Really? Need to keep up with the news.
The Biden Administration decided to put a stop to this insanity.
Yes, yes. I’m aware of your political affiliation and Joe Biden has done wondrous things for us. But I thought we were done with the off topic stuff?
I think the political affiliations are a factor in car emissions, so not off topic,
1 Like
You’re the one who said you didn’t know anyone who was in favor of turning emissions back. All I did was showed you (and everyone else) you were WRONG…again. It has nothing to do with politics…it has everything to do with FACTS. Keep up.
2 Likes
The “rolled back emissions standards” did not revert back to older standards. The action was to postpone the planned future tightening of emissions standards.
“Roll back” seems to be a popular catch phrase, fake news anyone?
This is what changed during the former administration;
“The rule calls for fuel economy and emission standards to increase by 1.5% annually, rather than the approximately 5% increases in the 2012 rule. According to the rule, the standards will increase to 40.4 miles per gallon by vehicle model year 2026, about 6 miles per gallon fewer than the 2012 rule.”
1 Like
Regardless, it’s the wrong direction to be going. We need to be shooting for fewer emissions. We really need to be shooting for zero emissions, which is possible today, through a combination of regulation and government incentives. The EV subsidy is a good start, but it shouldn’t be tied to how many cars a company has sold. We want more people to buy EVs, not just more rich people to buy EVs. With Tesla, tying the subsidy to cars sold by the company meant that rich people who could afford a $100,000 Model S got a tax break, while people with more modest means lost out when the Model 3 came out. That’s dumb. Those rich people were going to buy that Tesla anyway because it was fashionable, and they wanted it, and they didn’t need a few thousand back in order to afford it.
Subsidies should not be aimed at rewarding behavior that was going to happen anyway. They should be aimed at getting people to do something they couldn’t/wouldn’t otherwise do.
1 Like
Agree there a LOT more poor people than rich people.
Gee, talk about straining a gnat and swallowing a camel. Insanity is worrying about the EPA and a couple degrees change in temperature but turning over the major lithium supply for batteries to the Chinese. Or giving people that hate America $80 billion of high tech military equipment including missiles, tanks, helicopters (of which the Chinese are already reverse-engineering) supplies and so on. As FDR said though “all we have to fear is fear itself” or as Freddo said “I’m smart, I’m not dumb like everyone says”. I think probably rural Minnesota is not a big target but not so for NY, NJ, and LA. Sleep well tonight. As they say “hold my beer”. Electric cars for everyone.
And the usual suspect write page after page after page. More coming I’m sure. That’s what books are for.
Over and out.
As I scrolled through all the posts added since my last visit, I wanted to reply to a number of them.
Big Bang vs the Bible. God created the universe in 6 days, or what could be interpreted as 6 days, to go from nothing to a whole universe in that short of a time, wouldn’t that look like a really really really big bang?
According to one of the Nova programs on PBS, the did not have ice caps for 75% of its existence. At one time though, the earth was covered in ice all the way to the equator, we were the third ice cube from the sun then.
I see climate change and global warming as two different things. The globe is NOT warming, in fact it is cooling and has been steadily cooling for the last 4.5 billion years. The climate, that thin layer of atmosphere that surrounds the globe is changing. Part of that change is natural, but the acceleration of that change can be tied to the things we do, particularly the burning of fossil fuels. The evidence is overwhelming.
But, also according to another Nova program on PBS, there have been dramatic temperature changes in the climate that are even greater than todays changes. IIRC, the global atmospheric temperature rose 10 degrees C in only 50 years, the reason is not yet known.
The big question, are we going to be the agent of our own extinction?
2 Likes
HuH…Another conspiracy theory from Fox.
1 Like
No facts as you like to see. You seem to know a lot more about Fox than I do so maybe you can inform us.
Bull…You’re the one who quotes the talking heads on Fox. All Fox viewers have the same lines and quote the same talking points.
Was I wrong? Again? Trump changed the emissions standards back to like they were north of Syracuse in the 60’s, with literally huge clouds of smoke emanating from the cars/trucks in the city? I missed it. I guess Fox didn’t cover it. Dang.
People weren’t alive then either. In fact, there was no life for most of that time.
That’s probably when the asteroid landed near the Yucatán and almost all life was ended. Certainly it destroyed the dinosaurs. The great ice age was because the sun was obscured by dust. People weren’t alive then, btw.
We have a narrow band of temperature that we can live in, and it isn’t just us. We have to eat. Edible plants and animals, including fish, are dying due to increases in temperature, even though the average temperature isn’t increasing very fast. The changes aren’t that simple.
On the topic of aircraft emissions, from epa.gov;
Trump EPA Finalizes First Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Aircraft, Codifies Record of Reducing the Most GHGs in U.S. History
By the record, Trump’s EPA launches surprise attack on Biden’s climate rules, don’t imply the previous administration was doing anything good for GHG
The rule, finished just a week before the president-elect takes office, would block future limits on greenhouse gases from industrial sources aside from power plants. Trump’s EPA launches surprise attack on Biden’s climate rules - POLITICO
Car related Trump Administration Weakens Auto Emissions Standards
We can beat that to death, improving todays standards by only 1.5 % each year will kill people, really? Emission output on todays vehicles is next to zero compared to the twenty year old trucks driving around. If your old Trailblazer didn’t have a dent in the rear you would still be driving it.
The reason for reducing the EPA requirements was to make new cars affordable to the lower class so that more new cars could be sold therefore reducing emission output. What we have today is manufactures abandoning the (no profit) compact car market.
It’s more related to reducing climate change than improving breathing air.
You sure are fixated on Fox News. It’s kinda weird.
Actually, I had no idea you were talking about loosening CAFE requirements. You were talking about the 60’s and black smoke, etc. Then you said there were people “who don’t think that’s a problem and wanted to reverse emissions standards”. Increasing fuel efficiency of automakers by a lesser amount than previously mandated is still an increase and not a reversal, so CAFE never came to my mind. Hence, I started talking about cat converters, my neighbor, etc, in an apparently failed attempt to agree with you that I see no reason that emissions standards should be reduced from their current level and try to bring it back to cars somewhat. Hey, I can’t even agree with you when I try. What can I say? I don’t care to debate you “face to face” (on the internet). Do you think I’d change your mind on anything or vice versa? I don’t either.
1 Like