I have been following the debate over Auto Start Stop, thinner engine oils, turbo and supercharged small engines to reduce fuel consumption. Most of these are very small hacks, that have marginal impacts on any one vehicle’s fuel consumption but over time, spread out over the nation can substantially reduce fuel consumption. The problem is that such technologies often make engines less reliable, more prone to catestrophic failure, leading to costly repairs and downtime.
Is it worth it?
For an individual, even the most thrifty of individuals, the fuel savings is pretty small compared to the risks these new technologies lead to auto owners. On the other hand, to society, these fuel saving technologies can lead to substantial reductions in carbon emissions and fuel demand. What is good for society may be bad for consumers, despite the most optimistic of proponents who note fuel savings are real and potentially significantly under-measured in emissions tests, especially with heavy city driving.
The other day I was in an interesting discussion about climate change. It was kind of interesting in the sense that it came with a fundamental misunderstanding of how I see the problem and how it relate to the solutions towards it. Often people who are concerned about climate change, mostly see the problem in a collective sense, or one of personal guilt, rather then a personal risk — something to be prepared for and take steps to prevent oneself from becoming a victim of it in the future.
There is a popular trend in the liberal ideology to feel a lot of guilt about the world today. To be concerned about the hungry starving children in India, the poor people loosing their homes and all their belongings to wildlife or floods. People who have a lot less then they do, who ultimately fell into their misfortune by no fault of their own. Some people truly do have bad luck, but also some people bring upon their bad luck by making bad decisions and not being prepared for likely scenarios of the future.
Every other day when I open up Facebook and the Youtube, I see another one of these so-called sustainable investment opportunities and technologies. Endless advertisements for heat pumps, solar panels, renewable energy schemes (SHOUTING GIRL IN YOUTUBE AD: get solar power, now without panels on your roof !!!), electric cars, recycling, organic and vegan food, and endless investment opportunities in sustainable funds. Because if you have money, you can buy your way out of your guilt. Or so we are told by the advertisers, pushing endless amounts of plastic, aluminum, not-so-green chemicals, and electronics upon us. No need to give up the suburbanite way of living, as long as you pay for your sins. I often see these sustainable ads, and have to wonder what Martin Luther would have said about them?
All the evidence suggests that climate change is a big problem that is going to be solved by government action, not individual choices. Buying the right kind of car or properly cleaning out your salad dressing bottle and recycling it isn’t going to stop the planet from getting warmer. Investing in the latest green energy scheme might feel good, but there is no guarantee it will be profitable or even have much of an effect on the warming planet. Feel good actions are nice, but they aren’t really significant if they don’t lead to political change. There is an important place for political activism, and it’s wonderful that some people step up to do it — but political activism shouldn’t cover for personal failings.
My view on climate change is pretty darn simple — it’s going to happen and going to be real bad, especially if politicians fail to enact policies that are dramatic enough to arrest it. There is a lot of denial, especially in “greenie” circles that climate change won’t happen, especially if you buy the right products. Not the big jacked up truck I have, or the fact that I don’t clean out plastic bottles before chucking them in the fire. In this discussion I was having, it was pointed that if I move out to country, with my hobby farm, driving my big jacked-up truck back and forth to the city, my carbon footprint will increase, as will the impacts on the land by farming and living on it compared to my small apartment in city, where I can ride the bus to work, walk to a lot of destinations, and it’s a short drive to the store.
But if you believe that climate change is going to bad, and is almost inevitable as politicians don’t want to enact unpopular policies to slow it, then you have to take a different tack at the problem — namely, taking action to protect oneself from the worse impacts of climate change.
That means first and foremost saving and investing, so you have a liquid asset that can be a means to purchase necessities to survive when shit hits the fan, which is almost inevitable. It also means having land where I can produce a lot of my own food, and an off-grid system that isn’t dependent on a power grid that is likely to have a lot of problems in the future as storms become more severe, more areas flood and trees come down. Where power plants struggle with extreme heat and a wildly fluxing gulf stream. Where civil disorder becomes more common in cities, as people bake and traditional institutions fall. When driveway and roads washouts become more common, and need to be fixed by the farm tractor regularly.
It’s a scary world ahead, and I don’t think I can change it, but I can be prepared for what is going to happen. I can live with less, live simply, and reduce my impacts without buying into all these greenie crap that the marketers are constantly bombarding us with advertising on.
Often I find news reporting to be confusing and failing to explain the legal justification used for repeal of the Endangerment Finding. Too often news reports explain the politics and the practical effects without considering the rationale behind the policy for good or bad.
On February 12, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized the repeal of the 2009 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding, marking the largest deregulatory action in U.S. history.
The repeal was executed through a formal regulatory process that focused on legal reinterpretation rather than scientific disputes.
Key Mechanisms of the Repeal
Final Rule Rescission: Administrator Lee Zeldin finalized a rule that rescinded the 2009 finding, which had previously determined that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.
Legal Rationale Over Science: While the initial 2025 proposal included scientific critiques, the final rule relied almost exclusively on legal arguments. The EPA concluded it lacked clear congressional authorization to issue the finding under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Statutory Reinterpretation: The EPA argued that “air pollution” in Section 202(a)(1) of the CAA is best read as referring to pollutants with regional effects, not global climate effects.
Reliance on Judicial Precedent: The agency cited recent Supreme Court decisions, including West Virginia v. EPA (major questions doctrine) and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (overruling Chevron deference), to argue that its previous interpretation of the law was flawed.
Immediate Consequences
Vehicle Standard Rollbacks: Simultaneously, the EPA repealed all GHG emission standards for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles.
Removal of Regulatory Trigger: Since the Endangerment Finding was the legal “trigger” that required the EPA to regulate climate pollution, its removal eliminates the agency’s obligation to maintain GHG limits across multiple sectors.
Cost Savings Claims: The administration projects the move will save $1.3 trillion in compliance and regulatory costs.
Environmental groups and several states have already pledged to challenge the repeal in court, arguing that the scientific consensus on climate danger remains settled law.
The EPA’s February 2026 repeal of the Endangerment Finding was a surgical legal maneuver that leveraged several high-profile Supreme Court decisions to dismantle the foundation of federal climate regulation.
While the landmark 2007 case Massachusetts v. EPA originally forced the agency to consider greenhouse gases, the current EPA argued that more recent rulings have fundamentally changed how the Clean Air Act (CAA) must be interpreted.
The Three Pillars of the EPA’s Legal Justification
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024)
The Ruling: Overturned “Chevron deference,” meaning courts no longer defer to an agency’s “reasonable” interpretation of an ambiguous law.
EPA’s Use: The agency argued it is now required to follow the “fixed, best meaning” of the CAA as it was understood in 1970. It claimed the “best reading” of the term “air pollution” in Section 202(a)(1) refers only to pollutants with local or regional health impacts (like smog), not global atmospheric effects like climate change.
West Virginia v. EPA (2022)
The Ruling: Established the “Major Questions Doctrine,” which states that for issues of “vast economic and political significance,” an agency must have “clear congressional authorization” to act.
EPA’s Use: Administrator Lee Zeldin argued that the 2009 Endangerment Finding launched a “unprecedented course of regulation” that Congress never explicitly authorized in the 1970 Clean Air Act. The EPA concluded it lacked the “clear statement” from Congress required to address global climate change under this doctrine.
Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA (2014)
The Ruling: Stated that the EPA cannot use its authority over one type of pollutant (like vehicle emissions) to automatically trigger massive, “unreasonable” regulations across other sectors of the economy.
EPA’s Use: The agency cited UARG as evidence that the original Massachusetts v. EPA ruling was narrower than previously thought. It argued the finding was an “overreach” because it was used as a “Holy Grail” to justify a wide web of regulations beyond the agency’s statutory limits.
A “Frontal Assault” on Precedent
By relying on these cases, the EPA successfully “sidestepped” the scientific consensus on climate change. Instead of arguing that greenhouse gases are safe, the agency argued that it simply does not have the legal permission to care about them—effectively inviting the Supreme Court to overturn its own 2007 precedent in Massachusetts v. EPA.
Let’s celebrate another geriatric that always reminded me of Peter Jennings on ABC News back in the day, with that long balding head he had. America’s 250th birthday with the Trumpster in charge, and I’m still looking at a big-assed SuperDuty with the Godzilla because I’ve completely lost my mind. Maybe if I do go look at one this week, I’ll decide, yeah, what I need is a 20-year old Honda Civic, and never to be seen again at Ford Stealership.
A lot depends on the weather, 🌧️ but maybe Thursday I’ll make an appointment with one of local Ford stealership on the bus line to look at a few trucks I’m interested before work, try to get the out-the-door price with all fees and maybe a test drive, remembering the whole time I’m in there that anything you say can and will be used against you. 🤝 The safest answer to any question at a dealership is to remind the salesman, “I am here to look at X vehicle and get an out-the-door price, and I don’t want to take any more of your valuable time up discussing other things. ” I’ve turned most of my Facebook posts lately in a masterbatory exploration about how I need a Godzilla, because it feels so go. I mean, what is Facebook but a place to show off your gentials? If the vehicles I’m most interested in test driving have been sitting on the lot since August or September, I really should call in advance otherwise they might have dead batteries or flat tires. 🛻
Yesterday, the big things was smoke some dope, ride my mountain bike 🚴 out to Wally World to get some cheap pinto beans, apples and apple cider vinegar, read some of a book on the history of National Forest policy, 📚 and then later in the evening rode out to Five Rivers and sat out there under the pavilion watching as the sun set into the sky, then came home, made up some eggs 🥚 with veggies and black beans. Then I curled up under the the heated blanket. I’m trying to use the space heater less, after last month’s electric bill. Only use it on the weekends, and it’s not like I have a gas or insurance bill at this point, still I need to save money for said Godzilla. 🐲 I need to shower 🚿 this morning, get shaved and cleaned up, and then I might ride over to Price Chopper to get carrots 🥕 which I forgot again, along with oatmeal, which I like how Price Chopper has it finely milled and in a lightweight bag, so it means less trash to deal with compared to the paper tubes that Walmart has. Obviously, once I get the goddamn Godzilla and are traveling again, I’ll probably go back to the cardboard tube oatmeal as it’s slightly cheaper and greener as a fire 🔥 starter but don’t tell a liberal. Then I’m going out to see Mom and Dad for lunch today. 🍲 I should catch up on Trump’s tweets before mom questions 🙋 me on them.
Hoping to ride in tomorrow, 🚴 maybe both ways if I am brave enough to push my bike up Elizabeth Street then fight traffic on Second Avenue and Delaware, 🚙🚗 I mean there is enough light now in evening but Second Avenue is so narrow with the snow banks. I just want the snow to be gone so I can have the serenity of riding the bike trail both ways to work. ☔ Maybe that half inch of rain expected on Wednesday will help on that behalf, but I have my doubts and they are talking about another couple of inches of snow ❄️ crap for next weekend. I am so over winter, I just want my bike path back and the Godzilla on my driveway. And a truck cap on order. And black fly season to be done for the year. 🐜 One hell of a greedy fucking son of a bitch I am, wanting summer that will be over before you know it. Then I’ll have to get a diesel heater. But don’t you want a 20-year old Honda Civic and plastic house in suburbs?
President Donald Trump’s recent remarks suggesting that people leave Upstate New York got me thinking about my own plans to eventually get out of New York, buy land, and have my off-grid property in 10-20 years. Not that I totally agree with Trump’s remarks — Upstate New York’s economy struggles as much as virtually any old industrial and rural area — but because I like the idea of living in a state that is lower cost and has more freedom to enjoy my life as I so wish.
Save and Invest
Money can’t buy happiness, but it can keep you from being trapped into debt and poverty. Spent not on things but on land and experience, can make your life much better. Probably my top priority for figuring out my plan to get out of New York is to have the money to live a decent life, have options, even if it means taking a lower income job going forward. I don’t want to jump until I know I have a sound landing place.
Learn
I am pretty comfortable with being in the wilderness, building fires, working with low-voltage electricity. I understand energy doesn’t come from God, it’s not unlimited. I am willing to conserve. But I still have a lot to learn. I don’t know much about building maintenance or codes. I understand the basics of batteries and solar but are no expert. I need to become a much better hunter and fisherman. I need to read, need to travel, need to read more.
Nail Down Places to Move To
I want to move out of New York State so I can have lower taxes, cheaper living, more freedom. That’s a given. But where to? The rest of the nation, except for the short time I’ve spent in parts of Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, Vermont and New Hampshire. I like Pennsylvania, but it’s still kind of cold and snowy, and the taxes are high. But Pennsylvania has good gun laws, they respect the second amendment. They allow open burning, they are pretty relaxed out in the country. There is some pretty nice country in the Pennsylvania wilds for sure, and it’s a reasonable distance. West Virigina is also beautiful but the state’s politics are a bit troubling to me, but in general it’s a wonderful state, especially out in the hills and hollers around the National Forests.
Find Work
It’s hard to relocate without a job. I have some skills from the past decade, maybe two decades by the time I leave New York, but I’m not exactly sure what kind of jobs they would directly translate into. Maybe I could go back to school or continue to learn new skills on my own. I think though doing my best at my current job and building a solid work history is key to me figuring out what I can do next when I get out of New York. Obviously, I might have to a long drive, for interviews, or even take a plane. At the same time, it’s a bit hard to judge a piece of land without going there and seeing it in person — the Internet is great — but it doesn’t give you answers overnight.
Move
When I finally get my ducks in a row, the big thing wil be the move. I will probably have a truck at that point, and I can probably buy or rent a trailer, or maybe just use something like a U-Haul. It would be quite the adventure, but fortunately I don’t have that much stuff, and i probably could move it relatively easily and inexpensively. Nothing is really tied up.
Rent a Place
As much as my goal is to eventually live off-grid, I think I’ll probably end up renting first before I buy land and a cabin. Renting gives me a place closer to where I work, and lets me have some time to find the best land and property around to buy. Try before you buy say the TV commericals. And if for some reason I don’t like the area I end up in I’m not tied down it.
Buy Land/Home
The final step is to buy land and a home. I am still thinking I like the idea of a small cabin, up in the middle of nowhere, away from the road, far away enough from neighbors so I won’t bother them and they won’t bother me on my land. I want to have as low expenses as possible, I want to have land where I can generate my own electricity, manage my own waste, minimize my consumption of natural resources. Land where I can hobby farm, hunt, and enjoy without anybody else bothering me.
It’s a Process. A Journey.
It’s important to have a vision for one’s future, and work to build for it. I am in no rush to leave New York or get on to my next step in my life. My focus is building my investments, learning, and enjoying the life I have right now. Tomorrow will come, and it will be a better life if I prepare for it appropiately.
