By PAUL C. “CHIP” KNAPPENBERGER and PATRICK J. MICHAELS
Well, well, well. The EPA has finally gone and done it. They have actually calculated the climate change impacts projected to result of one of their climate change regulations—in this case, the proposed rules for the efficiency standards for medium and heavy duty vehicles.
What they found was hardly surprising—the climate impacts from the proposed regulations will be vanishingly small.
The EPA calculates that the amount of global temperature rise averted by the end of the 21stcentury from the proposed regulations to be… wait, this is too good to paraphrase. From the EPA:
The results of the analysis demonstrate that relative to the reference case, by 2100 projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations are estimated to be reduced by 1.1 to 1.2 part per million by volume (ppmv), global mean temperature is estimated to be reduced by 0.0026 to 0.0065 °C, and sea-level rise is projected to be reduced by approximately 0.023 to 0.057 cm.
Did you catch that? According to the EPA’s own calculations, their regulation mandating the fuel economy of medium and light duty trucks avoids somewhere between twenty-six ten-thousandths and sixty-five ten-thousandths of a degree of future global warming. In other words, it is a useless measure when it comes to influencing the future course of global temperature. If the EPA wants to regulate the fuel efficiency of trucks, it needs to justify it for reasons that don’t relate to climate change.
Of course, if you’ve followed anything that we’ve ever had to say on EPA efforts seeking to mitigate future climate change by limiting carbon dioxide emissions, you know that we have been stressing this for years (basically, since EPA started issuing such regulations). Over and over again, and for each newly-proposed action, we show that the resulting temperature savings will be measured in hundredths to thousandths of a degree. It is nice to finally see that the EPA completely agrees with us (we’ve known they have all along, but they are just very reluctant to admit it).
When describing the impact of these minuscule changes, we use terms like “trifling,” “impressively tiny,” “meaningless,” “scientifically undetectable,” and “environmentally inconsequential.”
Here’s how the EPA describes them:
“EPA determines that the projected reductions in atmospheric CO2, global mean temperature, sea level rise, and ocean pH are meaningful in the context of this action.”
“Although these effects are small, they occur on a global scale and are long lasting; therefore, they can make an important contribution to reducing the risks associated with climate change.”
Not only do they talk in glowing terms about the climate significance of the regulations (“an important contribution to reducing risks associated with climate change”), but they simply love the economic ones as well.
Through the magic of the social cost of carbon, the EPA transforms 0.003°C of avoided global warming into $100 billion of economic benefit, and raves:
“[We] estimate net economic benefits exceeding $100billion making this a highly beneficial rule.”
We’ve got to hand it to government bureaucrats, they can be extremely imaginative when it comes to justifying their existence.
But sadly, imagination doesn’t trump reality.
So, while we commend the EPA for actually calculating the climate impacts of their regulation (or should we say, making the results of their calculations publically available), for their overly optimistic view of the import of the (virtually non-existent) impacts, we rate the EPA’s level of spin as “Heavy Duty” and award them four Spin Cycles.
Heavy Duty. Government regulations or treaties claiming to save the planet from certain destruction, but which actually accomplish nothing. Can also apply to important UN climate confabs, such as Copenhagen 2009 (or, quite likely, the upcoming 2015 Paris Summit), that are predicted to result in a massive, sweeping, and world-saving new treaty, followed by self-congratulatory back-patting. Four spin cycles.
The Spin Cycle is a reoccurring feature based upon just how much the latest weather or climate story, policy pronouncement, or simply poo-bah blather spins the truth. Statements are given a rating between 1-5 spin cycles, with less cycles meaning less spin. For a more in-depth description, visit the inaugural edition.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Here in Europe, the idiots set about regulating the vacuum cleaner market, with the intention of banning the least efficient vacuum cleaners.
Unfortunately, since they are idiots – what they actually have now done is ban some of the MOST efficient vacuum cleaners.
Somehow or other in their pursuit of efficiency they seem to have muddled up efficiency with total power rating. At least that is what they appear to have done since they have banned only vacuum cleaner over 1600watt rather than banning vacuum cleaners which are inefficient. (Soon to be a limit at 700watts!!!)
I’m not even sure if the people who created these regulations know what the words energy, power or efficiency mean in the strictly defined technical sense.
