President Trump may rescind a few EPA rules

turbovan+tdi said:

Agreed. The EPA got to powerful and forgot what they were about, IMHO.

Click to expand...

Maybe the Okie Pruitt can get ahold of it

turbovan+tdi said:

I think the EPA started off right, then they went off the beaten path, started making rules that were costing business's money so what do they do, find a cheaper way-here comes China with the cheaper way and here we are today,

Click to expand...

tadawson said:

And by 'censorship', I presume that you mean 'sanity checking', since it's common knowledge that the fruitbats have been misrepresenting things for years, and not presenting equally valid dissenting research . . .

Click to expand...

Common Knowledge being an oxymoron

the problem is creeping gradualism

regulators start off fixing a problem. Then subsequent generations of regulators feel a need to "continually improve" the standards in order to justify their existence. It's never "good enough". (No one is going to argue that there were real problems that lead up to the regulations that came about in the 70's. But now it's gone too far in may respects)

"we need more funding to enforce the standards" then they develop tighter standards that are tougher to enforce and "now we need more funding again". It becomes all abotu the agency and its interests instead of what is supposed to be getting accomplished by the agency.

This push to zero emissions vehicles is not sustainable from a national security standpoint. Because the rare earths all need to come from china. Which makes it not environmentally sound, either. They hydrogen economy is a pipe dream at this point

KERMA said:

the problem is creeping gradualism

regulators start off fixing a problem. Then subsequent generations of regulators feel a need to "continually improve" the standards in order to justify their existence.

It's never "good enough". (No one is going to argue that there were real problems that lead up to the regulations that came about in the 70's. But now it's gone too far in may respects)


"we need more funding to enforce the standards" then they develop tighter standards that are tougher to enforce and "now we need more funding again".

It becomes all abotu the agency and its interests instead of what is supposed to be getting accomplished by the agency.

This push to zero emissions vehicles is not sustainable from a national security standpoint.

Because the rare earths all need to come from china. Which makes it not environmentally sound, either. They hydrogen economy is a pipe dream at this point

Click to expand...

The regulators are all about their JOB and sticking bad smelling "STUFF" in the face of folks ~~

Regardless of the administration trying to do/un-do environmental regulations the cost of fuel at the pump has, for the time being and on the average, been one of the largest influence on people's buying priorities for passenger cars regarding their fuel efficiency.

In the US, since the 1970's, there hasn't been a real long term motivator to buy/drive fuel efficient cars that normally carry a price and/or size penalty. I agree that light duty diesel vehicles have a higher chance to give you the best overall bang for the money. But will Americans pay the premium in substantial large numbers if the price of fuel continues relatively low with short-lived highs (search for Inflation Adjusted Gasoline Prices)?

@KERMA
Exactly what I've been saying for years now.. not just regulators, but just about any politician. IF they ever 'cured or fixed' anything, they'd find themselves no longer needed.

KERMA said:

This push to zero emissions vehicles is not sustainable from a national security standpoint. Because the rare earths all need to come from china. Which makes it not environmentally sound, either. They hydrogen economy is a pipe dream at this point

Click to expand...

Well light that pipe up! GM and Honda just announced a partnership to design fuel cell vehicles. They claim they should be in production around 2020.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444415/epa-meltdown-reform-junk-science-agency-causes-freakout

It's all about the money, as it dries up I think that youre going to see a lot of scientists suddleny come out of the woodwork and suggest they never really went along with the EPA before but they felt compelled "bullied " to do so.

Hopefully Trump undoes some of the lame regulations before he gets impeached.

KERMA said:

This push to zero emissions vehicles is not sustainable from a national security standpoint. Because the rare earths all need to come from china. Which makes it not environmentally sound, either. They hydrogen economy is a pipe dream at this point

Click to expand...

Slightly an aside, and doesn't really change the logistics issue, but I can personally attest to the fact that carbon based fuels also make for a military liability in many ways. As an OPFOR for the JRTC (1/509th ABN INF) back in the early 90's, we would wreck havoc on the BLUFOR by attacking their fuel points and fuel bladders. Not to mention the always vulnerable supply routes to keep the diesel / jp4 fuel flowing.

I believe the US military is investigating hybrid electric and fuel cell technologies to alleviate the logistical vulnerabilities posed by our reliance on carbon based fuels.

