• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

EPA Set to reveal new Sulfer regulations

Henrin said:
No, my argument is meant to apply only to the short term. I don't think there is much sense to passing regulation after regulation in a poor economy. What I think of regulations in general and how I think issues like this should be dealt with is an entirely different discussion. At some point you have to stop purposely increasing the cost of business and just let the economy improve. You can't just continually step on it's head and think it will rebound at some point.
Click to expand...

Should we repeal existing environmental regulations whenever the economy is poor?
 
Deuce said:
Should we repeal existing environmental regulations whenever the economy is poor?
Click to expand...

this is pretty much a strawman along with the rest of the arguments made. the fact is there there is little evidence to support any of the EPA's claims.
they are using 3rd party back door studies from environmentalist groups such as green peace for their data. they have been doing this since obama installed the new EPA panel.

they have been driving force behind industry killing regulations and job costs.

while you might not think a 10 cent increase in fuel is big it is actually huge. it impacts the entire economy. the price of goods will soar under the new costs to ship.
the 10 cents is just the cost increase. which means the price will actually go up 12-15 so the companies make their money back.
 
ludin said:
this is pretty much a strawman along with the rest of the arguments made. the fact is there there is little evidence to support any of the EPA's claims.
they are using 3rd party back door studies from environmentalist groups such as green peace for their data. they have been doing this since obama installed the new EPA panel.

they have been driving force behind industry killing regulations and job costs.

while you might not think a 10 cent increase in fuel is big it is actually huge. it impacts the entire economy. the price of goods will soar under the new costs to ship.
the 10 cents is just the cost increase. which means the price will actually go up 12-15 so the companies make their money back.
Click to expand...

Little evidence to support the fact that sulfur emissions cause respiratory problems? Care to back up anything you said?
 
Deuce said:
Um, the EPA knows the fuel mileage of a vehicle.

And, are you under the impression that respiratory disease can't be caused by two things?
Click to expand...

How do they know the fuel mileage? From their tests? Good luck with that bull****. I frequently tune mine to get far better than what they claim. Only a fool trust anything coming out of that organization.
 
DVSentinel said:
How do they know the fuel mileage? From their tests? Good luck with that bull****. I frequently tune mine to get far better than what they claim. Only a fool trust anything coming out of that organization.
Click to expand...


"I alter my vehicle, and it gets different mileage than what the claim is for the base model!"

Holy **** you just can't make this stuff up. :lamo

What kind of vehicle do you drive?
 
notquiteright said:
You play silly CON games, so the quacks like a duck clause is invoked.

I gave you an answer, it just isn't what you wanted. I leave the measuring and calibration to those who have the training, not the likes of Anthony Watts.

Personally I'd go with grams per hour of engine operation as that is what my tractor uses. But do feel free to nit pick. I do have to ask, are you sure the EPA who sets the MPG ratings doesn't know the fuel mileage? Is this going to be one of those rants about the MPG sticker??? :roll:
Click to expand...

Ah, so you don't bother actually observing things and thinking for yourself? If so, then I guess you really are a progressive.
 
Deuce said:
How much does respiratory disease cost? I need to know so that I can make an informed decision as a consumer as to whether I want cheaper gasoline or healthier lungs.
Click to expand...

Its irrelevant, since the economy is going to be in the toilet because of too much government regulation. Betwee Obamacare and the EPA, you wont be able to afford treatment, anyway.
 
apdst said:
Its irrelevant, since the economy is going to be in the toilet because of too much government regulation. Betwee Obamacare and the EPA, you wont be able to afford treatment, anyway.
Click to expand...

I wont be able to afford treatment for lung cancer, so the more expensive gasoline sounds like a better choice.
 
Deuce said:
"I alter my vehicle, and it gets different mileage than what the claim is for the base model!"

Holy **** you just can't make this stuff up. :lamo

What kind of vehicle do you drive?
Click to expand...

Which one?

For those who don't know crap about cars, fuel mileage is a function of many different factors. Aerodynamic drag and gearing have far more to do with fuel mileage than anything else. Then there is the whole functions of timing, spark control, friction, rotating mass, and the list goes on and on. The best way to improve gas mileage on average would be to shut down the EPA. Their stupidity is the greatest pollution creator know to man.

They cannot even figure out that if the only two byproducts of a perfect burn is CO2 and water, then there is absolutely no way to improve efficiency of the burn without upping the ratio of CO2.
 
Deuce said:
I wont be able to afford treatment for lung cancer, so the more expensive gasoline sounds like a better choice.
Click to expand...

Right. Crash the economy, cost everyone tons more money just to live because you are afraid you might get lung cancer from automobile emissions. NM that it is only one source of thousands that put off cancer causing byproducts. This whole "emissions cause cancer" thing is so stupid, only the left could think it up and believe it.
 
DVSentinel said:
Ah, so you don't bother actually observing things and thinking for yourself? If so, then I guess you really are a progressive.
Click to expand...