When asked to justify this nonsense the EU spokesperson Marlene Holzner, apparently explained:
“I believe there is a misconception and that is that if you have a high-voltage vac that also means that it has a lot of power to suck the dust,”
HIGH VOLTAGE!!! It simply beggars belief that such people have been granted the freedom to place extraordinarily costly and destructive sanctions upon entire industries and the peoples of many lands.
So, we can immediately see that she is a clueless imbecile with regard to this topic.
Is anyone involved NOT a clueless imbecile? That is the question.
I don’t actually approve of any such micro-managed market controls. But these are particularly dumb and seem to be the result of the scientific illiteracy of arts, humanities and language educated bureaucrats.
Anyway, I bought three vacuum cleaners when the ban came in. They were cheap, and were according to published figures and my calculations they were the most efficient models on the market.
I established this by comparing the output power (suction in “air-watts”) as a proportion of the input electrical energy in watts. Plus they have slider power controllers which allow me to use them at low power for less demanding jobs. Obviously I must also perpetuate this high efficiency by replacing the bag/filters often – and this is something which I do.
But, such machines are now banned and the plants produced them will have been dismantled (or maybe sold to the Chinese!!)
So now, only less efficient vacuum cleaners are available. And such low efficiency, low power machines will clearly result in both time-wasting and less effective removal of particulate contaminants from homes/vehicles.
Apparently, the regulators in the EU are happy to expose people to particulate contaminants.
Which is ironic.
One of the great advances of the modern age was based on the understanding of the simple principle that all other things being equal – if you scale up a machine then it is generally more efficient.
It is the reason why wind turbines are as big as conceivably possible.
(This may not apply for a motor vehicle, since it must accelerate its own mass, and I am tempted to conclude that the preoccupation with pushing people to use smaller cars has lead our masters to believe that there is merit in scaling everything down.
But vacuum cleaner are not self-propelling. So the additional mass does not render them less efficient!!)
I did also encounter an EU spokesperson suggesting that they were looking into limiting the maximum power rating of kettles – and this convinces me that they really are simply muddle-headed when it comes to technical topics.
Obviously, (all else equal) boiling water slowly is more “lossy” i.e. inefficient than boiling it quickly. Since the body of water is spending more time losing heat as it slowly approaches the point at which it will be made into tea or coffee.
Hopefully, you guys here will understand these simple points.
Anyway, another tiny step towards the dark ages, courtesy of our witless rulers.
“The efficiency of an entity (a device, component, or system) in electronics and electrical engineering is defined as useful power output divided by the total electrical power consumed (a fractional expression)” source wikipedia.
I feel your pain. Here in the States we have toilets that won’t flush…for similarly incomprehensible reasons….
The tank holds more water than the bowl. Just keep the handle down. No water saved. Problem solved.
I would tend to agree with DataTurk that regulations are binding on emitters and CAFE rules have led to higher fleet average fuel efficiency. If you plot average fuel efficiency and CAFE standards, the two track closely together together. During the 80s and early 90s when CAFE rules were being tightened average efficiency improved on pace, then during the long period where they were flat they stopped increasing. This is not because engines stopped becoming more efficient, but because consumers preferred other features that added to vehicle weight and ate up those efficiency gains.
What is causing those big net benefits, isn’t the carbon externality, but the fuel savings for consumers. This is basic on the idea that when it comes to saving money on energy efficiency, consumers use hyperbolic discounting, and don’t accurately account for the money they’d save from more fuel efficiency. IE there is an information problem. If consumers had perfect information about the various vehicle technologies and their costs they would demand more of it, but because they don’t manufacturers don’t add them. Basically the EPA thinks we’re too stupid to save money with more efficient vehicles, so they make the decision for us. This is a basic statist impulse. People are stupid, so we have to tell them what to do.
Looking for the source document, I ran across this …
Cost effective for businesses and consumers: Payback periods for truck owners would be favorable: the typical buyer of a new long-haul truck in 2027 would recoup the extra cost of the technology in under two years through fuel savings. After that point, it’s money in the owner’s pocket. When these fuel savings bring down the costs of transporting goods, consumers can save money as well.
http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/P100MLQ5.txt?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=2011%20Thru%202015&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&UseQField=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5CZYFILES%5CINDEX%20DATA%5C11THRU15%5CTXT%5C00000016%5CP100MLQ5.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=p%7Cf&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=2#
So, if the increased cost of trucks that meet the standards can be recouped in just two years of use, why does the EPA need a regulation? Do they suppose that UPS and FedEx are so stupid that the won’t invest in a product with a two year payback? Or maybe the cost of developing the technology is likely to be so great that the payback for truck manufacturers will be never.
