Best of Deals Car Reviews Repair Shops Cars A-Z Radio Show

Future Emission Standards

Sorry. Still having trouble dealing with the election? Well, that’s understandable. For the small areas geographically, along the coasts where high concentrations of Democrats live it was bad news. For the vast part of the country in the middle it was great!
I feel your pain. I was in pain for 8 years.

Future Emission Standards (topic)
Trump is doing just about everything he promised during the campaign (and more!) and that’s why he was elected. He is going to help the car industry out and will get some of the burdensome EPA regulations off their backs and ease the goofy tax laws weighing on them, all part of Making America Great, Again.

1 Like

My point exactly! That’s why I said, “This government over-regulation is strangling people’s choices. A one-size-fits- all approach is ridiculous.” For sure, not everybody chooses the same things.

The emissions regulations were beginning to limit people’s choices, adding to the cost of vehicles. Vehicle affordability was really taking a hit for half of the folks in our country!

1 Like

Even if he doesn’t succeed, at least an attempt is being made and the show will be fun to watch as there begins much gnashing of teeth. Order more popcorn and sit back and enjoy the show.

1 Like

We recycle most of our refuse at my house, but if somebody else doesn’t want to then fine. My incentive for it is economics. I pay for trash pick-up and recycling is free.

Not to point a self-righteous finger or anything, but recycling is not free. :wink:

OUTRIGHT hate mongering and discrimination

Sorry . . . I do NOT consider that very enjoyable to watch :frowning2:


I understand what you mean, “no such thing as a free lunch,” what I meant to say is that disposing of trash in my neighborhood costs each resident quite a bit and they need to contract with a service.

However, participation in the local recycling program is free-of-charge to the same residents.

I realize the county is picking up the tab and applying to property taxes (it’s not much of a charge), but if one recycles it is already paid for and if they don’t recycle it costs them the same amount. Use it or lose it.

We have the same deal, but the price of the recycling pickup is not getting paid for the recycled materials. Aluminum cans in particular.

It takes about 15,000 kilowatt-hours of energy to convert aluminum ore into one tonne of aluminum metal. It makes me wonder about the wisdom of building aluminum bodied pickup trucks to save energy.
Yes, I know that it also takes energy to make steel, but I think the energy input is quite a bit lower. Iron oxide can easily be reduced to iron simply by melting it in the presence of a carbon rich environment, the iron gives the oxygen to the carbon and becomes free iron.
In fact, you can see how much extra energy there is in pure aluminum by setting thermite on fire. Thermite is a mixture of powdered aluminum and powdered iron oxide. The aluminum steals the oxygen from the iron oxide and the energy released creates a puddle of molten iron covered by a layer of aluminum oxide slag.

Gee, I can (and have) turned a profit “curb crawling” on the night before trash day, scooping up the metal, and cashing it in at the scrap yard. If the recycling company can’t turn a profit doing it, then that’s a problem with the recycling company!

Funny how “eco-friendly” the “progressives” are, and yet I have NEVER seen a Prius at a scrap yard (unless as scrap…) Progressives seem to do a good job of “talking the talk!”

Good evening. There were some efforts to bring this back to a more car-centered discussion, but it seems that it’s continuing to stray. I don’t object to political talk, but please keep it respectful and limited to cars/fuel/transport/the like.

That’s because driving a Prius is “enough”. Take that long shower, live in that all glass suburban mansion that has $1000/month heating/air conditioning bills, you drive a Prius and that absolves everything.

1 Like

Well that was my point as well, kinda. So how does this differ from a mandated CAFE standard or carbon tax? Your community (and mine) wants to reduce landfill, you make recycling free-of-charge. Our society at large decides we want to reduce carbon emissions, how do we do it? Most equitably. Recognizing the misfits will always complain?

How about the other side of the story, planting more trees to handle or process Co2, So many trees in my yard, then no grass to cut, win win!

No grass to cut, but lots of leaves to rake which turn right back into CO2 as they decompose in the compost pile, or are burned.
One way to sequester CO2 in a way that isn’t temporary is to raise shellfish. The calcium carbonate that makes up oyster shells is approximately 44% CO2 by weight. This will remain calcium carbonate even long after the actual shellfish have become fossils, that is until some jerk decides that he needs to roast that limestone in a kiln in order to make portland cement so he can pour 1000 tons of concrete for the foundation of a wind turbine.

1 Like

EPA emissions standards is an issue near and dear to my heart. But I also know that it is sharply divided between “country mouse” and “city mouse”. I grew up in a highly polluted city in the 70’s. EPA standards completely changed the living conditions of that city so things like “smog” are ancient history (unlike in Beijing where there are no emissions controls). People who live in suburban and rural areas seem to care little about emissions standards since it is an issue that has, seemingly, little impact on them.

Long story short, we are not going to come together on this. People like me who have lived through smog and toxic city air in the 70’s and earlier will continue to believe in the EPA’s mission. Those who have never really been impacted by such air pollution will continue to believe the EPA is a nuisance.

Once upon a time we would have come together and agreed to compromise. But compromise these days seems to be completely reversing programs we disagree with, rather than finding some middle ground.

The first step here is to acknowledge that the mission of the EPA is vital. Then we need to look at the standards being applied and see if we can find some acceptable “middle ground” where EVERYONE is equally unhappy. Just my two cents.


I think the real issue is at what point does the cure become worse than the disease. The rural population has that at a different point than the urban population. Nobody wants to go back to 1950’s auto emissions.
It’s like police authority verses crime. If the way to zero crime is North Korea, I’d rather risk a little crime, but then, I don’t want to live in a lawless “wild west” either.

The EPA has a vital role to play in giving us clean air and water. However since Obama got the EPA to declare CO2 as a pollutant, the situation has gone in a whole new direction.

CO2 is NOT a pollutant, you and I breathe it out all day long and plants need it for growth. So addressing carbon emissions is an altogether different activity and has become highly politicized since there is no DIRECT LINEAR tie between human produced CO2 and global warming. If there was, we would not have the current controversy. Trump was smart enough to leave the current EPA activities alone; it’s the Climate Change Initiative that’s being cancelled.

We owe a lot to the EPA for having tackled Acid rain, phasing out fluorocarbons, controlling particulates, tackling photochemical smog caused by Oxides of Nitrogen from combustion engines, etc.

When I first occupied my property ~20 years ago, this former farm was devoid of trees and shrubs, so I began a several-years-long campaign of planting trees. All told, I planted 14 deciduous trees, which still left a considerable amount of lawn, but it was pleasing to the eye.

What I naively hadn’t thought about was the incredible quantity of leaves that would be dropped each year by the oaks, maples, elms, and willows. Now, when one of those deciduous tree dies, I replace it with an evergreen!

I was not aware of that. Thanks.

However, it apparently didn’t take long for Obama to bend some laws and get congress members some help. To help pay for their “Gold Level” health care plans they were granted a subsidy to pay for 72% of healthcare premiums. The subsidy (provided by taxpayers) was not available to them without some tricky maneuvering.

So, from what I can tell their deluxe health plans are provided after deducting just 28% of the premiums from their $200,000 + salaries.

Could it be that these Gold Plans were covered by the Golden Rule? He who has the gold, rules.

I hear you. I get that. Those willows are a mess.[quote=“VDCdriver, post:37, topic:101618”]
Now, when one of those deciduous tree dies, I replace it with an evergreen!

Oops. I hate to tell you, but when those evergreens are all grown up they will make a big mess with needles, as mine do.

Evergreens drop their leaves also, just not all at once. Walk through a pine forest and you are walking on a mat of pine needles.
There are also some good reasons NOT to rake up the leaves and haul them off.