Sound logic on gas prices

[Perfectlap]

The rap on autos and pollution outdated?

There are a Billion Chinese who are buying cars at an alarming rate. And those cars are not beholden to the strict pollution standards that we impose.
A single mainland province of China has more people in it than all of the USA.
Add to that their commercial trucks, factories and their heavy reliance on coal for home heating and you have a giant hole in the ozone. Not to mention India and other highly populated countries and their outdated autos. We're not the only country with cars.


and THe rest of the USA isn't California. our environmental standards are much much less. Just travel to Texas which has some of the most polluted cities in the country.
ANd here in New Jersey we have more cars than people. Anyone who thinks that doesn't have an effect on air standards needs to read up on some of the recent EPA findings that forced the previous comissioner(and former NJ governor) to resign from the Bush Adminstration.
Even if our autos run at lower levels of pollution, people are driving more, walking less and more people own cars than at any point since the car was invented. All that consumption ads to gloabl warming. If you believe in that or as the current administration refers to it "gloabl climate change".

[JackG]

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

There are a Billion Chinese who are buying cars at an alarming rate. Add to that their commercial trucks, factories and their heavy reliance on coal for home heating and you have a giant hole in the ozone.

and THe rest of the USA isn't California. our environmental standards are much much less. Just travel to Texas which has some of the most polluted cities in the country.

There are a billion Chinese, but there are not "a billion Chinese who are buying cars". There are, however, many more Chinese now able to afford cars, and you can thank everyone who walks into Walmart for that. They now have jobs, and more expendable income due to those jobs. Two distinct reasons for that...

1. Our labor unions have priced the American worker right out of their jobs.

2. Americans want clean air, water, and soil, but are unwilling to pay for goods manufactured under those restrictions.

And maybe you haven't been to LA recently, but I've spent significant time there and in the DFW area recently, and LA seemed hands-down much more polluted than DFW. If California didn't have tougher pollution standard there would no longer be any freeway shootings there... because you wouldn't be able to see the car next to you!

[Brucelee]

All that and the air quality in the USA is markedly cleaner than it was in the 1970s.

China and India will deal with their air quality issues also.

Next disaster in the making?

Of course, we COULD have less air pollution if we want. We simply need to incur the costs. Drive less (a cost) mandate fuel economy standards that are higher (a cost) make the engines even cleaner (a cost) etc. etc.

Which cost would you incur and for how much cleaner air?

All of us are FOR things like cleaner air (even if we can't define that) esp if it seems to cost others vs our selves. If we had to pay for additional air pollution devices on our cars voluntarily, how many of us would (I wouldn't).

Re: global warming, give me a break!

The recent data suggests the polar ice caps are getting THICKER!

BTW- why is it bad that the Chinese are buying cars but it is OK if Americans are.

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

The rap on autos and pollution outdated?

There are a Billion Chinese who are buying cars at an alarming rate. And those cars are not beholden to the strict pollution standards that we impose.
A single mainland province of China has more people in it than all of the USA.
Add to that their commercial trucks, factories and their heavy reliance on coal for home heating and you have a giant hole in the ozone. Not to mention India and other highly populated countries and their outdated autos. We're not the only country with cars.


and THe rest of the USA isn't California. our environmental standards are much much less. Just travel to Texas which has some of the most polluted cities in the country.
ANd here in New Jersey we have more cars than people. Anyone who thinks that doesn't have an effect on air standards needs to read up on some of the recent EPA findings that forced the previous comissioner(and former NJ governor) to resign from the Bush Adminstration.
Even if our autos run at lower levels of pollution, people are driving more, walking less and more people own cars than at any point since the car was invented. All that consumption ads to gloabl warming. If you believe in that or as the current administration refers to it "gloabl climate change".

[tqtran]

Originally Posted by Brucelee

All that and the air quality in the USA is markedly cleaner than it was in the 1970s.

HAHA! Sorry Brucelee, but that was a good laught to start my day. Anyone that thinks the air is clean obviously doesn't look up into the sky.

Sorry but those aren't clouds up there. Also contrails and exhaust doesn't linger in the sky (especially at that high altitude) for that long.
They especially don't spread into a large cloud like this:


Next time you see a checker board up in the sky just ask yourself....."Why are they doing that??..."

Originally Posted by Brucelee

Re: global warming, give me a break!

The recent data suggests the polar ice caps are getting THICKER!

Is that why Bush was given a report two years ago that a large glacier on the polar cap had cracked, one that hasn't moved in hundreds of years??


Sorry guys, I'm not trying to knock anyone but unlike most of you, I have access to a lot of fed info. All I am saying is "There are more important things to worry about, all of this is just a distraction"
Just my two cents from your friendly 986board agent.

[Brucelee]

"HAHA! Sorry Brucelee, but that was a good laught to start my day. Anyone that thinks the air is clean obviously doesn't look up into the sky.

