http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/...ap3203778.html

Even more restrictions on the way?

 

Well its good to see the Bush administration finally doing some things I voted for them for. (sorry grammar ****'s lol)

Now if they'll tighen down on foriegn trade a little and help us small business people out just a little more....

 

Between this and the mess in the middle east, It probably time we start looking to use something other than oil to power our vehicles.

 

Humm…

It’s been a long time since high school biology but if I recall correctly, carbon dioxide is emitted naturally by man, in fact, I think by just about every breathing organism takes in oxygen (and nitrogen and a few other needed compunds) and emits Carbon Dioxide. Plants, of course, need carbon dioxide to live. That said, I suspect the population of the states bringing suite emit far more carbon dioxide than their vehicles do!

Maybe what we need is for the EPA to regulate what people exhale? Or, maybe we need to move all the people from those states to other states or countries?

Unfortunately, we’ll just probably be stuck with a few tens of (or a lot more than a few tens of) billion of dollar$ more of regulations saddled onto our cars and our industry…regulations that our competitors don’t have to worry about. I guess it doesn’t really matter much…in another decade or two or three there won’t be any industry left in the US that has to worry about it as all the industry will have all moved to Mexico, China and India.

 

Laws in other countries are just as strict. USA is at the bottom of the list when it comes to regulating fuel economy of cars. Mexico, China and India still need to meet US emission regulations just like US companies. Every one has to play by the same rules so it doesn't really give Mexico, China and India plants an advantage over US/Canada

 

According to ProudPony's posts, that couldnt be more wrong about China.

 

Emission laws in most all Western countries in Europe, Asia, and here are very close to the same or more strict as you mention. Equaqor and some other Central & South American countries actually do run their cars on far cleaner fuels. But China has no real enviromental laws, though they have to meet the standards in what they export to countries they sell to.

 

CO2 is just the latest fad in greenhouse gas sensationalism. When I was in gradeschool, it was CFCs. Then carbon monoxide. Then NOx. Now its (laughably) CO2.

Do our actions and emissions of these compounds affect the environment? Of course.

Are there things we can do to improve our emissions, particularly in NOx, particulate emissions, and CO? Sure. Some, such as Catalytic converters (both on cars and in industrial applications) are so simple and dramatically effective that it'd be stupid NOT to.

Does our output REALLY matter in the grand scheme of things? And, more to the point, can the little we can do to change make any impact whatsoever, ESPECIALLY in regards to CO2 production? On this, Ive yet to be convinced.

EVERYTHING we do as humans produces CO2. From making electricty, to breathing. The enviro-loons have simply latched onto this one because you can actually quantify carbon emissions, and it gives their quasi-socialist buddies in the world's governments another way to further regulate their societies.

 

Correct and same goes for American companies exporting to or building in China. All manufacturers have to play by the same rules, so its not that big of a deal. If any thing it will stop or slow the import of Chinese brands since they will have to meet tougher American standards.

 

You are missing the point...yes, it's true that anybody who wants to sell a vehicle in the US has to meet US emission standards but the INDUSTRY in other countries (especially countries like China and Mexico and India (etc.) that produces those cars and thousands of other manufactured products we buy here don't have to meet the increased standards on INDUSTRY - that gives countries like China and Mexico and India a significant advantage over US based manufacturing (maybe not as much as their near slave labor but still a significant advantage nonetheless). That's one of the reasons the US is loosing its industrial base.

Just what do you base that assertion on?

I think you'll find that it's the market, not governments that drive fuel economy in most other couhtries...most other countries have $4 and $5 and $6/gallon gassoline prices and as a result, you'll find that usually only very wealthy people in those countries drive vehicles that don't get exceptional gas mileage. That aside, what does fuel exonomy standards have to do with regulating Carbon Dioxide emissions anyway?

 

Odd, I thought water vapor was the princple green house gas?

 

The main difference between U.S. and Euro regulations is the U.S. particulate and NOx standards don't allow diesels without some sort of urea catalyst. In Europe there are a lot of diesel cars, and they emit less CO2 in general than gasoline cars.

The court case is over whether EPA has authority to regulate CO2 emissions, and from what I can see, it revolves around whether CO2 is a pollutant. It previously hadn't been considered one (it's not poisonous, it doesn't cause cancer, etc.), but now many people do consider it a pollutant, since it's implicated in global warming.


No one mentioned here the poll results released in the last week where about 3/4 of all Americans want a 40mpg gas mileage standard. Such a standard would prove the Pontiac rumor of 4 and 6 cyl sport models a really good idea. Unfortunately, it would all but kill cheap V8 performance.

 

I thought it was methane.
CFCs are responsible for degrading the ozone layer, which blocks UV rays. If you don't want to get skin cancer then don't release CFCs. Hence we got rid of them. It was a good thing.

NOx and sulfate emissions cause acid rain, which damages LOTS of stuff including the paint on your precious car. Lowering NOx is relatively easy to a point and while doing so we can reduce carbon monoxide emissions and many other things. Win-Win.

CO2 emissions by cars are MUCH lower than in some industrys, power production by burning coal for example. But I don't think that CO2 emission is causing global warming but you should think about things in the long run vs what you don't understand.

 

Actually, a greenhouse gas is any gas with carbon, which excludes water vapor (which is just H2O unless I'm forgetting something basic), but includes methane and carbon dioxide.

The reason why fossil fuels are singled out are that in that case, you take carbon out of the ground and turn it into a gaseous form. In the case of people, cows, etc., the plants absorb the carbon, the animals emit it, then the plants absorb it, etc., in some sort of natural cycle.

So one solution to greenhouse gases is carbon sequestration. For example, take some methane gas and store it underground.

I'm just parrotting what I've read on the topic, not commenting on the validity of these theories or mechanisms.

 

Yeah right! I hope he can pull it out on this one too. The commies are gonna really try to stick it to US, and **** US but good.