The EPA's ambitious new plan to cut auto emissions

[f.f.jones]

The Environmental Protection Agency in April announced new strict emissions limits that the agency says are vital to slowing climate change as people around the globe endure record-high temperatures, raging wildfires and intense storms.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-epa-s-ambitious-plan-to-cut-auto-emissions-to-slow-climate-change-runs-into-skepticism/ar-AA1eRHMP?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=18c8819ffbd6405eb347488d185cbc54&ei=23#image=2

[rocketraider]

When all these modern-life-hating pedagogues reduce climate change by shutting up, thereby reducing their personal CO2 emissions, and also begin living in efficient smaller homes and stop flying to their conferences and paid speaking engagements, I might be able to take them seriously.

 

I personally don't want to return to pre-industrial times. Life was difficult then. It was bad enough growing up poor in the South in the 1960s and 1970s. I have no regrets or guilt about my career at a big coal-burning powerplant. It kept modern life running.

[auburnseeker]

Doesn't it seem like a much more achievable goal to adapt to a changing climate,  as it seems the experts can't even agree on how much it's changing and when it's happening and what will really make it stand still or will it really be bad if things warm up on the planet like they did many times before. 

 

I think the 0 goal is unachievable if they want to be honest with themselves without creating complete chaos in the world which will then end in warring everywhere.  Think of how green riots are? 

 

You want to save the environment figure out how to keep all the warring people around the world from blowing crap up and burning it to the ground.  That would have a greater impact. That thick rolling black smoke looks a whole lot worse to me than the emissions from my cars.

 

They had a climate scientist on a show I was watching and he quoted statistics that said even if we do everything they want,  the effect is like 1-2% at most which is easily offset by a major event like a forest fire or a volcano .  That's if everything is ideal and does not take into any effect the negative impact or carbon footprint of what they are using to replace existing things.   

 

 

[30DodgePanel]

I do like the fact the AP posted a hell raising screamer before the mild coma EV, it's only right.

 

If you ain't first your last!  

 

In all seriousness though, the subliminal message they try to expand on is never ending with these stories.

It's as if the editors are all in bed with the EV community and have meetings "First we show cars that destroy the earth then we must show an EV that saves the earth (both claims are false by the way, we all know the climate has been warming progressively faster since the last ice age *prior to any man made vehicle*). 

 

[billorn]

[auburnseeker]

Maybe not scared,  maybe skeptical of half truths and omitted information to get the desired answers.   

 

Now honestly answer all those questions above sourcing answers from both sides of the aisle and see where the pieces fall. 

 

Stripping a forest to put up a solar farm or wind mill farm that will both be dead and need major repairs of non recycle able parts in 25 years seems far from green,  since that is the end goal and that's before you figure the carbon foot print of any of these projects before they produce a single amp of energy.

 

I still want answers to the battery issues in regards to the storage of renewable energy in off hours and what the life and carbon foot print is to build the energy Storage capable of replacing the current system.  Is this even possible, best case scenario and how much of the earth's Lithium will be needed for jsut that endeavor, before we mandate everything else be replaced by electric items and tax the grid much more heavily. 

 

I can only imagine the real energy need of the Northeast if required to abandon all fossil fuels and rely solely on electric.   What is the energy that will require?   Plus what storage will be needed when there is a blizzard in the northeast and panels are down and so are turbines because of too strong of wind.   How much battery storage will that require to run everything for say 2 days at 0 degrees or less.  Figuring all snow removal equipoment will have to be recharged during this period. 

 

The climate scientist I watched who was completely on board with the climate changing theory and ways to stop it,  said that at current rate they could keep the lights on for like 18 minutes,  if they went totally renewable.  I believe he even stated that at the rate we are at it was still not going to be achievable in the next 10-15 years.  He had other honest ways that seemed to be better fixes for humanity that the pipe dream they are chasing.  He also threw out the number of $$ spent to get us this far and it was astounding.  Trillions upon trillions of dollars for very little effect.   

 

It would be nice for all these people to sit down and have an honest discussion about it.  