I think the best way to approach this is to consider the EPA as a man, and the Earth’s climate as a woman, and both are discussing the previous night.
EC: That’s the dinkiest thing I’ve yet come across.
EPA: Nonsense, honey, I moved your mountains with it last night.
EC: Hah; either you understand nothing about me, or you’re just way too much into yourself.
EPA: You liked it.
EC: Hah; can’t like something I don’t even know is there. That was the tiniest, dinkiest, teeniest, puny, short, wet noodle I’ve ever seen. And you’re claiming I noticed it? I was sleeping. Did you think my snoring was something else?
EPA: Please don’t tell anybody. I have an image to maintain.
EC: Not after you urinated in my back yard in Colorado last week.
EPA I think they should be ridiculed, maybe using their own name against them. A contest to come up with an appropriate name that becomes feral and widely used, a new part of the American idiom.
Such as Extreme Propaganda Association or something shorter and more catchy that the press would start using. The stupidity of that mob seems to have no bounds.
Today was 2.6 thousandsths of a degree above the long term average for the date. Climate change is real and it is upon us! Clutch your children to your bosoms and despair!
“Although these effects are small, they occur on a global scale and are long lasting; therefore, they can make an important contribution to reducing the risks associated with climate change.”
Yes, like pushing a medium-sized pickup with a feather.
That is one of the most ridiculous features of the warmists (and greens in general) – that they have no sense of proportion, of how much it actually TAKES to change something. They continually assign causation to forces and energies that are simply too insubstantial to do what they assert is possible.
They believe that the Butterfly Effect is a real thing, that a butterfly flapping its wings in one place can cause a hurricane on the other side of the ocean or planet. The Butterfly Effect is GARBAGE. The force generated by the flapping of the wings will be attenuated/absorbed in the first inch or so, and beyond that distance it cannot possibly have any effect. It’s all New Age delusion, passed on by the likes of Deepak Chopra.
As a design engineer, I had to take into consideration not just the forces I was APPLYING, but what the REACTION FORCES that the design had to contend with (gravity, inertia, viscosity, etc.). These reaction forces/conditions are REAL, and without taking them into consideration, the scenarios cannot be realistic. The atmosphere and the ocean water push BACK. The inertia of every molecule in the air and ocean is not inelastic. Each of them absorbs the down thrust of the butterfly wings or a pebble tossed into the sea.
To pretend that such systems are not inelastic is completely unscientific. (Similarly, the increase in the CO2 that man puts into the atmosphere is so small – 1 part per million in the past 100 years – is as butterfly wings flapping. It gets absorbed and USED chemically, energetically, and mechanically. That doiesn’t give us any cause to increase the output, but what we have done is smly too feeble to have done ANYTHING.)
0.023 or .057 cm rise in sea level – that is 0.009 inches – about the thickness of three sheets of paper. This is not only stupendously small, it is less than the tolerance of measuring sea level. By that I mean that if 100 people went out to measure the sea level RIGHT NOW, sa accurately as possible, the range of their measurements would be far greater than 0.023cm. IOW, this amount is not only insignificant, but not measurable.
Similarly, the “0.0026 to 0.0065 °C” (0.0047°F to 0.0117°F) is AT LEAST 10 times smaller than met stations can distinguish consistently and accurately. It is smaller than plants can distinguish in terms of climate damage. It is far smaller than ANYONE can sense. Again, it is smaller than the tolerance (+/-) of any measuring that is done.
These are not silly comparisons, nor a wrong analogy . Their proposed means of achieving their “gains” are causes, and therefore forcings – and forcings ARE forces/impetuses. If changing a forcing delivers so feeble a return, then the method of changing the forcing is USELESS.
PROPORTION PROPORTION PROPORTION.
All of this is absolutely the same as monks 800 years ago arguing over the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin. It is wasting EVERYBODY’S time and energy – and threatens to bankrupt people over a delta of 1 angel, plus or minus 0.000001, in a population of a million angels.
WHO THE F*** CARES? It’s not going to kill the planet for our grandkids, dammit. When are these warmists going to just STFU and go sing Kumbaya around their campfires? The world has REAL problems, and they want to de-develop the world because of their butterfly and its flapping wings. An imagined butterfly, no less.
Should it be a good idea to do anything to reduce CO2, that will have to be done in a multifaceted way that involves a large number of separate efforts, most of which individually will each have a small contribution.
