Environmental Protection Agency

Obama Wants to Make You to Fly the Carbon-Friendly Skies

New regs will not inconvenience Paris climate conference attendees in December

|

DeltaAirliner
planesandchoppers

The Environmental Protection Agency is issuing a scientific finding the emissions from aircraft boost global warming and thus endanger the health of Americans. As result the agency is asserting authority to regulate (reduce) such emissions. Reuters reports:

An "endangerment finding" by the Environmental Protection Agency would allow the administration to implement a global carbon dioxide emissions standard being developed by the United Nations' International Civil Aviation Organization. …

The ICAO is due to release its CO2 standard for comment in February 2016, with the aim of adopting it later that year. But the requirement is expected to apply only to new aircraft designs certified from 2020, leaving most of the world's existing fleets unaffected for years to come.

Aviation accounted for 11 percent of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions from the transportation sector in 2010 in the United States, according to the International Council on Clean Transportation.

On the other hand, I earlier reported a recent University of Michigan study that found that airline travel—considering how much fuel it takes to transport a person a given distance—is much more fuel efficient than automobile travel.

I also noted that those folks especially worried about their carbon sins can always buy carbon indulgences.

In any case, the new EPA regulations will not be adopted in time to inconvenience the diplomats and activists who need to fly over the pond to attend the big United Nations climate change conference in Paris this December.

NEXT: Yale Law School Professor Jack Balkin interviews me about my new book "The Grasping Hand"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Wait, I need my carbon to live.

    1. Original sin.

    2. Evolve faster!! You have 30 days to finish your transition to silicon based life or face fines and/or prison!

      1. Can I evolve into an arsenic-based organism, or would that be a true threat?

        1. Juvenile Bluster: known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.

          1. You can be an “anything-based” organism in California and be subject to the same warning label.

            1. I saw a warning in Home Depot the other day saying saw dust is known to the state of California to cause cancer.

              I suspect the meeting went like this:
              “We’ve put up signs on every item that causes cancer. Our work here is done.”
              “But we could keep getting paid if we just find more things that ’cause’ cancer!”
              “Hey, that’s right! Good idea, Johnson!”

              1. *resigned facepalm and simultaneous sigh*

              2. Being alive and having DNA is known to cause cancer.

                I don’t know about cancer, but sawdust is pretty bad. I’ve spent way too much of my life not avoiding just breathing the stuff.

                1. I’m pretty careful when I cut MDF and particle board. They have more than a few bad things in them.

                  1. Those are full of glue. This sign was on a pallet of pine 2x6s.

                    1. Glue and formaldehyde. You don’t wan’t to breath that stuff in.

                    2. “You don’t wan’t to breath that stuff in.”

                      Are you saying this is a good week to stop sniffing glue?

                    3. Not when it’s already dried, man.

                      It’s like sniffing dried paint. No fun unless there’s lead.

                  2. The formaldehyde glue makes it much worse, but even wood dust isn’t great for you. It’s like “grey lung” or whatever it is that textile workers used to get inhaling lots of small cellulose particles from cotton. Like I said, I don’t know if there is significant cancer risk, but it’s not great. And I’m saying this as someone who has spent years breathing lots of sawdust.

                2. Being alive and having DNA is known to cause cancer.

                  Hmmm… obligatory warning tattoos on the inside of every left arm?

                  /Cali-Prog Paradise

              3. saw dust is known to the state of California to cause cancer.

                If true, I should have developed cancer years ago.

                1. Ah, so if I fall off the house and break my neck, the cause of death will be “smoking related with a side of sawdust?”

                  I am pretty sure that I have accidentally swallowed a small piece of asbestos shingle. How long until I die?

                  1. 5… 4… 3… 2…

                  2. I am pretty sure that I have accidentally swallowed a small piece of asbestos shingle. How long until I die?

                    Swallowing it may be fine. It’s breathing the fibers into your lungs that’s bad.

                    Many people think that asbestos is ‘poisonous’. It’s not. The fibers get into your lungs and never leave, then as you breath, they create microtears in the lung tissue which has to repeatedly repair itself. This scar tissue has a higher chance of generating a cancerous mutation and voila! Lung cancer.

