USPS is trying to greenwash its plan to spend billions on gas guzzlers

Currently, USPS has completed environmental assessments, responding to concerns of the Environmental Protection Agency, and launching a "decision order" to embark on a personal project to purchase vehicles with 8 and 6 MPGs for up to 11. 3 billion dollars, replacing the ol d-fashioned vehicle of USPS for $ 11. 3 billion. It was announced.

However, even if you read the USPS press release that summarizes this conclusion, it does not mention the intention of purchasing fossil fuel contaminated vehicles, and only repeatedly digitized and electronic cars are mentioned. Don't ask.

USPS has recently been criticized for the decision to replace the delivery vehicle with a gas vehicle. Initially, it was assumed that future USPS vehicles would be digitized. Electronic promotion has many advantages for use in USPS (with low operation costs, low noise, not approaching exhaust gas, low pulsation, high torque standards at low speeds, stop and go standards. Efficient introduction of energy, delivery routes are fixed, etc.).

However, when the vicious post office Lewis Dejoy announced that 90 % of the alternative vehicles would be a gas ringe car supplied by Defense contractor Oschukosh, especially the pos t-tracks of the federal government. Given that they had issued a presidential decree that instructed them to be electric, almost everyone knew their eyebrows.

Decision shows hostility to EPA.

Today's main opinion is about the comments of EPA that was released last month. These comments are basically not enough to consider the results of their own environmental surveys, and greatly depend on incorrect numbers to support personal tests that support the purchase of fuel trucks, not battery electric vehicles. It suggested that he was doing.

The USPS answer (the first 12 pages of the document) is quite aggressive against the EPA. USPS was in response to the EPA comment, "No, we thought about this.

The tone is more appropriate, as the past impact reports, nomination proposals, and the norms of federal regulations are lined up. This is closer to the Internet controversy, "I say or not," rather than what to actually put in the Federal Register. Also, considering the past of the corrupted Dejoy Post Office, it should be cautious about this obviously failed conclusion and what his subordinates actually say. < SPAN> Currently, USPS has completed environmental assessments, responding to concerns of the Environmental Protection Agency, and embarking on a personal project to purchase vehicles with 8 and 6 mpg of 8 and 6MPG for $ 11. 3 billion instead of ol d-fashioned vehicles in USPS. The order was announced.

However, even if you read the USPS press release that summarizes this conclusion, it does not mention the intention of purchasing fossil fuel contaminated vehicles, and only repeatedly digitized and electronic cars are mentioned. Don't ask.

USPS greenwashes its decision

USPS has recently been criticized for the decision to replace the delivery vehicle with a gas vehicle. Initially, it was assumed that future USPS vehicles would be digitized. Electronic promotion has many advantages for use in USPS (with low operation costs, low noise, not approaching exhaust gas, low pulsation, high torque standards at low speeds, stop and go standards. Efficient introduction of energy, delivery routes are fixed, etc.).

• However, when the vicious post office Lewis Dejoy announced that 90 % of the alternative vehicles would be a gas ringe car supplied by Defense contractor Oschukosh, especially the pos t-tracks of the federal government. Given that they had issued a presidential decree that instructed them to be electric, almost everyone knew their eyebrows.
• Today's main opinion is about the comments of EPA that was released last month. These comments are basically not enough to consider the results of their own environmental surveys, and greatly depend on incorrect numbers to support personal tests that support the purchase of fuel trucks, not battery electric vehicles. It suggested that he was doing.
• The USPS answer (the first 12 pages of the document) is quite aggressive against the EPA. USPS was in response to the EPA comment, "No, we thought about this.
• The tone is more appropriate, as the past impact reports, nomination proposals, and the norms of federal regulations are lined up. This is closer to the Internet controversy, "I say or not," rather than what to actually put in the Federal Register. Also, considering the past of the corrupted Dejoy Post Office, it should be cautious about this obviously failed conclusion and what his subordinates actually say. Currently, USPS has completed environmental assessments, responding to concerns of the Environmental Protection Agency, and launching a "decision order" to embark on a personal project to purchase vehicles with 8 and 6 MPGs for up to 11. 3 billion dollars, replacing the ol d-fashioned vehicle of USPS for $ 11. 3 billion. It was announced.
• However, even if you read the USPS press release that summarizes this conclusion, it does not mention the intention of purchasing fossil fuel contaminated vehicles, and only repeatedly digitized and electronic cars are mentioned. Don't ask.

