Comments on: CARB, EPA, and the law: clarifying the history and the future http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/2007/12/24/carb-epa-and-the-law-clarifying-the-history-and-the-future/ Chrysler, car, and other discussions by Allpar contributors Thu, 08 Jan 2009 00:22:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: Ken http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/2007/12/24/carb-epa-and-the-law-clarifying-the-history-and-the-future/comment-page-1/#comment-70542 Ken Fri, 11 Jan 2008 05:39:42 +0000 http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/2007/12/24/carb-epa-and-the-law-clarifying-the-history-and-the-future/#comment-70542 And now, back to the subject matter of the original post... One important fact ties the hands of the EPA. The same law that gave California the ability to set its own emissions standards, also specifically excluded them from setting fuel economy standards. Since the desired combustion products of burning gasoline are carbon dioxide and water vapor, setting limits on carbon dioxide also sets limits on gas milage. Also, setting such overall limits is different than any other pollutant. Generally, there are maximum safe levels of exposure allowed for pollutants before they impact health through toxicity or other direct health impacts. The EPA (or Cal EPA) takes steps to achieve them. In the case of carbon dioxide, this level has not been reached for people, plants, or animals. This does not extend to climate. Because it is different, and (intentionally) has the result of setting fuel economy standards, the EPA would not have much choice in denying the permit. However, the proper course of action is to have Congress amend the law, striking the prohibition on California to set fuel economy standards. And now, back to the Heretical Climate Deniers vs. the Anthropomorphic Warming True Believers... brought to you by www.climateaudit.org :-) And now, back to the subject matter of the original post…

One important fact ties the hands of the EPA. The same law that gave California the ability to set its own emissions standards, also specifically excluded them from setting fuel economy standards. Since the desired combustion products of burning gasoline are carbon dioxide and water vapor, setting limits on carbon dioxide also sets limits on gas milage.

Also, setting such overall limits is different than any other pollutant. Generally, there are maximum safe levels of exposure allowed for pollutants before they impact health through toxicity or other direct health impacts. The EPA (or Cal EPA) takes steps to achieve them. In the case of carbon dioxide, this level has not been reached for people, plants, or animals. This does not extend to climate.

Because it is different, and (intentionally) has the result of setting fuel economy standards, the EPA would not have much choice in denying the permit. However, the proper course of action is to have Congress amend the law, striking the prohibition on California to set fuel economy standards.

And now, back to the Heretical Climate Deniers vs. the Anthropomorphic Warming True Believers… brought to you by http://www.climateaudit.org :-)

]]> By: curtis redgap http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/2007/12/24/carb-epa-and-the-law-clarifying-the-history-and-the-future/comment-page-1/#comment-70531 curtis redgap Fri, 11 Jan 2008 03:25:23 +0000 http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/2007/12/24/carb-epa-and-the-law-clarifying-the-history-and-the-future/#comment-70531 Hugo Chavez...... MY FRIEND? What the hell is that about? Now that is a lot more than hypocritical on your part. I certainly didn't insult you in that manner! Please recall that I have been advocating going to renewable energy sources, on this forum, and elsewhere before it was even popular or even mentioned! And while I am at it, don't patronize me about research. You know good and well what I can accomplish. Research, applied to science, legalities, or history is still RESEARCH! Hugo Chavez, CITGO, and all instruments tied to Chavez should have been cut off long ago. How is it that this country just steps on it's own foot all the time? Please stop quoting the Liberal Democrat Kool Aid about MobilExxon, the paid political hacks, and nefarious others who claim Global Warming is a fact. There are real credible, well established, legitimate, INDEPENDENT scientists who vehemently disagree! Then there is that theory that population cuts are needed, but exactly how do you accomplish that? Even China which doggedly enforces the one child rule is still growing it's population, pushing into other areas of the earth, and sucking up oil sources as fast as it can get it's hands on it. Right now, some 80 miles off Florida's coast, thanks to the exploration of Texaco, where a HUGE oil deposit (bigger than ANWAR) was discovered this past summer, CHINA is side drilling to tap into to it. Due to the intractability of Florida's legislators, the US is doing NOTHING to curb the efforts OR make the oil available to the original discoverers of it. Yes, the ice caps are melting. They are also shrinking on the planet Mars. How much affect does man kind have on the situation here? Little. It is a phase of the Sun, and this old Earth has endured this sort of cycle many, many times. It just never rose to the level of being a political football. Which is the fact that I rail against because uninformed legislators will lead millions of uninformed citizens down a prime rose path colored "GREEN", calling it environmentally friendly stuff, while pouring billions of tax dollars into huge holes that do nothing to enhance anything except line someone's pockets with the real "GREEN" that we all labor to acquire. Hugo Chavez…… MY FRIEND? What the hell is that about? Now that is a lot more than hypocritical on your part. I certainly didn’t insult you in that manner! Please recall that I have been advocating going to renewable energy sources, on this forum, and elsewhere before it was even popular or even mentioned! And while I am at it, don’t patronize me about research. You know good and well what I can accomplish. Research, applied to science, legalities, or history is still RESEARCH! Hugo Chavez, CITGO, and all instruments tied to Chavez should have been cut off long ago. How is it that this country just steps on it’s own foot all the time? Please stop quoting the Liberal Democrat Kool Aid about MobilExxon, the paid political hacks, and nefarious others who claim Global Warming is a fact. There are real credible, well established, legitimate, INDEPENDENT scientists who vehemently disagree! Then there is that theory that population cuts are needed, but exactly how do you accomplish that? Even China which doggedly enforces the one child rule is still growing it’s population, pushing into other areas of the earth, and sucking up oil sources as fast as it can get it’s hands on it. Right now, some 80 miles off Florida’s coast, thanks to the exploration of Texaco, where a HUGE oil deposit (bigger than ANWAR) was discovered this past summer, CHINA is side drilling to tap into to it. Due to the intractability of Florida’s legislators, the US is doing NOTHING to curb the efforts OR make the oil available to the original discoverers of it. Yes, the ice caps are melting. They are also shrinking on the planet Mars. How much affect does man kind have on the situation here? Little. It is a phase of the Sun, and this old Earth has endured this sort of cycle many, many times. It just never rose to the level of being a political football. Which is the fact that I rail against because uninformed legislators will lead millions of uninformed citizens down a prime rose path colored “GREEN”, calling it environmentally friendly stuff, while pouring billions of tax dollars into huge holes that do nothing to enhance anything except line someone’s pockets with the real “GREEN” that we all labor to acquire.

]]> By: Dave http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/2007/12/24/carb-epa-and-the-law-clarifying-the-history-and-the-future/comment-page-1/#comment-70505 Dave Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:32:09 +0000 http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/2007/12/24/carb-epa-and-the-law-clarifying-the-history-and-the-future/#comment-70505 Al Gore is a publicist, not a scientist, as far as I know. Scientific research is very different from legal research, I suspect. It's not a matter of who said what; you can look at the evidence for yourself, you can see the theories, and the researchers are required to say what's missing. At this point the only people in the scientific world who deny the human contribution to global warming are a few hacks with no credibility or defensible research, and a lot of hacks paid for by ExxonMobil - through at least 40 different groups designed to hide ExxonMobil's involvement. As for the National Weather Bureau, I have no reason to believe any government agency's reports in the last few years, since cases of the government stifling independent scientists have been clear, well known, and far too widespread - more so than under any prior administration, by at least one order of magnitude. This sort of thing didn't happen under Nixon or Bush Sr. We can disagree on this, but I've read enough of the ORIGINAL research articles - and all those purporting to provide real evidence that humans are not contributing to global warming - to be convinced. Now, we can get into whether autos or widespread cattle farming or clearcutting the forests of the world or electricity generation are the big causes, but if we're arguing warming or not, there's no point. Neither of us will convince each other or, probably, anyone else. I'm also not going to return ad hominem arguments against anyone in particular. I don't think the character of the messenger is more than a distraction. Oh, and by the way, there IS a theory that we're in for global cooling rather than warming, but it's not a very happy one. That theory says that global warming will continue to melt the ice-caps (quite well documented if you were wondering), and that as more land is flooded, the reflections of the increased water coverage will deflect enough sunlight to bring about an ice age after we've warmed up the Earth enough to eliminate the polar ice caps. At this point it's just a theory and I have no allegiance to it, nor have I investigated it much. Either way, the solution is the same - if we reduce greenhouse gases dramatically, the ice age won't be triggered either. Whether we're looking at cooling or heating, we need to cut our population by a billion or more people for everyone to live comfortably in the future. That would also cut global warming more than goofy CAFE measures or even real Adam Smith approaches like stiff carbon taxes. I also can point out that cutting fuel usage hurts those terrorists and terrorist supporters out in the Middle East, and for that matter, doesn't do your friend Hugo Chavez any good. I'd have thought that would be reason enough to take action, but people don't seem to have much of a sense of civic duty these days. As for me... well, I work from home which helps, but I gotta admit there are times when I do feel like a hypocrite with my PT sucking down fuel at the rate of 24 mpg or so... Al Gore is a publicist, not a scientist, as far as I know.

Scientific research is very different from legal research, I suspect. It’s not a matter of who said what; you can look at the evidence for yourself, you can see the theories, and the researchers are required to say what’s missing. At this point the only people in the scientific world who deny the human contribution to global warming are a few hacks with no credibility or defensible research, and a lot of hacks paid for by ExxonMobil - through at least 40 different groups designed to hide ExxonMobil’s involvement.

As for the National Weather Bureau, I have no reason to believe any government agency’s reports in the last few years, since cases of the government stifling independent scientists have been clear, well known, and far too widespread - more so than under any prior administration, by at least one order of magnitude. This sort of thing didn’t happen under Nixon or Bush Sr.

We can disagree on this, but I’ve read enough of the ORIGINAL research articles - and all those purporting to provide real evidence that humans are not contributing to global warming - to be convinced. Now, we can get into whether autos or widespread cattle farming or clearcutting the forests of the world or electricity generation are the big causes, but if we’re arguing warming or not, there’s no point. Neither of us will convince each other or, probably, anyone else. I’m also not going to return ad hominem arguments against anyone in particular. I don’t think the character of the messenger is more than a distraction.

Oh, and by the way, there IS a theory that we’re in for global cooling rather than warming, but it’s not a very happy one. That theory says that global warming will continue to melt the ice-caps (quite well documented if you were wondering), and that as more land is flooded, the reflections of the increased water coverage will deflect enough sunlight to bring about an ice age after we’ve warmed up the Earth enough to eliminate the polar ice caps. At this point it’s just a theory and I have no allegiance to it, nor have I investigated it much. Either way, the solution is the same - if we reduce greenhouse gases dramatically, the ice age won’t be triggered either.

Whether we’re looking at cooling or heating, we need to cut our population by a billion or more people for everyone to live comfortably in the future. That would also cut global warming more than goofy CAFE measures or even real Adam Smith approaches like stiff carbon taxes.

I also can point out that cutting fuel usage hurts those terrorists and terrorist supporters out in the Middle East, and for that matter, doesn’t do your friend Hugo Chavez any good. I’d have thought that would be reason enough to take action, but people don’t seem to have much of a sense of civic duty these days.

As for me… well, I work from home which helps, but I gotta admit there are times when I do feel like a hypocrite with my PT sucking down fuel at the rate of 24 mpg or so…

]]> By: curtis redgap http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/2007/12/24/carb-epa-and-the-law-clarifying-the-history-and-the-future/comment-page-1/#comment-70503 curtis redgap Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:17:32 +0000 http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/2007/12/24/carb-epa-and-the-law-clarifying-the-history-and-the-future/#comment-70503 As a certified Paralegal, I too am well trained in research. I unhesitatingly utilize those skills daily! I was not particularly directing my comments at you, David. I am cognizant of your skills, along with your computer related information sources. Be that as it may, I am flabbergasted that an intelligent, well informed individual that has truly done unbiased research, would buy into the Al Gore premise that the Earth is disintegrating under a ball of man made heat sources. It simply does not wash or hold truth. Nature is FAR more powerful than anything that mankind can do or even aspire to believe he can do. After having experienced 4 hurricanes in a row, I can tell you that whatever man does is so minuscule that it is literally non-existent! It is despicable that the politicians have grabbed onto this issue and are garnering it into a political landscape filled with huge black holes that they intend to fill with taxpayer money. Like all black holes, they have no bottoms, and will divert precious funds into programs that will not, can not, and never will accomplish anything except to make someone or some company disdainfully rich at tax payer expense!! What evidence has been accumulated that what is going on is a cycle in the myriads of cycles that this planet, and OTHER planets have gone through. There are plenty, and a lot of it is garnered with the US Government (I know - exercises in futility, as it were) in the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency. Most flatly contradicts the Al Gore premise, which is largely based on SURMISES issues or trends but, not science. Yes, a lot of things SEEM to indicate there is a warming trend but the National Weather Bureau, (despite their faulty placement of monitoring equipment) states that the trend has actually been towards cooling, with no increases in the Earth's mean temperature in the past 10 years. As a certified Paralegal, I too am well trained in research. I unhesitatingly utilize those skills daily! I was not particularly directing my comments at you, David. I am cognizant of your skills, along with your computer related information sources. Be that as it may, I am flabbergasted that an intelligent, well informed individual that has truly done unbiased research, would buy into the Al Gore premise that the Earth is disintegrating under a ball of man made heat sources. It simply does not wash or hold truth. Nature is FAR more powerful than anything that mankind can do or even aspire to believe he can do. After having experienced 4 hurricanes in a row, I can tell you that whatever man does is so minuscule that it is literally non-existent! It is despicable that the politicians have grabbed onto this issue and are garnering it into a political landscape filled with huge black holes that they intend to fill with taxpayer money. Like all black holes, they have no bottoms, and will divert precious funds into programs that will not, can not, and never will accomplish anything except to make someone or some company disdainfully rich at tax payer expense!! What evidence has been accumulated that what is going on is a cycle in the myriads of cycles that this planet, and OTHER planets have gone through. There are plenty, and a lot of it is garnered with the US Government (I know - exercises in futility, as it were) in the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency. Most flatly contradicts the Al Gore premise, which is largely based on SURMISES issues or trends but, not science. Yes, a lot of things SEEM to indicate there is a warming trend but the National Weather Bureau, (despite their faulty placement of monitoring equipment) states that the trend has actually been towards cooling, with no increases in the Earth’s mean temperature in the past 10 years.

]]>