                2. In CA “cause cancer” means that there has been some suggestion that it increases cancer risk in some people.

                  1. It’s more like that joke about extremely dry martinis, where the bottle of vermouth is merely waived across the glass, with another actually poured. That’s how low California (and much of Europe) goes with their standards, sometimes orders of magnitude below anything hazardous.

                    1. Like pickles. Wasn’t that one?

                3. Does seen dust work the same? Suppose it was seen coming from a wood chipper?

              4. You know what else causes sawdust…

            2. Of course. Prop 65 is an ambulance chasers wet dream come true. So to be safe they slap those stupid stickers on EVERYTHING. It’s much easier to label a whole bunch of benign things incorrectly, than accidentally miss something and get sued.
              We here in Hoosierland chuckle at the stickers because we know that as long as we don’t go to California we are safe; apparently being in the State of California makes you exceedingly cancer-prone.

              1. Saw dust causes cancer? I have never seen sawdust that contracted cancer.

    3. Sorry, but it’s too dangerous for mere little people to handle it.

      It’s being replaced with Gaia-hugging silicon.

  2. They really won’t rest until humanity is back in a primitive feudal state, will they?

    1. Mr. tarran, your carbon, please.

      1. You can’t have it. I am using it!

      2. A sessions in the Econizer will change his mind.

        1. Yes, better. Mr tarran, your econizer, please.

          1. Is that a jazzercise class instructed by Paul Krugman?

            1. Not if it has anything to do with economics, no.

    2. Then enlightenment is over. Let the witch hunts commence.

    3. Most of humanity. Of course, for certain classes of the right people from the right families, air travel will continue to be provided as a necessity.

      1. Like he said: a primitive feudal state. The TOP. MEN. will have special priveleges, the rest of us will be peasants.

        1. Well someone has to go talk to the Iranians on our behalf.

  3. new EPA regulations will not be adopted in time to inconvenience the diplomats and activists who need to fly over the pond to attend the big United Nations climate change conference in Paris this December.

    It’s almost as if the people pushing the hardest for imposing carbon controls are the ones using the most Carbon. Not to mention the sheer arrogance of those who stand to profit from the imposition of carbon control through their investments in carbon sequestration industries.

  4. The EPA is absolutely out of control.

    1. Name a few regulatory bureaucracies that aren’t.

      1. GAO?

        1. Is that still a thing?

    2. Have they banned cats and dogs living together yet?

      1. My dogs and cats live together just fine, so…they’ll probably ban it soon.

    3. It’s almost as if the people pushing the hardest for imposing carbon controls are the ones using the most Carbon.

      They aren’t paying for their air travel…we are. Why would they give a flying fuck?

      1. “Why would they give a flying fuck?”

        I see what you did there.

        1. I do NOT want to think about any of those people joining the Mile-High Club.

          1. Only if it is STEVE SMITH forcibly joining them?

            Is that too true threat-y?

  5. So the guy with a personal 747 wants to limit my emissions?

    1. *Two* personal 747s and about 10,000 other jets, being CinC.

    2. Yeah, he has a backup personal 747.

    3. And smaller Air Force Ones for smaller airports (the one that flew into Asheville in ’09 was a 757, I think).

  6. Heck, if seat belts and air bags don’t cost anything in cars, just think how much “freer” will be the more fuel efficient engines needed on airplanes. Just think, in 50 years Boeing and Airbus will be manufacturing free airplanes but, due to greedy ratbagging capitalists, tickets will be so costly that only the Clintons and Bushes and UN bigshots will be able to afford to fly.

    1. Isn’t this the plan?

    2. And Ogden Morrow?

      Wait, wrong dystopian future.

  7. It seems Barry believes in Carbontology much as anything. Barry’s Coast Guard speech was full of conviction animating his stupidity – a step beyond his usual expedience-teleprompter stupidity. No mailing it in there, he buys the shtick.

    Paris will be Peak Stupid, and by then Barry will be getting feral for a legacy given where Middle East clownery and Iran’s nuclear program will be.

    Should be fun to watch.

    1. It would be fun to watch if we weren’t along for the ride with those Goddamned idiots.

  8. Would a theoretical Rand Paul president have the authority to fire every last employee within an executive regulatory agency?

