Re: Obama’s first climate change target

[xieu...@gmail.com]

Great !

A pity it has not been done years ago. US car makers would not be into
trouble nowadays and they would be exporters. Probably they would not
export assembled cars, but they would export green engines.

In any case, congratulations !

It is a turn toward the right direction and it will produce fruits in
years to come.

Peace and best wishes.

Xi

On 24 ene, 17:57, "Mercury.Sailor" <bluebun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> First 100 Days: Obama’s first climate change target
>
> After eight years of inaction on climate change by the federal
> government, we can now look forward to the Obama administration
> tackling global warming head on. With not a minute to lose, Lisa
> Jackson, the soon-to-be new head of the EPA, should move quickly to
> capitalize on the momentum of states that have so far been the leaders
> in fighting global warming. There is no better place to start than by
> establishing a national greenhouse gas emission standard for
> automobiles based on California’s landmark clean car law.
>
> http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/01/22/first-100-days-obama...
>
> My hope would be the new EPA tackling coal burning utilities and
> bringing them to thier knees!

[silver]

The EPA cannot use the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2 emissions because
there are no provisions in the CAA to address CO2. It would take an
act of congress to require EPA to promulgate regulations for CO2
emissions.

On Jan 24, 11:55 am, "Mercury.Sailor" <bluebun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > A pity it has not been done years ago. US car makers would not be into
> > trouble nowadays
>

> That takes "thinking and heart" something that was clearly lacking
> from our policy makers, in the past.

> > > bringing them to thier knees!- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[silver]

Yes. The SC ruled that the EPA can use the CAA to regulate GHG but as
it stands right now the CAA has no provisions in it to do so. In
order for the CAA to be used for that purpose it has to be ammended,
and as we all know only Congress can ammend an ACT.

By the way things look today and the slow moving snail like
incompetence of Congress - It would take years before they even
address ammending the ACT.


On Jan 25, 5:13 pm, "Mercury.Sailor" <bluebun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Supreme Court Clears the Air on CO2 Regulation
> By Leo P. Dombrowski
>
> On April 2, 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the
> Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has the authority to regulate
> greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions from motor vehicles as “air
> pollutants” under the Clean Air Act. Although the court left open the
> possibility that the EPA might decline to exercise its authority to
> regulate, given the sweeping nature of the court’s opinion and the
> EPA’s past statements about global warming, it appears almost certain
> that the agency will have to begin the rulemaking process.
>
> http://www.wildman.com/bulletin/April_2007/1/

[silver]

That was the only thing that the SC did - ruled that EPA can classify
CO2 as a pollutant.
Now look at the CAA. What Title are they going to put CO2 under?
They would need to create a new Title, Title VII - Reduction of Global
Warming Gases (or something like that). In order to add a new Title
the ACT itself has to be ammended, and like I stated earlier - it
ain't happening.

http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/

On Jan 25, 5:38 pm, "Mercury.Sailor" <bluebun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You dont need a provision in the CAA to regulate GHG as the SC has ruled
> that Co2 is a Pollutant.
>
> You dont want clean air? Is that it?

[Kamakazee]

It is great the US car makers are finally waking up to the pollution/
global warming threat.

It most likely will take the Chinese govt another 20 to have something
even close to the same understanding....

But hell, they can sure put on a good Olympics!

[xieu...@gmail.com]

Really? 20 years? wow !

:)

[silver]

Isn't China the biggest buyers of the Buick?
The Buick was always a polluting gas guzzler.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Kamakazee]

Just a guess. You have a much better understanding of these things
then I, what do you think?

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[xieu...@gmail.com]

I do not know, you are right probably, China is the biggest buyer of
many categories of products, buick could be one of them.

In China, taxes on gaz has been low along decades compared to Japan
and Europe. It pushed high comsumption cars. Since some years ago, it
is mid way between USA on the one hand and Europe and Japan on the
other hand. The trend is to make them as high as Europe and Japan, I
hope it happens as soon as posible. Those taxes will help to develop
railway and underground transportation, collective transportation is
the real goal. My wish is to make those taxes very high, even higher
than in Europe and Japan.

Also I think that is important to ban cars in the city center. Beijing
is surrounded by rings, roads that encircle the city. To make the side
into the first ring full pedestrian (except a few hours a day for
professional transportation of goods) is possible now. A huge part of
that side is pedestrian already and in five years, once Qianmen and
Zhongnanhai will be closed for cars, the area where cars are allowed
will be a fraction of the area into the first ring.

But Tiananmen, the city center, will be crossed by a car street yet.
In my opinion, that area should be car-free to make that most
Beijiners choose collective transportation instead of cars for local
trips. Or, as an option, to make a tunnel for cars crossing Tiananmen
and the whole city center without any exit into the ring. This would
develop a trolley network inside the area into the first ring. This
debate is currently alive in Beijing. But what I think is what finally
will win, we have no option but to reduce oil consumption by all
means.

