Comments on: The Silly EPA Decision http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/04/03/the-silly-epa-decision/ Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:37:44 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: jpm100 http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/04/03/the-silly-epa-decision/#comment-3032 jpm100 Thu, 05 Apr 2007 00:26:13 +0000 http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/04/03/the-silly-epa-decision/#comment-3032 This is just another version of a Fuel Economy Standard. If you burn x amount of gas, you get y amount of CO2. If anything you get a little less C02 if you produce particulates and other more complex Carbons. But the EPA has regulated those down to nothing. So I don't see the point other than hoping much of the public can be made believe that C02 is a byproduct separate from Fuel Economy. The public wants big cars. Therefore there isn't the strong public desire to have stricter Fuel Economy standards. However by calling it C02, they can get more support. The public will all be on mopeds and wonder why. This is just another version of a Fuel Economy Standard. If you burn x amount of gas, you get y amount of CO2. If anything you get a little less C02 if you produce particulates and other more complex Carbons. But the EPA has regulated those down to nothing.

So I don’t see the point other than hoping much of the public can be made believe that C02 is a byproduct separate from Fuel Economy.

The public wants big cars. Therefore there isn’t the strong public desire to have stricter Fuel Economy standards. However by calling it C02, they can get more support. The public will all be on mopeds and wonder why.

]]> By: Zac http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/04/03/the-silly-epa-decision/#comment-3031 Zac Wed, 04 Apr 2007 13:38:20 +0000 http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/04/03/the-silly-epa-decision/#comment-3031 Curt, I'm not so sure I see the big deal about this ruling. Even if you disagree with global warming it doesn't mean we should neglect the environment. Of course there are different levels of CO2 now compared to the old days. There are so many more factors now that just weren't there back then like a) six billion + people b) cars for a good portion of those people c) refineries and power plants in most countries to take care of all those people. Thats just to many factors that weren't a problem back then. No I'm not reccomending that people start holding their breath for long periods of time to start saving the planet. I think humans can live here just fine, but I do think to completly neglect the problem of C02 emissions just because its related to global warming is a bit reckless. Look at breathing problems at areas around Houston (I live in the Houston area which has a ton of refineries and you can see the smog around downtown). Look at the holes in ozone over areas that have few environmental regulations. Do I think that the world is going to get so hot so quick the sky will start falling? No. Do I think people will regret the problems we might have down the road from not paying attention to what we were doing to the environment. Yes. So I guess in closing I agree with the ruling. Though I don't see where there are any huge regulations, they are just making them have to monitor CO2 until they can prove it doesn't have an adverse effect on the environment. I don't think that is such a bad idea, even if it does come from abunch of lawyers. Curt, I’m not so sure I see the big deal about this ruling. Even if you disagree with global warming it doesn’t mean we should neglect the environment. Of course there are different levels of CO2 now compared to the old days. There are so many more factors now that just weren’t there back then like a) six billion + people b) cars for a good portion of those people c) refineries and power plants in most countries to take care of all those people. Thats just to many factors that weren’t a problem back then. No I’m not reccomending that people start holding their breath for long periods of time to start saving the planet. I think humans can live here just fine, but I do think to completly neglect the problem of C02 emissions just because its related to global warming is a bit reckless. Look at breathing problems at areas around Houston (I live in the Houston area which has a ton of refineries and you can see the smog around downtown). Look at the holes in ozone over areas that have few environmental regulations. Do I think that the world is going to get so hot so quick the sky will start falling? No. Do I think people will regret the problems we might have down the road from not paying attention to what we were doing to the environment. Yes. So I guess in closing I agree with the ruling. Though I don’t see where there are any huge regulations, they are just making them have to monitor CO2 until they can prove it doesn’t have an adverse effect on the environment. I don’t think that is such a bad idea, even if it does come from abunch of lawyers.

]]>