    1. No. He would however, have the authority to revoke every regulation not specifically mandated by law, which is a lot of them.

      1. Why not? The organization would still exist and be funded IAW law. Just no one working there.

        Sure we’d still be paying for it, so no savings there, but no one working at the EPA (et al) would certainly be a net benefit for humanity. And trying to hire them back in the next administration would be an exercise in futility. It would take years to recreate the bureaucracy and nothing would “get done” for years. Every Republican president in the future could make it his first executive order to fire all regulatory agency employees. After several cycles, who would want the job?

        I’m a damn genius.

        Didn’t someone fire some Air Traffic Controllers a while back?

        1. You may actually be on to something here.

          I wonder what kinds of things their unions have put in place to keep that from happening.

        2. The ATC went on strike which was seen to be a violation of their contracts. I’m not sure you could fire people actually doing their jobs according to the rules.

        3. Sure we’d still be paying for it, so no savings there, but no one working at the EPA (et al) would certainly be a net benefit for humanity.

          Well you’d need someone heading the EPA to receive all of that funding.

          I’m available, Rand.

        4. Unfortunately, it is so goddamn hard to actually fire a federal employee. BUT if we’re willing to eat the money, you could be on to something by just simply sending them all home to watch Netflix on full salary. At least then they couldn’t keep actively fucking things up.

          1. Man, I could really use a second job that doesn’t require me to actually show up or do anything. Where do I sign up?

            1. Get hired at some kind of defense firm. Your job will be to be on the payroll.

            2. Chicago Streets and Sanitation or Chicago Park District.

          2. you could be on to something by just simply sending them all home to watch Netflix on full salary.

            That’s almost as good, but they’d be easy to bring back to work in the next administration. It wouldn’t dissuade anyone from wanting a gubmint job, but at least no harm would be done for several years.

        5. Didn’t someone fire some Air Traffic Controllers a while back?

          Funny, I don’t remember any of the umpteen bazillion WWII programs on the history channel discussing Hitler firing air traffic controllers…

          1. Well of course not, that was Goering’s fief!

          2. You are watching the wrong programs. The Ancient Aliens were ruthless at firing air traffic controllers.

        6. I remember a bunch of ATC leaving their jobs and somebody refilling them quickly.

          1. That’s because they were needed. Four years without regulators… Who’d notice except for the bounce in the economy.

      2. Need to have all copies of said executive orders burned and destroyed after.

        The issue here isn’t just the EPA, but with a lazy Congress that writes laws with massively vague clauses that allow regulatory bodies to lay claim to new areas of power. Even if they fail, there’s no consequences for the bureaucrats. No one gets fired if they are told x was unconstitutional. The FCC repeatedly trying to regulate the internet and slapped down by the courts is a perfect example. Alls they’ve done is try to find new loopholes in poorly written laws to exploit.

        1. The issue here isn’t just the EPA, but with a lazy Congress that writes laws with massively vague clauses that allow regulatory bodies to lay claim to new areas of power.

          Winner. Of course, in some cases, it’s not laziness, it’s by design, e.g. PPACA.

      3. He would however, have the authority to revoke every regulation not specifically mandated by law, which is a lot of them.

        He would also have the authority to rewrite every regulation which is specifically mandated by law.

        And, absent Congress taking action with veto-proof majorities, there wouldn’t be a damn thing anyone could do about it.

        Live by the executive fiat, die* by the executive fiat.

        *”Die” is used in a purely figurative sense here. It is not intended to provoke, encourage or support, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, any violence or threats of violence, explicitly or implicitly, by any person, group or organization, against any other person, group or organization.

        1. “The Bart, the!”

        2. No w[redacted]s were used to process the rewriting of said regulations

  9. An “endangerment finding” by the Environmental Protection Agency would allow the administration to implement a global carbon dioxide emissions standard being developed by the United Nations’ International Civil Aviation Organization. …/i

    What do we want?
    Planetary Justice!
    When do we want it?
    Some indeterminate future date!

  10. But it came only after a federal court ruled in 2012 in favor of environmental groups that had sued the EPA, saying it was obligated to regulate aircraft emissions under the law.

    The environmentals won’t rest until everyone lives a pristine 18th century lifestyle.

