Supreme Court, Automobiles, and Global Warming

[MRR]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...tm?POE=NEWISVA


While somewhat agree with the principle that the US government has the authority to regulate emissions I still am pissed that people think that passenger cars are the major source of green house gas emissions. From what I have researched fossil fuel based transportation only makes up 15-20% of the total greenhouse gas emissions annually. I got this chart from Wikipedia (whether you trust it or not but people are so ignorant and blind to think that the cars that you and I drive are the major cause of global warming compared to power plants, industrial processes, manufacturing, etc. Time to change our priorities.

[drakkie]

Whilst still forgetting that CO2 is just a tiny part of all the greenhouse gasses

[henk4]

but will the EPA exercise its just obtained authority?

[:Exige:]

9% Nitrous Oxide? Looks like they need to ban a Fast and Furious sequel!

[henk4]

Whilst still forgetting that CO2 is just a tiny part of all the greenhouse gasses

the common statement of anybody who sees its share to the contribution being attacked. If everybody takes this approach then the sum of the small contributions will continue to increase the big problem....

[Matra et Alpine]

In most countries Power Statiosn and Industrial sites have invested in cleaner fuels and cleaner processes and post-process scrubbers.

So time for transport pretty much

[drakkie]

the common statement of anybody who sees its share to the contribution being attacked. If everybody takes this approach then the sum of the small contributions will continue to increase the big problem....

No this is the approach of someone who has been taught that H2O is the primary green house effect and that in the total sum it represents more than 75%...

And so far the automobile industry as a whole has big problems to ever meet the Euro 6 standards. Not to forget the manufacturers of lorries..

[MRR]

In most countries Power Statiosn and Industrial sites have invested in cleaner fuels and cleaner processes and post-process scrubbers.

So time for transport pretty much

Yes but the problem is that the traditional meaning of fuel (i.e. coal) is still used so widely for power plants that they surpass automobiles by far in terms of CO2 emissions (scrubbed or not). If a switch was made back to nuclear power or to more wind, hydro, solar, thermal, etc then a drastic reduction in emissions might be possible. Same goes for cleaner industrial processes that consume less petroleum based fuels.

Also note that the chart puts all modes of transportation in "transportation fuels" which probably includes buses, diesel trains, ships, etc (passenger cars are probably even a smaller part of this).

Furthermore the EPA has regulated auto emissions for the past 30 years, this case was simply whether or not that ability was constitutional. The EPA however along with the CARB board in the California are stupid though because they focus more on clean emissions than the actual fuel efficiency and use of cars and trucks. It is organizations like this that have prevented widespread use of diesel passenger cars and trucks in the US which at least in the short term could partially reduce transportation CO2 emissions.

[henk4]

No this is the approach of someone who has been taught that H2O is the primary green house effect and that in the total sum it represents more than 75%...

Lets assume then that this 75% cannot be influenced, which leaves a much larger share for CO2 in the elements that can be dealt with. Also the overall greenhouse gas equilibrium can be affected by influencing only a small part of the components...

[Zytek_Fan]

but will the EPA exercise its just obtained authority?

What I find ironic about the EPA is that they say they fully support alternatives to gasoline, yet they are trying to keep TDI out by publishing the emissions for TDI based on the US's terrible quality diesel...The EPA doesn't even pay attention to the amazing efficiency...


Whatever happened to the low to no sulfur diesel that was supposed to be introduced here?

[henk4]

Furthermore the EPA has regulated auto emissions for the past 30 years, this case was simply whether or not that ability was constitutional. The EPA however along with the CARB board in the California are stupid though because they focus more on clean emissions than the actual fuel efficiency and use of cars and trucks. It is organizations like this that have prevented widespread use of diesel passenger cars and trucks in the US which at least in the short term could partially reduce transportation CO2 emissions.

So now they have the authority to regulate not only the quality but also the quantity of the emissions...

[baddabang]

The government should ban hybrid cars, and demand that every vehicle is to be equipped with a LS7.

[my porsche]

Interesting read:

[MRR]

What I find ironic about the EPA is that they say they fully support alternatives to gasoline, yet they are trying to keep TDI out by publishing the emissions for TDI based on the US's terrible quality diesel...The EPA doesn't even pay attention to the amazing efficiency...


Whatever happened to the low to no sulfur diesel that was supposed to be introduced here?

They did - all stations must sell Low Sulfur Diesel by 2010 (and more than 70% already do).

[Zytek_Fan]

They did - all stations must sell Low Sulfur Diesel by 2010 (and more than 70% already do).

No stations around here do...unless you can get some Shell V-Power diesel