Jump to content

Trump to bar California from setting vehicle emissions rules, say sources


Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

The one interesting thing about this (as brought up by my Father in Law who teaches earth science at a high school and College level) is that we might have done damage already to the environment 20-30 years ago that we don't know about that irreversible, so we might be in a situation that even if we do this, we aren't going to "change" it. 

 

George Carlin on The Environment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjmtSkl53h4

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take the view that yes, there is indeed global warming and that it's real and here right now but,

to thoroughly demonize vehicles at the expense of all other CO2 sources is morally bankrupt.

 

I know why they do it, it's to get the population involved at the grass roots like they're actually doing

something meaningful. Shutting off Coal fired power plants and going full Nuclear, solar and wind

for the next fifty years would give the planet a massive break

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/19/2019 at 4:09 PM, msm859 said:

Furthermore, California would have an easy answer if they lost in the courts.  Add a gas guzzler/carbon tax on any cars/manufactures that do not comply with California requirements.  Make the formula such that the companies that have agreed with California i.e Ford would not pay.

 

California assemblyman Phil Ting's answer is even better. https://www.autoblog.com/2019/09/19/trump-california-waiver-vehicle-emissions-environment/

 

"California residents who buy or lease a zero-emission vehicle can get up to $7,000 from the state.

A bill by Democratic Assemblyman Phil Ting would mean people could only get that money if they buy a car from a company that has agreed to follow California’s emission standards."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jpd80 said:

And yet the world's vehicles account for about 10% of all man made CO2

so if we electrified every vehicle tomorrow and stopped burning gasoline

and diesel, it only drops CO2 levels by a tiny fraction.

Then I guess we need to do more then just drive electric cars.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Trader 10 said:

 

 

“97% of climate scientists” cranking out report after report funded by the green movement.  

Seriously?  I forgot NASA has always been known as part. of the "green movement".  What exactly would it take for you to "believe" that the majority fo scientist believe in anthropogenic  climate change.  And unfortunately this is not a feeling or belief issue - it is science.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, msm859 said:

Then I guess we need to do more then just drive electric cars.

I think they're a waste of money when there are much bigger problems to cure first.

 

Eliminate CO2 from all electrical power generation and storage first, then use that

as your source for clean and green energy , otherwise you're lying on your back

and pissing all over yourself.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, jpd80 said:

I think they're a waste of money when there are much bigger problems to cure first.

 

Eliminate CO2 from all electrical power generation and storage first, then use that

as your source for clean and green energy , otherwise you're lying on your back

and pissing all over yourself.

 

 

Can't we do both at the same time.  Solar has dropped down in price such that in any sunny place it has become a now brainer - economically - even if you don't believe in climate change.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, msm859 said:

Seriously?  I forgot NASA has always been known as part. of the "green movement".  What exactly would it take for you to "believe" that the majority fo scientist believe in anthropogenic  climate change.  And unfortunately this is not a feeling or belief issue - it is science.

 

Keep sharing scientific and economic info relevant to Ford and the automotive industry on these forums, as you already have msm859 sir. A lot of readers and members appreciate it. 

 

Don't worry about people who refuse to comprehend that info. Or accuse you of having an "agenda". You've done your part.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, msm859 said:

No, there really isn’t.  The 97% figure comes from an article by John Cook.  Do some research on John Cook’s article.  Several authors of the articles Cook reviewed said that he misrepresented the claims in those articles.  Many of the articles he reviewed legitimately claim that man has played a large role in global warming, but the real number isn’t 97%. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CurtisH said:

No, there really isn’t.  The 97% figure comes from an article by John Cook.  Do some research on John Cook’s article.  Several authors of the articles Cook reviewed said that he misrepresented the claims in those articles.  Many of the articles he reviewed legitimately claim that man has played a large role in global warming, but the real number isn’t 97%. 

Let's say you are right - it is not 97%.  At what number would you be concerned? 90 -80 -70 - 60 -50 .....?   If 100 meteorologist were in a room and 97 of them told you (and 3 said it was okay) do not take your child outside because there is going to be a lightning strike that will probably hit your child and kill them, would you take your child out? How about if it was only 80 out of 100?  50 out of 100?  1 out of 100?  The consequences of being wrong - on the do nothing side - is catastrophic.  The consequences of being wrong - on the do too much side - is probably still overall positive to mankind and planet earth.

Arguing the "97%" is a distraction.  ANYONE who does not believe that the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community believes anthropogenic climate change is a serious threat to planet earth, is not paying attention or in denial.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, msm859 said:

Can't we do both at the same time.  Solar has dropped down in price such that in any sunny place it has become a now brainer - economically - even if you don't believe in climate change.

Sure we can do both but the priority should be reducing CO2 from energy production.

 

There's no point in switching everyone to electric cars if that in turn causes an increase

of CO2 emissions  from more coal fired plants to cover the increasing power deficit.

 

^^^^^^^^and that's the exact problem China faces,  it's racing headlong into BEVs to

fight climate change but planning a massive expansion of coal fired power plants.

 

effective replacement of base load power stations is what's required, so those green 

alternatives have to be improved by using next gen liquid metal batteries that will leave

today's lithium Ion batteries for dead on cost and efficiency. It sounds crazy but "waiting"

with BEVs and using hybrid cars and trucks that use less fuel is actually the best solution

while we get the power industry on the right track. It also gives the Automotive industry more

time to select better battery technology for bigger long term gains.

 

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Sure we can do both but the priority should be reducing CO2 from energy production.

 

There's no point in switching everyone to electric cars if that in turn causes an increase

of CO2 emissions  from more coal fired plants to cover the increasing power deficit.

