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 U.S. government is not the same as the state of Kansas. The president doesn't have the authority to just decide a law passed by Congress and signed by a previous president no longer matters and refuse to enforce it. The president is bound by oath to uphold these laws.
What LAW is the President telling the EPA to not enforce? The EPA writes policy and regulations. That is what they were tasked to do, yet they STILL work under the umbrella of the Administrative branch of the United States government. That means they work for the President. As far as administrative branch goes, the federal government is exactly the same as a State where the Governor can set or establish any and ALL department or agency policy. Go take a basic government class.
I'll tell you what. I'm not going to say another word about this other than to say I agree to disagree.
Wow! 36 of 'em huh? Sadly none of them goes by my neighborhood, and even if they did, I cannot imagine taking a train to get to the grocery store which is 1/2 mile away from my house.
As I suggested, look into what the people did in those times.
I suspect that most people didn't go grocery shopping as a weekly convenience. Most likely they stocked up on essentials, in bulk. I suspect that most folks had gardens, canned surplus, preserved foods, pickled / fermented foods, and thus had no need for access to a General Store every week.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KS_Referee
I also imagine that your stats are very misleading because I would venture to guess more people used horses and maybe even buggies or carts attached to horses for their everyday travels back then.
Before automobiles, that is a given.
But in terms of actual miles traveled, before electric traction rail, horse drawn rail cars were prevalent in almost all cities. The electrification of those existing tracks was partly responsible for the rapid introduction to streetcars / trolleys in the 1890s.
The fact that rail has a 20:1 advantage over pneumatic wheel on pavement, in terms of rolling resistance, is one reason why rail was the most efficient form of land transport.
04. AMTRAK
From the middle 19th century until approximately 1920, nearly all intercity travelers in the United States moved by rail. The rails and the trains were owned and operated by private, for-profit organizations.
At the time [1921], 90 percent of all trips were by rail, chiefly electric rail; only one in 10 Americans owned an automobile. There were 1,200 separate electric street and interurban railways, a thriving and profitable industry with 44,000 miles of track, 300,000 employees, 15 billion annual passengers, and $1 billion in income. Virtually every city and town in America of more than 2,500 people had its own electric rail system.
That was a very interesting video jetgraphics. I still do not want to go back to street cars in small town USA where I cannot see a street car, light rail system competing with the car. Maybe in larger cities, especially where traffic congestion can warrant it, but not small town USA.
Did North Carolina do a good job by lawfully leaving it to the EPA? Why did it take so long?
They didn't leave anything to the EPA, they rely a great deal on local enforcement of regulations and guidelines. The governor of NC took very little action against Duke Power, if you want states to be in charge then expect more of the same.
I think about the utter ignorance that came from the EPA when it declared carbon dioxide, a naturally occurring gaseous compound required by all plants to live... similar to oxygen required by all animals including humans to live, calling it a dangerous greenhouse gas, and the idiots in the Supreme Court agreeing with them, then setting industry killing regulations based on this nonsense that carbon dioxide is somehow CAUSING catastrophic man made global warming... and I just want to scream WTF!!??
Totally agree but with one quibble. The SCOTUS actually suspended the carbon standards and we await their ruling on the merits. Trump hopefully will make it moot. The effort to dial down CO2 emissions is essentially an effort to transfer productive capacity overseas since CO2 is not a poison, butt does fluctuate in proportion to production. It is entirely a one-world focus, since the penalties would go to Third-World dictators, who we are supposed to trust will use the money for climate change adjustment.
Yeah right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KS_Referee
It is because of completely idiotic crap like that, along with idiotic crap like the EPA pushing for 50+ mpg CAFE Standards on industry, causing it to completely re-engineer its vehicle line, regardless of what the consumer wants, and again, I just want to scream, WTF!!?? Sure, I would LOVE to have a four door one ton dually that had the power of a 454 (or more) and got 600 mpg BUT that isn't realistic so I have to take what I can get which is a 4 door one ton dually that gets 10 mpg.
I give a damn how good their intentions are... someone please explain to me by what RIGHT do these scumbags at the EPA look at a manufacturer and tell them the average mpg all of the car and light truck vehicles they produce must be 50+ mpg or they are not allowed to sell their vehicles in the US? Who gave them that right? Where in the US Constitution, absent completely bastardizing the founding father's INTENT of the commerce clause, do these scumbags claim to have this authority?
Where in the US Constitution does the EPA claim to have the authority to fine cities and or States if people in those cities or States burn firewood as a heating fuel or not have some GOD awfully expensive ultra cleaning wood burning furnace?
I agree. Feel-good nonsense. Volkswagen and now Fiat Chrysler have lead the way on "compliance" with unrealistic targets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KS_Referee
Does carbon dioxide contribute to greenhouse warming? Absolutely it does.
I'm not so sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KS_Referee
Does water and water vapor, H2O, contribute to greenhouse warming? Not only yes, but YES on a scale that is infinitely higher than carbon dioxide. So why didn't the imbeciles blame water or water vapor on greenhouse gas temperature when it clearly affects that temperature far greater than carbon dioxide? The reason is they know we wouldn't stand for it.
The reason is that the CO2 tie penalizes output directly, which is their objective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KS_Referee
They know we would recognize the idiocy of it. Yet because their GOAL is to ban the US's means of inexpensive energy and transportation, calling our use of energy "unfair", AND in order to effectively "redistribute" the wealth of this unfair nation to other nations while at the same time punishing the citizens of the US for having this supposed unfair advantage even though there has been NOTHING preventing other countries from building the very same energy sources, using the very same fuel resources we use in the US.
Youre' understating the case. The idea is not to redistribute to nations but to Third World leaders. Watch their Swiss bank accounts swell.
I would think this would make everyone scared, regardless of party. So what's next, who will he target to silence. This is not what our country is about. And this is in violation our first amendment. Why don't you care about that.
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.