According to some people working on urban planning and design, what I
think is not only posible but cheaper once investments are made
because it would save a lot of oil every year. And something like that
is the future, no option.

Peace and best wishes.

Xi

[xieu...@gmail.com]

Regarding my message, car makers, BYD launched its plug-in electric
cars in 2008. It has been introduced in Detroit, at the car exhibition
few weeks ago. 400 or 500 units served succcesfully during Olympics.
Unfortunately BYD is an small company yet, but it will compete next
year with Honda, at east in Chinese market and in some Asian markets,
once Honda launches its electric plug-in car in 2010. The good news is
that the BYD technology is in place, in use, affordable and available.
Hopefully the bigger brands such as SAIC will use BYD technology, or
they will choose another system, does not matter. But an affordable
gas-free category of cars will be a must for all car makers within
five years or so.

Also, step by step, taxes on gaz raise and rebates on low-pollution
cars (small sized cars or hybrid cars) or on zero-pollution cars
(hydrogen or electric plug-in) raise as well. This is making low
pollution or zero-pollution cars almost compulsory for all car
manufacturers.

That is what I think.

Peace and best wishes.

Xi

[Kamakazee]

Very interesting. As mentioned above, I was shocked at the price of a
cab..... was less then a diet coke in Shanghai.

[Kamakazee]

As you might know, gas in the US has taken a dramtic drop over the
fall and winter (though it's up a bit now). We, being the short
termin thinking people we are, are back on the big car bandwagon. I
heard the other day that the Prius, the first real hybrid over here,
has seen its sales drop sharply in the last few months. Along with
that, the urgency we once had during the primaries and election has
faded.

It's unbelievable that no one even gives it a thought anymore.

What goes down must come up.....

shein sheing (I know I mispelled that, but you get the idea).

[xieu...@gmail.com]

<<What goes down must come up.....>>

Absolutely correct and wise. I fully agree on your message, we should
not believe that this fall of oil price will last forever.

Peace and best wishes.

Xi

[Kamakazee]

How much longer in Barcelona? We'll be there in May, baby (who'll be
almost a year) with us.
I saw where there was strong winds and storms that killed several
people around Barcelona. The inlaws in Vilafranca had a few trees
uprooted and tiles blown off their roof. Did you see any damage in
Barcelona?

[xieu...@gmail.com]

I will be in Madrid until July-August-September 2010. I saw on
television some damage close to Barcelona, 4 kids died when roof
collapsed in a building. Really sad.

Peace and best wishes.

Xi

[Kamakazee]

Ya need to drive up to Pamplona in July. My son is going to run with
the bulls like his poppa did a couple years ago.

[CincyBabe]

Not everyone here is on the big car bandwagon, Kam. People are still
buying the hybrids.

Did you see the new 2010 Honda hybrid that's coming out? It's a total
remake of the Insight, and it looks promising.

[Kamakazee]

Good. I guess I only see the Texas perspective around here.

Yeeee Hawwww

[silver]

I told you Obama was a loser. He gave all of you another snow job.
He said he wanted to lower CO2 emissions from cars and all the
greenies swarm around him as he was an al-gore clone. Now, Obama is
asking the States to impose stricker CO2 emissions from cars because
the idiots at his EPA do not have mechanisms in place to address the
problem.



On Jan 28, 6:17 am, "Mercury.Sailor" <bluebun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What happened Silver you mind freeze over from too much PerpaFrost??

[CincyBabe]

Now, now. You don't know that, you're just projecting. Let's see what
happens, okay. Obama has a TON of stuff on his plate, thanks to Bush.
He's not, after all, the Messiah he's accused of being, he's just
human. And he's only been in office a week. Sheesh.

[Kamakazee]

I don't take hints very well and rarely run with anything other than
weasels.

On Jan 28, 5:14 am, "Mercury.Sailor" <bluebun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I thought you might have taken the hint and taken the detour to the
> backboard, where the dogs run!

[silver]

Here is the table of contents of the CAA.
As you can see there are no provisions in the Act to address CO2.
The Act needs to be amended and that will take an act of congress.

This is the reason why Obama asked the States, because the Federal
government can't handle the job.


Table of Contents
Title I - Air Pollution Prevention and Control
Part A - Air Quality and Emission Limitations (CAA § 101-131; USC §
7401-7431 )
Part B - Ozone Protection (replaced by Title VI)
Part C - Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (CAA §
160-169b; USC § 7470-7492)
Part D - Plan Requirements for Nonattainment Areas (CAA § 171-193; USC
§ 7501-7515)
Title II - Emission Standards for Moving Sources
Part A - Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards (CAA § 201-219; USC
§ 7521-7554)
Part B - Aircraft Emission Standards (CAA § 231-234; USC § 7571-7574)
Part C - Clean Fuel Vehicles (CAA § 241-250; USC § 7581-7590)
Title III - General (CAA § 301-328; USC § 7601-7627)
Title IV - Acid Deposition Control (CAA § 401-416; USC § 7651-7651o)
Title V - Permits (CAA § 501-507; USC § 7661-7661f )
Title VI - Stratospheric Ozone Protection (CAA § 601-618; USC §
7671-7671q )

[Justice]

Silver, the Supreme Court gave EPA the power to rule on greenhouse
gases. You're limiting yourself to the table of contents to the bill
-- the Court read the whole thing and said they have the power.

