Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Friday Excuse to Go Home Early and Drink: New EPA Boss Wants States to Decide on Auto Emissions

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mr4Speed
    replied
    Re: Friday Excuse to Go Home Early and Drink: New EPA Boss Wants States to Decid

    While the choice for EPA boss looks bad for us, the president elect's choice for Dept of Transportation has the green lobby all kinds of pissed off-

    http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/009299.html

    These people that want to force us to stop driving at all, and force us all to move from the suburbs to the "urban core" are a lot scarier to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • squirrel
    replied
    Re: Friday Excuse to Go Home Early and Drink: New EPA Boss Wants States to Decide on Auto Emissions

    Originally posted by TheSilverBuick
    is it harmful I think is yet to be determined,
    That's the important thing. The politicians who say "the sky is falling", and the politicians who say "it's all BS" are both wrong....there's probably something happening, but it's probably not gonna be a big deal. The overal variation in climate in any one area, let alone the whole globe, is huge compared to even the most pessimistic predicted average change in climate from CO2 caused "climate change".

    Leave a comment:


  • TheSilverBuick
    replied
    Re: Friday Excuse to Go Home Early and Drink: New EPA Boss Wants States to Decide on Auto Emissions

    Pretty Good Squirrel, I'll just clarify a bit ;) I'd change billions of years to around 400 million for actual storage of hydrocarbons (plants to oil and coal), but CO2 started being removed from the atmosphere and replaced with O2 around 2 billion years ago and peaking around 250 million years ago, at which point O2 has been steadily decreasing, and CO2 fluxuating with the global temperature.

    CO2 makes up .03% of a percent of our atmosphere. Increase a small number by any percent that isn't in the hundreds and it's still a small number. .03*35%=.04, up one hundredth of a percent, but it's scarier to hear 35%! Another thing about statistics, practically any change to a small number makes a large percent difference, imagine that.

    We are definately pumping CO2 in to the atmosphere at nearly unprecedented rates, is it harmful I think is yet to be determined, especially since as Spidey pointed out it's natural respiration for us, and to go further it IS the air that plants need to breath. We live on O2 levels as low as 18% (give or take a bit), but plants are living on CO2 levels at .03%. Early I said "nearly" unprecedented rates because some of the ice core data is showing that the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere has increased at not only a faster rate but to a much higher level (like to a tenth of a percent!). Reason's why are never given, still need more research and gut feelings on it are never given, don't want to make it sounds too much like a natural process to the public. But the rise always comes with a warmer climate. MY gut feeling on it is that from some climate forcing (which we don't have a handle on, could be solar radiation, volcano's, random change in ocean currents, etc) cause the temps to rise a bit and a bunch of dissolved CO2 in the atmosphere was degassed from the ocean. Standard chemstry and partial pressure CO2 calculations, this has been tested in a lab! Damn you Squirrel, I'm going to stop myself ranting here.

    Leave a comment:


  • squirrel
    replied
    Re: Friday Excuse to Go Home Early and Drink: New EPA Boss Wants States to Decide on Auto Emissions

    The carbon thing works like this (corrections from Randal welcome): Long ago, plants and animals lived and died, and some of them ended up buried, so the carbon in them was trapped underground, and eventually turned into coal/oil/natural gas. As this process went on over past billions of years, most of the carbon dioxide was taken out of the atmosphere.

    There is still some carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but it's a pretty small amount, less than one percent of air is carbon dioxide. We breathe carbon dioxide out, but that carbon dioxide was formed from the carbon in the food we ate, which got it from plants, which took it out of the air. So, our breathing is not affecting the "above ground" level of carbon.

    When we dig and drill fossil fuels, we take buried carbon out of the ground, and burn it, so it goes back into the atmosphere. We burn a LOT of fossil fuels each year. The percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased about 35% in the past hundred years or so.

