• 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

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,587
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/03/us/epa-set-to-reveal-tough-new-sulfur-emissions-rule.html?_r=0

The Environmental Protection Agency plans to unveil a major new regulation on Monday that forces oil refiners to strip out sulfur, a smog-forming pollutant linked to respiratory disease, from American gasoline blends, according to people familiar with the agency’s plans.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

Well if I recall correctly there is always some excuse for not improving our air quality due to cost. I understand some see only 'more gubmint redtape' but for most of us it is about air quality and smog. There is even a CON politician onboard, because he can literally see the smog caused by gasoline and diesel sulfur.

While who are we to doubt a paid shill for big oil... :roll: -the cost in gas is still up in the air... to use a phrase.

Seems like everyone is willing to accept the new standards to include the auto industry, tasked with meeting EPA emission standards, sort of tough to do without clean fuel. Seems also we are lagging behind other nations in cleaning up our fuel to clean up our air.

I wonder if the Big Oil shill calculates the additional expense of trying to refine the tar sand sludge into the calculation. Seems the refineries are ok with additional steps when it suits them.
 
Well if I recall correctly there is always some excuse for not improving our air quality due to cost. I understand some see only 'more gubmint redtape' but for most of us it is about air quality and smog. There is even a CON politician onboard, because he can literally see the smog caused by gasoline and diesel sulfur.

While who are we to doubt a paid shill for big oil... :roll: -the cost in gas is still up in the air... to use a phrase.

Seems like everyone is willing to accept the new standards to include the auto industry, tasked with meeting EPA emission standards, sort of tough to do without clean fuel. Seems also we are lagging behind other nations in cleaning up our fuel to clean up our air.

I wonder if the Big Oil shill calculates the additional expense of trying to refine the tar sand sludge into the calculation. Seems the refineries are ok with additional steps when it suits them.

The only way to improve air quality is to dismantle the current EPA, lock all current environmentalist in an insane asylum and bring in real scientist to figure out what is really happening.
 
The only way to improve air quality is to dismantle the current EPA, lock all current environmentalist in an insane asylum and bring in real scientist to figure out what is really happening.

Yeah some 'real' scientists... I hear the fellas who's research said Smoking is safe are available now. :lol:

Maybe Anthony Watts could head it, oh wait he didn't ever graduate college... :roll:
 
Yeah some 'real' scientists... I hear the fellas who's research said Smoking is safe are available now. :lol:

Maybe Anthony Watts could head it, oh wait he didn't ever graduate college... :roll:

Tell you what, answer a simple question for me, and I'll believe what you say. How can the EPA accurately measure the g/mi of emissions without knowing the fuel mileage of the vehicle?

As to other things, funny you should bring up smoking, since second hand smoke is blamed for the same diseases the EPA is blaming on sulfur emissions. So who is right, the EPA or the FDA?
 
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.
 
Tell you what, answer a simple question for me, and I'll believe what you say. How can the EPA accurately measure the g/mi of emissions without knowing the fuel mileage of the vehicle?

As to other things, funny you should bring up smoking, since second hand smoke is blamed for the same diseases the EPA is blaming on sulfur emissions. So who is right, the EPA or the FDA?

That is a CON game- I go to a doctor if I am sick because he is trained to understand medicine, disease and treatments. I damn sure don't go to a fraud who didn't even graduate college for medical advise.

Next CON game- why can't there be more than one cause for these diseases? Cigarette smoke, no matter the hands, and sulfur emissions, throw in smoke smoke in areas where inversion layers occur, how about coal plants burning high sulfur coal- that isn't a car????
 
That is a CON game- I go to a doctor if I am sick because he is trained to understand medicine, disease and treatments. I damn sure don't go to a fraud who didn't even graduate college for medical advise.

So, just so I understand, you wouldn't see a doctor that didn't put in the requisite training, and schooling to become an MD, is that right?
 
That is a CON game- I go to a doctor if I am sick because he is trained to understand medicine, disease and treatments. I damn sure don't go to a fraud who didn't even graduate college for medical advise.

Next CON game- why can't there be more than one cause for these diseases? Cigarette smoke, no matter the hands, and sulfur emissions, throw in smoke smoke in areas where inversion layers occur, how about coal plants burning high sulfur coal- that isn't a car????

You didn't answer the question, so why should I believe a damned thing you say?
 
Sulfur burns in Oxygen to make Sulfur Dioxide and other Sulfur Oxides.
When Sulfur Oxides are mixed with Water Vapor, we get Sulfurous Acid and Sulfuric Acid, acid rain and acid snow.
Folks seem to forget that these acids lower the pH of lakes and kill fish, to say the least.