Sorry but those aren't clouds up there. Also contrails and exhaust doesn't linger in the sky (especially at that high altitude) for that long.
They especially don't spread into a large cloud like this:


Next time you see a checker board up in the sky just ask yourself....."Why are they doing that??...""

Boy, I hate it when data gets in the way!

See following!

America's air has become a great deal cleaner over the last generation. Since measurement began in 1970, U.S. emissions have fallen dramatically, even while GDP and travel have more than doubled. America, in other words, is producing much more while polluting less.
Ambient air pollution levels
(1976-2001)

Ozone -33%
Sulfur Dioxides -67
Nitrogen Dioxide -42
Carbon Monoxide -73
Particulates * -27
Lead -97

Note: * 1996-2001

Source: Index of Environmental Indicators, 2003

Production vs. pollution
1970-2000

Vehicular mileage +149%
Economic production +161%
Airborne emissions -25%

Source: Index of Environmental Indicators, 2003

Note: Table made from bar graph.






"Is that why Bush was given a report two years ago that a large glacier on the polar cap had cracked, one that hasn't moved in hundreds of years??"


Well that MIGHT be true but what do you conclude from that. If the polar caps are dynamic and they are growing in mass (which they are) they might acutally crack from time to time. Ice tends to do that when it MOVES and ENLARGES!




"Sorry guys, I'm not trying to knock anyone but unlike most of you, I have access to a lot of fed info"

You may have access but you have not shared any data, just innuendo. We do welcome data!

[tqtran]

Originally Posted by Brucelee

You may have access but you have not shared any data, just innuendo. We do welcome data!

Fine, you asked for it: :ah:


----- SNIP -----
LAB TEST SUMMARY
08.13.2002
EDMONTON, ALBERTA, CANADA
.
.
.
Edmonton recieved approx. 2.5" of snow/ice rain precipitation between Nov. 8-12, 2002.
A sterilized container as directed by nw labs was placed in an open secure area in the north end of the city.

The sample was sealed after the collection period and delivered to the lab. An analysis was performed on Aluminum and Barium only.

Aluminum

0.148 mg/l

Barium

0.006 mg/l

It is the scientific opinion of the lab that the aluminum content of the sample is HIGH and unusual.

Plant material chlorosis, as a result of plant inability to uptake nutrients may be an indication of metals (aluminum)in our mostly alkaline soils around Alberta.

...
----- END SNIP -----

----- SNIP -----
CBS News reported on bizarre geo-engineering experiments proposed for global warming reduction. The report confirmed that one of the methods advocated by physicist Edward Teller is to fill the atmosphere with metallic particles to "scatter away 1 or 2 percent of the sunlight..."
....
Former military officers used a private jet to obtain a sample of aerosol material being emitted by a military cargo aircraft. Laboratory tests on that sample reportedly confirmed that the effluent contained both aluminum and barium.
....
The toxic effects of barium are confirmed by a 1992 Department of Health and Human Services publication. It states that barium can cause breathing difficulties, increased blood pressure, changes in heart rhythm, stomach irritation, muscles weakness, swelling of the brain, as well as damage to the liver, kidney, heart and spleen.
----- END SNIP -----


Next time you see the checker board in the sky, leave an open container to collect rain/snow samples. Thake it to a lab and for under $100 you can get it tested and prove to yourself.

Brucelee: PM me if you want more details, I will provide an much info as I can without getting into trouble. I will not post more specifics on an open forum.

[Brucelee]

No need to PM.

My point in the postings is not to suggest that environmental issues are all bogus and that we can safely ignore any issue. Clearly as a society we haven't done that and will not in the future.

My point was to counteract the absolute doom and gloom perspective adopted by the Greens and parroted by the liberal media.

No improvements are sufficient for this folks, only the next calamity to befall us.

If you go back to the 60s and 70s, ALL of the predicted disasters related to pollution, population, oil reserves being depleted, turned out to be DEAD WRONG!

BTW-my favorite prediction that was on the cover of TIME MAGAZINE I believe in 1990 was that the world was headed for a TOTAL ICE AGE. I remember the cover of the issue, with the globe frozen over.

The funny thing about that issue was that many same forecasters of this ICE AGE are now leading the global warming charge.

Hmm, you'd think that would hurt their credibility wouldn't you?

Peace my friend!

[Perfectlap]

People who say the world is going to end tommorow are not to be believed.
But that doesn't mean that the impact that we've had on this planet in only a couple of generations isn't cause for deep concern.
China's emissions acounted for 1% in 1950. Today it's nearly half of the U.S.
and Equal to Europe. EVERYONE is concernend about China's escalating pollution.
I recently read that Japan's steel industry has offered to help the Chinese to produce less toxic manufacturing methods. I guess they figured out they'll soon be breathing the same dirty air.

Take it from someone that lives in New Jersey where the smell of pollution penetrates through car windows and is nothing short of overwhelming. Sometimes I have to raise the top on the BOxster because the air so bad.
We can do more harm in a short amount of time than anyone realizes. I don't need the Greens to tell me my air is filthy. I live it every day.