    1. The environmentals won’t rest until everyone else lives a pristine 18th century lifestyle.

    2. More needs to be said on those lawsuits. The EPA basically works in conjunction with the environmental groups to instigate them to expand their power.

      1. ^This^

        And you wonder why so many of them have non-gov e-mail addresses to conduct “work” over.

    3. 18th century? With all those mills diverting Gaia’s rivers? What kind of greedy monster are you? They want us to go back to just before fire was invented.

      1. Yeah, the 18th century wasn’t so pristine. That’s when they cut down all the forests and dammed the rivers.

        before fire was invented.

        So, would that be before there was enough oxygen in the atmosphere to sustain open air combustion?

        1. Discovered, whatever. Here, take my pedant card.

      2. What kind of greedy monster are you?

        I would say the worst kind, but that title is already taken; I think.

      3. And did those feet in ancient time
        Walk upon England’s mountains green:
        And was the holy Lamb of God,
        On England’s pleasant pastures seen!

        And did the Countenance Divine,
        Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
        And was Jerusalem builded here,
        Among these dark Satanic Mills?

  11. Let’s slap solar panels on the wings of Air Force One and see how far it gets.

      1. You joke, yet after I hit submit, I thought to myself… ‘great, could this be construed as a threat’?

        I had a comment once removed from the Seattle Times Website because I asked a copsucker how they’d like it if their door was kicked in at 3 in the morning.

        Copsucker reported my comment as threatening.

        1. You have to admit, the government succeeded in quelling free speech here. I think about every post before hitting submit.

          1. Unfortunately, the government had help. I am disappoint.

          2. “I think about every post before hitting submit.”

            Oh, and I can only shudder to think how many people will say “good” in response to what you said.

          3. It doesn’t look as though you’ve put any thought into your posts. :-p

            1. Boom. What else about his mom?

              1. Hey, stop stepping in Epi’s lane!

  12. The EPA is absolutely out of control.

    It’s funny (by which I mean not-in-any-way-amusing); there is literally no hypothetical directive so far-fetched that people would refuse to believe the EPA wants to do it.

  13. I shouldn’t be surprised. I am, but I shouldn’t be.

  14. Buckle up, buttercups.

    The next year and a half will be a positive orgy of out-of-control agency rulemaking.

    And unless SCOTUS slaps the IRS down good and hard in Burwell, it will have the imprimatur of the Supreme Court.

    1. Next stop Banana Republic.

      I wonder if I can get washboard abs to go with my ridiculous Hawaiian shirts.

      1. Which kind of Hawaiian shirt guy are you?

        1. Big fat party animal.

    2. What’s interesting is the Obama administration opened up the arctic for drilling, which is curiously, conspicuously absent from any signs protesting it.

      1. Of course there aren’t any signs protesting the Obama administration!

        These people aren’t racists! They merely care about the environment!

  15. On the other hand, I earlier reported a recent University of Michigan study that found that airline travel – considering how much fuel it takes to transport a person a given distance – is much more fuel efficient than automobile travel.

    Exactly. Flying is safer and more efficient than driving. So what kind of sense does this make?

    Was someone not paid off? Is this an effort to help the business of choo-choos?

    1. These people hate energy affluence.

      They want people to be forced to live miserly lives, which they view as somehow being purer or more moral.

      1. They want other people to be forced to live miserly lives, which they view as somehow being purer or more moral.

        Geez, people, do I have to do this to every post?

        1. Almost goes without saying. Obviously our betters won’t be forced to make any sacrifices.

        2. RC, there are a couple of true believers. Ted Kaczynski comes to mind. Of course, their true belief in no way moderates their evil.

          I question the idea that they want anyone other than themselves to live in any condition.

        3. Geez, people, do I have to do this to every post?

          Yes!

          I will make you enact your labor on my behalf, BECAUSE I MAKE THE PUPPETS DANCE!

    2. There have been some studies suggesting that trains are also worse than cars in terms of energy use/emissions. Not sure how good they are.

      1. Freight trains are great. 1 gallon of fuel moves 1 ton of freight 400+ miles.

        1. Yeah. The studies were about commuter and high-speed trains. Freight can afford to just to the most efficient thing possible.

  16. Aren’t jets already getting way more efficient? I think that airlines and manufacturers already have pretty good incentives to make more efficient planes.

    1. That’s the MO. Jump in with regs when there’s an established trend in the desired direction, claim the regs caused the trend, then reap praise (and demands for more regs) because most people aren’t inquisitive and believe what they’re told.

      See OSHA.

      1. See gun control.

    2. Define way more. Bypass ratios are already way up so there’s not a huge amount left there. Weight is probably the biggest remaining opportunity which is why you’re seeing more composites. The last radical option left is pribably to go to a flying wing but that has issues with passenger comfort.

      1. Way more than they were a few decades ago. I’m no expert on jets or flying. I’m thinking largely of weight and aerodynamic improvements.

        1. The 787 and A380 have a way lower fuel cost per seat mile than previous planes. Way lower.

          1. Dreamliner shot the wad on composites already. There isn’t that much left to do there. The A380 isn’t that great. Are you thinking of the 350? The only advantage the 380 has is that it carries a lot if ppl, so if it’s full it’s efficient. If it isn’t full…

      2. The last radical option left is pribably to go to a flying wing but that has issues with passenger comfort.

        So does living in a hunter-gatherer society.

        1. Indeed. My point us that the benefits will be typically oversold and the true costs completely ignored. Science, bitches!

      3. Unless you are talking about no windows the flying wing can be as comfortable or more comfortable than any present jet, it has a lot more internal room. The flying wing has issues with infrastructure built for present airplanes and getting people off in emergency situations.

        Engines can go up in bypass ratio, but will probably go for higher compression and hotter combustion chambers first.

        1. Windows and roll. If you’ve got passengers out along the wings then you’re talking about a significant z translation port-starboard on the craft which isn’t an issue when you’re all sitting right around the centerline of the fuselage. People don’t really like sitting sideways on ramps.

          You can bypass a bit more but you’ve already harvested most of that gain. You can only go so low in vdot. Hotter? That’s even harder as you need to get even more refractory superalloys. Sure, they’ll continue to eek out modest gains but Barry’s regs are going to require much more cost than that.

      4. So what’s the science here? Is EPA expecting them to switch to hydrogen as fuel? Or for lift?

        Is there someone here who follows this closely who can explain whether airlines can comply with the regs “simply” by flying less, i.e. doing less biz? Or by breaking up into smaller cos., each of which fly less? Or is there a mandate to reduce CO2 per ton-mile rather than per company per year?

  17. Increasing the cost of air travel would thin out the crowd a bit …. hmm.

  18. What’s with that awful title?

  19. Second look at da Vinci’s pedal-operated helicopter?

  20. The Environmental Protection Agency is issuing a scientific finding the emissions from aircraft boost global warming and thus endanger the health of Americans.

    Except this is an outright lie to obtain power.

    1. Every time you exhale you’re increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere. There’s only one way to save the environment and the world from you, you walking externality.

      1. *Fd’A sighs, bows head and walks slowly to the disintegration chamber*

        1. Date with Nancy McLuhan?

      2. Does it involve some sort of device for turning large pieces of carbon into a smaller, possibly chip-like form?

    2. I wonder if, some day soon, the EPA will have the balls to go after livestock. Claim to have the authority to regulate cattle for the sake of CO2 emissions.

      1. Methane is where cattle would be targeted. Animals respiring is part of the “natural” carbon cycle.

    3. The thing that strikes me as especially dumb about this (putting aside the question of the severity and health effects of global warming) is that it is already the “consensus” that CO2 contributes to warming (which is almost certainly true in some degree). So how is this a scientific finding? There is no new information or analysis there. We already knew jet engines produce CO2.

  21. Another cattle car in a lengthening train of abuses and usurpations.

  22. Just going to leave this here, I’ll let users make all the appropriate connections.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..70257.html

    1. Preet Bharara is a public benefactor, an asset to this country, and a friend of the workers!

      Preet Bharara, most District Attorney, delight and terror of the universe, whose dominions extend five thousand blustrugs (about twelve miles in circumference) to the extremities of the globe; monarch of all monarchs, taller than the sons of men; whose feet press down to the centre, and whose head strikes against the sun; at whose nod the princes of the earth shake their knees; pleasant as the spring, comfortable as the summer, fruitful as autumn, dreadful as winter…

      1. Truly he is as wise as he is tall.

        1. …and as handsome as he is wise.