The EPA will promulgate rules and put them under whatever section or
subsection is appropriate.

In the meantime, federal government objections to California's right
to determine their own environmental policy have been lifted and other
states will follow suit -- those that were waiting in the wings to
find out what would happen with California.

It's bogus to believe that states are now being asked to take over the
job of the US Government -- that's what the automakers want you to
believe because that's the argument they've used successfully under
Bush to stall. They virtually set up a war between California and the
Federal Government, and egged the feds forward by telling them that
California had no right to set public policy for the entire country.

That's not true any longer. California can set the rules for itself
and the other states that want clean air, and it's also likely those
SAME rules will be followed by many states across the country.
Carmakers don't have to worry about making 2 different cars -- one car
fits all -- the new California standards -- will be just fine, whether
individual states follow suit or not.

In addition, the EPA will begin the rulemaking process to clean up air
across the US.

I know it seems difficult to believe that carmakers would operate
against their own best interests (smaller cars, more fuel efficient
cars, less polluting cars) but they have. While its true that
Americans have bought the big models primarily because gas was cheap,
it's also true that they wouldn't have purchased them if they hadn't
been made.

Detroit didn't want to retool and they didn't want to try to compete
with Japan, Korea and now India and China in the small car market. If
gas could stay cheap, then Detroit would have its own niche market.

Now that most Americans realize that gas isn't going to stay cheap and
that it won't pay in the long run to purchase large automobiles unless
they simply MUST have them for work or because they are too fat to fit
into smaller cars, the buying habits of most are about to change for
economic reasons, with a by-product being to save the planet.

And the EPA will accommodate those new rules under the current law.
Part A under Title I would be a good place to start, but Part C under
Title II can also accommodate changes.

[CincyBabe]

Well said.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Kamakazee]

"While its true that
Americans have bought the big models primarily because gas was cheap,
it's also true that they wouldn't have purchased them if they hadn't
been made. "

A list of things Americans wouldn't buy if "they weren't made"

Anything.
Everything.

Even you understand that.
I think.

> > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

[silver]

The SC ruled that EPA had the right to regulate CO2 under the CAA
because the argument was that CO2 was not an air pollutant (which it
is not) and EPA did not have the right to regulate it. Now the SC
said that they can regulate it as a "green house gas" under the CAA.

As I stated there are no provisions in the CAA to address green house
gases. The Titles and Parts you cited do not accomendate GHGs.
Just read the applicability of those Titles, there are no mentions of
CO2.

In oder for EPA to incorporate CO2 in to the Act they will need to
amend the Act. Well in order to amend an Act that would involve
congress, and like I said it ain't happening.

Also, having 50 states making 50 different standards will drive the
automakers crazy. The prices of the autos will sky rocket.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[silver]

Says you!! And that Heritage Foundation you receive all of your faux
information from! :o)
==================================

No, says the SC. Didn't you read the case summary, or do you just
repeat what you hear on TV by newsanchors that are glued to their
seats and never had any real life experiences.

On Jan 29, 5:26 pm, "Mercury.Sailor" <bluebun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The SC ruled that EPA had the right to regulate CO2 under the CAA
> > because the argument was that CO2 was not an air pollutant (which it
> > is not)
>

> Says you!! And that Heritage Foundation you receive all of your faux
> information from! :o)

[silver]

The CAA doesn't list CO2 as an air pollutant.
Therefore EPA has no mechanisms in place to regulate it.

PS, When it comes to environmental issues I'll run circles around
you.



On Jan 29, 5:55 pm, "Mercury.Sailor" <bluebun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> TEEVEE!! I dont do TEEVEE!
>
> Co2 is an air pollutant, You said it wasnt.
>
> Sudden infant death due to carbon dioxide and other pollutant
> accumulation at the face of a sleeping baby.
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8183123
>
> Why do you like to argue about what is good for our world....Dont you
> enjoy breathing clean air...OOPS thats right you breathe in that smog
> from NJ blowing over into NY on a daily basis!
>
> Did you know that in NY, It is illegal to have a hair analysis to
> check for heavy metals. How do you like them apples!

[Kamakazee]

With big paws.

On Jan 29, 6:49 pm, "Mercury.Sailor" <bluebun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You remind me of a cute little lost puppy! :o)

[Kamakazee]

Ditto.

On Jan 30, 4:44 pm, "Mercury.Sailor" <bluebun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> LOL!!! And an even bigger heart! :o)
>
> Im glad you found your way here!