Obama acts to reverse Bush climate moves

[434 2]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama will start reversing former President George W. Bush's climate change policies on Monday with steps to raise fuel efficiency standards and grant states authority to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars.


http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE50P0CL20090126?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

I am impressed!

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Not that big of a deal, really.
If he can get the rest of the industrialized world on the same page, then THAT would be impressive.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Not that big of a deal, really.
If he can get the rest of the industrialized world on the same page, then THAT would be impressive.

I am glad he has done it (or will try to) CA will lead the the way and when everyone else sees how screwed up doing this will be they will leave it along

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Take a look at this

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html?full=true&print=true

Not so much for the piece in total but this one little section

Quote

Would it make enough of a difference?

Yes. The biosphere pumps out 550 gigatonnes of carbon yearly; we put in only 30 gigatonnes. Ninety-nine per cent of the carbon that is fixed by plants is released back into the atmosphere within a year or so by consumers like bacteria, nematodes and worms. What we can do is cheat those consumers by getting farmers to burn their crop waste at very low oxygen levels to turn it into charcoal, which the farmer then ploughs into the field. A little CO2 is released but the bulk of it gets converted to carbon. You get a few per cent of biofuel as a by-product of the combustion process, which the farmer can sell. This scheme would need no subsidy: the farmer would make a profit. This is the one thing we can do that will make a difference, but I bet they won't do it.

I feel (if true) it really puts thing into perspective.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Take a look at this

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html?full=true&print=true

Not so much for the piece in total but this one little section

Quote

Would it make enough of a difference?

Yes. The biosphere pumps out 550 gigatonnes of carbon yearly; we put in only 30 gigatonnes. Ninety-nine per cent of the carbon that is fixed by plants is released back into the atmosphere within a year or so by consumers like bacteria, nematodes and worms. What we can do is cheat those consumers by getting farmers to burn their crop waste at very low oxygen levels to turn it into charcoal, which the farmer then ploughs into the field. A little CO2 is released but the bulk of it gets converted to carbon. You get a few per cent of biofuel as a by-product of the combustion process, which the farmer can sell. This scheme would need no subsidy: the farmer would make a profit. This is the one thing we can do that will make a difference, but I bet they won't do it.

I feel (if true) it really puts thing into perspective.

So when we add 6% to the carbon in the atmosphere, and the total increases by 6%annually, we HAVE upset the balance. How many years at 6% does it take to double the atmospheric CO2?

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Take a look at this

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html?full=true&print=true

Not so much for the piece in total but this one little section

Quote

Would it make enough of a difference?

Yes. The biosphere pumps out 550 gigatonnes of carbon yearly; we put in only 30 gigatonnes. Ninety-nine per cent of the carbon that is fixed by plants is released back into the atmosphere within a year or so by consumers like bacteria, nematodes and worms. What we can do is cheat those consumers by getting farmers to burn their crop waste at very low oxygen levels to turn it into charcoal, which the farmer then ploughs into the field. A little CO2 is released but the bulk of it gets converted to carbon. You get a few per cent of biofuel as a by-product of the combustion process, which the farmer can sell. This scheme would need no subsidy: the farmer would make a profit. This is the one thing we can do that will make a difference, but I bet they won't do it.

I feel (if true) it really puts thing into perspective.

So when we add 6% to the carbon in the atmosphere, and the total increases by 6%annually, we HAVE upset the balance. How many years at 6% does it take to double the atmospheric CO2?

Hmm, that is a very static way of looking at it. You really think it works that way?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Gene03 0]

Hopefully some one is listening to them.

There is a great discussion going on in this forum.

http://hypography.com/forums/terra-preta/3451-terra-preta-parent-thread-started-all.html

I've been looking into this for a little over two years now and last fall put a shitload of fine ground charcoal into my garden.

“The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all is the person who argues with him.

Stanislaw Jerzy Lec quotes (Polish writer, poet and satirist 1906-1966)

[Capt.Slog 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Take a look at this

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html?full=true&print=true

Not so much for the piece in total but this one little section

Quote

Would it make enough of a difference?

Yes. The biosphere pumps out 550 gigatonnes of carbon yearly; we put in only 30 gigatonnes. Ninety-nine per cent of the carbon that is fixed by plants is released back into the atmosphere within a year or so by consumers like bacteria, nematodes and worms. What we can do is cheat those consumers by getting farmers to burn their crop waste at very low oxygen levels to turn it into charcoal, which the farmer then ploughs into the field. A little CO2 is released but the bulk of it gets converted to carbon. You get a few per cent of biofuel as a by-product of the combustion process, which the farmer can sell. This scheme would need no subsidy: the farmer would make a profit. This is the one thing we can do that will make a difference, but I bet they won't do it.

I feel (if true) it really puts thing into perspective.

So when we add 6% to the carbon in the atmosphere, and the total increases by 6%annually, we HAVE upset the balance. How many years at 6% does it take to double the atmospheric CO2?

Hmm, that is a very static way of looking at it. You really think it works that way?

Perhaps you had not noticed, but the increase in atmospheric CO2 almost exactly matches the rate at which humans are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

[billvon 3,118]

>I am glad he has done it (or will try to) CA will lead the the way and when
>everyone else sees how screwed up doing this will be they will leave it along

Exactly. Why, look at all the looney things that California has come up with through their environmental regulation efforts. Fuel injection. Catalytic converters. Engine controllers. Evaporative emissions controls. Smokestack scrubbers. Requirements for hybrids, natural gas vehicles and other ILEV's and PZEV's.

And what's happened to all that? Can you find a single fuel injected car outside of California? Or a single catalytic converter? How about smokestack scrubbers? How about hybrid cars or natural gas fueled buses? Or electronic engine controls in, say, New York?

Nope. Not a single one. Everyone saw how screwed up fuel injected cars were, and stuck with cheaper carburetors. Everyone realized that it was insane to put a catalytic converter (that uses PLATINUM!) on every car, so no one outside California has one now.

Yes, they will soon see that California's recent moves to reduce their emissions make as much sense as fuel injection.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>I am glad he has done it (or will try to) CA will lead the the way and when
>everyone else sees how screwed up doing this will be they will leave it along

Exactly. Why, look at all the looney things that California has come up with through their environmental regulation efforts. Fuel injection. Catalytic converters. Engine controllers. Evaporative emissions controls. Smokestack scrubbers. Requirements for hybrids, natural gas vehicles and other ILEV's and PZEV's.

And what's happened to all that? Can you find a single fuel injected car outside of California? Or a single catalytic converter? How about smokestack scrubbers? How about hybrid cars or natural gas fueled buses? Or electronic engine controls in, say, New York?

Nope. Not a single one. Everyone saw how screwed up fuel injected cars were, and stuck with cheaper carburetors. Everyone realized that it was insane to put a catalytic converter (that uses PLATINUM!) on every car, so no one outside California has one now.

Yes, they will soon see that California's recent moves to reduce their emissions make as much sense as fuel injection.

it isn't bad to want better, just the speed that it changes. It would be nice to pay off a piece of equipment before you need to change it out. Being in the auto industy, i know what it takes to stay currant with the constantly changing electronics on cars. with the EPA saying all states need to follow the same rules and giving a slow change to those rules makes it much more cost effective to implament. Letting each state set their own regulations means that we will need different equipment or different programming to work on those cars. the cost of keeping up with technology changes in the automotive repair end is between 10k and 40k a year just for my shop.

fixing what we have now is the best way to reduce emissions and bringing all the states along together greatly ruduces the cost of the repair equipment by standardizing the equipment.

Everyone seems to forget about what the total cost is of creating a car. About 25% of a cars total lifetime emissions is in the manufacturing of the vehicle itself. also making multiple pieces of equipment to repair those vehicles costs $s and recorces that could be better used in other endevors.

people that buy a car because it gets 10% better gas milage will need to drive that car for 60-80k miles just to brake even with the emission levels caused by the production of the vehicle. people that use E85 actually pay more per year on fuel costs and use more gallons of fuel. E85 gets about 20% less miles per gallon so to brake even on the dollars spent on fuel you need about $1+ difference in E85 to regular gas. Hybreds wear out tiress twice as fast, still have a lead acid battery under the hood and also have a drive battery (although less toxic) that no company in the world is set up to recycle. these batteries when replaced are being stored untill someone finds someway to recycle them.

although I agree with making enviromently safe cars, keeping everyone on the same page with gradual changes is the way to go, not letting everyone go off in all directions is the key to making changes that are the most efficient and enviromentally friendly.