Doughboyea said:

From a manufacturer's standpoint, I would be concerned that Trump's tennure is limited. Whatever "damage" he may inflict, drastic changes he places through his executive orders, the next president may/will reverse them. I'm not sure if manufacturers would be willing to invest in a new US-spec (deregulated) vehicle for a couple years worth of production. The profit is just not there.

Click to expand...

meerschm said:

there will be changes at the EPA, but these will not be wholesale decade-scale rollback of regulations.

rules which are in the final stages of approval can just not be signed (a couple toxic substance rules, some clean water rules....)

and future standards could be bent along the curve. (mpg standards for example)

And they can prioritize enforcement actions and legal defense (meaning lack of defense) that can reduce effectiveness of regulations.


It also seems likely that some form of censorship will be applied to research results.

Click to expand...

GoFaster said:

That's pretty atrocious if you ask me.

Click to expand...

tadawson said:

And by 'censorship', I presume that you mean 'sanity checking', since it's common knowledge that the fruitbats have been misrepresenting things for years, and not presenting equally valid dissenting research . . .

Click to expand...

GoFaster said:

Peer review - not politician review - might not be a perfect process but it's the best we have.

Click to expand...

KERMA said:

the problem is creeping gradualism

regulators start off fixing a problem. Then subsequent generations of regulators feel a need to "continually improve" the standards in order to justify their existence. It's never "good enough". (No one is going to argue that there were real problems that lead up to the regulations that came about in the 70's. But now it's gone too far in may respects)

"we need more funding to enforce the standards" then they develop tighter standards that are tougher to enforce and "now we need more funding again". It becomes all abotu the agency and its interests instead of what is supposed to be getting accomplished by the agency.

This push to zero emissions vehicles is not sustainable from a national security standpoint. Because the rare earths all need to come from china. Which makes it not environmentally sound, either. They hydrogen economy is a pipe dream at this point

Click to expand...

I'm going to sum these all up with the comment that it won't be pushing back current regulations but stopping pending regulations from taking effect. I think one of the first things we will see is the push back of CAFE standards, which is the wrong direction if we want more diesel vehicles.

As for "zero" emmissions, we are already well beyond resonable measurable regulations. If your equipment and scientists cannont keep up with being able to measure to the regulation, then it is meaningless. You also have the issue that the FTC says that nothing can be "zero". There will always be some part that can be measured. Even if that part is in ppb.

makattack said:

Slightly an aside, and doesn't really change the logistics issue, but I can personally attest to the fact that carbon based fuels also make for a military liability in many ways. As an OPFOR for the JRTC (1/509th ABN INF) back in the early 90's, we would wreck havoc on the BLUFOR by attacking their fuel points and fuel bladders. Not to mention the always vulnerable supply routes to keep the diesel / jp4 fuel flowing.

I believe the US military is investigating hybrid electric and fuel cell technologies to alleviate the logistical vulnerabilities posed by our reliance on carbon based fuels.

Click to expand...

It's more than the fuel supply. If you study wars and battles through history, what's the first lesson? Cut off the supply lines. An army cannot fight without food or ammunition. Hybrid electric and fuel cells will only enable the army to move but not to eat.

Maybe just roll back to 2006 standards, Gassers were quite clean then too, and I would imagine CRs would still be cleaner than PDs w/o all the extra crap.

GoFaster said:

Peer review - not politician review - might not be a perfect process but it's the best we have.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, much of the peer review comes from those in the environmental industrial complex, living off of the Government teet, so it is political.

turbobrick240 said:

Well light that pipe up! GM and Honda just announced a partnership to design fuel cell vehicles. They claim they should be in production around 2020.

Click to expand...

If they can build and sell w/o the force of government, I am all for that.

kjclow said:

I'm going to sum these all up with the comment that it won't be pushing back current regulations but stopping pending regulations from taking effect. I think one of the first things we will see is the push back of CAFE standards, which is the wrong direction if we want more diesel vehicles.
As for "zero" emmissions, we are already well beyond resonable measurable regulations. If your equipment and scientists cannont keep up with being able to measure to the regulation, then it is meaningless. You also have the issue that the FTC says that nothing can be "zero". There will always be some part that can be measured. Even if that part is in ppb.

Click to expand...

