Mindy Weisberger tells us how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) justifies the Republican President 's freeze of gas-mileage standards for light trucks and cars produced after 2020. They basically say that civilization’s collapse by the end of the century is out of their hands. It’s not “economically feasible” to save humanity, so why not make our end come sooner.
Moral disengagement is a cognitive processing style that allows unethical actions without feeling distress such as shame or guilt. Apparently it’s official policy now at the NHTSA.
So, if they can't bring about Armageddon, they'll just find another way to kill the Earth. Charming...
It's more than a day since I posted this news about the Republican Administration's shocking nihilistic position on climate destabilization. <sigh> And only Loren commented. At least liberal news outlets noticed.
daily kos called it bottomless perversity.
The Washington Examiner mentioned that by reducing real world fuel economy from 36 to 30 mpg, "an additional 500,000 barrels of U.S. oil to be consumed each day".
Vanity Fair said, "it’s not that the administration is unaware of how bad things are. ... it’s that it just doesn’t give a s--t:..." in an article titled "TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TO POLLUTERS: EARTH IS DOOMED, SO GO HOG WILD".
jalopnik mentioned that."the analysis concedes that Trump’s rule would dump an additional eight billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere this century, “more than a year’s worth of total U.S. emissions,”.
In the moral universe, this is a bid deal, Atheists. Why the yawn?
The “yawn” may be due to the reduced traffic on Nexus, Ruth.
I recommend you raise your voice in moral outrage. Here's my letter to senators and congressman, edited by Grinning Cat.
Our government abandoning climate change denial and recognizing the truth is a welcome step. It means little, though, if it is accompanied only by acquiescing to inaction in the face of not just our nation, but organized society globally, careening towards destruction.
Both are on display in a recent National Highway Traffic Safety Administration draft environmental statement, which notes that the Earth's temperature will rise by about 4°C by the end of the century. The projection came as part of an environmental impact statement to justify the agency's recent proposal to relax the fuel efficiency rules for cars and light trucks. A 4°C warming would cause catastrophic impacts to the Earth and destroy organized society within 82 years.
The agency argued the federal government is helpless to head off the dramatic rise in global temperature, so weakening the fuel efficiency standards would make little impact. When we look at the crisis rationally, the only logical response to 4°C warming by 2100 is to declare a climate emergency.
I urge you to sponsor a bill for economic mobilization to eliminate global net carbon, and to declare a climate emergency, with the same urgency and resolve with which we triumphed in World War Two.
I urge you to follow the example of The Climate Mobilization begun by the Darebin local council in Melbourne, Australia, and joined by Montgomery County, Maryland, as well as the cities of Richmond, Berkeley, Los Angeles, and Hoboken.
When change is uncomfortable, we humans have a consistent tendency to delay action until the threat becomes a crisis. World War Two remains the best analogy. Just as we rose to the challenge of WWII, our only hope now is to lead by declaring a climate emergency.
Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber argued that “Climate change is now reaching the end-game.”
The nihilistic US policy change which now knowingly promotes collapse of organized society in less than a century is incomprehensible and shocking. The NHTSA draft environmental statement is especially galling in its assumption that the 4-degree warming is inevitable. The message is “TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TO POLLUTERS: EARTH IS DOOMED, SO GO HOG WILD” (as summarized by Bess Levin at Vanity Fair). The administration knows how bad things are; it just doesn’t give a shit. Doomsday justifies Trump’s change to car and light truck emissions, which would dump an additional eight billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere this century, more than a year’s worth of total U.S. emissions.
In other words, US policy is now based on the “dark core” personality trait of moral disengagement, a cognitive processing style that allows behaving unethically without feeling guilt or shame. Daily Kos rightly calls it bottomless perversity.
According to the report, turning the tide of runaway climate change would require "substantial increases in technology innovation and adoption," and attempting such sweeping and dramatic change — even with the stakes as high as they are — is "not currently technologically feasible or economically feasible."
Only when Hitler’s threat was accepted as an imminent crisis could Winston Churchill lead the critical shift in thinking, arguing that no matter how uncomfortable, expensive or challenging to the status quo, sometimes you just have to do what is necessary. Not your best, or what you can afford, or what’s “realistic” — but what is necessary. In his case, that was going to war and assuming victory was possible. Today, I urge you to forcefully support US transformational climate action. Find it within yourself to lead as Churchill did.
Thanks; I'm sending this to my members of Congress as well. (Using their web forms, the challenge is to express appropriate bits of emphasis in plain text. *Asterisks* and ALLCAPS will have to make up for not having bold and italic.)
Feel free to borrow all or part of this letter, adding your own words if you like! Phone calls with a few brief points count too.
Trump wants to burn fossil fuels with an arsonist's glee Los Angeles Times editorial board
“The politics that’s needed to prevent the climate catastrophe—it doesn’t exist today. We need to change the system, as if we were in crisis, as if there were a war going on.”
Greta Thunberg, 15 year old Swedish activist
This girl stands outside of Parliament every Friday.
The idea of it not being economically feasible to save humanity by saving our planet is a religious ploy used by the super rich to get more money without EPA worries. It plays to the religious but the ones behind the scheme are lying. They just want the money and most of them are not religious in the first place.
I'm confused about how you think the administration's nihilism counts as a religious ploy, or it plays to a religious audience.
It's an "end times" ploy that begs the Evangelicals to go along. God is supposed to be in control so doing away with everything about the EPA is not really hurting anything. It's not really nihilism. Besides, you might just bring on the "end times" and that's what Evangelicals want anyway. As for the super rich, they simply play to the Evangelicals. What it's really about for them is not having to pay the EPA in any form at all. Just get rid of the regulations and you have all the money.
Ruth, the word 'nihilism' has philosophical and political/economic uses.
I don't give the political/economic word 'greed' the dignity of a philosophical word.
With religious people being so gullible, 'nihilism' also has religious uses.