[billvon 3,118]

>Letting each state set their own regulations means that we will need
>different equipment or different programming to work on those cars.

That was true for a few years (i.e. CA cars needed different equipment than non-CA cars) but manufacturers rapidly standardized on the newer technologies. Thus every car in the US now has an engine controller, catalytic converter etc.

>with the EPA saying all states need to follow the same rules and giving a
>slow change to those rules makes it much more cost effective to
>implament.

I can see the advantages in that.

>fixing what we have now is the best way to reduce emissions . . .

Not sure what that means. Do you mean just "tune up the cars we have?" As I am sure you know, tuning up cars no longer does much for emissions, since a) there are no adjustments to be made for things like mixture and b) any significant change to a car's emissions throws an error code and a "check engine" light already.

So it wouldn't do much.

>Everyone seems to forget about what the total cost is of creating a car.
> About 25% of a cars total lifetime emissions is in the manufacturing
> of the vehicle itself.

A very good point. I would agree; any program that requires you to throw out older cars, instead of just replacing them when they wear out (or the owner wants to upgrade) could have an overall negative effect on emissions.

>people that buy a car because it gets 10% better gas milage will need
> to drive that car for 60-80k miles just to brake even with the emission
>levels caused by the production of the vehicle.

True. Much better to wait until you need a new car, then buy one that gets 50% better gas mileage.

>people that use E85 actually pay more per year on fuel costs and use
>more gallons of fuel.

When I did it, I definitely used more fuel in gallons, but cost was about the same overall. I get about 15% lower mileage, but E85 around here was running about $1 less (about 25% lower) than gas at its highest cost. Now they're close to equal again, so it's not worth it.

>Hybreds wear out tiress twice as fast, still have a lead acid battery
>under the hood . . .

Hmm. I've gotten 60,000 miles out of a set of tires on a Prius, and there's a motorcycle battery under the deck in the back for "starting" (really just to fire up the electronics when you first turn the car on.) It's got 70,000 miles on it and is going strong, since it's never used for more than a fraction of its capacity.

And we've never needed to replace brake pads due to most of the high speed braking coming from regen.

>although I agree with making enviromently safe cars, keeping
>everyone on the same page with gradual changes is the way to go, not
>letting everyone go off in all directions is the key to making changes
>that are the most efficient and enviromentally friendly.

I would tend to agree, but the following strategies won't work:

1) Do nothing. We've tried that for years, and we got Hummers.

2) Mandate that people buy new cars. Also a mistake for the reasons you listed above.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>Letting each state set their own regulations means that we will need
>different equipment or different programming to work on those cars.

That was true for a few years (i.e. CA cars needed different equipment than non-CA cars) but manufacturers rapidly standardized on the newer technologies. Thus every car in the US now has an engine controller, catalytic converter etc.

Quote

the government made the car companies standardize some things to make the diagnostic eqipment more universal but did not mandate anything for software or anything other than basic engine controls. each company can use what they want for abs, body control, air bags, ect. they do have different engine computers for green states and alot of different diesel cars can't be sold in those states due to emissions.

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[434 2]

The car of tomorow come from Val Mart?

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/byd-electric-car-e6-crossover-mpv.php

BYD E6 Electric Vehicle Specifications
So far, all we know is that the E6 will be a 5 seater with an acceleration of 0 to 100 kph of around 10 seconds. Top speed should be top speed of 160 kph (100 mph), and the battery pack, which is located under the rear passenger seats, will be based on BYD's own lithium-ion iron phosphate technology. Range per charge is expected to be 300 km (186 miles).

[quade 4]

It would be a very good thing if China could pull off something like that. Not so much for the US economy but certainly for the planet. The use of cars is exploding in China and if they can find a domestically made electric solution that would absolutely be a good thing.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[chuckakers 426]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So when we add 6% to the carbon in the atmosphere, and the total increases by 6%annually, we HAVE upset the balance. How many years at 6% does it take to double the atmospheric CO2?

