• 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

He can't. He's got the "if it saves just one child, it's worth it" mentality.

I guess that would depend on the child. A future Einstein, Noble, etc, it's a real tragedy. A Hitler, Obama, Clinton, Mao, Castro, etc, then it is a blessing in disguise.
 
I guess that would depend on the child. A future Einstein, Noble, etc, it's a real tragedy. A Hitler, Obama, Clinton, Mao, Castro, etc, then it is a blessing in disguise.

If you, or he, or pretty much anyone REALLY felt that way, you'd be the most pro-life anti-abortion in the world.
 
Great, now the greenies are going to attack oil the same way they've been attacking coal....Take a look around WV, and SE KY these days, and take it all in, that is the new norm progressives want.

Yeah, my immediate reaction was 'Oh great. Which industry is the EPA going to try and kill next?' Read a bit more, and it's big oil and the automotive industry under pointless attack again. It's not like we aren't paying $3.50 or more a gallon for gas. Oh wait. We are, and . . . .

“Somehow,” Chu said, “we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”
Steven Chu's Europe gas quote haunts President Obama - Bob King - POLITICO.com

Well, hell, they sure are getting there, aren't they?

Oh great. Gas you can't afford to buy and food you can't afford to buy, but at least you can get government hand outs. You certainly have interesting ideas about how to grow the economy, and what makes for a good economy. Chalk that right up with the rest of your ideology as not being in touch with reality.

Never in my life have I ever experienced an administration such as this, who so carelessly, so easily, so arrogantly causes the cost of living to go up on the ordinary man, so easily spends the common man's money for him, without even asking permission. Yeah, that's arrogant.

Of course, this is nothing new to liberal / progressives. It is their belief, and you can see on display here in this very forum thread, that they know everything better than everyone else, and the rest who have a differing opinion to their should just STFU (a great way to stimulate and drive discussion BTW), when the reality is so very far from it, in that they have a distinct lack of experience with reality, especially those liberal / progressives in government.

Pretty soon it's going to be their turn to STFU, and of course then they'll support vigorous and endless debate on every real or imagined point of their.

Why do you support giving lung cancer to children?

Hey. Get a clue. Life is a cancer on the planet. So why don't you go and try and regulate life out of existence? Makes about as much sense.
 
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 .

Fracking's only dangerous to radical Gaia worshipers.
 
If you, or he, or pretty much anyone REALLY felt that way, you'd be the most pro-life anti-abortion in the world.

Only if I was God, would I be able to actually know. For us mere mortals, roll the dice, take your chances.

I am pro-life/anti-abortion, btw. But I think environment plays a lot in what we become, not just genetics. Oh, sure, you cannot teach someone with an 90 IQ to be a top notch scientist/researcher, but you can take someone with a 190 IQ and make them into a blithering idiot.
 
Yeah, my immediate reaction was 'Oh great. Which industry is the EPA going to try and kill next?' Read a bit more, and it's big oil and the automotive industry under pointless attack again. It's not like we aren't paying $3.50 or more a gallon for gas. Oh wait. We are, and . . . .

Steven Chu's Europe gas quote haunts President Obama - Bob King - POLITICO.com

Well, hell, they sure are getting there, aren't they?

Oh great. Gas you can't afford to buy and food you can't afford to buy, but at least you can get government hand outs. You certainly have interesting ideas about how to grow the economy, and what makes for a good economy. Chalk that right up with the rest of your ideology as not being in touch with reality.

Never in my life have I ever experienced an administration such as this, who so carelessly, so easily, so arrogantly causes the cost of living to go up on the ordinary man, so easily spends the common man's money for him, without even asking permission. Yeah, that's arrogant.

Of course, this is nothing new to liberal / progressives. It is their belief, and you can see on display here in this very forum thread, that they know everything better than everyone else, and the rest who have a differing opinion to their should just STFU (a great way to stimulate and drive discussion BTW), when the reality is so very far from it, in that they have a distinct lack of experience with reality, especially those liberal / progressives in government.

Pretty soon it's going to be their turn to STFU, and of course then they'll support vigorous and endless debate on every real or imagined point of their.



Hey. Get a clue. Life is a cancer on the planet. So why don't you go and try and regulate life out of existence? Makes about as much sense.

Well put friend...I couldn't have summed it up better.
 
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.

That's not how it works. Stop commenting on scientific research.
 