Meanwhile, I like the idea of consuming less gasoline, so that oil supplies last longer, emissions of nitrogen oxides (a smog and acid rain contributor) are reduced, people pay less for motor fuel, and that the national balance of trade improves.
typo :
aren’t 0.0026 and 0.0065 °C “two point six thousandths and sixty point five thousandths ”
instead of “twenty-six thousandths and sixty-five thousandths” ?
By at least .0023 of a degree the temperature falls
When I walk out of a room,
With my body heat gone and following that drop
Will I see my bank balance zoom?
http://rhymeafterrhyme.net/ignore-the-flying-pigs/
Thanks to everyone for catching the thousandths/ten-thousandths mistake on my part! I’ll be sure and fix it over on the Cato blog, I’ll leave it to the moderators here to decide how to handle it a WUWT.
Interesting discussion about fuel efficiency regs. I side with those who prefer the govt to stay out it and let consumers/consumer preferences drive the market. That said, what I primarily wanted to demonstrate was that climate change mitigation was an incorrect justification, so the EPA et al. need to come up with something better. Or, best of all, butt out.
[Order of magnitude fixed. ~mod.]
Chip…I agree that the justification put forward by EPA is exceptionally weak. That said, achieving fuel efficiency of this magnitude is a reasonable, and in my view, laudable policy objective for a national government.
I don’t expect much support for this view here, but I think this rule is already moving the trucking industry in a direction that free market forces alone could not impel. Support for this rule enjoys a majority of support from the regulated industry, which I would judge to be the exception in govt rule-makings.
DataTurk
Thanks for the information you provided, it was helpful. As an Engineer I always support increased efficiency in trucks and autos. From what you indicate there are substantial opportunities for fuel savings in the trucking business which sounds good. The problem I am concerned about is that the government is issuing rules every day not based on scientific or economic justification and they don’t know when enough is enough as they arbitrarily cut emissions with false claims of health savings. This becomes a huge problem when a government goes beyond the Constitution.
For example the recent proclamation that the USA will reduce CO 2 emissions by 32% with a theoretical benefit of 0.01 degree C. The cost and pain associated with that will be enormous especially there currently is not a reliable and economic replacement for fossil fuels. Even former believers have changed their minds after getting the facts.
https://dddusmma.wordpress.com/2015/08/21/unvarnished-truth-about-wind-and-solar/#comments
Unfortunately in the truck case they made ridiculous claims on the environmental front rather than just stick to the fact that there are fuel savings. Also unfortunately this exaggeration along with alarmist claims is currently consistent with the mind set in our government.
Another article exposing the EPA
http://daytonatimes.com/2015/08/environmental-protection-agency-is-out-of-control/
NHTSA studies show that as light truck curb weight decreased, fatality rates increase (for light trucks more than about 4,000 lbs) by as much as 2.5% for a 100 lb weight reduction.
Now if we think we can calculate the temp as being 0.003C less because a 1 ppm atmospheric CO2 reduction, it should also be reasonable to assume that we can extrapolate/calculate the increase in crash mortality because of a 1 ppm weight reduction in light trucks.
So if, for mileage benefits, we reduce the weight of a light truck by 0.004 lbs we will have an increase in mortality (and injury) of … not much. But if we carry this out over the next 85 years the cost to society is significant. Are the mileage benefits worth all the human suffering caused by saving 0.004 pounds of steel?
What if instead, we work for the common good and mandate an addition of 0.008 lbs to each pick-up. We will be saving numerous lives and reduce significant injuries, and produce a great societal benefit throughout the next 85 years and into the next century.
What do you think DATATURK can you get on board with this logic (even though the increased weight will reduce the mileage)?
No. Read the thread. If 24 billion gallons of fuel savings (per year, best case) does not register with you as a societal benefit, we will continue this conversation only when your capsule returns to earth.
That’s a lot of gallons. So, if we don’t meet your projected billions of fuel savings, if the projected full benefit is not there then what? It was still worth it because it didn’t cost you anything.
Based on past experience it is reasonable to say that projected costs will be greater than assumed … can you guarantee that the projected benefits will be there. And if they are not, will you do everything that you can (from your personal resources) to make up for it?
Really, DonM? You are asking for my personal guarantee? Sure! You bet…if you pay me a nickel for every gallon saved…
My advice, fire the retros, and hope like hell that the chutes still work…
The difference is that I am not asking for the program or touting the program (although the costs will be spread out so that I will have to pay my admittedly small/miniscule share).
