Not to My PeopleJan 3rd, 2008 - 09:59:10

No government entity needs to be sued here, although California or any other State in the Union should have the sole right to protect their residents and their environment with a standard that 'exceeds' any one mandated by Federal Law.

What kind of belligerent agency is uprooting our welfare?

Report this comment

NoharnessJan 3rd, 2008 - 12:53:51

Why should everyone else in the US be required to pay for a vehicle built to California specifications? There are 49 other states besides California. California is NOT the only state nor is it even the preeminent state in the United States so why should the State of California be allowed to dictate to the rest of us? This issue effects a great many people OUTSIDE the State of California.

Report this comment

tonny from belhiumJan 3rd, 2008 - 12:59:22

Because,Noharness,your conception of the universe is obsolete,it does not account for solutions for global warming at all.By the way it is not Californai,it is 16 states against the EPA .What am I saying ,against the EPA ?Scrap that,it is only against the Bush appointed CEO of the EPA.THe EPA scientific staff and legal advisers already made sufficiently clear that they are not even involved in this matter,their opinion was never asked,but I guess you already know that,right?JUst trying to confuse the debate,are you?

Report this comment

NoharnessJan 3rd, 2008 - 13:32:57

RE:'Because,Noharness,your conception of the universe is obsolete,it does not account for solutions for global warming at all.'

Tonny, there is more involved here than you know about, but thanks for the excuse to air my views. First and foremost, carbon dioxide has nothing to do with global warming. Second, we are not here talking about the entire universe, but the United States and the way its political system works, which is not exactly the same thing as dealing with global warming. We have two separate issues with which we must contend.

RE:'By the way it is not Californai,it is 16 states against the EPA.'

Yes, this is true, but the principle remains the same. Why should sixteen states be allowed to dictate to the remainder? See the political principle involved? We have a federal government for a reason.

RE:'What am I saying ,against the EPA ?Scrap that,it is only against the Bush appointed CEO of the EPA.THe EPA scientific staff and legal advisers already made sufficiently clear that they are not even involved in this matter,their opinion was never asked,but I guess you already know that,right?'

Oh, you know by now that I NEVER go out of my way to defend the Bushbaby and his minions. They would have to do something spectacularly correct before I would say a word in their favor. Insofar as National Security goes, they have dropped the ball on this one. Legally, however, they have it right.

RE:'JUst trying to confuse the debate,are you?'

No, Tonny, I'm interested in accomplishing two things. First is to make sure that the truth is known and second is to make sure that there really is a debate.

As for the legislation in question, I will readily agree that it does not go nearly far enough. My carefully considered estimates are that we could and should do much better. I think Toyota, Isuzu and Nissan WILL do much better. I think what is at stake here is the physical security of the United States. First, I think it is absolutely insane for us to give money to people who have both ideological and religious reasons to do us harm. Second, I think it is damnably foolish of us to rely on petroleum for our transport energy needs. Crude oil has far too many other uses that make it far too valuable to burn as fuel.

When I try to look at this issue from your perspective, in the light of CO2 emissions and the impact on the 'poor', much of the bill is even worse. Encouraging the use of ethanol in lieu of petroleum distillates is an even more profound insanity than not conserving energy in the first place. All that will really ever do is to drive up the cost of groceries, which it is already doing and it is exacerbating the sub-prime lending crisis. Stupid is as stupid does. Fortunately, this mistake is self-correcting, rather like drug abuse. The consequences are going to be so swift and so immediate that congress will doubtlessly make changes to it in the near future.

It behooves us to remember however that transport fuels consumption is a drop in the bucket compared to the fuel we consume generating electricity. Something SP4 brings up repeatedly that is absolutely correct is that hybrid cars do little to reduce CO2 emissions. To make that work, we must do two things. We must convert to hybrid cars AND we must use nuclear power instead of coal to power our grid. If you were truly serious about protecting the environment, you would be an ardent advocate of nuclear power, just as your neighbors the French are.

But I don't think protecting the environment is your real goal nor is it the actual goal of the majority of the 'greens'. You all have this vision of a utopia you want to establish the world over while steadfastly refusing to realize that it is actually a dystopia. You want the license to dictate to everyone else and hence your favoring the idea that sixteen out of fifty states should be allowed to dictate the rules.

I don't think we Americans are going to ever comply with your wishes, Tonny. Feel free to call us bastards or arrogant berks or whatever. For my part I will readily agree with you. I AM an arrogant berk and I can be right spherical bastard whenever the mood takes me.

Report this comment

LetitbeJan 3rd, 2008 - 16:09:03

The EPA should sue California for over-the-limit homosexual emissions.

Report this comment

tonny from belgiumJan 3rd, 2008 - 17:42:47

Noharness,at least what you say is very debatable ,which is always a pleasure ,for a well defined discussion is essential for democracy.So let us enter the arena.Carbon dioxide not a greenhouse gas?I 'm not sure I got that correct.Perhaps you meant something else,perhaps you meant that due convection heat is carried above the troposphere and dispersed into the universe.Nor so in that case,carbon dioxide absorbs and stores heat.Here is a link which states the values in degrees Kelvin,sorry for that but that is not changing the facts of course.
www.engineeringtoolbox.com/carbon-dioxide-d_974.html
A little bit of astronomical knowledge would help,check Venus and tell me why the surface temperature there is so high,you(ll figure it out .
As for the fact that hybrid cars are useless,sorry again but that is probably a misunderstanding ;fact is that braking power is transformed into electricity and stored in the batteries .Grossly stated I'd say that part of the energy used for accelerating is recuperated this way .A car based on only a combustion engine can not recuperate this energy,it is transformed in heat whilst braking.Some say that the cost of building and recycling hybrid cars is superior to the cost for recycling cars with only combustion engines and that the total energy amount during the life cycle needed for running it,maintenance and recycling is in favor of the classic combustion engine .Some say differently,no figures from reliable sources are known to me .What I know with certainty is that cars based on combustion engines will be very expensive in a year or two as energy prices continue to raise .One barrel of crude costs 4 tumes as much as two years ago,if this trend continues ,this whole debate will be obsolete,but to be wise is to be prepared,something the USA still has to discover.Expect nothing from Bush or the EPA,the standards given by the EPA for the car manufacturing industry will be useless far before 2020,the year they are to be implemented .Your free market needs some meddling to prevent global warming from turning the lives of your and my children into some kind of nightmare .

Report this comment

tonny from belgiumJan 3rd, 2008 - 17:58:41

I need to add one more argument to my post.When you say my vision of the future is based on some utopia,never mind.What is required is a scientific debate (which is already over and done with in the rest of the world,you guys are just dragging your feet on account of the influence of your strong oil and automobile lobby,these two have more influence in decision making than the whole of the american people,you kow that too Noharness,you seem no fool .
Whatever the spin generated from these two,there IS a general consensus about global warming,the only problem is that the consensus is based on the lowest possible impact of climate change on humans acceptable by all the participants of the IPCC,which includes the USA .Guess how they influenced the results.Personnaly I'd feel uncomfortable living in a country where almost every administration is issuing rules and laws that were not endorsed by it's own scientific staff.The BUsh administration has already a long history of ignoring it's own staff when issuing directives that go against the findings of their own staff.Remember the CEO of NASA claiming global warming was no priority,to be repudiated by his own scientific staff.Sme in the EPA,same in the intelligence sector,same in the FDA.All administrations are distributed to cronys of the corporate world,and little do they care about you ,americans?Only their profit counts.And you are accusing me of relaying on Utopian standards?I simply relay on science,nothing else.

Report this comment

SP4: 'Vehicles that cause globalwarming'Jan 3rd, 2008 - 18:08:11

...notice how this is published as fact.....after all, the church needs it's false enemies...

Report this comment

JimJan 3rd, 2008 - 21:52:49

'vehicles that cause global warming' is just as valid, purely as a statement, as 'CO2 does not cause global warming'

However, the first statement also has the backing of huge numbers of scientific experts in various fields. The second statement does not have such illustrious backers - although the anti-warmers constantly drag in spurious 'experts' in non-associated fields, various whackos trying to promote their pet theories or websites, people backed by the oil industry, or total misfits who have been thrown out of their fields and are desperately trying to gain publicity so they can gain some money

I know which group and which statement I believe

Report this comment

tonny from belgiumJan 3rd, 2008 - 23:42:33

Never mind SP4 ,for him everything is a religion because science is too elusive to his poor brains,while religion religion isn't.It requires only faith.

Report this comment