lunch. But I’d guess fossil fuel extraction/transportation/combustion is several orders of magnitude more deadly to wildlife than any amount of windfarms or solar panels.
Sea based wind turbines will be the typical govt sponsered boondoggles. The recent article in Barrons explanins why. Essentially they are cost prohibitive and in order to make them profitable enery costs will be uncompetitive. I suspect even land base turbines will have the same outcomes. This probably woundn’t happen if the free market was the leading force in the search for clean energy. As I have said ad nauseum if they put as much effort into converting all electricity generation into nuclear the problem would be solver. Because our politicans are pretty much uselss they are afraid of promotoing something seemingly unpopular with the voters.
I watched that video in total. I’m sure the content is true enough but it sounds like the main theme of that video is that we all need to die. Way too negative in the long run about Humanity. I do think a lot of these environmental problems will be work out somehow unforeseen with technological advancement and we’re wasting our time and money with the current BS that idiot politicians are making us do. Government’s hand is way too heavy in this and whatever they touch they f up.
Always keep in mind, WE are the carbon our masters are trying to reduce and everything makes sense.
The production and consumption of plastics has continued to increase unabated. One wonders what will happen if refiners are unable to find a market for all of their production of certain petroleum distillates. Will gasoline/diesel get flared off as a byproduct like so much methane has been?
No worries. We will be using even MORE gasoline and distillates for another decade at least. And the tide will turn on plastics over time. Already we are going back to paper straws, grocery bags, etc etc.
I use my reusable ALDI bag. Sweet!
People are finally waking up to EVs. If the vehicle is going to be a daily driver, and you don’t have home access to a level 2 charger, the buy factor goes down dramatically.
What I want to see in less than 2 years is for Ford & GM to have their OH CRAP moment. Toyota has been right all along. Hybrids are the way forward for about 80% of the market that wants EV tech in their car for the foreseeable future.
And, I hope they sign some huge UAW pact and then get crushed by demand that plateaus for BEVs. GM killed the Volt and shame on them. For introduces a $105K EV instead of building on a viable hybrid path forward for about the next 10 years.
GO BIG OIL & PAPA DAVE!
Thanks Benw! I’m not used to getting praise here.
Ok, kudos, just on general principles.
link to statista.com
link to ourworldindata.org
Either chart is more extreme than anything Keeling has been credited with. Phasing out single-use plastic is a step, but the efforts thusfar have been inconsequential.
More distillates may be used in the next few years, but don’t underestimate the ability of legislation to make a problem worse and produce unintended consequences (my original point).