 

The more forest you clear for these projects the higher the CO2 and also greater amounts of flooding as those solar panels don't absorb water during a rain storm.  

 

I would lay money on the fact that alot of flooding issues,  especially localized are the results of more and more paved areas and less farm and forest land.  I doubt any of that is factored into the equation though. 

 

Oh by the way.  49 here and not a boomer,  just someone who can see through the pile of steam they are pedaling.  If you have to silence the opposition maybe you just don't want to be shown what might be the truth.  We won't know until we can have that discussion out in the open. 

 

Look deep into this topic from all sides and get back to us.  Things might just surprise you if you look at it all with an open mind.  

 

When the people pushing it all have the largest carbon footprint of any of us,  it makes you scratch your head.  Shouldn't they lead by example?   Seems all meetings among these people should be virtual if their goal really is to reduce emissions.  Or maybe it's rules for the but not for me?  

 

I'm still trying to figure it all out.

[noacronym]

SOME  "leaders" isist and compel the rest of us go down a road we already know is a dead end.

[Bloo]

Oh look, it's this thread again.

 

[Buick35]

Why doesn't anyone make a windup car?

[rocketraider]

[Buick35]

Seriously,only on a larger scale with gear reduction for torque to the rear wheels.

[JFranklin]

Global warming? 

 

 

[leomara]

This "green" climate change baloney has been being spread like manure for years and the people who preach it and keep passing more and more ridiculous prohibitions banning this and that keep getting elected.  The majority of voters must believe in this BS.  

[ted sweet]

wont be anything allowed after 2028 in nys for a new heating system except 100 percent electric

[rocketraider]

2 hours ago, leomara said:

This "green" climate change baloney has been being spread like manure for years and the people who preach it and keep passing more and more ridiculous prohibitions banning this and that keep getting elected.  The majority of voters must believe in this BS.  

Not so much the majority of voters, but of the voting public that actually bothers to vote.

 

Too many people don't vote, and the people that do are laser-focused on getting their particular wants legislated into existence.

 

Hm. Added electrical load on an already strained grid, in an area prone to rough winter ( and summer) storms that cause... ELECTRICAL OUTAGES!😃

 

Never underestimate the power of stupid or misguided people in large groups.🙂

[Leif in Calif]

On 9/9/2023 at 1:40 PM, Buick35 said:

Why doesn't anyone make a windup car?

Actually, I remember reading an article in the mid 60's about busses in Switzerland that were powered by a flywheel that was charged at each stop! 

[NewOldWood]

Does anybody remember the day when laws in this country were debated in Congress and then voted on?  Today the EPA, among way too many others, write up a "rule/regulation", post it for a short period of time for "comment", after which it is added to the federal register and carries the weight of law, complete with an enforcement mechanism and penalties for non compliance. We are not being represented, we are being ruled over.

[JFranklin]

The old mantra was " No taxation without representation" Didn't we stage a revolution because of just this attitude of governing forces?

[ply33]

4 hours ago, NewOldWood said:

Does anybody remember the day when laws in this country were debated in Congress and then voted on?  Today the EPA, among way too many others, write up a "rule/regulation", post it for a short period of time for "comment", after which it is added to the federal register and carries the weight of law, complete with an enforcement mechanism and penalties for non compliance. We are not being represented, we are being ruled over.

Your representatives in the house and senate have delegated a lot of the detail work to the executive branch because they didn't want to do it themselves. They can undelegate it any time they want. So in a sense, you still have representation on those rules and regulations but your representatives are not doing the job you want.

 

25 minutes ago, JFranklin said:

The old mantra was " No taxation without representation" Didn't we stage a revolution because of just this attitude of governing forces?

Last I checked you have a vote on everything from school board up through the national level. Just because we as an electorate have fallen down on the job of actually researching the candidates and then holding them to their promises doesn't mean you don't have representation. It actually means we probably have the representation we deserve because we are so easily swayed by news sources that thrive on creating outrage rather than dull and mind numbing in depth facts. We don't actually do the work of researching what our representatives actually do and vote on rather than what they promise on the campaign trail.