The CO2 won't increase for any significant period of time. The earth's natural CO2 emissions (and subsequent overall levels) can vary greatly from year to year, decade to decade depending on many factors. And, as you can see, we ain't dead. Why? Easy. The earth has its own scrubbing technology. When the amount of any substance goes up, the earth finds a way to deal with it. The earth does not require us to balance it.

Fact: one major volcanic event releases thousands of times more CO2 (and boatloads of other, highly toxic stuff) than mankind has since the beginning of the industrial age. And we still ain't dead. Hmmmm.

The earth could care less about our dinky CO2 output. Maybe that's why the global warming nuts are loosing their battle.

In fact, I can't even remember the last time I saw Al Gore on TV.

Global warming is about taking your money and controlling you. Nothing more, nothing less.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[quade 4]

Quote

In fact, I can't even remember the last time I saw Al Gore on TV.

I do. For me it was six days ago. Wow. He really has dropped off the face of the earth and into obscurity hasn't he?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[chuckakers 426]

Quote

Quote

In fact, I can't even remember the last time I saw Al Gore on TV.

I do. For me it was six days ago. Wow. He really has dropped off the face of the earth and into obscurity hasn't he?

yep.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[434 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Religion is about taking your money and controlling you. Nothing more, nothing less.

Fixed it for ya!

[chuckakers 426]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Religion is about taking your money and controlling you. Nothing more, nothing less.

Fixed it for ya!

Actually, you just drove my point home very nicely. Global warming is a religion.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[billvon 3,118]

> The earth's natural CO2 emissions (and subsequent overall levels)
> can vary greatly from year to year, decade to decade depending on
> many factors. And, as you can see, we ain't dead. Why? Easy. The
> earth has its own scrubbing technology. When the amount of any
> substance goes up, the earth finds a way to deal with it. The earth
> does not require us to balance it.

Assuming we don't overload that scrubber - you are correct.

>Fact: one major volcanic event releases thousands of times more >CO2 (and boatloads of other, highly toxic stuff) than mankind has
> since the beginning of the industrial age.

Completely false. We emit about 30 billion tons of CO2 a year. Volcanoes emit about 200 million tons a year, and a really big eruption (Pinatubo) can emit 500 million tons.

To put it another way, we're putting out as much CO2 as 60 Pinatubo eruptions a year. Think the earth's scrubbers are used to dealing with that?

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Hmm. I've gotten 60,000 miles out of a set of tires on a Prius

Amazing - what kind of tyres were they Bill? Standard or Eco-friendly long lasting types? My last set - Michelin Pilot SPORT PS2's - lasted only 12000miles - but their performance was outstanding otherwise.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

Other question for you - I've been reading recently of moves to put iron fillings into the oceans to encourage plankton blooms which would absorb CO2 back into the oceans when the plankton dies - your opinion?

Wouldn't increased levels of carbon within the oceans through these means increase oceanic acidification - which as I understand, is very bad?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[billvon 3,118]

>what kind of tyres were they Bill?

They were the OEM low rolling resistance tires. I didn't note the brand. I replaced them with Goodyear middle of the road tires, and my MPG has stayed about the same.

[chuckakers 426]

Quote

> The earth's natural CO2 emissions (and subsequent overall levels)
> can vary greatly from year to year, decade to decade depending on
> many factors. And, as you can see, we ain't dead. Why? Easy. The
> earth has its own scrubbing technology. When the amount of any
> substance goes up, the earth finds a way to deal with it. The earth
> does not require us to balance it.

Assuming we don't overload that scrubber - you are correct.

>Fact: one major volcanic event releases thousands of times more >CO2 (and boatloads of other, highly toxic stuff) than mankind has
> since the beginning of the industrial age.

Completely false. We emit about 30 billion tons of CO2 a year. Volcanoes emit about 200 million tons a year, and a really big eruption (Pinatubo) can emit 500 million tons.

To put it another way, we're putting out as much CO2 as 60 Pinatubo eruptions a year. Think the earth's scrubbers are used to dealing with that?

You are forgetting the thousands of subsea eruptions annually which are not measurable with any accuracy. Add it up.

Besides, the two biggest factors controlling global temperatures - global rainfall and solar flares - can't be measured or predicted.

So smart guy, watcha gonna do when all your global cooling efforts coincide with natures next ice age? Trade your rig for skis, I guess.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[dgskydive 0]

At least he is taking steps in the right direction.

Dom