Good point about the probability of CAFE standards being relaxed. It might have unintended negative consequences for TDI enthusiasts and the like :-(

nicklockard said:

At some point, their demands for cleanliness exceed industries ability to maintain production, so the only way to "eliminate" dirty air, water, and soil is to eliminate jobs. So we've been outsourcing our jobs and the pollution that goes with them to China for 40 years, except China produces more pollution per product made than if we did it here.

Click to expand...

I think something people fail to properly estimate when they talk about manufacturing jobs being sent overseas is that while certainly government environmental regulation added to the cost of goods, it pails in comparison to the added cost that is/was the American Worker.

Make no mistake 80% of the reason jobs were shifted over seas had nothing to due with the cost of EPA regulations, but because it allowed for the elimination of the reasonably or well paid, protected, and at the time, unionized American worker. The costs of which, in comparison to their Chinese/Southeast Asia counter parts, was astronomically higher.

Does the EPA have certain policies that over extended, certainly. But consider that when the EPA was created in 1970, the US population stood at 205 million people. Today it stands 318 million. We have added over 110 million people, that produce, consume, emit etc. And yet generally speaking in virtually every metric environmentally we are in far better place than we were in 1970.

turbobrick240 said:

Well light that pipe up! GM and Honda just announced a partnership to design fuel cell vehicles. They claim they should be in production around 2020.

Click to expand...

I bet they'll only be sold in major metropolitan areas, like LA, San Fran, Portland, Seattle, Austin, and maybe New England. I can't imagine fuel cell vehicles taking off in rural areas, which is still a bulk of the US.

While Tesla seems to have more supercharger stations in Texas than they did a year ago, it's still lacking. If I had a Tesla, there's no way I could drive cross country, unless I were towing a trailer with a generator, or a few extra batteries. I couldn't begin to imagine the cost of new hydrogen stations popping up in the same areas, just to support a small minority of new vehicle sales. Will it take off someday? Yes. Anytime soon? Probably not.

narongc73 said:

Hopefully Trump undoes some of the lame regulations before he gets impeached.

Click to expand...

I doubt impeachment will happen anytime soon. If Obama made it through 8 years, so will Trump.

evantful said:

I think something people fail to properly estimate when they talk about manufacturing jobs being sent overseas is that while certainly government environmental regulation added to the cost of goods, it pails in comparison to the added cost that is/was the American Worker.

Make no mistake 80% of the reason jobs were shifted over seas had nothing to due with the cost of EPA regulations, but because it allowed for the elimination of the reasonably or well paid, protected, and at the time, unionized American worker. The costs of which, in comparison to their Chinese/Southeast Asia counter parts, was astronomically higher.

Click to expand...

80%? I don't suppose you'd have a source for that claim? I concur, that it's both labor costs and environmental regulations, but it sounds dubious to assign an arbitrary percentage without a source to back it up.

evantful said:

I think something people fail to properly estimate when they talk about manufacturing jobs being sent overseas is that while certainly government environmental regulation added to the cost of goods, it pails in comparison to the added cost that is/was the American Worker.

This is not really true. When GM was going through their whole bailout fiasco, they testified before Congress that the labor cost was only about 10% of their operation. So the "difference" in US labor vs. foreign labor is negligible in the end price of a new car.

Make no mistake 80% of the reason jobs were shifted over seas had nothing to due with the cost of EPA regulations, but because it allowed for the elimination of the reasonably or well paid, protected, and at the time, unionized American worker. The costs of which, in comparison to their Chinese/Southeast Asia counter parts, was astronomically higher.not true, see above. Most assembly of many of the consumer goods is done via robots anyway. The electric bill can exceed the labor cost in some factories. China brings cheap, powerful coal fired power plants online almost weekly it seems, and they have hardly any of the emissions compliance devices the EPA mandates for ours. Whose electric bill do you thing is higher?

Does the EPA have certain policies that over extended, certainly. But consider that when the EPA was created in 1970, the US population stood at 205 million people. Today it stands 318 million. We have added over 110 million people, that produce, consume, emit etc. And yet generally speaking in virtually every metric environmentally we are in far better place than we were in 1970.Yes, because we've moved the pollution to quite literally the other side of the planet, and now pat ourselves on the back for "cleaning up our act".

Click to expand...