    Leave a comment:


  • yogreasygramma
    replied
    Re: Friday Excuse to Go Home Early and Drink: New EPA Boss Wants States to Decid

    Originally posted by SpiderGearsMan
    how can carbon dioxide be a pollutant ?? humans expell it as we breathe out
    maybe it has to do with the fairy tale of global warming
    wait until you get the notice to junk your pre 96 car ......
    things are going to CHANGE for sure
    Of course it has everything to do with the flawed/fake "science" of global warming...or should I say - absolute global control of people. And since you asked, the air you breathe is already taxed in some parts of Europe based on the same CO2 newthink. Under the same Agenda 21 scheme heading our way, it will be here too. Better just lay down and die to serve our earthly masters better.

    Leave a comment:


  • SpiderGearsMan
    replied
    Re: Friday Excuse to Go Home Early and Drink: New EPA Boss Wants States to Decide on Auto Emissions

    how can carbon dioxide be a pollutant ?? humans expell it as we breathe out
    maybe it has to do with the fairy tale of global warming
    wait until you get the notice to junk your pre 96 car ......
    things are going to CHANGE for sure

    Leave a comment:


  • squirrel
    replied
    Re: Friday Excuse to Go Home Early and Drink: New EPA Boss Wants States to Decide on Auto Emissions

    Originally posted by DanStokes
    Thanks for posting the Automotive News article.

    It's taking about CO2 - I thought we were talking about tailpipe emissions standards.
    heh...it was pretty obvious to me right away that they were talking about mileage standards. AZ has been trying to jump on the CA bandwagon on CO2, so this has been in the news here sort of recently. Now that our Dem governor is about to become Obama's DHS head, and our Rep secretary of state will take over as Gov, who knows what'll happen! our state legislature is heavily Rep.

    Leave a comment:


  • mustang13
    replied
    Re: Friday Excuse to Go Home Early and Drink: New EPA Boss Wants States to Decide on Auto Emissions

    Originally posted by Brian Lohnes
    Brad, I was kind of dreaming of the same situation, with the caveat that they hold a press conference and invite Pelosi under the guise of making a, "major breakthrough in business strategy".

    Stand up there, make your announcement, and then invite her to make remarks.

    I'd PAY to see the look on her face.

    Brian
    The look on her face would be the same, she's made from some form of alien teflon that was found at Area 51. She needs to spend a few hours with Peter North, have an Orange Julius and relax for mankind to survive!!!!!!!!! >

    Leave a comment:


  • dthemi
    replied
    Re: Friday Excuse to Go Home Early and Drink: New EPA Boss Wants States to Decid

    That's my point about NOAA and Geographic. Noaa is on a political mission, and shooting for Geographic has let me see the true story interviewing scientists all over the world who care only about facts. I watched NOAA push the national marine sanctuary issues on completely unfounded information, and they knew it, and laughed about it amongst them selfs. NOAA is filled with people on personal and political missions, based on personal beliefs. The EPA uses NOAA as a reliable source of information, which it is not. NOAA is/was also Gores baby.

    Originally posted by TheSilverBuick
    Originally posted by dthemi
    Also, just for reference, my years with National Geographic, and NOAA have given me the good fortune to hear the opinions of real scientists, who care nothing for politics or religion. Though there are many "scientists" who let their own beliefs skew the facts, and I ignore them completely. When people like Gore are given ANY credence, or audience on the subject it shows how little people really know about the facts regarding the environment. I've seen many marine biologists, and scientists ignore the facts for what THEY think is the right thing for the rest of us to do, both Democratic and Republican, but more often than not, Democratic.
    HA! The leaders of the NOAA are some of the worse. Jim Hansen, chief Climatologist for NASA, was the first to politicize the term Global Warming, before him it was Climate Modulation or Change. Reading his climate model papers is a joke, every variable he doesn't have a number for he puts one in that "he" feels is right (and there are a lot of assumptions!), which of course make the models show a warming trend based on CO2 forcing. But I do agree with the rest of what you said.

    (Since Dan did a re-introduction, incase you didn't know I'm a geologist educated in California )

    Leave a comment:


  • DanStokes
    replied
    Re: Friday Excuse to Go Home Early and Drink: New EPA Boss Wants States to Decid

    Thanks for posting the Automotive News article.