          1. But does he have a big dick?

            1. You said it yourself, you like it like I do…

              1. Even Obama’s knob-gobblers acknowledge that Obama appointee Bharara has gone off the reservation.

                “To protect a defendant’s right to a fair trial, an array of ethical rules circumscribe the kinds of comments a prosecutor can make. Several of Bharara’s public comments appear to have violated these rules. Federal and New York ethics rules authorize a prosecutor to explain to the public the criminal charges filed against a defendant, but the rules prohibit a prosecutor from making subjective statements that assail the character of a defendant or from insinuating opinions about the defendant’s guilt. Some of Bharara’s public statements have done just that, and they may have contaminated the ability of people who might be selected to serve on juries to evaluate the evidence dispassionately and render fair judgments….

                1. “Press conferences, as Bharara well knows, afford prosecutors a unique opportunity to inflame public passion. Indeed, Department of Justice guidelines warn federal prosecutors to use press conferences sparingly, to speak with “prudence and caution,” and to take “particular care to avoid any statement that would prejudice the fairness of any subsequent legal proceeding.” Federal and state ethical guidelines and directives uniformly recognize and condemn prejudice, which includes expressing subjective opinions about a defendant’s character and guilt. All trial lawyers, including Bharara, know that assailing a defendant’s character can potentially inflame public opinion against a defendant and ultimately prejudice a jury….

                  “Bharara’s statements about Silver are not an isolated instance of overzealous oratory. A federal judge in an earlier case warned Bharara against making gratuitous and prejudicial extrajudicial comments.”

                  http://www.slate.com/articles/…..ury.2.html

    2. Welcome to Murika, you dirty brown fureners. You’re just lucky we didn’t drone you!

      1. What is the carbon impact of droning someone?

    3. Ms. Khobragade was accorded courtesies well beyond what other defendants, most of whom are American citizens, are accorded,” Bharara said

      That’s right. The citizens, we do at least 10 forced anal probes on them after the humiliating strip search. Now STFU, you lucky overly privileged little wench.

    4. “Bharara served as the chief counsel to Senator Chuck Schumer…

      “Bharara traces his desire to become a lawyer back to the seventh grade, which was when he read the play Inherit the Wind.

      “Bharara is a lifelong Bruce Springsteen fan. At an October 2012 concert in Hartford, Connecticut, Springsteen shouted, “This is for Preet Bharara!” before launching into his song “Death to My Hometown.””

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P…..a#Personal

  23. Who would have predicted that the EPA would be the main driver of tyranny ?

    .

    1. Every green, eco-nutter, and movement environmentalist?

      I mean, this is their plan, after all.

      1. NO! They want to protect the children from you poisoning their water and air and force feeding them poison food, you rat bagging tea fucker meanie!

        *grabs mattress and runs sobbing to safe place*

    2. The DEA, FDA, NSA, TSA, etc., etc., would like to have a word with you, mister.

  24. I’ll switch to horse and buggy right after our dear leader does. How many degrees rise in global temp is he responsible for running hither and yon in his jet, huh?? Fuck him and the EPA.

  25. I hereby declare the year of the carbon jubilee – come all to the district and receive thy indulgences! You’ll fly here of course – but as the true pope gore (pboh) has decreed – this is no sin.

  26. Will Obama fly the carbon-friendly skies or are Presidential aircraft exempt?

    How about the US military’s 13 917 aircraft? Or the various aircraft owned by the FBI, DEA, ICE, etc?

    The US government is responsible for half of the US’s carbon emissions and Obama has direct control over it. Why not lead from the front?

    1. According to “FAA: US commercial aircraft fleet shrank in 2011”, there were 7185 commercial aircraft in 2011.

      So, yeah, let’s start with government-owned planes.

  27. Apply these regulations to all government aircraft-federal, then state and local.

    When that’s done, we can circle around and measure CO2 reductions.

    I’m sure POTUS will lead by example and ensure that Air Force One is the first aircraft to meet all applicable emissions standards…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.