Bold is mine. I would really love to see your "80%" source.

Keep in mind, I am NOT advocating we just tear up any and all regulations we have in order to compete with other countries. But perhaps we keep in mind WHERE our consumer products we seem to be so addicted to come from when we consider their purchase. I would also very much like to see a study done, and this would have to be somewhat hypothetical theoretical, as to what the end consumer monetary cost would be on some specific items. DeWalt used to make all of their power tools here. All of them. Now, they all come from China. Supposedly this is going to change, because there has been a lot of pushback from shareholders of Black & Decker (DeWalt's parent company) after they merged with Stanley a few years ago. However, I would want to know how much the circular saw DeWalt has on the store shelf at Lowe's for $129 and is made in China would be if it was once again made here (like my 22 year old DeWalt circular saw was). Would it cost $139? $200? $500?

There has been a move to repatriate some manufacturing here, but it is not so much to do with "being a responsible American company" as much as it is the fact that manufacture in China is not quite as cheap as it once was in relation to American manufacture.

I am happy to see the Wahl brand of trimmer I prefer is once again made in the USA. I believe these were repatriated as well.

KERMA said:

This push to zero emissions vehicles is not sustainable from a national security standpoint. Because the rare earths all need to come from china. Which makes it not environmentally sound, either. They hydrogen economy is a pipe dream at this point

Click to expand...

This may not be true for much longer, not sure of the environmental ramifications but should be better from a national security view.

https://panampost.com/raquel-garcia...o-become-the-world-leader-of-lithium-exports/

Cool. I just watched a very interesting NOVA episode on new battery technologies last night. Seems like the greatest energy density battery tech at present is using solid lithium as opposed to lithium ion.

Off topic but relevant to the discussion on state of American manufacturing, here is link to a short (7 pages) study on the topic.

"...Almost 88 percent of job losses in manufacturing in recent years can be attributable to productivity growth, and the long-term
changes to manufacturing employment are mostly linked to the
productivity of American factories..."

"Exports lead to higher levels of domestic production and employment, while imports reduce domestic production and employment. The difference between these, or net exports, has been negative since 1980, and has contributed to roughly 13.4 percent of job losses in the U.S. in the last decade..."

added; link to study.

http://projects.cberdata.org/reports/MfgReality.pdf

waltzconmigo said:

This may not be true for much longer, not sure of the environmental ramifications but should be better from a national security view.

https://panampost.com/raquel-garcia...o-become-the-world-leader-of-lithium-exports/

Click to expand...

I have to wonder what if any environmental impact restrictions they will pratice. Seems like concern for the rain forest from those countries is very weak. I would hate to see mass destruction just for batteries to run our cars. On the other hand, I wonder how much longer lithium will be the king metal of batteries. There are many companies working on alternatives that are lighter, cheaper, hold a charge longer, and can be recharged quicker. All keys towards moving society away from ICE.

oilhammer said:

Bold is mine. I would really love to see your "80%" source.

Click to expand...

To quote me correctly I said 80% of the reason, not 80% of the cost.

I work for Siemens in manufacturing logistics, primarily PLC integration.

Predominately most of my experience to base my statement on is from my friend who worked for GE Plastics (now Sabic) and Apple from a period of 2009 - early 2013 also in manufacturing and supply chain solutions. He's Chinese American (his family was originally from Hong Kong) and spent nearly 60-70% of the year in China during his time at Apple.

You used the automotive industry as one source to contradict my statement and certainly in one specific industry, labor may not represent as much of a factor.

To get back to electronics manufacturing and assembly along with many different types of consumer, commercial and industrial goods the labor force used is not "robots". Hon Hai (Foxconn) and Pegatron alone employ a labor force well over 1.6 million.

China's entire manufacturing labor force nearly totals 100 million people. Then consider Vietnam, Indonesia, India, Mexico, Thailand, all with a huge manufacturing sectors, all of which have massive labor work forces. The thing they all have in common is exceedingly low wages and minimal worker safety standards.

But really a lot of what Im talking about is industries that represent "new"manufacturing sectors, which we completely lost out on. In regards to "old sector" jobs, certainly a good deal of jobs were lost to efficiencies and automatization. But the overriding factor in all of this was the cause of change. Whether it through cost or inefficacy, there was a place with cheaper labor or better method with lower costs, utilized over the American worker.