    It's taking about CO2 - I thought we were talking about tailpipe emissions standards. In this case, I agree that we need whatever standards there will be to be national (as should tailpipe emissions standards), as a patchwork of state standards would be unimaginable. But the car makers are big boys who can stand up for themselves, and I'm sure they will. Remember, Ford and GM each have a whole floor of lawyers in their respective headquarters. Not sure about Chrysler, but I bet they can stand up, too - not to mention VW, Toyota, Nissan, etc. Her making the statement is no where near the same as there being a ruling.

    As far as our interests - I'll say it again. Send money to SEMA (SANE). They are our best defense.

    Dan

    Leave a comment:


  • TheSilverBuick
    replied
    Re: Friday Excuse to Go Home Early and Drink: New EPA Boss Wants States to Decid

    Originally posted by dthemi
    Also, just for reference, my years with National Geographic, and NOAA have given me the good fortune to hear the opinions of real scientists, who care nothing for politics or religion. Though there are many "scientists" who let their own beliefs skew the facts, and I ignore them completely. When people like Gore are given ANY credence, or audience on the subject it shows how little people really know about the facts regarding the environment. I've seen many marine biologists, and scientists ignore the facts for what THEY think is the right thing for the rest of us to do, both Democratic and Republican, but more often than not, Democratic.
    HA! The leaders of the NOAA are some of the worse. Jim Hansen, chief Climatologist for NASA, was the first to politicize the term Global Warming, before him it was Climate Modulation or Change. Reading his climate model papers is a joke, every variable he doesn't have a number for he puts one in that "he" feels is right (and there are a lot of assumptions!), which of course make the models show a warming trend based on CO2 forcing. But I do agree with the rest of what you said.

    (Since Dan did a re-introduction, incase you didn't know I'm a geologist educated in California )

    Leave a comment:


  • oldsman496
    replied
    Re: Friday Excuse to Go Home Early and Drink: New EPA Boss Wants States to Decide on Auto Emissions

    We all need to thank SEMA for their efforts on our behalf. Most legislation is written in terms laymen have a hard time grasping. So when ya read it, it may not be what it seems at first read...Summaries of these 'attempted laws' are often published in the mags and allot of 'em scare me....My every day ride is SO far away from stock that if an underhood inspection comes to Ohio - I'm screwed. From 'bout 95 to 2001 or so, we had biannual "e-check". It was so poorly set up at first that most folks failed the tests even with new cars. Millions more were spent to upgrade the equipment. By the time they got this sorted out, all the employees were so disillusioned and corrupted that the whole system was scrapped. a couple years later they came back and reinstated the e-check's, but just for a few years when they decided it was no longer 'economically viable', and shut it down again. I like clean air. When my big block olds with a lumpy cam had dual 3" cats, It passed with readings TWICE as clean as the specs for the original 77 v6. The point I'm trying to make with all this verbage is that we really do need a SINGLE set of laws governing this across the country. Its the witholdings from OUR paychecks that get wasted due to inefficiencies of all the individual efforts. But if your lookin' to create jobs and force folks to spend money (ie- help the economy..) well this might be an answer for ya.Can't we just set a national standard on emissions levels and if your car passes- no matter how- then ya get your plates? of course no e-check is what i really want......

    Leave a comment:


  • dthemi
    replied
    Re: Friday Excuse to Go Home Early and Drink: New EPA Boss Wants States to Decid

    Also, just for reference, my years with National Geographic, and NOAA have given me the good fortune to hear the opinions of real scientists, who care nothing for politics or religion. Though there are many "scientists" who let their own beliefs skew the facts, and I ignore them completely. When people like Gore are given ANY credence, or audience on the subject it shows how little people really know about the facts regarding the environment. I've seen many marine biologists, and scientists ignore the facts for what THEY think is the right thing for the rest of us to do, both Democratic and Republican, but more often than not, Democratic.

