Wrong way Pres. Obama, turn those vehicles around please

Letting states set emission standards NOT the right answer

from JoeUser Forums

I warned it was coming, so don't say you shouldn't be hearing this stuff yet.

President Obama is issuing guidance to the EPA to have them reconsider Bush administration policy that effectively blocked California and other states from imposing their own state emission policies upon the automobiles in those states.  California and those other states that want to use their tougher than the EPA mandated federal standards claim that they should be allowed to set their own standards in order to address carbon emissions and help reduce pollution in their own regions.

I sympathize with these states and regions (the Baltimore, Washington, Northern Virginia region as an example is one of the areas that has pretty severe pollution problems and continues to fight the problem), but allowing all of these states to set their own standards is exactly the type of problems that the automotive industry doesn't need.  Much like the petroleum industry that has to manufacturer seemingly hundreds of boutique blends of fuel to meet requirements in all of the various regions that have different requirements, the auto industry has to create vehicles that meet all of these different standards, then ship the vehicles to the right regions so they can be sold there.

Sure, it seems simple enough to manufacture a vehicle to meet the toughest possible standard which should automatically mean that those vehicles would meet standards in areas with weaker regulations, but that isn't necessarily the case.  In making vehicles that meet these emission standards the automanufacters may have to sacrifice fuel efficiency which means they don't meet those requirements.

Personally, I'd rather have the states lobby the feds for the standards they want, then have the feds set standards for the entire country.  I know it may mean that the standards are slower to be toughened up, but on the other hand the automotive industry would have a single set of rules to follow and that should make it easier to meet the requirements which can then be tightened up in ways that allow them to keep coming along slowly but surely.

Just my $0.02

politics
8,476 views 25 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top

Seems to me like California (one state in the worst position to be dictating anything of financial consequence) is driving this issue, why have a federal government?

Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting Nitro, reply 1
Seems to me like California (one state in the worst position to be dictating anything of financial consequence) is driving this issue, why have a federal government?
End of Nitro's quote

Because if we don't the amount of garbage in the air would make life intolerable, Since we increased stadards for emissions the air here has gotten cleaner, more breathable, and yet we still have to have clean air days.

Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

For what it's worth . . I wish the federal govt would set minimum standards and then stay the hell out of state business.

Having said that . . having a state set standards for businesses to meet that will drive out that business (in this case, for fleet emissions) is idiotic.

Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top

the problem is the consideration of CO2 as pollution. We HUMANS emit CO2 after breathing in O2. It is harmless to us in the atmosphere.

Well, actually that was one problem, the other is having each state have their own emission standards.

Reply #5 from PolMach Forums Top

Quoting taltamir, reply 4
the problem is the consideration of CO2 as pollution. We HUMANS emit CO2 after breathing in O2. It is harmless to us in the atmosphere.

Well, actually that was one problem, the other is having each state have their own emission standards.
End of taltamir's quote

 

 

well its like taxing farmers for each head of cattle they own because they fart and pollute the earth too..

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

or requiring farmers mount a catalytic convertor on a cows butt.

Now don't get me wrong... REAL pollutants like LEAD should be eliminated from oil... we should 0% lead gas and other such nasty pollutants should be gone too.

Reply #7 from PolMach Forums Top

Quoting taltamir, reply 6
or requiring farmers mount a catalytic convertor on a cows butt.

Now don't get me wrong... REAL pollutants like LEAD should be eliminated from oil... we should 0% lead gas and other such nasty pollutants should be gone too.
End of taltamir's quote

 

My prolem is that there is sooo many difrnet types of fuel blends depending on the state and the season... and this keeps fuel prices higher than they should be..

 

Now I am all for finding ways to pollute less...specailly when it comes to gas... heres my problem with it...

 

WHO THE HELL THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA TO USE A FOOD STAPLE FOR FUEL??!

I mean come on... corn... which is a base in alot of foods we eat... instead they go hey...lets use it for gas!

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

thats to save money actually. Convert it to gas and its worth more money than it did as food.

Reply #9 from PolMach Forums Top

Quoting taltamir, reply 8
thats to save money actually. Convert it to gas and its worth more money than it did as food.
End of taltamir's quote

Yeah well...and whos bright idea was that? You cant say gov didnt play a huge roll in making corn into gas. In fact the gov subsidises the corn growers

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

there is more than enough FOOD to feed everyone in the world many times over. MOST of the food grown in the USA is left to rot in the fields (its actually a protective deal, the government subsidizes farmers to grow more than they can sell for cases of emergency, like war or natural disasters), but to get food to everyone in the world you need to package and ship it. which means manpower (aka money), and fuel... so converting otherwise worthless food into fuel producing more money and gas should help reduce world hunger, not exacerbate it.

Reply #11 from PolMach Forums Top

Quoting taltamir, reply 10
there is more than enough FOOD to feed everyone in the world many times over. MOST of the food grown in the USA is left to rot in the fields (its actually a protective deal, the government subsidizes farmers to grow more than they can sell for cases of emergency, like war or natural disasters), but to get food to everyone in the world you need to package and ship it. which means manpower (aka money), and fuel... so converting otherwise worthless food into fuel producing more money and gas should help reduce world hunger, not exacerbate it.
End of taltamir's quote

 

hey how about...we take care of our starving first and homeless first... theres an idea.... before we give a hoot about other starving people on the other side of the planet... lets fix our problems first then look out... o wait... i forgot its not popular

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

hey how about...we take care of our starving first and homeless first... theres an idea.... before we give a hoot about other starving people on the other side of the planet... lets fix our problems first then look out... o wait... i forgot its not popular
End of quote

There are no starving in the USA, all the homeless in the USA are homeless by choice (usually because they think the government is out to get them or because they ran away from home)... but there ARE a ton of real problem that need to be addressed in the united states. Still I was not suggesting that we go feeding the world. Instead I was pointing out that the "pointless destruction of food (that could feed the starving) for fuel" is not so pointless, and in fact would contribute to feeding the starving more than leaving it as food.

Reply #13 from PolMach Forums Top

Quoting taltamir, reply 12

hey how about...we take care of our starving first and homeless first... theres an idea.... before we give a hoot about other starving people on the other side of the planet... lets fix our problems first then look out... o wait... i forgot its not popular
There are no starving in the USA, all the homeless in the USA are homeless by choice (usually because they think the government is out to get them or because they ran away from home)... but there ARE a ton of real problem that need to be addressed in the united states. Still I was not suggesting that we go feeding the world. Instead I was pointing out that the "pointless destruction of food (that could feed the starving) for fuel" is not so pointless, and in fact would contribute to feeding the starving more than leaving it as food.
End of taltamir's quote

O really? there is no one starving? wow... what utopia are you living in? I would have to strongly disagree with you that everyone that is on hard times like homeless or starving are due to that being what they choose. There are people out there sorry to say, that do need help.Sometimes a helping hand and a little push for some is what they need.... to show that someone DOES care about them can actually give a boost...they just need to be put on the right track first

Reply #14 from Stardock Forums Top

I can see wanting to reduce the production of certain pollutants, such as the aforementioned lead, but CO2 isn't an issue.  CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't kill people, it actually saves lives by reducing the chances of a wildfire.  California of all states should know that, and know that global warming has yet to kill anyone.  More people die in cold winters than hot summers.

So my opinion is that if they're after lower CO2 emissions, forget it.  Go for other things that actually pose health problems.

As for the automotive industry struggling to keep up with said new regulations, do you really think they're going to stay afloat much longer anyway?  It would just be the proverbial nail in the coffin, and then at least someone in Congress might realize that giving our money to them isn't helping.

Oh, and I agree with Watertown that ethanol is a hopeless waste of food.  Do you know how much corn is required to make a gallon of ethanol?  It is physically impossible for the US to grow enough corn to rid us of the need for foreign oil - the main reason we started making ethanol in the first place.  Not only is it a waste of food, but a waste of land that could be put to better use.

Reply #15 from PolMach Forums Top

There are no starving in the USA, all the homeless in the USA are homeless by choice (usually because they think the government is out to get them or because they ran away from home)...
End of quote

Wow, just wow.  I don't deny that there are some out there that are homeless by choice but there are many that are not.  A large portion of homeless people have mental disorders and can't afford their medication.  Without the medication they can't hold a job and end up in a perpetual cycle of being homeless.  They didn't choose to have the mental disorder nor did they choose not to be able to afford the care needed to be a functioning member of society, therefore they did not choose to be homeless.

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

 A large portion of homeless people have mental disorders and can't afford their medication.
End of quote

I consider being CRAZY a choice. But maybe I am wrong. The medication for mental disorders are extremely primitive, based on experimentation with not clue as to HOW or WHY it works, and is typically geared towards suppressing the symptoms (chemical lobotomy) even while worsening the situation. The psychiatric industry is a sham.

 

As for the starving, are you truely that ignorant? Nobody starves in the united states, fuck nobody is even turned away at the hospital! You can walk into any walmart / whatever and have a full meal just on the free samples, but regardless, if you that poor you WILL get food coupons. Of course, then there is the issue of dad trading his food coupons for half their worth in cigarettes and beer... but thats not something that donations is going to solve.

Reply #17 from PolMach Forums Top

I consider being CRAZY a choice. But maybe I am wrong. The medication for mental disorders are extremely primitive, based on experimentation with not clue as to HOW or WHY it works, and is typically geared towards suppressing the symptoms (chemical lobotomy) even while worsening the situation. The psychiatric industry is a sham.
End of quote

Do you or anyone you know have a mental disorder?  I'm guessing not or else you wouldn't be making these comments that wholy ignorant.  My wife suffers from Schizophrenia and Bi-polar and I can assure it is NOT a choice by any stretch of the imagination.  And the medication is sophisticated and created by people who have studied how the brain works.  Getting the correct medication and dosage can be a bit of trial and error but when you get the right combination the results are extremely impressive.  Imagine a world where you hear voices in your head that constantly belittle you and are sometimes so noisy that it is like sitting in a crowded football stadium, so loud you can't hear yourself think.  That's what it was like for my wife before she was put on her current medication regimine.  Now the voices are vastly reduced and she can carry on a near normal life.  The problem is that the medication is extremely expensive (roughly $500-600 for a 30 day supply) and if it weren't for my job and my insurance plan we wouldn't be able to afford the medication and she would be in hell.  The psychiatric industry is NOT a sham and if you think that then you obviously have had no real experience with it or anyone with a serious mental illness.  Consider yourself lucky, ignorant but lucky.

Reply #18 from PolMach Forums Top

Quoting taltamir, reply 16

 A large portion of homeless people have mental disorders and can't afford their medication.
I consider being CRAZY a choice. But maybe I am wrong. The medication for mental disorders are extremely primitive, based on experimentation with not clue as to HOW or WHY it works, and is typically geared towards suppressing the symptoms (chemical lobotomy) even while worsening the situation. The psychiatric industry is a sham.

 

As for the starving, are you truely that ignorant? Nobody starves in the united states, fuck nobody is even turned away at the hospital! You can walk into any walmart / whatever and have a full meal just on the free samples, but regardless, if you that poor you WILL get food coupons. Of course, then there is the issue of dad trading his food coupons for half their worth in cigarettes and beer... but thats not something that donations is going to solve.
End of taltamir's quote

 

I dont know about your walmarts but the ones we have here have very little sampling

 

We are not talking about hospitals.

 

How can you say there is no starving? Are you in fact stating there is no such thing in the US?

Reply #19 from PolMach Forums Top

How can you say there is no starving? Are you in fact stating there is no such thing in the US?
End of quote

I'm beginning to think that taltamir lives in some sort of utopian society where the homeless are only homeless by choice and no one every goes hungry unless they choose to.  What a wonderful place that must be.

Reply #20 from PolMach Forums Top

Quoting EL-DUDERINO, reply 19

How can you say there is no starving? Are you in fact stating there is no such thing in the US?
I'm beginning to think that taltamir lives in some sort of utopian society where the homeless are only homeless by choice and no one every goes hungry unless they choose to.  What a wonderful place that must be.
End of EL-DUDERINO's quote

 

No %*(% I want to move there now!

 

Like i said though there are some that chose to be that way but I can promise you that alot dont.

Reply #21 from PolMach Forums Top

Like i said though there are some that chose to be that way but I can promise you that alot dont.
End of quote

Exactly.

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting EL-DUDERINO, reply 19
I'm beginning to think that taltamir lives in some sort of utopian society where the homeless are only homeless by choice and no one every goes hungry unless they choose to.  What a wonderful place that must be.
End of EL-DUDERINO's quote

Yes, its called the united states of america.

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

 Do you or anyone you know have a mental disorder?  I'm guessing not or else you wouldn't be making these comments that wholy ignorant.  My wife suffers from Schizophrenia and Bi-polar and I can assure it is NOT a choice by any stretch of the imagination.  And the medication is sophisticated and created by people who have studied how the brain works.  
End of quote

Actually the latest GUESS as to how it works has to do with it killing the toxoplasmosis subcellular brain parasite. But I assure you it was not intentionally discovered by people who understand how the brain works. Just google the name of her medicine... And ok, seeing things that aren't there isn't a choice but an indication of brain damage... but most "mental disorders" have nothing to do with brain chemistry issues. 

Reply #24 from PolMach Forums Top

Actually the latest GUESS as to how it works has to do with it killing the toxoplasmosis subcellular brain parasite. But I assure you it was not intentionally discovered by people who understand how the brain works. Just google the name of her medicine... And ok, seeing things that aren't there isn't a choice but an indication of brain damage... but most "mental disorders" have nothing to do with brain chemistry issues.
End of quote

I'm not saying that anyone fully understands the brain but the medications are developed by people who have been spending a lot of their professional careers researching the brain.  Your argument that "most 'mental disorders' have nothing to do with brain chemistry" is just plain wrong.  In some cases research indicates that some disorders are caused by increased or decreased levels of certain brain chemicals like seritonin, in some cases its hormone related, and yes sometimes parasites can cause brain disorders.  Then there is some research that seems to indicate it could be an evolutionary mutation that has just gone wrong much the same way that sickle cell anemia developed to combat malaria.

I certainly am under no illusion that I understand what causes these mental disorders but I live with it every day and I definitely see the impact that the medications have so your original claims are completely and totally wrong.

Reply #25 from PolMach Forums Top

Actually the latest GUESS
End of quote

And another little note about your emphasis on the word "guess".  Isn't that what science is all about?  Making a guess and attempting to find evidence to either prove or disprove that guess?  Like the latest "guess" is that gravity works by two massive objects attracting each other.  Or that evolution is caused by genetic mutations where successful ones survive and unsuccessful ones die off.  Just because it's a "guess" doesn't make it any less important, justified, or scientifically valid.