That situation seems to be all too common @tsm. In the EPA and other agencies as well.
Anyone want to talk about cars?
What, the EPA…and how it enforces CO2 emissions…isn’t "automotive-related?"
I beg to differ.
Also, don’t forget we’ve got many automotive professionals here. This is a “bread and butter” concern for 'em.
Well, speaking of cars, and more specifically car repairs and the EPA, the threat of economic doom from EPA regulations is an ever present threat for shop owners. The system gives the EPA’s pals the ability to extort business from shop owners. A shop can ethically and environmentaly safely dispose of waste at one price and fight a a battle with the environmental gestapo or pay 50% more for a “green leaf” disposal service to take care of the disposal…
The discussion turned to politics and not cars. That is the difference.
But, this thread is limited in scope to the automotive-related impacts of a recent political change. That is within the scope of this forum, as amended.
Now, if somebody started a thread re: “how does the recent election affect how we fight ISIS,” or immigration, or whatever, then that would be out of line.
You cannot separate the question of the effects of the election on future actions of the EPA and their effects on the automotive market and on the repair industry. That, specifically, is what this thread is about. I agree with those who consider it automotive related. I agree that this is well within the scope of the forum. This IS about cars.
There are no gasoline powered cars being sold in the US without electronic fuel injection and catalytic converters with a myriad of electronic controls these days thanksto the EPA. I wonder what percentage of problems brought here are emissions system related.
I’d rather have the occasional emissions system problem than the stinging eyes and sore throat I had when visiting California back in the '60s.
No doubt @circuitsmith. The improvement in the air and water that was brought about by EPA regulations is phenomenally great but the agency’s current leadership wishes to make their own grand achievements and find themselves chasing snail darters and measuring CO2 to the third decimal point looking for something significant. While I am not convinced that there is some relationship to burning fossil fuel and a warming climate it is an issue that should be looked into. But we might find ourselves better off in many aspects regarding the environment if more study and effort were put into more efficiency in building codes and materials and appliances and end the influence peddling that resulted in the “footprint” rule which has virtually eliminated the smaller pickups from the market.
The improvement in the air and water that was brought about by EPA regulations is phenomenally great but the agency’s current leadership wishes to make their own grand achievements and find themselves chasing snail darters and measuring CO2 to the third decimal point looking for something significant.
“But we might find ourselves better off in many aspects regarding the environment if more study and effort were put into more efficiency in building codes and materials and appliances and end the influence peddling that resulted in the “footprint” rule which has virtually eliminated the smaller pickups from the market.”
I bow in the face of genius. Good work.
I might pose the following. What is the EPA stance on car makers stating that burning of oil on new vehicles to the rate of 700-1000 miles per quart is fine and acceptable.
Millions of vehicles burning through even more millions of quarts of oil seems like a problem to me.
As to carbon footprints that is mostly a feel good gimmick so those who are using the most can claim they are harming the environment the least. Al Gore a few years ago claiming his yacht was zero emission/zero fuel/neutral carbon footprint…
My oldest son is a meteorologist/climatologist (3 degrees in the field) and told me some years ago that if someone is really, truly, and honestly concerned with their carbon footprint they can do one thing; plant a single, solitary tree or cut down an old rotten tree and replace it with a new tree with thriving roots. That one tree will cover their carbon footprint for life.
I often wonder about the efficiency of the human body as compared to the efficiency of today’s automobiles. As I remember, when we breathe in air, we expel CO2. I am afraid that I am emitting all kinds of dangerous gases when I do my three mile fitness walk each day that my doctor insists that I do and my wife enforces the doctor’s orders. Maybe the younger generations have better pollution controls, but I would guess that the human body is not very efficient.
It has occurred to me that the EPA doesn’t throw much effort into the fracking controversy, yet that might be the most environmentally detrimental issue at this time. Are we p’ing in the well? Don’t get me wrong. I’m enjoying the cheap gas prices. But will water need to be piped across the country when millions of rural wells are found to be contaminated? And if so the corporations responsible for the problem will be bankrupted after all the profits have been stuffed into Swiss accounts.
I often wonder about the efficiency of the human body as compared to the efficiency of today’s automobiles. As I remember, when we breathe in air, we expel CO2. I am afraid that I am emitting all kinds of dangerous gases when I do my three mile fitness walk each day that my doctor insists that I do and my wife enforces the doctor’s orders. Maybe the younger generations have better pollution controls, but I would guess that the human body is not very efficient.
Your body is like a car engine that can never be shut off and most of it’s fuel use is standby (idling) fuel consumption. For that reason, that daily 3 mile walk will likely make a nearly un measureable difference in calorie intake.
The people who advocate strength training claim that the extra muscle mass burns calories even when you aren’t exercising. That’s why the body gets rid of un-needed muscles, when food is scarce, they become a survival liability. Birds that live on islands where flight is unnecessary and the muscles needed for flying become a survival liability during food shortages soon evolve into a flightless species.
Regarding fracking, that process has been going on around here for more decades than I can remember. It’s never been an issue with the groundwater here in city water wells or the well in my back yard. I don’t use the backyard well but it’s been tested.
The main contamination of water around here is nitrates from farming. I’ve read the water report from the state and in NW OK (lot of drilling here and always has been) the report states that all of the water sources are heavy on nitrates with only one minor source being at least comparatively clean.
An engineering firm drilled 7 or 8 test wells about 20 years ago in a 2 mile radius and as per the usual found only high nitrate levels.
It just seems to me anyway that concern over fracking may be exaggerated a bit.
@ok4450, here is some information about fracking from the EPA:
As far as the danger to drinking water is concerned, the underground rock formations where oil and gas is released by hydraulic fracturing is probably different in different parts of the US. I don’t know enough geology to comment further, but clearly demonstrated stability in your area might not be true in other places.
The fracking risk to groundwater is VERY small. The fracked formation is typically thousands of feet from groundwater, and the fracture length is measured in hundreds of feet at most. There are certainly issues to deal with, but groundwater contamination is WAY DOWN on the list.
@texases, what about ground water contamination as the oil or gas is pumped out of the ground?