Obama seeks tougher clean air standards.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20090126/pl_cq_politics/politics3017850_7
Under Obama's order, 2011 model year cars would be the first affected by the tighter standards.

"Year after year, decade after decade, we have chosen delay over decisive action," Obama said in remarks in the East Room of the White House. "We must have the courage and commitment to change."

It's great to see a President who understands how important it is to protect our air and water.

sparks wrote:

It's great to see a President who understands how important it is to protect our air and water.

Glad to see you putting in a good word for Richard Nixon. I didn't realize you were a fan.

http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/epa/15c.htm
The official birthday of EPA is December 2, 1970.

happy jack wrote:

sparks wrote:

It's great to see a President who understands how important it is to protect our air and water.

Glad to see you putting in a good word for Richard Nixon. I didn't realize you were a fan.

http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/epa/15c.htm
The official birthday of EPA is December 2, 1970.

The Republican party has a long history of conservationism. Teddy Roosevelt was responsible for building much of our national park system. It wasn't until Reagan and Bush rose to power than the GOP started it's antagonistic path that favored short term corporate profits at the expense of our air and water quality. However the American public is starting to wise up and elect leaders who are willing to do what is best for our country.

"Year after year, decade after decade, we have chosen delay over decisive action," Obama said in remarks in the East Room of the White House. "We must have the courage and commitment to change."

It's great to see a President who understands how important it is to protect our air and water.[/quote]


Doesn't he want to delay the digital TV conversion?

Well get ready for way higher Nipsco bills now

Any regulations they have to pay to upgrade for will simply be passed on to the customers

mike3775 wrote:

Well get ready for way higher Nipsco bills now

Any regulations they have to pay to upgrade for will simply be passed on to the customers

The way I see it, either you pay now or you pay later. The number one cause of children missing school are asthma attacks. The rapid increase in asthma in this country is directly related to air pollution. I think it is better public policy to clean our air now than to pay the health care costs for pollution later.

sparks wrote:

mike3775 wrote:

Well get ready for way higher Nipsco bills now

Any regulations they have to pay to upgrade for will simply be passed on to the customers

The way I see it, either you pay now or you pay later. The number one cause of children missing school are asthma attacks. The rapid increase in asthma in this country is directly related to air pollution. I think it is better public policy to clean our air now than to pay the health care costs for pollution later.

Interesting. Do you have a link to what you said, I'd like to read that...

Thanks!

Ohhmama wrote:

sparks wrote:

mike3775 wrote:

Well get ready for way higher Nipsco bills now

Any regulations they have to pay to upgrade for will simply be passed on to the customers

The way I see it, either you pay now or you pay later. The number one cause of children missing school are asthma attacks. The rapid increase in asthma in this country is directly related to air pollution. I think it is better public policy to clean our air now than to pay the health care costs for pollution later.

Interesting. Do you have a link to what you said, I'd like to read that...

Thanks!

Here's a link to study the Department of HHS published in 1996. They estimated that asthma attacks resulted in 6 Billion dollars in costs for 1990.
http://aspe.hhs.gov/sp/asthma/overview.htm

I will admit I did not read the whole thing sparks, but from what I read, you have got to be kiddin me. First of all, if all of a sudden there has been a spike in Asthma in the last 15-20 years, then the whole argument about cleaner air standards doesn't work. Since the country changed to unleaded gas in the mid 70's there has been a lot of work about cleaner air. Now the govt wants it to be regulated by each state? That could be a trainwreck waiting to happen. How could any company that deals nationally deal with 50 different laws? It would cost too much, and then some states could go without.

Kind of my point here Mizer, I don't think that the air quality has anything to blame here. If it does, it is to a much lesser degree than sparks is leading us to believe. If air quality was the root cause, asthema would have spiked during the industrial revelution.

sparks wrote:

The rapid increase in asthma in this country is directly related to air pollution.

Not according to the link you posted.
http://aspe.hhs.gov/sp/asthma/overview.htm
From 1980 to 1996, the number of Americans with asthma more than doubled, to almost fifteen million, with children under five years old experiencing the highest rate of increase. Reasons for these increasing rates are unclear.

I'm all for reducing the suffering of asthmatics, but it will be hard to make that happen if the initial diagnoses are faulty or non-existent.

Of course, when you look at the time frame involved, the cause becomes crystal clear - Reagan/Bush did it.
And, they probably used the same methods that they used to cause the AIDS virus and to further the crack epidemic.

Bastards.

Face wrote:

Now the govt wants it to be regulated by each state? That could be a trainwreck waiting to happen. How could any company that deals nationally deal with 50 different laws? It would cost too much, and then some states could go without.

As I understand it, there would not be "50 different laws." There would be only two, either the "California standard" which other states can choose to follow, or the Federal standards.

States may gain power over emissions standards

Quote :

On car emissions, the Clean Air Act gives California special authority to regulate vehicle pollution because the state began regulating such pollution before the federal government did. But a federal waiver is still required; if the waiver is granted, other states can choose to adopt either California's standards or the Federal ones.

happy jack wrote:

sparks wrote:

The rapid increase in asthma in this country is directly related to air pollution.

Not according to the link you posted.
http://aspe.hhs.gov/sp/asthma/overview.htm
From 1980 to 1996, the number of Americans with asthma more than doubled, to almost fifteen million, with children under five years old experiencing the highest rate of increase. Reasons for these increasing rates are unclear.

I'm all for reducing the suffering of asthmatics, but it will be hard to make that happen if the initial diagnoses are faulty or non-existent.

Of course, when you look at the time frame involved, the cause becomes crystal clear - Reagan/Bush did it.
And, they probably used the same methods that they used to cause the AIDS virus and to further the crack epidemic.

