Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I believe a major restructure of the EPA is due, and here's why.
In the automotive end of things, we get denied the 70mpg european diesels because the EPA measures pollutants in so many parts PER GALLON. This should really make you mad! Why?
Because a 8mpg hummer with a power robbing smog pump and 4 catalyst converters will pass, while it emit's a legal (lets say for simplicity) 10 parts "badstuff" for every GALLON of gas it uses while only going 8 miles. The real number becomes 1.25 parts per mile. That european diesel or lean burn gasoline engine may emit 14-18 parts "badstuff" for every gallon of fuel used, but will travel 50-70 miles on that gallon...netting emissions of only 0.36 parts per mile. That's a 72% reduction in emissions, and a 60% reduction in fuel cost to the consumer compared to the avg 20 mpg most people see now.
So it comes down to emissions really needing to be measured on a per mile basis, not per gallon. But who's best interest is this against?
Poorly sync'd traffic lights, and strangling emissions on newer vehicles are definately a couple more of my sore spots.....
All the time I have for this rant...
I believe a major restructure of the EPA is due, and here's why.
In the automotive end of things, we get denied the 70mpg european diesels because the EPA measures pollutants in so many parts PER GALLON. This should really make you mad! Why?
Because a 8mpg hummer with a power robbing smog pump and 4 catalyst converters will pass, while it emit's a legal (lets say for simplicity) 10 parts "badstuff" for every GALLON of gas it uses while only going 8 miles. The real number becomes 1.25 parts per mile. That european diesel or lean burn gasoline engine may emit 14-18 parts "badstuff" for every gallon of fuel used, but will travel 50-70 miles on that gallon...netting emissions of only 0.36 parts per mile. That's a 72% reduction in emissions, and a 60% reduction in fuel cost to the consumer compared to the avg 20 mpg most people see now.
So it comes down to emissions really needing to be measured on a per mile basis, not per gallon. But who's best interest is this against?
Poorly sync'd traffic lights, and strangling emissions on newer vehicles are definately a couple more of my sore spots.....
All the time I have for this rant...
Or what is wrong with making clean cars instead of the fighting, blaming, and ranting?
Does that not take care of the entire problem from the source?
Or what is wrong with making clean cars instead of the fighting, blaming, and ranting?
Does that not take care of the entire problem from the source?
It's just a start, of course. But would definately make a difference.
If they would put in place the recharging/refueling structure to allow more diversification along with some more efficent use of the fuels we have, we could get off of foreign energy completely.
It's just a start, of course. But would definately make a difference.
If they would put in place the recharging/refueling structure to allow more diversification along with some more efficent use of the fuels we have, we could get off of foreign energy completely.
Agreed. But looking at the things going on, that is clearly not intent, is it?
Back when California wanted to clean up their air from the dirty autos, the EPA came and required California to accept and tolerate the lower EPA standards for dirty cars.
Do Americans want clean air and water?
Sometimes, I think not.
In two years (if everything works out) I plan to retire in Europe. So, my view is: Go ahead America! Tear up everything for resources, dump waste wherever you want, dirty up the lakes, rivers, and streams. Profits trump everything!
My only hope is that all the pollution stays within in America, so enjoy yourselves! My only sympathies are for the wildlife that have the misfortune to be on the same continent with the anti-environmental nuts.
Please move - when you get there and find out it's not the environmental paradise you imagine it to be, don't come back whining!!!
Then again most CD posters can't get past second-grade level thinking. Hmmm...you don't care for the EPA = you hate the environment.
Or is the EPA (and "treehuggers") preventing the US from becoming a cancer & birth defect laden toxic, fetid sewer like China? How many jobs is that worth?
Oh, who cares about fish, who cares about polar bears, who cares about birds, who cares about frogs, who cares about bees, who cares about bats, who cares about trees, who cares about rivers, who cares about rain forests, it's JOBS JOBS JOBS!
Oh, sorry, just had a flashback to my F#x "News" watching days.
So..........................I'm watching the Republican debate in New Hampshire and the question comes up about creating jobs in America. I noticed one the responses to this question was to dismantle the EPA. I believe one of the candidates specifically said it was a "job killer."
Now obviously because of time restriction at the debate the Candidates didn't have enough time to get into the specifics of why it needed to be dismantled.
sooooooooo..........Let me ask you guys since we have the time here to answer with more specificity.
Why is the EPA a "job killer?"
Does the EPA need to be dismantled (perhaps reconfigured) to help the U.S. economy?
Would America as a whole truly be better off without the EPA? (I understand this last question is more in the politcal/social realm......but...I think business health does has to be weighed against other concerns.)
I believe at national level it does get in the way of interfering with businesses. Each state should decide how they want to take care of themselves regarding environment. At national level it has become a huge monster with a huge bureaucracy which another tax expense.
That is why the Constitution enumerated what the federal government is suppose to be responsible for and the rest is left to the states. Why? To avoid what we now have with so many federal programs and departments controlling to much of our lives and the states say so on what their people want. The EPA has instituted so many laws that hamper business which affects jobs also, take care.
Agreed. But looking at the things going on, that is clearly not intent, is it?
Back when California wanted to clean up their air from the dirty autos, the EPA came and required California to accept and tolerate the lower EPA standards for dirty cars.
Gubermint of, by, and for the Corporations.
Agreed. And the only thing you can do is roll your car into the garage, close the door, and start making the changes to save yourself.
I said restructure, because yes, some EPA is very necessary so we don't have flaming rivers and sewage puddles everywhere, but the corruption in this agency almost negates there existance regarding my rant about the automotive issues.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We used to have rivers catch on fire before the EPA 
