EPA’s New Fuel Regulations Will Avert 0.0026 Degrees Of Warming

tractor trailerThe EPA’s new carbon dioxide regulations for heavy trucks is meant to help the U.S. meet its goal of reducing emissions to fight global warming.

There’s just one problem: CO2 regulations on heavy trucks will have little to no impact on global warming over the next 85 years, according to the EPA’s own analysis.

The EPA says limiting carbon dioxide from heavy trucks will reduce emissions by more than 1 billion metric tons by 2050. Cutting CO2, the agency says, will create up to $34 billion in “climate benefits” along with up to $40 billion from reducing traditional pollutants. Regulating heavy trucks are part of the Obama administration’s goal of reducing U.S. CO2 emissions 80 percent by 2050.

Sounds like Obama administration regulations will accomplish a lot. Well, not really. The EPA’s own analysis found that by 2100 “the global mean temperature is projected to be reduced by approximately 0.0026 to 0.0065°C, and global mean sea level rise is projected to be reduced by approximately 0.023 to 0.057 cm.”

epa graph

Source: U.S. EPA

To put that into context, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts temperature rises of between 1.8 and 4.8 degrees Celsius and expects sea levels to rise 23 to 56 centimeters from 1990 to 2100. That means CO2 regulations for heavy trucks would only reduce warming by a fraction of what it’s projected to be — and that’s assuming EPA’s models are correct.

Despite the rule’s small impact on global warming, the Obama administration has said it’s necessary to meet the president’s CO2 reduction goals. The administration also touted the positive impacts this rule will have on fuel economy for heavy trucks.

“We’re delivering big time on President Obama’s call to cut carbon pollution,” said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. “With emission reductions weighing in at 1 billion tons, this proposal will save consumers, businesses and truck owners money; and at the same time spur technology innovation and job-growth, while protecting Americans’ health and our environment over the long haul.”

The rule is coupled with increased fuel economy standards from the Transportation Department which are expected to save vehicle owners $170 billion, along billions more in savings for  families and businesses from cheaper transportation in the coming decades.

Read rest…

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (20)

    • Avatar

      Peter_PNW

      |

      Interesting, but not the end-to-end analysis I hope for.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        JayPee

        |

        End to end analysis ?

        Are seeking an exhaustive mathematical conclusion ?

        Extremely few things are able to be so proven. And it is nearly impossible to prove a negative. That’s why, rhetorically, those who claim a ” truth ” are put to the test of proving their claim. It being considered inane to allow someone to make a claim and that claim stands as a proven fact unless and until someone conclusively and exhaustively disproves it.

        btw

        Have you considered that their is no proof at all of GHE as described by the AAGW / climate change crowd ?

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Peter_PNW

          |

          JayPee, yes, I have considered the depth and complexity of the problem, and the absence of dearth of absolute facts when considering long term planetary fluid dynamics.

          It brings to mind one of my guiding principles: all judgements are made in an absence of information. That is, there is always, at some level of granularity or aggregation, the unknown

          So we evaluate the risk that substantially increasing planetary CO2 levels will, in some way disruptive to civilization and the prerequisite technology of agriculture, destabilize the odd little 10K year stability bubble our species has blossomed into.

          Feeling lucky?

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            ‘absence or dearth’ … Typo correction

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            I stand by my statement of ” no proof ..” Which means I consider your second statement to be based on faith and not proof.

            Are you feeling lucky ?

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            I really don’t understand how “end of agriculture” doesn’t inform your evaluation of risk.

            “No proof” is a judgment. The response to the unknown (within which all judgments are formed) has many names. “Hubris” comes to mind.

            Once I got my linguistic filters configured, I’ve come to enjoy the little club here. Interesting points. Interesting provocations. But you’re absolutely right…. “no proof”.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            You’re a liar who has no proof. You won’t admit it and I don’t care. I know what you are.

            Are you a shill for Druuuuskee. ?
            You sound the same.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            The shrillness, the name calling, knashing of teeth isn’t of any value to anyone, except perhaps this little troop.

            Of course I have no proof. That’s my point. Neither do you. You’re as ignorant as the rest of us, just another zealot faithful to your clan.

            Nothing we’ve seen has ANYTHING to due with climate change.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            You’ve said nothing but your fanatic presumptions of climate. Study rhetoric and learn to have proof of your fanaticism before expounding.

            If you’ve continually read this website, you’d have seen proof positive of the idiocy of your remarks.

            Telling the truth is not name calling. IT”S THE TRUTH. Obviously something of no familiarity to you.

            Keep trying. I’ll keep laughing.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote] “end of agriculture”[/quote]

            Where is this ridiculous claim substantiated? CO2 is plant food, and a warming planet is a planet with more bread baskets. Sorry, but the Malthusian claims of doom are just not panning out for you cultists.