Bastards.

Anytime people breathe in small Particulate Matter,PM, the incident of respiratory illness increases. http://www.baaqmd.gov/pln/pm/index.htmHealth effects can result from both short-term and long-term exposure to PM pollution. Exposure to particulate pollution is linked to increased frequency and severity of asthma attacks and even premature death in people with pre-existing cardiac or respiratory disease. Those most sensitive to particulate pollution include infants and children, the elderly, and persons with heart and lung disease.

Many scientific studies have linked short-term exposure to PM to a series of significant health problems, including:

• aggravated asthma

• increases in respiratory symptoms like coughing and difficult or painful breathing

• chronic bronchitis

• decreased lung function

• heart attack

• premature death

The scientific evidence behind my contention is pretty strong. The only thing faulty or non-existent is the response of the Reagan and Bush administrations in dealing with this problem. Your comments about the Aids virus and crack epidemic really say quite a bit about your inability to debate the issues without throwing in personal attacks. I will continue to point out the fact that you are unable to argue your case without resorting to childish diversions.

happy jack wrote:

sparks wrote:

Your comments about the Aids virus and crack epidemic really say quite a bit about your inability to debate the issues without throwing in personal attacks.

How in the hell is that even close to a personal attack?
Grow some, would you?

Actually, you were right. I should have described your debating technique as being intellectually dishonest. http://www.johntreed.com/debate.html

Changing the subject: debater is losing so he tries to redirect the attention of the audience to another subject area where he thinks he can look better relative to the person he is debating
However, when you say that I should "grow some", that is definitely a personal attack.

Scorpion wrote:

Face wrote:

Now the govt wants it to be regulated by each state? That could be a trainwreck waiting to happen. How could any company that deals nationally deal with 50 different laws? It would cost too much, and then some states could go without.

As I understand it, there would not be "50 different laws." There would be only two, either the "California standard" which other states can choose to follow, or the Federal standards.

States may gain power over emissions standards

Quote :

On car emissions, the Clean Air Act gives California special authority to regulate vehicle pollution because the state began regulating such pollution before the federal government did. But a federal waiver is still required; if the waiver is granted, other states can choose to adopt either California's standards or the Federal ones.

That's the way it is now; there are USEPA standards and there are CARB standards in California. There is also a program regulating diesel emissions in Texas called the TxLED program.

Robin Banks wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Face wrote:

Now the govt wants it to be regulated by each state? That could be a trainwreck waiting to happen. How could any company that deals nationally deal with 50 different laws? It would cost too much, and then some states could go without.

As I understand it, there would not be "50 different laws." There would be only two, either the "California standard" which other states can choose to follow, or the Federal standards.

States may gain power over emissions standards

Quote :

On car emissions, the Clean Air Act gives California special authority to regulate vehicle pollution because the state began regulating such pollution before the federal government did. But a federal waiver is still required; if the waiver is granted, other states can choose to adopt either California's standards or the Federal ones.

That's the way it is now; there are USEPA standards and there are CARB standards in California. There is also a program regulating diesel emissions in Texas called the TxLED program.

That's correct, and for the record, the TxLED program adheres to the CARB guidelines.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/08/txled_looms_tex.html

Quote :

The Texas Low Emissions Diesel (TxLED) requirements are designed to lower the emissions of NOx and other pollutants from diesel-powered vehicles and non-road equipment in 110 counties in the eastern half of Texas as part of the State Implementation Plan to address non-compliance with federal ozone standards.

Under the rule, diesel supplied in those 110 counties must comply with the more stringent California Air Resources Board specifications for diesel fuel (e.g., 10% or less total aromatic hydrocarbon content; a cetane number of at least 48, a maximum 15-ppm sulfur content).

My point is that there will not be "up to 50" different standards. In fact, there will continue to be only two.

Not to split hairs, but TxLED does not adhere to CARB; it recognizes CARB. CARB, however, does not recognize TxLED, so the Texas standard can not be used in CA. That means there are three standards. So far.....

Robin Banks wrote:

Not to split hairs, but TxLED does not adhere to CARB; it recognizes CARB. CARB, however, does not recognize TxLED, so the Texas standard can not be used in CA. That means there are three standards. So far.....

No, that's not correct. For starters, the reason that TxLED exists is because the Eastern Texas counties were in vilolation of federal ozone standards.

And if you had read the article that I posted or even had read the quote above, you would have seen that.

Quote :

Under the rule, diesel supplied in those 110 counties must comply with the more stringent California Air Resources Board specifications for diesel fuel....

So you're not just "splitting hairs." You're misrepresenting the facts.

sparks wrote:

happy jack wrote:

sparks wrote:

Your comments about the Aids virus and crack epidemic really say quite a bit about your inability to debate the issues without throwing in personal attacks.

How in the hell is that even close to a personal attack?
Grow some, would you?

Actually, you were right. I should have described your debating technique as being intellectually dishonest. http://www.johntreed.com/debate.html

Changing the subject: debater is losing so he tries to redirect the attention of the audience to another subject area where he thinks he can look better relative to the person he is debating
However, when you say that I should "grow some", that is definitely a personal attack.

:offtopic: :nowhine: :headbang:

CARB Certification
TxLED fuel standards may be satisfied by a CARB-certified alternative diesel fuel formulation, or by fuel that complies with certain California fuel regulations in accordance with 30 TAC §114.312(e). Please refer to the Draft Regulatory Guidance document for the specific requirements.

This is from the current TxLED standard. As you can see, it says "may" be satisfied, not "must" be satisfied. I trust the standard as written by TCEQ, which is the source of the TxLED program, more than your quote. No misrepresentation here. Here is the link to the standard:

http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/implementation/air/sip/cleandiesel.html