What kind of vehicle do you drive? How did you measure the mileage? Did you write down distances driven, to the tenth of a mile? Did you measure the gasoline in your tank before and after, to the tenth of a gallon? Did you control for changes in weight, temperature, pressure, and winds? Road conditions? Tire pressure? What was the temperature of the gasoline when put into your tank? How about after driving?

If you think your personal, completely unorganized, non-recorded observations are better than someone actually paying attention to the variables mentioned above, and more, you make a perfect conservative.
 
DVSentinel said:
This whole "emissions cause cancer" thing is so stupid, only the left could think it up and believe it.
Click to expand...

I'm just going to let this comment stand on its own.
 
Deuce said:
I wont be able to afford treatment for lung cancer, so the more expensive gasoline sounds like a better choice.
Click to expand...

Why do you support destroying our economy?
 
Deuce said:
What kind of vehicle do you drive? How did you measure the mileage? Did you write down distances driven, to the tenth of a mile? Did you measure the gasoline in your tank before and after, to the tenth of a gallon? Did you control for changes in weight, temperature, pressure, and winds? Road conditions? Tire pressure? What was the temperature of the gasoline when put into your tank? How about after driving?

If you think your personal, completely unorganized, non-recorded observations are better than someone actually paying attention to the variables mentioned above, and more, you make a perfect conservative.
Click to expand...

On computer controlled cars, temperature, pressure, etc are calculated by the computer. Winds? On my Tahoe, I've noticed a small change with winds, but not much. My camaro, wind definitely doesn't change it. Nor has any weight I've put into it. About the only thing that has significantly changed the fuel mileage on the camaro has been ethanol gas vs real gas. Then I drop from around 30 mpg to 26 mpg. Of course, the EPA will tell you that car only gets 24 mpg, which might of been true prior to upgrading the prom in it. Miles to the tenth of a mile, yes. Amount, not really, fill until the pump kicks off the first time (I don't live in Cali or one of those states with the vapor system on it that doesn't actually allow you to get the tank full.

I have 9 vehicles, only 4 of which are drivable at the moment. Of those, two have not been modified in some way. Of the ones I checked fuel mileage on, a 1985 Fiero, 2.5/5 speed, EPA estimate 33 mpg, actual measured, 42 Mpg. 1992 Camaro Z28 5.0L/5 speed, EPA 24, actual measured, 30. 2003 Chev Tahoe 5.3L/4 speed Automatic, 4 Wheel Drive, EPA 17, actual measured 20.
 
apdst said:
Do you support legalization of pot?
Click to expand...

1) Not an equivalent situation.

2) Yes, but only in accordance with existing second-hand smoke and DUI laws.

Sentence 2 should help you understand sentence 1, but if you still can't figure it out let me know.
DVSentinel said:
Give us a link to an actual scientific study that can definitively link automobile emissions to lung cancer or any other lung disease.
Click to expand...

automobile emissions and lung disease - Google Scholar
 
Radical environmentalist shall cause us all to pay more. But hey, THEY CARE! /smh
 
DVSentinel said:
Give us a link to an actual scientific study that can definitively link automobile emissions to lung cancer or any other lung disease.
Click to expand...

He can't. He's got the "if it saves just one child, it's worth it" mentality.
 
This is why the CEO of Exxon-Mobil is suing a town for putting a water tower 'near' where he lives.
The tower would ruin his view, lower his properety value.
Then the same CEO sues towns so he can FRACK right next to them, towers and truck traffic and stuff .
MrVicchio said:
Radical environmentalist shall cause us all to pay more. But hey, THEY CARE! /smh
Click to expand...
 
Deuce said:
1) Not an equivalent situation.

2) Yes, but only in accordance with existing second-hand smoke and DUI laws.

Sentence 2 should help you understand sentence 1, but if you still can't figure it out let me know.


automobile emissions and lung disease - Google Scholar
Click to expand...

I guess you missed the word "Definitive". I included that because unless their study included people who have not, in their entire life, been exposed to other sources, smoking for instance, then they cannot definitively link it. Everyone in everyone of the studies had been exposed during a lifetime to a plethora of other sources. It is impossible to definitively link one type of pollution, much less a single component, to any particular case because there is not way to study those only exposed to a single source. And that is before they take into account a genetic predisposition to a particular cancer or disease.
 
MrVicchio said:
He can't. He's got the "if it saves just one child, it's worth it" mentality.
Click to expand...

He doesn't understand that a statistical link is not a definitive link. Statistically, 1/3 of all smokers will die of smoking related illnesses. Statistically, X number of people in the general population will come down with the particular diseases mentioned by the EPA. That is from all sources. Do smokers in LA get cancer at a higher rate than smokers who live in a forest and are rarely subjected to smog? Then there is genetic disposition, weakening of the immune system, other related illnesses that may also cause a problem, etc, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom