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.
The appointment of Scott Pruitt by Trump for EPA chief is a disaster for clean air, clean water, and progress on climate change. Pruitt has made no secret of his disdain for the EPA and has worked for years with the fossil fuel industry to champion their agendas.
I really don't get it in many regards. The EPA was created by a Republican (Nixon) and has done really good things for this country. Without it we would likely have the pollution problems that China has. An unpolluted environment is not a political item - everybody needs clean air and water.
The appointment of Scott Pruitt by Trump for EPA chief is a disaster for clean air, clean water, and progress on climate change. Pruitt has made no secret of his disdain for the EPA and has worked for years with the fossil fuel industry to champion their agendas.
I really don't get it in many regards. The EPA was created by a Republican (Nixon) and has done really good things for this country. Without it we would likely have the pollution problems that China has. An unpolluted environment is not a political item - everybody needs clean air and water.
It's only a disaster if you consider CO2 a pollutant. As every breath you take exhales CO2, do you believe human breathing should be regulated (say not doing anything that could cause us to breathe more than absolutely necessary)?
It's only a disaster if you consider CO2 a pollutant. As every breath you take exhales CO2, do you believe human breathing should be regulated (say not doing anything that could cause us to breathe more than absolutely necessary)?
I strongly believe Trump hired him is to pursue elimination of the agence.
And here are 8 reasons why the EPA has rendered themselves useless:
#1 That companies who blend gas use a fuel that doesn’t exist.
#2 That carbon dioxide is a pollutant and therefore everything it touches needs to be regulated.
#3 That ambulances buy new diesel engines that would shut the engine down if it wasn’t allowed to “regenerate”, even if it was on the way to the hospital.
#4 That 15% of fuel can be ethanol, ultimately ruining engines.
#5 That the coal industry comply with several burdensome regulations, resulting in loss of jobs and higher electricity prices
#6 That ozone rules be tightened so much so that even pristine locations like Yellowstone National Park would not be in compliance.
#7 That new emission and fuel standards (aka Tier 3) be met by automobiles, hiking gas prices.
#8 That 2025 model year cars and light-duty trucks have an average fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg), making new cars under $15K virtually extinct.
I strongly believe Trump hired him is to pursue elimination of the agence.
And here are 8 reasons why the EPA has rendered themselves useless:
That's pretty much everyone he as nominated. They're literally the last people you want guarding a government agent.
Quote:
#1 That companies who blend gas use a fuel that doesn’t exist.
What are you talking about?
Quote:
#2 That carbon dioxide is a pollutant and therefore everything it touches needs to be regulated.
Carbon dioxide needs to be regulated due to its adverse affects on the planet. Not sure where you get everything it touches?
Quote:
#3 That ambulances buy new diesel engines that would shut the engine down if it wasn’t allowed to “regenerate”, even if it was on the way to the hospital.
What are you talking about?
Quote:
#4 That 15% of fuel can be ethanol, ultimately ruining engines.
#5 That the coal industry comply with several burdensome regulations, resulting in loss of jobs and higher electricity prices
Coal is dying out because of basic economics, especially with the large rise in natural gas that happened under Obama
Quote:
#6 That ozone rules be tightened so much so that even pristine locations like Yellowstone National Park would not be in compliance.
Source please?
Quote:
#7 That new emission and fuel standards (aka Tier 3) be met by automobiles, hiking gas prices.
How is requiring cars to use less fuel and emit less pollution hike gas prices? Actually, with less demand, gas prices should fall until they start cutting production.
Quote:
#8 That 2025 model year cars and light-duty trucks have an average fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg), making new cars under $15K virtually extinct.
I can get a basic economy car for $13-15,000. Also, you ever see the new muscle cars that crank over 700hp off the show room floor? Ever sit and wonder why? The regulations have pushed a new wave of innovation to crank as much horsepower per cubic inch\centimeter. Right now they don't need to meet that standard so they're taking this new technology and putting it in larger engines so they can crank more power. That's why a 2006 Mustang with a 5.0 V8 cranked 300HP and in a decade a 2016 Mustang with a 5.0 cranks over 400HP. Prior to that, the 1986 Ford Mustang with a 5.0 was the first to crank over 200HP with since they used EFI to meet regulations. So basically it took 20 years from 1986 to 2006 to add an additional 100hp. Now in the last decade\half the time, they added an additional 100hp. I think the regulation has spurred way more innovation than anything.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,243,006 times
Reputation: 57825
Quote:
Originally Posted by impulsivetravelerguy
I can get a basic economy car for $13-15,000. Also, you ever see the new muscle cars that crank over 700hp off the show room floor? Ever sit and wonder why? The regulations have pushed a new wave of innovation to crank as much horsepower per cubic inch\centimeter. Right now they don't need to meet that standard so they're taking this new technology and putting it in larger engines so they can crank more power. That's why a 2006 Mustang with a 5.0 V8 cranked 300HP and in a decade a 2016 Mustang with a 5.0 cranks over 400HP. Prior to that, the 1986 Ford Mustang with a 5.0 was the first to crank over 200HP with since they used EFI to meet regulations. So basically it took 20 years from 1986 to 2006 to add an additional 100hp. Now in the last decade\half the time, they added an additional 100hp. I think the regulation has spurred way more innovation than anything.