Learn about the scientific method before telling others not to comment. Particularly, consider what "peer" review actually means.

The scientific method does not require perfect isolation of every variable, because that's impossible.
 
The scientific method does not require perfect isolation of every variable, because that's impossible.

True, nor did I say that. However, to scientifically verify a result of a particular process, it must be isolated from other process/data which could generate the same results. Otherwise, you cannot prove that that process or item is a causal factor. A researcher looking at whether a particular particle cause a particular disease, then the study must be set up to isolate any other factor that would cause the same disease. They wouldn't have to isolate it from, say, the herpes, but anything that can cause a "false positive" has to be removed or the data is corrupted.
 
True, nor did I say that. However, to scientifically verify a result of a particular process, it must be isolated from other process/data which could generate the same results. Otherwise, you cannot prove that that process or item is a causal factor. A researcher looking at whether a particular particle cause a particular disease, then the study must be set up to isolate any other factor that would cause the same disease. They wouldn't have to isolate it from, say, the herpes, but anything that can cause a "false positive" has to be removed or the data is corrupted.

And are you under the impression that the EPA hasn't done this? What gave you that impression?
 
And are you under the impression that the EPA hasn't done this? What gave you that impression?

Why are you under the impression they have?

Did you know this latest ruling regarding sulfur is the result of actions taken by California, and the California Air Resources Board, and not by the EPA?

Did you know the automaker support is purely from the standpoint of lowering costs, since the adoption of lower sulfur standards by the EPA would result in one set of standards, rather than one for California vehicles, and one for the other 49?

Are you comfortable with a single state mandating the standards for every other state in the US?
 
And are you under the impression that the EPA hasn't done this? What gave you that impression?

Because, at least where the lung cancer, emphysema and other respiratory diseases are concerned, I know they haven't because it would be impossible to accomplish short of putting the test groups in total isolation for a lifetime. Further, I know they have been wrong on other things also. I argued for years that their parts per million measures were an inaccurate measuring of pollutants. Funny, I still say that and yet the EPA has now, after 40+ years, has now changed to grams/mile. In other words, I was correct the whole time, regardless of the number of environmentalist and enviro-supporters that said I was wrong and full of ****.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/03/us/epa-set-to-reveal-tough-new-sulfur-emissions-rule.html?_r=0



Fuel makers have said that the new regulations will cost you 10 cents more per gallon at the pump. at a time when people are already feeling cost increases from insurance, food, etc ... we now get hit at the pump due to more government regulations.

Will add 10 cents? Stripping sulphur out of diesel fuel added more than a dollar per gallon to the cost of diesel at least for awhile. All the refineries had to completely retool and add mechanisms to do that.
 
Last edited:
Why are you under the impression they have?

Did you know this latest ruling regarding sulfur is the result of actions taken by California, and the California Air Resources Board, and not by the EPA?

Did you know the automaker support is purely from the standpoint of lowering costs, since the adoption of lower sulfur standards by the EPA would result in one set of standards, rather than one for California vehicles, and one for the other 49?

Are you comfortable with a single state mandating the standards for every other state in the US?

Definitely not California, that would be last state I would choose to put in such a position. Luckily, many of the things they wanted in OBD II got thrown out and others were thrown out through lawsuits.

I guess he never heard that anything enjoyable in life is either illegal, immoral or causes cancer in laboratory rats.
 
Will add 10 cents? Stripping sulphur out of diesel fuel added more than a dollar per gallon to the cost of diesel.

Yes. It will also raise the price of vehicles to meet those standards and will cause problems with older vehicles. The sulfur is used to help keep the valve train working properly. It is also proposed to apply to gasoline also, not just diesel.

And keep in mind, that $.10 is going to be applied to farmers who grow food, then to the transportation of the end product to market. Other industries also rely upon diesel in other areas. Many Hospitals use diesel powered generators as back up power. A power outage could cause a significant increase in their costs, even at only 10 cents per gallon. Not to mention other fuels which also use diesel fuel as part of their formula.
 
It is the price we pay.

But before we pay the price, where is the empirical evidence that doing this will significantly improve air quality? They've already stripped most of the sulphur out of gasoline and diesel. Admittedly the following study was paid for by the American Petroleum Institute, trade and lobby group for big oil:
http://www.api.org/news-and-media/n...ives/Environ-API-report-vehicle-emissions.pdf
. . . .and it strongly concludes that further sulphur reduction in fuels will have negligible effect on air quality.