Did I mention yet what it's like to live downwind of these plants.
Any of you should notice the refinery on the East side of Cheyenne, Wyoming and their down-wind neighbors .
 
That is a CON game- I go to a doctor if I am sick because he is trained to understand medicine, disease and treatments. I damn sure don't go to a fraud who didn't even graduate college for medical advise.

Next CON game- why can't there be more than one cause for these diseases? Cigarette smoke, no matter the hands, and sulfur emissions, throw in smoke smoke in areas where inversion layers occur, how about coal plants burning high sulfur coal- that isn't a car????

Or the EPA could be full of **** and reaching for straws to increase their political power. Hmm, actual science or political power, wonder which a leftist is most likely to go for? Especially leftist who's so called science is always incomplete and questionable.
 
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.

More CON crap. First off the coal in VW was getting too expensive to tunnel mine, too deep, too dangerous as recent mine deaths have shown. Mines were collecting safety violations like drunk co-eds collect Mardi Gras beads. Eastern coal is dirty coal, out west it is hard coal and burns hotter, and with less impurities it is much cleaner.

It isn't the EPA that is closing Eastern mines, it is the mines playing out, the coal being dirty, the acid rain showing us how bad the coal was, and western coal being a MUCH better energy source.
 
Or the EPA could be full of **** and reaching for straws to increase their political power. Hmm, actual science or political power, wonder which a leftist is most likely to go for? Especially leftist who's so called science is always incomplete and questionable.

Yeah that's it... :roll:

A CON can't prove anything so it is the Gubmint power grabbing... not trying to reduce smog, health issues, and general pollution like other countries are doing....
 
Yeah that's it... :roll:

A CON can't prove anything so it is the Gubmint power grabbing... not trying to reduce smog, health issues, and general pollution like other countries are doing....

If you want a CON to prove something, then perhaps you should ask one of them instead of me.

And you still have not answered the question about how the EPA measures things. So, how can the EPA determine the g/mi (grams per mile) measurements they use if they do not know a vehicles actual fuel mileage?
 
Tell you what, answer a simple question for me, and I'll believe what you say. How can the EPA accurately measure the g/mi of emissions without knowing the fuel mileage of the vehicle?

As to other things, funny you should bring up smoking, since second hand smoke is blamed for the same diseases the EPA is blaming on sulfur emissions. So who is right, the EPA or the FDA?

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?
 
Economy is poor.

EPA: I think we can pass more regulations.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that sees that as stupid.
 
Economy is poor.

EPA: I think we can pass more regulations.

Here is an idea, shut up for a while.
Yeah. When the economy is better I'll be able to afford treatment for my lung cancer. This works out great!
 
Yeah. When the economy is better I'll be able to afford treatment for my lung cancer. This works out great!

Yeah, the increased cost of doing business will make peoples lives worse off. How many people get lung cancer? How many people will have to deal with increased prices? Pretty easy really. The economy is poor and it's not the best time for liberals to be masturbating openly. Put your pants on for now.
 
If you want a CON to prove something, then perhaps you should ask one of them instead of me. And you still have not answered the question about how the EPA measures things. So, how can the EPA determine the g/mi (grams per mile) measurements they use if they do not know a vehicles actual fuel mileage?

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:
 
Yeah, the increased cost of doing business will make peoples lives worse off. How many people get lung cancer? How many people will have to deal with increased prices? Pretty easy really. The economy is poor and it's not the best time for liberals to be masturbating openly. Put your pants on for now.

If you're going to ask pointless questions just how much will the increase in fuel costs add that will make the 'peoples worse off'???

Off thing about 'the economy is poor' is when the economy was good the excuse was 'can't stop the gravy train' :roll:

Face it, CONs will use the economy excuse in good times or bad.... :peace
 
Yeah, the increased cost of doing business will make peoples lives worse off. How many people get lung cancer? How many people will have to deal with increased prices? Pretty easy really. The economy is poor and it's not the best time for liberals to be masturbating openly. Put your pants on for now.

More people have to buy things than people get lung cancer, so screw environmental regulations? Isn't that an argument against literally every environmental law? "Hey, millions of people buy bleach, and hardly anyone dies from having toxic chemicals dumped in their drinking water, so let's allow companies to do that! Proper disposal costs jobs!"
 
More people have to buy things than people get lung cancer, so screw environmental regulations? Isn't that an argument against literally every environmental law? "Hey, millions of people buy bleach, and hardly anyone dies from having toxic chemicals dumped in their drinking water, so let's allow companies to do that! Proper disposal costs jobs!"

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom