By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
link title
Independent truckers, greens, unions, trucking companies, CARB, LA's mayor and the 9th Circuit - you name the special interest and they're probably in here somewhere.
Authorities, Trucking Companies Clash Over Big-Rig Emissions Rules at Calif. Ports (Green Car Advisor)
And there's this lovely photo to razz the pro-diesel crowd with. :shades:
It is the carcinogens you cannot see in gas exhaust & fumes that is the real killers. Why do you think CA has gone to such lengths to trap gas fumes at the pump? Sniffing gas will kill you long before diesel exhaust will. That soot should be pretty much eliminated with ULSD. When they force it on all users, not just a handful of cars.
Even LSD (LOW sulfur diesel, up to 500 ppm-49 state and CA state of 140 ppm) didnt look that way up untill Oct 2006 ). As another poster has mentioned trucks have been required to use ULSD (as of Oct 2006 ULTRA LOW sulfur diesel 15- 5 ppm) Bio diesel (5 to ZERO ppm sulfur) can now be used in diesel trucks: typically B5,B10,B20 to B100)
For a better view, watch old Dennis Weaver movie of a nasty, belching tanker truck chasing Dennis in his Mopar car somewhere in NV or CA.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
The dowstream effects are absolutely HUGE.Here is one example.
I have been running 20,000 mile OCI's with a 12 TBN diesel oil (Mobil/Delvac One 5w40) LSD. As you probably can surmise, the 12 TBN is VERY robust for the sulfur acid neutralizing job it has to do. Indeed the ability to neutralize soot almost becomes meaningless. So with the advent of LSD or 97% less sulfur, you can almost factorially increase the OCI interval. Keep im mind RUG to PUG is 30 ppm or a min of 2x dirtier than ULSD.
Since I am a belt and suspenders kind of guy I went to 25,000 miles OCI or only 25% longer.
So the nexus of course is: IF everyone could switch FROM 3,000 to 5,000 OCI's TO 20,000 OCI's and once on 20,000 miles OCI's extend another 25% from that to 25,000 miles OCI The down stream oil demand (oil SAVED) becomes almost 88% LESS.
(ie.,1 gal demand vs 8.33 gal demand per 25,000 miles lubricated) x 255.4 M cars.....
I'm going to miss out on all the change, oh well. On the other hand, I might live long enough to see the impacts of peak oil.
link title
Meteorologists are reluctant to call a month "nice." They have their data and their science and typically do not describe the weather in such subjective terms.
Except now, because the data prove it.
"It's probably the best June since I've been here, and I've been here most of my life," said the National Weather Service's Valerie Meyers, who is in her late 40s. "It's been really nice."
Possibly the nicest June ever.
It's that type of thing that is fun to say but hard to quantify.
Thursday, however, was the 14th consecutive day to stay below 100 degrees. That's the longest stretch of its kind in any June since 1913.
It is the same here in So CA. At least 9 degrees below normal and about 22 degrees below record highs for the entire Spring. So get out and keep driving those SUVs, I like the weather the way it is.
"Actual temperatures near 100 degrees fahrenheit have only occurred a
few times across Mainland South Florida through the period of
meteorological record of about 100 years. Normally, onshore
seabreezes keep temperatures well below 100 degrees near the heavily
populated coastal areas of Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Mainland
Monroe, and Collier counties.
However, today, Monday, June 22, 2009, a persistent strong westerly
wind flow kept sea breezes from developing along the Metro Atlantic
coast. This along with strong high pressure aloft allowed actual
temperatures to soar near 100 degrees in Metro Miami-Dade, Broward
and Palm Beach counties, resulting in numerous record temperatures."
That's from Weather Underground - wonder why Matt doesn't report it?
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Not here in the northeast. It's been so cold and rainy that I can't get my crops planted. They are already calling it "The year without a summer".
Can I sue Al Gore for my losses? :confuse:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Nope. He either has special environmental immunity...or he could quite successfully plead insanity.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
No, cold and rainy, that would be George Bush.
On a more serious note, we might not be able to use our AC in the future.....
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090622171503.htm
"The authors have shown that by 2050 the HFCs contribution could rise to 7 to 12 percent of what CO2 contributes."
A bit ironic, warmer temps means more AC which leads to higher temps and even more AC.... This must be one of those positive feedback loops.
Everyone back in the cave. When do we say "TOO BAD" we are going to maintain a certain lifestyle and they can deal with the outcome in a 100 years?
It sounds like ozone is a mixed bag depending on where it is in the atmosphere. The ozone hole was an issue because it allowed more UV to get to the surface causing increased skin cancer.
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Impact_of_ozone_on_climate_change
"Everyone back in the cave."
Maybe, I'm thinking a small island might work better. :shades:
http://www.lordhowe.com/image-library.asp
"When do we say "TOO BAD" we are going to maintain a certain lifestyle and they can deal with the outcome in a 100 years? "
I think that peak oil issue will impact everyone long before GW.
Calif. wants autos to have reflecting windows (Yahoo)
What happened to the white only mandate for cars? That makes more sense. I hate to get into a dark car in the summer. Same with dark leather upholstery. Make sunroofs illegal as they add a lot of heat in the summer time. They really are a useless waste of money. Sad part is the add them to all the top end models so you are stuck with them. I would never order a car with one again. I have had three vehicles with sun roof and have never opened one yet.
Also if it passes expect your electric bill to increase by at least 50% as utilities pass on the extra cost to their customers. It will drive all the coal fired generators out of business in a short while so we will all enjoy clean power. The only trouble is that no one will be able to afford it.
It is expected to pass the House today. Let's just hope the senate won't be so easily duped. It is a 1500 page bill (300 pages added this week) so no one has had a chance to actually read the details and there is no telling what else has been slipped in.
Al Gore is personally lobbying to pass this bill as he stands to make billions if it becomes law. Time to look for one of those small islands.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Despite House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman's many payoffs to Members, rural and Blue Dog Democrats remain wary of voting for a bill that will impose crushing costs on their home-district businesses and consumers. The leadership's solution to this problem is to simply claim the bill defies the laws of economics.
Their gambit got a boost this week, when the Congressional Budget Office did an analysis of what has come to be known as the Waxman-Markey bill. According to the CBO, the climate legislation would cost the average household only $175 a year by 2020. Edward Markey, Mr. Waxman's co-author, instantly set to crowing that the cost of upending the entire energy economy would be no more than a postage stamp a day for the average household. Amazing. A closer look at the CBO analysis finds that it contains so many caveats as to render it useless.
To get support for his bill, Mr. Waxman was forced to water down the cap in early years to please rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats. The CBO's analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to "offset" their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon. The corporate costs of buying these expensive permits will be passed to consumers.
The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy. The CBO acknowledges this in a footnote: "The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap."
The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html
Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won't pinch wallets, behind the scenes they've acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them.
The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain's Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.
Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can't repeal that reality.
What I like most is that our less developed trading partners who we are racing to the bottom to compete with won't have to wear these cement boots. Seems like another good scheme to submit the first world to the globalization conquest.
I read the proposal for cap and trade. It appears as though cap and trade is a cover for more wealth redistribution.
People with an income under $40,000 get a $400 check in the mail to pay for their higher electric bills whether or not they live in coal burning states.
My contribution to conserving fuel:
My '01 full size 4x4 sits in the garage with 23k miles on it in 8 years of use.
My wife stays home to eliminate all her commute miles.
My sons didn't get summer jobs to severely reduce their driving.
Spent well over $200k to buy a new house 32 miles closer to my job, each way.
maintain all my vehicles to get from 10-20% higher than EPA mpg from them with one exception out of 5.
Haven't yet fixed the a/c in one vehicle even though it is 94 outside this week.
kept the heat on 67 all winter in the new house.
consolidate errand trips whenever possible.
no summer vacation in previous 2 years.
In response, India and china added 10's of millions of vehicles to their highways, billions were spent by foreign manufacturers to advertise their fuel efficient cars in the US, and gas producers reduced refining capacity to compensate for lower US gas demand and keep prices propped up. China opens a new coal fired elec plant each DAY. OPEC can't support their extravagant lifestyle on less than $75 a barrel, regardless of what it is actually worth, and will continually cut production to keep the price there. Some moron in congress argues that under cap and trade, reduced consumption coupled with higher fuel prices will increase MY buying power from my current income? How? What if I want to buy fuel? I know I need to stop being logical. Anything the dems do has income redistribution as the ulterior motive.
As I said the other day in 1 of these forums, the government's programs are pushing me closer and closer to dropping out of the workforce as an engineer, as I can probably live just as well in a low-income bracket, where I can get these subsidies, instead of paying them!
Anyway here in New England we had about 2-3 days above 80F as highs, and we're headed back down into the 60's by Mon. This cool weather is keeping people from producing CO2 as it's too cold to head to the lakes or beach, and that water is still mighty cold, as we've had little sunshine.
I sure hope Tata and Chery get more SUV's on the road, and they get 2 coal-plants/day fired up.
No one saw that Darryl Hannah and *surprise* James Hansen got arrested?
Hansen of NASA Arrested in Coal Country (NY Times)
Oh, Hansen doesn't favor cap-and-trade either and opposes the bill the House just passed.
Manchester is served by Southwest and is really a great little airport.
Most of the hotels have indoor pools though, so that tells you a lot about global-warming not being an issue. I would never invest in an outdoor pool around here.
Who do you think is going to get rich buying/selling/exchanging carbon credits, setting up new derivatives etc. WALL STREET !! But I digress.
The costs we consumers will pay if this becomes law will dwarf everything else in our history. It is pure GREED by politicians at our expense. Votes today are not based on what the people want, they are based on what the politicians can personally get out of it.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
As of 6:15 PM EDT he was up to page 34, with all the interruptions. Waxman would like to shut any one up that questions his bill.
Did anyone mention that Jerry Brown has dropped the global warming lawsuit against the automakers ? (Sfgate.com). The new administration made that suit and appeal unnecessary (at least to AG Brown).
Filibusters are not allowed in the House. They’re a province of the Senate. But House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) may have figured out a way to get around that prohibition Friday as the House inched closer to voting on a controversial energy and climate change bill.
Overnight, House Democrats tacked onto the bill a 300-page amendment. So when Boehner took his time to speak against the package at the end of the debate, the Ohio Republican then decided to peel through major portions of the bill and read them aloud before his House colleagues.
But is Business Week wrong too? (House Passes Carbon Cap-and-Trade Bill)
Oh yeah, Jerry Brown is the California AG, having been elected in 2006. He's running for governor (again) in 2010. (Per Wikipedia, if you can believe it...).
I don't think Boehner was successful. So another big fat bill has been voted on without the members of Congress having a clue as to what it says. So much for an open government. Makes Nixon's look like a wide open book.
PS
Don't remind me about Jerry Brown. If I could I would sell out and move to our place in Hawaii. Just too much invested here to bail out.
I saw the photo that accompanied the story. Boy, Darryl has really let herself go. :P
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
When asked why he read portions of the cap-and-trade bill on the floor Friday night, Boehner told The Hill, "Hey, people deserve to know what's in this pile of s--t."
Eight Republicans voted with Democrats to pass the bill; 44 House Democrats voted against it.
One Democrat was upset that his leaders would needlessly force vulnerable Dems to vote for a bill that will come back to haunt them. Mississippi Rep. Gene Taylor (D) voted against the measure that he says will die in the Senate.
"A lot of people walked the plank on a bill that will never become law," Taylor told The Hill after the gavel came down.
At least not all Democrats in the House are brain dead.
This says it all
Daryl Hannah
My question is what is a coal processing plant doing 300 feet from an elementary school? Probably one of the few times I would be on the side of Jim Hanson. Though maybe he is seeing the error of his ways and will become a force for good instead of evil.
That's so when the kids quit school in 6th grade they won't have far to walk to get to work. :P
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
The 98-page report, co-authored by EPA analyst Alan Carlin, pushed back on the prospect of regulating gases like carbon dioxide as a way to reduce global warming. Carlin's report argued that the information the EPA was using was out of date, and that even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased, global temperatures have declined.
"He came out with the truth. They don't want the truth at the EPA," Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla
Carlin said McGartland told him he had to pull him off the climate change issue.
"It was reassigning you or losing my job, and I didn't want to lose my job," Carlin said, paraphrasing what he claimed were McGartland's comments to him. "My inference (was) that he was receiving some sort of higher-level pressure."
Carlin said he personally does not think there is a need to regulate carbon dioxide, since "global temperatures are going down." He said his report expressed a "good bit of doubt" on the connection between the two.
Specifically, the report noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend over the past 11 years, that scientists do not necessarily believe that storms will become more frequent or more intense due to global warming, and that the theory that temperatures will cause Greenland ice to rapidly melt has been "greatly diminished."
Carlin, in a March 16 e-mail, argued that his comments are "valid, significant" and would be critical to the EPA finding.
McGartland, though, wrote back the next day saying he had decided not to forward his comments.
CC/GW ??
THEY BOUGHT THEM!
They finally secured the vote of one Ohioan, veteran Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Toledo, the old-fashioned way. They gave her what she wanted - a new federal power authority, similar to Washington state's Bonneville Power Administration, stocked with up to $3.5 billion in taxpayer money available for lending to renewable energy and economic development projects in Ohio and other Midwestern states.