            My first CO2 crop experiment was in 1977, using soybeans and varying levels of atmospheric CO2. And without exception, the higher CO2 levels meant higher crop yields. Since then we have learned that plants use less water and produce higher biomass when they are grown in higher CO2 atmospheres.

            https://www.youtube.com/embed/8e7fKXu4nkg?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

            Crop yields keep increasing with technology, and higher atmospheric CO2 levels. In fact, if we stopped wasting trillions of dollars on the CAGW myth, we could virtually put an end to starvation and curable diseases.

            We need to get our priotities straight and apologize to third worlders for our madness.

      • Avatar

        amirlach

        |

        One only needs to look at the complete and utter failure of the CAGW models, the scientific method states that when your prediction is wrong your hypothesis is wrong and you must revert back to the Null Hypothesis.

        As for this supposed “risk” that substantially increasing planetary CO2 levels will, in some way be disruptive to civilization and the prerequisite technology of agriculture, destabilize the odd little 10K year stability bubble our species has blossomed into.
        [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/ld2_1kyr11.png[/img]
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/12/the-longest-most-high-resolution-most-inconvenient-paleoclimate-data-that-hasnt-been-published/

        Makes on wonder how we survived the Medieval Climactic Optimum? You know when sea levels were higher than today?
        https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/06/18/sea-level-was-higher-during-the-medieval-warm-period/

        Or how about the Viking farms that are now frozen?
        http://sciencenordic.com/vikings-grew-barley-greenland

        [img]http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/arcticomm_webcam-6.jpg[/img]
        https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/06/19/southern-greenland-showing-first-spring-green-on-june-19/

        The empirical evidence shows no risk. Co2 is greening the planet, crop yields will increase with Co2. There is a reason why greenhouse operators pump up Co2 levels. It works.

        So yes, i’m feeling lucky. Unlike those who live in abject poverty without access to energy.

        Humans live longer and better than ever, thanks to fossil fuels – so the UN wants them banned. Similar to what UN peacekeepers accomplished in Rwanda.
        [img]http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/download-16.jpg[/img]

        https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/06/24/un-believes-that-water-vapor-is-a-deadly-health-risk/

        Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    [i]”The EPA says limiting carbon dioxide from heavy trucks will reduce emissions by more than 1 billion metric tons by 2050. Cutting CO2, the agency says, will create up to $34 billion in “climate benefits” along with up to $40 billion from reducing traditional pollutants. Regulating heavy trucks are part of the Obama administration’s goal of reducing U.S. CO2 emissions 80 percent by 2050.”[/i]

    Can anyone explain this math or the term “climate benefits”?

    And all this [i]assumes[/i] that the ridiculously complex and proven-faulty models are actually correct!

    It’s always the same. Actual [i]results[/i] don’t matter. The key here is to usher in a one-world leftist government and reign-in liberty while enriching the connected few of the bogus green industry. BTW, that industry includes the thousands of “researchers” on the government payroll delivering pre-determined statistics that fit the AGW template.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Al Shelton

      |

      GR82DRV…
      You are right on…………..

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      Only 74 Billion over 35 years? Even [i]if[/i] it were true, it would still only be a little over 2 billion per year. Peanuts.

      This document shows a $21,408,000,000 “climate change” budget for the US just for 2014. I am sure there is more that this budget does not reflect, but 21.4 billion dollars is still [i]at least[/i] 21 billion too much per year.

      The total is found on page 45, and page 5 explains figures are in millions of dollars.

      https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf

      The Small Business Administration estimates that compliance with such regulations [i]costs[/i] the U.S. economy more than $1.75 trillion per year.

      We could save over 61 trillion dollars by 2050 if we sh!tcan this nonsense now.

      Ain’t math fun!

      Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    This is like spending the entire NASA Apollo moonshot budget on a single rocket that can only get ten feet off the launchpad – [b]if[/b] everything works perfectly!

    What’s the point?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    What the @#$% is the USA federal government thinking ?

    Over $$20 Billion dollars flushed and this administration can’t even slow the weekly murder count in the Presidents backyard after 2 terms .

    Gator is right . Can it and save the money or put it to better use .

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      The 21.4 billion is again, peanuts.

      A 1.75 trillion dollar per year cost on the economy works out to nearly $5500 per year for every man, woman, and child in the US. Or, nearly $15,000 per household per year. At this rate, theoretically by the age of 18, every citizen could have around $100,000, not including interest.

      Talk about stealing the future of the children.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Thank You Al for the reference Gary Novak’s site .

    What we are seeing is a massive contrived fraud by a relatively small group who claim to be scientists .

    If it wasn’t a fraud one would think the scientific community would self regulate
    to protect the integrity of honest scientists and the profession itself .

    With a few very notable exceptions many scientists are witnesses to an intellectual and financial gang rape of the trusting public while doing absolutely nothing to stop it .

    The scum bags pushing the scam should be in jail for wire fraud at the very least .

    Reply

Leave a comment

Loading Disqus Comments ...

No Trackbacks.