USPS has recently been criticized for the decision to replace the delivery vehicle with a gas vehicle. Initially, it was assumed that future USPS vehicles would be digitized. Electronic promotion has many advantages for use in USPS (with low operation costs, low noise, not approaching exhaust gas, low pulsation, high torque standards at low speeds, stop and go standards. Efficient introduction of energy, delivery routes are fixed, etc.).

However, when the vicious post office Lewis Dejoy announced that 90 % of the alternative vehicles would be a gas ringe car supplied by Defense contractor Oschukosh, especially the pos t-tracks of the federal government. Given that they had issued a presidential decree that instructed them to be electric, almost everyone knew their eyebrows.

By all accounts, these are gas guzzlers

Today's main opinion is about the comments of EPA that was released last month. These comments are basically not enough to consider the results of their own environmental surveys, and greatly depend on incorrect numbers to support personal tests that support the purchase of fuel trucks, not battery electric vehicles. It suggested that he was doing.

The USPS answer (the first 12 pages of the document) is quite aggressive against the EPA. USPS was in response to the EPA comment, "No, we thought about this.

The tone is more appropriate, as the past impact reports, nomination proposals, and the norms of federal regulations are lined up. This is closer to the Internet controversy, "I say or not," rather than what to actually put in the Federal Register. Also, considering the past of the corrupted Dejoy Post Office, it should be cautious about this obviously failed conclusion and what his subordinates actually say.

High emissions jeopardize US and world emissions goals

However, this is not reflected in the press release that the USPS sent to the media cheerfully. Despite the controversial decision, USPS has shown a very positive image of this process.~The items that USPS decided to publish is as follows:

Through the nex t-generation delivery vehicle (NGDV) program, the US Post Division promises an ambitious and track, and promises to introduce an electric vehicle with financial responsibilities on the largest and oldest federal vehicles in the United States.

The NGDV program, which introduces the first 5, 000 battery electric vehicles (BEV) from 2023, has a significant advantage of the environment through the introduction of more secure and environmentally friendly vehicles.

If additional funds are available due to the flexibility of the NGDV program, further BEVs can be added.

A way forward

The Postal Corporation is the US Environmental Protection Agency, as described in the 34 0-pages of the USPS. Ental Protection Agency We carefully considered feedback from: EPA).

The USPS concluded that there is no legal or other basis to postpone the NGDV plan.

Do you notice something strange? Three of the five items mentioned electric vehicles, but not mentioned in fuel trucks. The USPS advertises the "environmental advantage" of the vehicle, but only 5. 000 units, despite the fact that they are actually purchasing 50. 000 to 165. 000 EVs.

Through the entire press release, the internal combustion engine is mentioned only once, but the BEV has been eight times, and the electric vehicle or electrification has been spoken eight times. The ratio of this 15: 1 seems to be the opposite of the USPS plan, which purchases electric vehicles and gas vehicles at 1: 9.

It should be noted that NGDV is not really effective. The mileage is slightly increased compared to the current Glaman LLV, which is due to the old LLV fleet. The average mileage of NGDV is 13, 9 km / h with an air conditioner, at 13, 7 km / h without air conditioning, but LLV is 13, 2km / h without air conditioning.

Earth Justice pointed out that this is worse than the 1988 Glaman LLV, and the fuel economy of NGDV is worse than the average fuel economy of the EPA Ford F-150. Furthermore, since NGDV is designed just one pound heavier than the test weight limit of small trucks, it must meet the less strict emission standard.

1:24 G scale model US Post Office USPS postal signs

The comparison with the F-150 does not hold. NGDV charges half a day and spend most of the time in stop and go mode. This worsens fuel economy-at least for gasoline vehicles. BEV should greatly reduce the fuel efficiency of stop and go for regenerative brakes. Furthermore, if the average speed is low, fuel economy will be improved compared to highway driving by EPA composite cycle.

