Phase 2 MDHD Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium, Heavy Duty Engines and Vehicles: Draft Environmental Impact

August 31, 2015 • Public Comments

We applaud the NHTSA for doing what most other federal agencies are not wont to do—that is, make a direct determination of the impact that this proposed regulation will have on the course of future climate change. As a result of your analysis, you conclude (pg. S-24):

The magnitude of the changes in climate effects that would be produced by the most stringent action alternative (Alternative 5) is roughly 1.2 ppm less CO2, a few thousandths of a degree difference in temperature increase, a small percentage change in the rate of precipitation increase, and about 1 millimeter (0.03 inch) of sea‐​level rise.

Further, you go on to explain (page 5–75, footnote 37) that:

[T]he projected reductions in global climate effects for each of the alternatives are too small to incorporate into a regional/​local‐​scale analysis, which would likely introduce uncertainties at the same magnitude or more than the projected change itself (i.e., the projected change would be within the noise of the model)

Media Name: knappenberger-michaels-public-comment-august-31-2015-cover.jpg

Download the Public Comment

About the Authors