New EPA regs coming phaseout gas engines

[CVN 80]

Notice how the government speaks of "emissions" and not "pollution?"

Because pollution hasn't actually been a problem for decades. The purpose of these regulations has always been the same: to get the Common Man out of his private vehicle and onto the bus. The do-gooders in the government initially thought the auto industry wouldn't be able to overcome the hurdle of the first generation of pollution controls, but the engineers proved them wrong. The engineers succeeded in reducing pollution to a rounding error.

Snidely Whiplash-style, the regulators shouted "Curses, foiled again!" and shook their fists at Detroit, vowing revenge like the cut-rate screen villains they are. They stopped talking about "pollution" because there was none left, and so began the business of "emissions."

Which is like toothpaste. You can measure a toothpaste that cleans your teeth. But a toothpaste that gets your teeth white? How do you define "white?" You can't, and there's no end to how "white" teeth can be.

Just like there's no end to the "emissions" your car can emit. See the current hand-wringing about particles of rubber that wear off your tires in normal use that these nuts want to consider "emissions."

Sponsored

 

[CVN 80]

Exactly, depending on who wins, we either gotta worry or we dont, simple as that

Didn't Mark Twain say that if voting worked, they wouldn't let us do it?

 

[PSI]

Notice how the government speaks of "emissions" and not "pollution?"

Because pollution hasn't actually been a problem for decades. The purpose of these regulations has always been the same: to get the Common Man out of his private vehicle and onto the bus. The do-gooders in the government initially thought the auto industry wouldn't be able to overcome the hurdle of the first generation of pollution controls, but the engineers proved them wrong. The engineers succeeded in reducing pollution to a rounding error.

Snidely Whiplash-style, the regulators shouted "Curses, foiled again!" and shook their fists at Detroit, vowing revenge like the cut-rate screen villains they are. They stopped talking about "pollution" because there was none left, and so began the business of "emissions."

Which is like toothpaste. You can measure a toothpaste that cleans your teeth. But a toothpaste that gets your teeth white? How do you define "white?" You can't, and there's no end to how "white" teeth can be.

Just like there's no end to the "emissions" your car can emit. See the current hand-wringing about particles of rubber that wear off your tires in normal use that these nuts want to consider "emissions."

The harmless gas you exhale that plants thrive off of is now an “emission”. Flatulence is an emission too, methane being a greenhouse gas and all. Bean control regulations incoming

 

[CVN 80]

The harmless gas you exhale that plants thrive off of is now an “emission”. Flatulence is an emission too, methane being a greenhouse gas and all. Bean control regulations incoming

Carbon is the basis of biological life on Earth, and of any biology we can reasonably hypothesize. For people to say they're against "carbon emissions" is to say they're against life itself.

Which just proves the silliness of their crusade against "carbon emissions."

 

[Gregs24]

Notice how the government speaks of "emissions" and not "pollution?"

Because pollution hasn't actually been a problem for decades. The purpose of these regulations has always been the same: to get the Common Man out of his private vehicle and onto the bus. The do-gooders in the government initially thought the auto industry wouldn't be able to overcome the hurdle of the first generation of pollution controls, but the engineers proved them wrong. The engineers succeeded in reducing pollution to a rounding error.

Snidely Whiplash-style, the regulators shouted "Curses, foiled again!" and shook their fists at Detroit, vowing revenge like the cut-rate screen villains they are. They stopped talking about "pollution" because there was none left, and so began the business of "emissions."

Which is like toothpaste. You can measure a toothpaste that cleans your teeth. But a toothpaste that gets your teeth white? How do you define "white?" You can't, and there's no end to how "white" teeth can be.

Just like there's no end to the "emissions" your car can emit. See the current hand-wringing about particles of rubber that wear off your tires in normal use that these nuts want to consider "emissions."

Not sure where you get that idea. Pollution is and has been a problem, it still is. Less so in some cases, such as no lead in fuel now, no asbestos in brake compounds and no coal burning in cities which have reduced pollution, but at the same time other things have got worse such as tyre rubber, micro plastics, PM2.5 etc.

Car makers have made huge strides in reducing emissions, but without regulation it would never have happened. We would still be driving cars with carburettors and points rather than fuel injection and electronic ignition.

Definition (tyre particles clearly are included here):

Emissions of gases or particles that have a negative impact on health and the environment are considered pollutants.
Air pollution can come from both natural and human-caused sources. For instance, many air pollutants can occur from natural sources such as permafrost melting, volcanic ash, mold, pollen, or livestock.

 

[Gregs24]

The harmless gas you exhale that plants thrive off of is now an “emission”. Flatulence is an emission too, methane being a greenhouse gas and all. Bean control regulations incoming

So harmless it can kill you!

SOME plants can demonstrate increased growth rates at higher levels of CO2 but crucially some can't, such as maize, which is one of the world's largest food crops. Increased CO2 also traps more heat in the atmosphere (energy) which changes weather patterns meaning greater or less rainfall and shifting of areas suitable for food crop production. Trouble is, food crops are grown in very small parts of the globe and shifting things even a few 100 miles north or south can drastically change the available land.

Methane emissions from fossil fuel extraction are such a big problem there is even a satellite up there specifically looking for this as Methane is 80x stronger as a greenhouse gas than CO2 MethaneSAT | Solving a crucial climate challenge

 

[CVN 80]

Not sure where you get that idea. Pollution is and has been a problem, it still is. Less so in some cases, such as no lead in fuel now, no asbestos in brake compounds and no coal burning in cities which have reduced pollution, but at the same time other things have got worse such as tyre rubber, micro plastics, PM2.5 etc.

Car makers have made huge strides in reducing emissions, but without regulation it would never have happened. We would still be driving cars with carburettors and points rather than fuel injection and electronic ignition.

Definition (tyre particles clearly are included here):

Emissions of gases or particles that have a negative impact on health and the environment are considered pollutants.
Air pollution can come from both natural and human-caused sources. For instance, many air pollutants can occur from natural sources such as permafrost melting, volcanic ash, mold, pollen, or livestock.

As a practical matter, automotive pollution no longer exists. We solved that problem back before we ran out of 20th Century. We're deep into the era of Chasing Fractions now, and when you cross the threshold into making sub-whole-number improvements, you've solved the actual problem and are just wasting your time, money & energy.

The concern of reducing pollution has to be balanced against the problems of cost, engineering feasibility, real-world practicality, the desirability of the product, manufacturability, etc.

 

[Gregs24]

Carbon is the basis of biological life on Earth, and of any biology we can reasonably hypothesize. For people to say they're against "carbon emissions" is to say they're against life itself.

Which just proves the silliness of their crusade against "carbon emissions."

There are a huge range of carbon compounds and just because life needs Carbon doesn't mean CO2 and Methane emissions are not a bad thing!

Cyanide contains Carbon - I wouldn't suggest you try it!

 

[Gregs24]

As a practical matter, automotive pollution no longer exists. We solved that problem back before we ran out of 20th Century. We're deep into the era of Chasing Fractions now, and when you cross the threshold into making sub-whole-number improvements, you've solved the actual problem and are just wasting your time, money & energy.

The concern of reducing pollution has to be balanced against the problems of cost, engineering feasibility, real-world practicality, the desirability of the product, manufacturability, etc.

Not according to the courts in the UK

Ella Kissi-Debrah death: Mum continues clean air fight 10 years on - BBC News

In the US the deaths from road pollution continue to fall - that doesn't suggest the problem no longer exists, but is becoming less of a problem, which is a good thing.

Decreased vehicle emissions linked with significant drop in deaths attributable to air pollution | News | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

In fact the study shows much bigger improvements in health as a result of the changes rather than any climate effects which is not surprising as vehicle pollution has an impact at a local level more directly.

Recent reductions in vehicle emissions have yielded major health benefits, even though only small progress has been made on reducing their climate impact

 

[CVN 80]

Not according to the courts in the UK

Ella Kissi-Debrah death: Mum continues clean air fight 10 years on - BBC News

In the US the deaths from road pollution continue to fall - that doesn't suggest the problem no longer exists, but is becoming less of a problem, which is a good thing.

Decreased vehicle emissions linked with significant drop in deaths attributable to air pollution | News | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

In fact the study shows much bigger improvements in health as a result of the changes rather than any climate effects which is not surprising as vehicle pollution has an impact at a local level more directly.

Recent reductions in vehicle emissions have yielded major health benefits, even though only small progress has been made on reducing their climate impact

What, the same courts that prosecute Englishmen for armed self-defense and "offending" Muslims? I don't put a lot of faith in the contaminated thinking going on in the UK's legal system.

 

[Gregs24]

What, the same courts that prosecute Englishmen for armed self-defense and "offending" Muslims? I don't put a lot of faith in the contaminated thinking going on in the UK's legal system.

If you can't get beyond childish politics the conversation is pointless. Not sure what guns and Muslims have got to do with air pollution?

You obviously chose to ignore the other links / information demonstrating how reducing pollution (even recently) is still having beneficial effects in the US?

 

[PSI]

So harmless it can kill you!

SOME plants can demonstrate increased growth rates at higher levels of CO2 but crucially some can't, such as maize, which is one of the world's largest food crops. Increased CO2 also traps more heat in the atmosphere (energy) which changes weather patterns meaning greater or less rainfall and shifting of areas suitable for food crop production. Trouble is, food crops are grown in very small parts of the globe and shifting things even a few 100 miles north or south can drastically change the available land.

Methane emissions from fossil fuel extraction are such a big problem there is even a satellite up there specifically looking for this as Methane is 80x stronger as a greenhouse gas than CO2 MethaneSAT | Solving a crucial climate challenge

So harmful it can only kill you in extreme quantities. Water can kill you too, and so can oxygen.

If CO2 is such an issue, why do the people who want to use it as a control mechanism still fly in jets to meet up in Switzerland, when they could instead have a big Zoom meeting to discuss their very important agenda without harming the climate? Why do these same people buy oceanfront property that is supposed to be underwater in a few years? I always hear “could cause”, and “might”, and “in 10-12 years”, and now that CO2 is bad for Maize, yet maize is still growing and people are still eating. Assuming maize production did crap out (it won’t), farmers would plant other crops instead. New York isn’t underwater. I’m 40, I remember being in elementary school in the early 90s and being told how global warming was terrible and was going to drown our coasts in a couple decades. I lived on the coast then, and still go back to visit regularly. The ocean is in the same spot. Maybe I shouldn’t believe my lying eyes.
“Climate” has become an entire industry, with billions of dollars coming from government contracts handed out by politicians and bureaucrats with investments in climate related businesses.
So there’s a satellite looking for methane, is it really because methane is a big problem, or because someone made a hell of a lot of money selling a methane seeking satellite?

Its kind of funny to see people on a Mustang forum promoting the climate stuff. It’s kind of like prohibitionists hanging out at the bar and having a drink talking about their favorite beers.

 

[MAGS1]

Its kind of funny to see people on a Mustang forum promoting the climate stuff

Why is that? You can promote both. I would be 100% on board with a clean burning alternative fuel/fuel cell for ICE cars. So you would still get to enjoy a V8 and be promoting clean, climate friendly alternatives.

I don’t believe we are 100% responsible for climate change, the earth has natural heating/cooling cycles. Are we adding to a possible current heating cycle? I think there’s enough evidence there to say yes. How much? I have no idea but it’s not zero.

 

[PSI]

Why is that? You can promote both. I would be 100% on board with a clean burning alternative fuel/fuel cell for ICE cars. So you would still get to enjoy a V8 and be promoting clean, climate friendly alternatives.

I don’t believe we are 100% responsible for climate change, the earth has natural heating/cooling cycles. Are we adding to a possible current heating cycle? I think there’s enough evidence there to say yes. How much? I have no idea but it’s not zero.

I have no problem with an optional market created alternative fuel source for ICE either, and support it being developed. I even welcome continued development of EVs FOR THOSE THAT WANT THEM.
You have no idea how much global warming is actually caused by humans as you readily admit, and neither do I, and honestly, neither do our much revered science priests. This is the problem. Chicken Little sky-is-falling alarmism has proven to be wrong for decades, and yet that same alarmism is being used to enrich certain people at the expense of taxpayers, and is also being used as a control mechanism by power hungry elites.
Do cars pollute? Yes. All human activity affects the environment in some way. Lithium production certainly does, as do windmills killing birds, solar panels polluting the environment once their useful life is over, hydroelectric dams killing fish, wood burning stoves make smoke, etc.

 

[MAGS1]

I have no problem with an optional market created alternative fuel source for ICE either, and support it being developed. I even welcome continued development of EVs FOR THOSE THAT WANT THEM.
You have no idea how much global warming is actually caused by humans as you readily admit, and neither do I, and honestly, neither do our much revered science priests. This is the problem. Chicken Little sky-is-falling alarmism has proven to be wrong for decades, and yet that same alarmism is being used to enrich certain people at the expense of taxpayers, and is also being used as a control mechanism by power hungry elites.
Do cars pollute? Yes. All human activity affects the environment in some way. Lithium production certainly does, as do windmills killing birds, solar panels polluting the environment once their useful life is over, hydroelectric dams killing fish, wood burning stoves make smoke, etc.

I agree with you there. I don’t think there’s really any way to know how much we contribute to warming. Climate records only go back about 150 years. Yeah, there’s other methods that scientists use to try to figure out what climates were like thousands and millions of years ago, but those methods change as they learn more things, so it’s an imperfect science IMO.

And I with you on EV. I’m not against them if someone wants one. Just don’t force it on everyone, especially under the premise of climate since we all know how lithium is mined. Not to mention the current infrastructure can barely handle what’s currently out there much less where the govt wants EV adoption to go.

Sponsored