In the minutes of the decision, USPS says, "Complete NGV alternative BEV has a direct and indirect GHG emission than 90%ICE NGV" (Note: The calculation here is incorrect, but ICE. It acknowledges that the emissions seem to be doubled as the BEV emission), and says that they have actually chose the options for the emissions twice as much as other options (Table 4 of Electrek). In the calculation o f-6). 2 In the USPS environment in the final impact report, the NGV emissions seem to be as follows. Not twice, 2 or 4 times that of NGV BEV). It should be noted that this claim still depends on the emission calculation that the EPA underestimates the emissions from NGV.

Oops! Looks like we're having trouble connecting to our server.

And considering that these vehicles can be used for decades (Graman LLV has already been 34 years), the world fundamentally reduces emissions and avoids the worst impact of climate disasters. Considering that the time is not a few decades, but for several years, the environment will continue to pollution until it becomes reasonable.

USPS has approved plans for lon g-term economic interests, but cost calculation is as doubtful as environmental issues. Maintenance and fuel consumption are low, and the mileage is constant, and it is driven every day, and the ideal vehicle for the use of stop and go at low speed will surely bring economic interests without considering environmental costs. As many managers have already learned in the parking lot, if we add environmental costs (all of us should do so), we can get an unonforced solution. In other words, the USPS press release praised the environmental benefits of this decision, but the environment was not a major interest in this decision, and this decision was objectively overlooked. It was revealed that it was much worse in the environment (and probably in terms of cost) than an alternative. < SPAN> Comparison with F-150 does not hold. NGDV charges half a day and spend most of the time in stop and go mode. This worsens fuel economy-at least for gasoline vehicles. BEV should greatly reduce the fuel efficiency of stop and go for regenerative brakes. Furthermore, if the average speed is low, fuel economy will be improved compared to highway driving by EPA composite cycle. In the minutes of the decision, USPS says, "Complete NGV alternative BEVs are 200%smaller than 90%ICE NGV" (Note: Calculation here is incorrect, but ICE is incorrect. It acknowledges that the emissions seem to be doubled as the BEV emission), and says that they have actually chose the options for the emissions twice as much as other options (Table 4 of Electrek). In the calculation o f-6). 2 In the USPS environment in the final impact report, the NGV emissions seem to be as follows. Not twice, 2 or 4 times that of NGV BEV). It should be noted that this claim still depends on the emission calculation that the EPA underestimates the emissions from NGV. And considering that these vehicles can be used for decades (Graman LLV has already been 34 years), the world fundamentally reduces emissions and avoids the worst impact of climate disasters. Considering that the time is not a few decades, but for several years, the environment will continue to pollution until it becomes reasonable. USPS has approved plans for lon g-term economic interests, but cost calculation is as doubtful as environmental issues. Maintenance and fuel consumption are low, and the mileage is constant, and it is driven every day, and the ideal vehicle for the use of stop and go at low speed will surely bring economic interests without considering environmental costs. As many managers have already learned in the parking lot, if we add environmental costs (all of us should do so), we can get an unonforced solution. In other words, the USPS press release praised the environmental benefits of this decision, but the environment was not a major interest in this decision, and this decision was objectively overlooked. It was revealed that it was much worse in the environment (and probably in terms of cost) than an alternative. The comparison with the F-150 does not hold. NGDV charges half a day and spend most of the time in stop and go mode. This worsens fuel economy-at least for gasoline vehicles. BEV should greatly reduce the fuel efficiency of stop and go for regenerative brakes. Furthermore, if the average speed is low, fuel economy will be improved compared to highway driving by EPA composite cycle. In the minutes of the decision, USPS says, "Complete NGV alternative BEVs are 200%smaller than 90%ICE NGV" (Note: Calculation here is incorrect, but ICE is incorrect. It acknowledges that the emissions seem to be doubled as the BEV emission), and says that they have actually chose the options for the emissions twice as much as other options (Table 4 of Electrek). In the calculation o f-6). 2 In the USPS environment in the final impact report, the NGV emissions seem to be as follows. Not twice, 2 or 4 times that of NGV BEV). It should be noted that this claim still depends on the emission calculation that the EPA underestimates the emissions from NGV.

And considering that these vehicles can be used for decades (Graman LLV has already been 34 years), the world fundamentally reduces emissions and avoids the worst impact of climate disasters. Considering that the time is not a few decades, but for several years, the environment will continue to pollution until it becomes reasonable.