Are there any comparable studies to show that air quality will be significantly improved?

The EPA has just as much motive to force such a regulation to promote Obama's incessant push to force out big oil and install all so-called 'green energy' as the API has to protest it.
 
Definitely not California, that would be last state I would choose to put in such a position. Luckily, many of the things they wanted in OBD II got thrown out and others were thrown out through lawsuits.

I guess he never heard that anything enjoyable in life is either illegal, immoral or causes cancer in laboratory rats.

Indeed. Not California.

Think about it. California was the first government in the World to identify CO2 as a GHG. That was done in 2002. In 2006, it fired more rounds into the heart of industry in the state by adopting AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, which has resulted in tremendous increases in energy prices, and a not unexpected outflow of middle class manufacturing jobs.

The California Air Resources Board has recently mandated 20% of all vehicles sold in the state be ZERO emission vehicles. This must be met by 2025. You can welcome a price increase of @ $1,500 - $2,000 per car nationwide to meet the standard on this unilateral regulation by California.

That is how Progressives role. You have no choice about California's position, that choice was stolen from you long ago. :peace
 
Yes. It will also raise the price of vehicles to meet those standards and will cause problems with older vehicles. The sulfur is used to help keep the valve train working properly. It is also proposed to apply to gasoline also, not just diesel.

And keep in mind, that $.10 is going to be applied to farmers who grow food, then to the transportation of the end product to market. Other industries also rely upon diesel in other areas. Many Hospitals use diesel powered generators as back up power. A power outage could cause a significant increase in their costs, even at only 10 cents per gallon. Not to mention other fuels which also use diesel fuel as part of their formula.

Currently farmers do get some exemptions on fuel so that might not be an issue. And you could be right on your other concerns too--I honestly don't if that would be a problem, but if it would, it certainly should be considered.

All I know is I get sick and tired of government putting out these initiatives--all with a noble sounding title on them so they can reel in the gullible--that cost the taxpayers gazillions of dollars and simply don't produce the promised results. Instead of feeling all righteous and warm & fuzzy that the air will be cleaner, don't we deserve honest data and evidence that the program will actually accomplish that and is necessary?
 
"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?
No two vehicles of the same make and model will ever get the exact same mileage at any time during their life cycles. The reason is that two drivers will never have the exact same driving habits and patterns, one vehicle may be made for light duty while another might get ragged out. One vehicle may be properly maintained and the other might be getting the **** kicked out of it from it's owner on the maintenance end. The air conditions of a place will determine part of that as well, the density of air, humidity, temperature of it, elevation of landscape, etc.

That's why the EPA can only issue estimates, and as has been pointed out the "average" that they put in is not consistent as a set.
 
Great, now the greenies are going to attack oil the same way they've been attacking coal....Take a look around WV, and SE KY these days, and take it all in, that is the new norm progressives want.

Yes, oh the horrors of an energy policy that does not require that we blow up entire mountains and destroy thousands of miles of rivers and streams. :roll:

This is how we get coal. We turn places like this:

wv1.jpg


Into this:

42_tn.jpg

Is that what you want?
 
It is the price we pay.
Why is it okay to ask people to tow your freight? If you want these half done ideas put into place, you cannot dismiss the costs you put on everyone, this is something that is unproven, literally only campaigned for by economic vampires(environmentalists) and passed along by politicians with less ethos than Bernie Madoff.
 
Because, at least where the lung cancer, emphysema and other respiratory diseases are concerned, I know they haven't because it would be impossible to accomplish short of putting the test groups in total isolation for a lifetime. Further, I know they have been wrong on other things also. I argued for years that their parts per million measures were an inaccurate measuring of pollutants. Funny, I still say that and yet the EPA has now, after 40+ years, has now changed to grams/mile. In other words, I was correct the whole time, regardless of the number of environmentalist and enviro-supporters that said I was wrong and full of ****.

You are incorrect.
 
It is the price we pay.

Typical liberal. Has absolutely no problem dipping into someone else's pockets, without permission, and takes their money.

Also as typical, using the government power to do so.

Hey listen. You are more than welcome to send extra checks in to the oil companies if you don't think that you are paying enough. Just be sure to leave me alone and not keep costing me more and more money. K?
 
Back
Top Bottom