    Leave a comment:


  • tcbnj
    replied
    Re: Friday Excuse to Go Home Early and Drink: New EPA Boss Wants States to Decid

    Originally posted by DanStokes
    Brian -
    Automotive News won't let me on unless I sign up, which I don't want to do. However, as stated, the states DO have the right to set standards that are more stringent that the Fed standards, so it wouldn't make sense to have the new Administrator campaigning for something that they already have. So we'll see where this all leads.

    Dan
    Dan - please see the Automotive News article below (note, this type article is free when you sign up; you only have to pay for *premium articles* - actually a good site for 'hard' car news like this subject.

    "Obama's EPA to 'revisit' state CO2 rules for vehicles

    Harry Stoffer
    Automotive News
    January 14, 2009 - 1:04 pm ET


    WASHINGTON -- Lisa Jackson, President-elect Barack Obama's nominee as EPA administrator, promised today to "immediately revisit" whether states should be allowed to enforce limits on vehicles emissions of greenhouse gases
    he pledge sets the stage for an early challenge for automakers under Obama, who takes office Tuesday.

    Automakers and their allies oppose state-by-state regulation of greenhouse gases. They say such rules are an indirect attempt to regulate fuel economy, which is a federal responsibility.

    They also say state rules would add costs and create market chaos, especially for dealers near borders with states that don't have their own rules.

    In 2004, California adopted rules that aim to limit vehicle greenhouse gases. More than a dozen other states have taken steps to adopt similar rules. The industry fought the rules in federal courts but lost cases in California and Vermont.

    The rules were to have taken effect with 2009 modelvehicles. But in December 2007, the Bush administration's EPA denied California the waiver it needs to begin enforcing the state rules.

    At the same time, Congress and President George W. Bush enacted tougher federal fuel economy standards, which are to be phased in during the 2011-20 model years.

    The industry argues that a tough national standard is better than a patchwork of state regulation. States respond that they should have the right to impose their own limits.

    During his presidential campaign, Obama promised he would allow states to have their own rules.

    The principal greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide, a byproduct of burning fuel but also a natural part of the atmosphere.

    Jackson testified today before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which is holding a confirmation hearing for Obama's EPA nominee. She is expected to be easily confirmed by the Senate.

    Jackson stated her commitment to revisit the greenhouse gas issue -- and to follow the dictates of science, the rule of law and expert advice -- in response to a question from Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., the committee's chairwoman.

    The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers has said it wants to work with the Obama administration to improve fuel economy and reduce greenhouse gases. But the alliance thinks a single national standard is "the best way to do so," spokesman Charles Territo said.

    The alliance represents the Detroit 3, Toyota, Volkswagen and six other automakers."

    Leave a comment:


  • dthemi
    replied
    Re: Friday Excuse to Go Home Early and Drink: New EPA Boss Wants States to Decid

    Well Dan, I don't drink diet coke, or beer, and I probably spend more time IN the water than most since I make my living as an underwater documentary cameraman, so it's not like I don't care about whats going on with the environment (and most likely know more than most about it). I'm an evolution believer, in nature, and in capitalism, and if it doesn't make a buck, or stand on its own, let it die. Agreed, political discussions are inappropriate on this forum, but this is a political issue, so I apologize for adding to it. I just get steamed seeing the baby steps we're continually asked to take toward the little safe village we'd all live in if true liberal government has it's way. The EPA has for years been run by politically motivated fiefdoms that use it as a weapon to see their own ends, with little, in my estimation, concern for the real issues causing the problems.

    Also, just for reference, my years with National Geographic, and NOAA have given me the good fortune to hear the opinions of real scientists, who care nothing for politics or religion. Though there are many "scientists" who let their own beliefs skew the facts, and I ignore them completely. When people like Gore are given ANY credence, or audience on the subject it shows how little people really know about the facts regarding the environment. I've seen many marine biologists, and scientists ignore the facts for what THEY think is the right thing for the rest of us to do, both Democratic and Republican, but moe often than not, Democratic.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X