USPS has approved plans for lon g-term economic interests, but cost calculation is as doubtful as environmental issues. Maintenance and fuel consumption are low, and the mileage is constant, and it is driven every day, and the ideal vehicle for the use of stop and go at low speed will surely bring economic interests without considering environmental costs. As many managers have already learned in the parking lot, if we add environmental costs (all of us should do so), we can get an unonforced solution.

In other words, the USPS press release praised the environmental benefits of this decision, but the environment was not a major interest in this decision, and this decision was objectively overlooked. It was revealed that it was much worse in the environment (and probably in terms of cost) than an alternative.

For USPS honor, USPS is not positive to increase BEV share to 10 % or more, depending on the future situation. In the current communication, USPS has repeatedly stated that if you receive most of the funds from personal and parliament, BEV fleet can be fully equipped. However, when the decayed post office boss demanded further funds, it is clear that his organization has actively traded with the Environmental Protection Agency and is likely to take a quick and slow action. It is not easy to trust it. There is no doubt that USPS needs a change, but unfortunately it is not easy for the president to fire the post office boss. However, funds to make BEV postal vehicles have been suggested. The proposed Build Back Better Act included USPS funding for electric vehicles (along with almost all other EV incentives, such as extending tax deductions for EV buyers) The bill was stuck in the opposition of Joe Manchin, who had 28 million votes. He ignored the fact that it was supported by the Yankees's appeasing majority (but the reason was unknown, but did not support the Jorn Musk). ) The supporter, the House of Representatives, has already voted to cancel the 10 billion USPS debt pledge. Theoretically, enough funds to secure the necessary funds to shift to BEV, but if you honestly agree that you need more funds, the possibility is extremely possible. High. Is it possible to add additional clause to the Senate version that requires purchasing an EV truck using a newly released fund?

Despite the final conclusions, we do not believe this is a concealment. The Electric Federation is currently calling on the parliament to "send it back to the sender," and Electrek agrees. The introduction of USPS ICE vehicles has no way to move forward, except for the shor t-term most niche use (for example, a fairly lon g-distance regional route). Congress should take action and introduce at least 90 % of BEVs instead of 10 % in USPS. The USPS Board should dismiss the corrupt Dejoy Post Office.

FTC: We use affiliate links to earn income. read more Submit Electrek on Google News and get the latest information. We deliver news about Tesla, electric vehicles, and green energy every day. Follow Electrek on Twitter, Facebook, and Linkedin and always get the latest information. Don't you know what to start with? See the latest reviews on YouTube channel.

New, unused, intact product (including handmade products). See the seller's notice for details.

8 Available 2 Sold 1: 24G Scale Model USPS Post Office USPS Post Sign

Update the browser window and retry.

Update the browser Person Check 9 This has been added to the observation list.

Shop with confidence

It is a popular product. 2 sold US $ 90, 97 EBAY international delivery You can shop with confidence around the world, such as detailed tracking and revenue returns. Know more . See details of delivery Place Gloma City, Ohio, United States

Item specifics

Summon Bind Bind Delivery

Purchase in pair If you purchase two or more appropriate products from one seller, the delivery discount will be applied automatically. Combined storage To confirm that the product meets the conditions, simply add the product to the basket. Import fee This product may be charged for import duties and consumption tax during delivery. At the time of delivery, customs duties and fees may be obliged to pay. Customs authorities may apply customs duties, customs fees, and taxes when delivering the ordered items. If you need to pay, we will contact you by the local authorities. What is an import fee? Import fees include customs duties, fees, and import taxes. Customs duties are a type of tax that the country's customs authorities have imposed on imports. Usually, the size of tariffs depends on the product and its value. Depending on the country, this tax may be called tariffs, import taxes, or tariffs. Transporters and customs authorities may request additional processing fees. The scheduled delivery date is November 11th to December 3rd. Delivery time of paymen t-Open in a new window or tab, including the seller's time, pos t-posting, pos t-appointment index and reception time, new window or in response to selected distribution and clea n-up payment. Open on the tab. Delivery time may be changed, especially during the busy season. Please note that the number of days for delivery exceeds 29 business days.

Item description from the seller

Three Inches Under

Return within 30 days. The return fee will be borne by the buyer. See detail s-Get other return information eBay Revival Key About this paragraph The seller is solely responsible for this poster.

eBay Item Number: 175530076905

Last updated 2023/08/09 15:58:58 PDT See all configurations See all configurations