Actually, the innovation is in more power from smaller engines. The modern muscle cars are running over 300 hp from a V6. Even the Hellcat with 707 HP is from a 6.2 liter V8, that's just 378 Cubic Inch displacement. Back in the day the most powerful muscle care engines were 396, 425, 440, 426 or 454 CI and had less power. My wife's car is 1.6L 4 cylinder and with the "ecoboost" turbo has 178HP, that's more than a 70s small block V8. The stock Chevrolet 350 V8 in 1972, for example, was only 165 HP. One of the most effective innovations for better mileage is variable displacement, deactivating cylinders when not needed while cruising or coasting.
-He also met with Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio individually.
-He wants to know which scientists have worked on climate change.
-He had an extended meeting with Elon Musk and then added him to his advisory council. Tesla's not even that big of a company compared to other tech giants...
So what is going on here?
Well, if you listen to a lot of Democrats and liberal/green media like Grist you'd think that Donald Trump is going to war with scientists and is intending to personally dump oil and coal all over American rivers and endangered animals.
But I think something totally different is happening.
I think Donald Trump got some rather chilling intel.. It's no secret that national security agencies including our military consider climate change a geopolitical threat multiplier... I'm assuming that the most trustworthy of national security and scientific advisors gave Trump information that has truly alerted him. I simply cannot fathom another reason why he would make time (ahead of actually entering the Oval Office and on a subject he has historically all too quickly disregarded) to listen to BOTH Gore or DiCaprio one week, then the following week ask for a list of climate change researchers and then to ask Musk to join his advisory team this week...
To me, it's very obvious what's happening:
The S is hitting the F.
So what's the deal with the Exxon and a denier in the cabinet?
I have a theory for that as well...
First of all, I do think the intelligence is pretty big. The threat must be pretty substantial and possibly threatening enough to freak out large, reactive segments of our population. If you look at what scientists have been warning about some of the most dire predictions include mass extinction. Do you guys remember Deep Impact? The government didn't tell anyone about the coming astroid at first...
Please don't think of me as being totally alarmist here... I'm really just trying to explain why the President-elect made time to talk to an actor about his passionate views on climate change...
Anyway.. play along for a moment more...
Let's assume that the intel is bad... maybe it is as bad as a mass extinction or maybe it's simply the lives of billions of people being disrupted by climate change.. enough where countries are finding themselves without resources like water, or land or the weather has become insufferable. Maybe the oceans are devoid of fish... so many things have been predicted take your pick...
If Trump came out and announced he believes in climate change and we need to act on it then he's going to have a revolt. Deniers are not deniers because they don't have fact, they deny because they just don't believe. They are ideologically biased. I assure you there is no person walking the Earth that can convince denier that they are wrong.
Well, maybe there is
The Exxon guy...
Big Oil probably already knows what's coming. It's even begun to say so itself. Exxon has admitted that fossil fuels have contributed to climate change. It's not just in the research that's been uncovered, but they recently have stated so at a meeting. And then there's this:
[url=http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position]Our position | ExxonMobil[/url]
Who better to dismantle the oil industry than Big Oil himself?
Yes, I'm serious. While the media is freaking out about corruption and oil deals with Russia and whatnot.. I think it's *possible* that they are so very, very wrong.
And little itty bitty Elon Musk joining the advisory team after those meetings with Gore and DiCaprio is why I think this is totally possible.
What would I do? I would start taking a hard look at my investment portfolio and if I don't have Tesla stocks, I would add them...
And the waiver programs isn't even a drop in the bucket compared to the subsidies these companies get whic are in the billions.
Quote:
#2 That carbon dioxide is a pollutant and therefore everything it touches needs to be regulated.
Don't think it's a pollutant? Go buy a canister of CO2 and see how long you can breath it for.
And since when does "everything it touches" = the atmosphere ? Hyperbole much?
Quote:
#3 That ambulances buy new diesel engines that would shut the engine down if it wasn’t allowed to “regenerate”, even if it was on the way to the hospital.
#4 That 15% of fuel can be ethanol, ultimately ruining engines.
Right let's just go back to leaded fuel. It was the best.
Quote:
#5 That the coal industry comply with several burdensome regulations, resulting in loss of jobs and higher electricity prices
Ya damn those regulations costing jobs. Ones that require safety and protect lives!
Quote:
#6 That ozone rules be tightened so much so that even pristine locations like Yellowstone National Park would not be in compliance.
The actual policy has a low threshold but that is based not on a single day, as the Yellowstone comment implies, but based on a three year average of the daily average of 8 hours.
#7 That new emission and fuel standards (aka Tier 3) be met by automobiles, hiking gas prices.
#8 That 2025 model year cars and light-duty trucks have an average fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg), making new cars under $15K virtually extinct.
I am bored with fact checking this nonsense. Maybe try posting sources instead of sound bites that are disproven with a simple google search. Faux news anyone?
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.
Obama