If I were to push a program, based on my understanding of it (and you seem to have a great understanding of the subject) I would definitely stand behind it.
Maybe a desire for “big and shiny” is not the only reason that the trucking industry hasn’t made the changes on their own, to date.
It will be a only be a good deal if the associated costs for the “nickel saved” are less than 5 cents. Environmental programs that don’t have a net benefit have been the passion of the ignorant (and the smart/greedy) for a long time now. If this is not another example of such, then good for you; if it is then the rest of us pay for it.
DonM, thank you. That was a clearer response, and well-reasoned.
The trucking industry moves slowly for a lot of reasons, and I was being too flip with my big and shiny comment, although that has been a factor. The industry is very cost conscious, and very, very conservative. They have also had a steady stream of snake oil salesmen through their offices promising fuel efficiency and quick payback. Justifiably gun shy, as a result.
That said, the technologies to achieve much better fuel efficiency are not that far out, And some are already being deployed, like advanced tires (~5%). You’ve probably seen a lot more trucks with trailer aero treatments, and the only square-nosed conventional trucks on the road are mostly older models. Hybrid trucks get 5-50% better fuel, albeit with a payback period that is still unattractive. There are other things as well. I think these technologies work, not because the EPA says so, but because myself and others in the industry have seen them work. It is our challenge to make the products in the marketplace a good deal for the customers who buy them. Some things will fall out, but we will also discover other things that we haven’t thought of yet. That’s one of the cool things about being an engineer in this business…its up to us to make things that work!
I’m a child of the 50’s. I didn’t think much about clean air and water as a kid, but I saw plenty of smog and polluted rivers, and I think those things are largely of the past (yes, I have heard of the Animas River, but in a larger sense, I think what I said is true). I like clean air and clean water, and I am glad that our government was able to do those things for me. The EPA grew out of the Clean Air Act, and had at one time a science-driven policy agenda…they were difficult to deal with, but fairly straightforward on the science.
Starting in the Clinton administration, EPA began to take on a different role as an instrument of policy for the administration in power. That process has continued to this day, with the results that frustrate so many of us. They have clearly lost their way, and it will take some determined political effort to get things back on track.
This new rule grew out of a collaboration between EPA, DOT, and a number of major players in the industry. It’s challenging and technology-forcing, but generally I think it is doable. I support the rule for the same reason I support clean air and water…it just makes sense to save a big bunch of fuel if it can be done within the realistic commercial constraints of a “justifiably gun shy” industry. I am fully aware that the CO2 claims are specious, but the fuel economy benefit makes it worth doing, in my view.
I think these 2 charts can largely explain the warming since the 1970’s. I don’t think data exists for these variables before the 1950, at least not for Ozone. Absolute H2O has gone from 7.65 g/kg to 8.08 g/kg, More H20, more warming.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_N4XvePkmKjA/TLFbtRWb7mI/AAAAAAAAATE/anwVquIqMNw/s1600/925+mBar+Humidity+Global+Average+1948-2009.jpg
Per the website of the image source:
http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrnd96/brochure/images/noaa.gif
Note how UV-B can warm O2. Funny how the climate “scientists” seem to have missed that one. They ban CFC’s and Ozone DECREASED, and now we are warming.
http://beforeitsnews.com/mediadrop/uploads/2013/38/d5355e2b16a87796292ee17e1a3cbc5c616f124a.jpg
UV-B also penetrates the oceans, unlike IR.
Clearly the climate “scientists” in their rush to convict CO2 have overlooked the far more likely causes, H2O and Ozone.
The numbers simply don’t add up for CO2. The change in W/^2 is simply too small and inconsistent with the ice core data temperature to be the cause.
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/modtran.html
Is that “benefit” worth 12% of our GDP each year? Is this a joke? What a waste on a biblical scale. America is going to destroy herself for an immeasurable benefit? These climate “scientists” are absolutely insane.
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0002
Check on MODTRAN, those changes have absolutely no impact on outgoing W/M^2.
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/modtran.html
The above quote comes from this part of the report.
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0002
People in Congress need to know about the irresponsible behavior of the EPA and the abuse of the American tax payer and energy consumer. This is a bad joke at worse. The EPA needs to be reduced to a advisory role, not a regulatory role. The environmentalists simply can’t be trusted to act in the best interest of America or the environment. Free and prosperous nations are the cleanest.