Apple, in 2012 while beginning manufacturing build out for the new Mac Pro only brought manufacturing back to the United States primarily because the Mac Pro was simple enough in assembly that they could automate virtually the entire process.

My point is, like I said before, have some EPA regulations strived for to much? Where the return is to minimal and the cost to massive that it has hindered growth. Certainly. But overwhelmingly labor has been the driving factor.

And Oilhammer, I think we both want the same thing. But we can either pay for it now environmentally or pay for it later. But we will pay and it almost always costs more to deal with it later.

kj---I am not an expert on the local geography, but the two Departments mentioned (Salta and Jujuy) appear to be high up in Andes where the three countries meet. They are probably sparsely populated and would come with environmental concerns of their own, many of which I am not aware of, but run-off would be the first one that comes to mind.

One thing that is overlooked is the shift in employement. North Carolina used to be very big in textiles. Many of those jobs are gone. Just look at the shirts in your closet. Most, if not all, are no longer made in the USA. However, places like Hickory, have lower unemployement percentages now than they did 40 years ago. It is primarily due to high tech industries. Some of which have bought the old linen mills and referbished.

A negative side effect is that jobs and employeers like this tend to force the younger people into colleges and away from journey trades. It starts in middle school with no shop or home ec classes. Everything is focused on being college bound. If we want to "make America Great Again", we need to look at a trade track for those not cut out for college.

kjclow said:

<snip>

A negative side effect is that jobs and employeers like this tend to force the younger people into colleges and away from journey trades. It starts in middle school with no shop or home ec classes.

Everything is focused on being college bound. If we want to "make America Great Again", we need to look at a trade track for those not cut out for college.

Click to expand...

Sad (more like strange) to admit, as a 4 year university grad, I never earned a buck "working for the man."

Took the (3rd generation ) Merchant's road in my career ~ 55-75 hours per week ~ No paid vacation ~ Zero health insurance ~ No unemployment insurance ~ No retirement ~ Only Social Security ~ and personal savings

Answered only to my self

I look at my brother as an example. After four or five quarters at Iowa State, he was asked to not return to school. Held several jobs over the next few years until he got hired by a volunteer fire dept to get the tanker to the fire. That was about 30 years ago. He went through the ranks, got his master's degree and is now a Fire Chief.

oilhammer said:

Hah! It wasn't obvious but after reading this post I agree it perhaps should have been.

But that brings another topic to the equation: countries with no regulatory burdens, be it emissions standards, safety standards, working conditions, pay scale, blah blah blah. That "not in MY back yard" mentality which can serve to simply push bad things somewhere else, and often compounds those bad things. NASA's timelapse imagery around the globe of industrial pollution would be a good indicator of such a phenomenon. We (North America) enjoy a relatively clean area for an industrialized nation, no doubt due in large part to the EPA.... but China (and much of Southeast Asia in general) easily eclipses the rest of the planet combined. And if you consider the fact that much (most?) of that is from the manufacture of products that are destined to be shipped elsewhere...much of it here...what is the net result to the environment as a whole?

Not sure what the answer to this problem is, but at least admitting it is a problem would be a good first step in finding a solution. But as individuals, we can at least do some tiny part to help. I just spent $120 at a local shop having my 31 year old Hoover upright vacuum cleaner reconditioned. It is an overbuilt machine that works fantastic still, was made in the USA, and while I could have just gone to Wal-mart and bought a brand new Chinasuck vacuum for $89.95 I instead chose what I feel is a more environmentally sound decision. And I'll bet this Hoover will still work after another 31 years and that new one would have long since died.

I'm sure my Hoover has no Energy Star rating (if there is such a thing on vacuum cleaners), and it probably had some paint process that the EPA banned back in the '80s, whatever, it still works. It won't end up in a land fill somewhere. I refuse to succumb to the disposable consumer goods methodology of living.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Everyone speaks of offshoring of Jobs and its affect on the American economy but never links the environmental regulations that are dodged also.
Good commonsense regulatory measures worldwide would do more benefit than the US and others cleaning our act up while the rest of the world like china pollute to their hearts content. A reasonable counteraction to this would be to levy an environmental tax on cheap imports from countries that are not even trying to curb pollution. This would make them clean things up in order to stay competitive.