 

^^^^^^^^and that's the exact problem China faces,  it's racing headlong into BEVs to

fight climate change but planning a massive expansion of coal fired power plants.

 

effective replacement of base load power stations is what's required, so those green 

alternatives have to be improved by using next gen liquid metal batteries that will leave

today's lithium Ion batteries for dead on cost and efficiency. It sounds crazy but "waiting"

with BEVs and using hybrid cars and trucks that use less fuel is actually the best solution

while we get the power industry on the right track. It also gives the Automotive industry more

time to select better battery technology for bigger long term gains.

 

 

Well I generally agree with you.  I now  have 11 kW solar system on my roof.  Last year my electric bill was zero so I added an upstairs laundry room with an electric dryer, a heat pump water heater (and more solar panels to bring it up to what I have).  I will be putting in an induction cooktop to replace a gas stove.  California has very little electricity derived form coal.  By 2025 is will be zero - including imported.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of the over reach by the epa is well beyond cars, etc....a contentious problem is how they define navitagble waterways...in some cases they have passed judgement a ditch in a farmers field is a navitagble waterway even though its dry 4-6 months out of the year...nothing but a private property land grab

Edited by snooter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, msm859 said:

 

Well I generally agree with you.  I now  have 11 kW solar system on my roof.  Last year my electric bill was zero so I added an upstairs laundry room with an electric dryer, a heat pump water heater (and more solar panels to bring it up to what I have).  I will be putting in an induction cooktop to replace a gas stove.  California has very little electricity derived form coal.  By 2025 is will be zero - including imported.

Good job, that's the first step towards a lower carbon footprint. The only problem I see with a Solar baseload strategy

is the massive load put on gas turbines to cover peak load situations. Still, it's probably the only course open until

battery storage technology improves and more green power is captured during the day.

 

The answer though is going to be different for each state.....

 

Edited by jpd80
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/21/2019 at 10:52 PM, msm859 said:

 

Well I generally agree with you.  I now  have 11 kW solar system on my roof.  Last year my electric bill was zero so I added an upstairs laundry room with an electric dryer, a heat pump water heater (and more solar panels to bring it up to what I have).  I will be putting in an induction cooktop to replace a gas stove.  California has very little electricity derived form coal.  By 2025 is will be zero - including imported.

 

But thats the problem-what works in California doesn't translate well for the rest of the country-as I've pointed out several times. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

But thats the problem-what works in California doesn't translate well for the rest of the country-as I've pointed out several times. 

Well solar should work for at least half the country and wind all of the country.  What should not work for any part of the country - or the planet-  is coal.  We should be offering extensive benefits to coal miners to retrain them into other jobs.  There are in fact a lot of "green" jobs.  Instead we have states like Wyoming that are passing laws to make it harder to stop using coal even when natural gas is cheaper. http://ieefa.org/wyoming-governor-signs-bill-to-prop-up-states-coal-plants/. Talk about being nearsighted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In ND, we have a good chunk of wind energy, and that number keeps climbing.  It has risen such that we've already shut down one coal plant I can recall.  And another just across the river will be shut down in 2 years as they bring another natural gas one on line.

We used to have a fair amount of coal in ND.  But it got cheaper to rail in coal from Montana.  So some of those coal mines are shut down.  So our ND coal jobs are going away.

Throw on top of that, we have a lot of wind potential.  On windy days, they could shut down some plants as wind is providing an excess of energy.  But a lot of ND energy is shipped to Minnesota anyway.

The final variable is ND Bakken oil field.  They are producing an abundance of NG up there.  The wells are flairing still.  Not because they are lazy.  We're still behind in building new raw gas lines to pipe it to the processing plants.  And those plants are constantly expanding.  Once we get caught up with that, I see new NG power plants being built near those processing plants and the coal plants in the state going away.  It'll be a lot cheaper than coal.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, msm859 said:

Well solar should work for at least half the country and wind all of the country.  What should not work for any part of the country - or the planet-  is coal.  We should be offering extensive benefits to coal miners to retrain them into other jobs.  There are in fact a lot of "green" jobs.  Instead we have states like Wyoming that are passing laws to make it harder to stop using coal even when natural gas is cheaper. http://ieefa.org/wyoming-governor-signs-bill-to-prop-up-states-coal-plants/. Talk about being nearsighted.

 

Completely missing the point-yes Cali generates alot of alternative power for electric, but other parts of the country aren't at that point yet and getting rid of natural gas is a non-starter for areas of the country that experience a "real" winter and need a real heating/AC unit and not a heat pump. Banning NG isn't going to happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Completely missing the point-yes Cali generates alot of alternative power for electric, but other parts of the country aren't at that point yet and getting rid of natural gas is a non-starter for areas of the country that experience a "real" winter and need a real heating/AC unit and not a heat pump. Banning NG isn't going to happen. 

I said nothing about getting rid of natural gas.  I said we need to get rid of coal - today.  And it makes no sense anywhere to use coal when natural gas is cheaper and cleaner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The land and sea are actually taking up more CO2 than originally thought with only about half of the CO2 remaining in the air. Now if scientists were incorrect about that major detail, then it's possible that other modelling is also inaccurate or at least, worst possible case. 

 

https://climatenewsnetwork.net/earth-wins-time-as-land-and-seas-absorb-more-carbon/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, akirby said:

And then there was the global climate change theory (accepted by most scientists for decades) that was completely disproved by hard data........

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190923111247.htm

Are you serious?  That is your defense of climate change?  Another article on that page. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181210150614.htm

Everyone should be concerned.  And anyone who is not should ask themselves the question; What if I am wrong?  What are the consequences?  I - and everyone else can live if I am wrong. Can you say the same?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...