Trump to shelve fuel mileage rules, clean water regs
 

President Trump directed the Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday to shelve aggressive vehicle fuel economy targets that have been a foundation for battles against climate change and harmful pollution in California and across the country.

IN FEBRUARY:

President Donald Trump signed an executive order to roll back President Barack Obama’s clean water rule. That environmental regulation was issued in 2015 to give the federal government authority to limit pollution in major bodies of water, rivers, streams, and wetlands.

The executive order directs the Environmental Protection Agency’s leader Scott Pruitt to initiate the lengthy legal process of rescinding and rewriting the rule, called Waters of the United States. Thus allowing coal companies to deposit tailings from their mining process into streams and rivers that the local population use as drinking water.


Attachment 66798

President MR. TRUMP Don Baldwin Myself and a few other people realize that the only thing ******* and libturds can do is FtheF up with regularity!!!

President Obama's rules, among other things, put a puddle in your yard under the control of the EPA. How's that float your boat?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Fuel economy rules do nothing other than "save" oil and reduce oil company profits.

Good for Trump. I wonder how long it will take him to repair all the damage Obie did in the last 8 years. Trump's the man! Getting things done where others have only wished they were done. Libtards better back off of him before the rest of us get tired of their childish tantrums and put their rears in the dirt.

Where's my lady? colgal?

Doesn't Colorado prevent most people from collecting rainwater? Can you believe that?

Collecting Rainwater Still Illegal in Much of Colorado - Lot-Lines

Fuel economy rules are there because we can't pump oil out of the ground fast enough to keep up if the demand were to keep growing. It countered the addition of NEW vehicles on the road not replacing old ones taken out of service. We used to have 50 million cars on the road getting 10 MPG...then there were 100 million...if they got 10 MPG it would double the amount of oil needed...and we can't do that...so, they made them make the cars get 20 MPG and everything works. Oil companies continue to pump almost at peak, and cars got sold.

Rules are RARELY for the purpose stated.

Can't you do any better than this gibberish, littleman?

What's a matter libby, truth hurt?

Trump should also get rid of the safety rules overburdening our auto industry. When I was a boy the best thing that could happen was to be thrown thru the windshield in a car crash to avoid being burned alive in the wreckage. Back in the forties and fifties we didn't have those expensive government mandated regulations and you could buy a new car for $1500.
In 1950, 33,186 died in car crashes. In 2014 30,057 died. Now a car costs $30,000. Where's the savings? America without regulation will allow more Americans to have money to save for retirement without the enslavement of Social Security.

:a20: COPUFF here.....

New Colorado Law Brings Rain Barrel Owners Out From Shadows | CPR

Water Rights is the West is a touchy subject! People have died over this issue.......It appears the farmers and ranchers were p***ed off about this practice.

I hope your not a hunter or fisherman, littleman.

Truth, you or trump do not know the meaning of the word.

Actual Factual numbers rather than conjecture
 

Motor vehicle deaths in U.S. by year (factual data from Insurance Institute for Highway Safety)

1950: 33826 deaths,458.25billion miles traveled, with a US population of 152,271,417, Result: 21.794 deaths per 100,000

2015:35,092 deaths, 3,147.8 billion miles traveled with a US population of 321,370,000, Result: 11.324 deaths per 100,000.

Conclusion: fewer deaths per 100,000 population in 2015 compared with 1950. fewer drivers in 1950, fewer miles driven in 1950,

The cost of a car in 1950 cannot be compared with the cost of a car in 2015 on the basis of the value of money or the cost of safety measures alone. Comparing that is like comparing a ship built today with a ship built in 1950, or a computer (yes, they had them in 1950) built today with a computer today.

So, if you wish to make a comparison of a long gone era with today, you might wish to start with the social aspects of the USA then, with now: No longer are there Jim Crow Laws, now a woman can own a house, have credit, and have higher education. Now we have cleaner air, cleaner water, food that we can depend upon to be safe (yes, there are isolated cases where there are food borne problems, but most come from restaurants, not the grocery store), just to name a few.....

A internal combustion engine can only get so efficient. I think it's reached it maximum potential. Unless alternative power assist. My car, not hybrid gets almost as good gas mileage as my golf cart with 170 more hp and a lot more weight. Nothing stopping companies to Make there products more efficient it they want edge over there competition. Government needs to quit subsidies corn gas. Let them make it on there own. Why, millions acres of forest being bulldozed for corn field. Goggle earth the Midwest see corn field After corn field. All corn gas did was drive price of corn, beef, and dairy products up while burning more gas to make it and use it.

Thank you. I've never been called "little" before. And I know you wouldn't be calling me anything, if you knew me. At least not to my face, coward.

You talk very big...impressive if you like that sort of thing.

Again, please share those thread titles younstarted

And with the oil that has been discovered lately there is no need to shoot for 100 mpg cars. We have more than enough for 400 years.

Your fingers do not seem to be broken. Are you a needy libtard? Does momma cut your steak up for you into little bites?

Trolls like you are soooo easy.

You know nothing but these little sub teen remarks, and you have no ability and the best thing is you keep on posting and showing everyone how dumb you really are.

And don't forget...you are going to supply a few of those threads you said you began

And what has been your major contribution to this forum? At least, I have started threads with news articles with links, for discussion. Don't throw stones before opening your windows, liberal.

There's plenty of oil...maybe...but that's not the problem...the problem is getting enough out EVERY day to supply the worlds insatiable demand.

We burn through almost 400 MILLION gallons of gasoline a DAY. JUST in the US

"In 2015, about 140.43 billion gallons (or about 3.34 billion barrels1) of gasoline were consumed2 in the United States, a daily average of about 384.74 million gallons (or about 9.16 million barrels per day).Mar 17, 2016"

Why do you think they drill in harsh climates? Out in the ocean? Oil must be sucked out SLOWLY...you can't rush it...that is why there are so many oil wells...

"As of early 2015, the IEA Oil Market Report forecast average demand for the year of more than 93 million barrels of oil and liquid fuels per day worldwide – that works out to more than 34 billion barrels a year – with January 2015 production totalling just over 94 million barrels per day."

Good post. Hard to argue with facts, unless one has disproving facts.

All these numbers are cool and stuff, but WHY is fuel economy "good" for the environment?
I stand by my assessment that fuel economy is simply a tool to hurt the oil industry.

What are fossil fuels?
 

Fossil fuels: carbon based liquids, gasses, and solids (oil, natural gas and coal for those who don't know) were formed millions of years ago by plants and animals that absorbed it from the prehistoric atmosphere that was saturated with carbon.
Think of those deposits, like bank deposits....sitting in the ground, not doing any harm, but now we have, in the past century, started to withdraw those deposits. The carbon does not get destroyed (chemical law that matter cannot be created nor destroyed), so when it is used in fossil fuels the carbon is released. It does NOT go back into the ground but rather when released into the atmosphere as CO, and C02, as well as Methane and other complex carbon molecules (by cars, trucks, power plants, et al) it STAYS there.

Yes, some of it gets redistributed into the plants that absorb it, but not in such magnitude as to make any difference in the concentration in the atmosphere. So, the more carbon molecules released into the atmosphere, the higher and higher the concentration...make sense?

Now, we have scientific proof that the Earth and its atmosphere are growing WARMER, by rather alarming rates compared with data that has been gathered by climate scientists. The warming of the atmosphere can be directly connected to the increase of carbon concentration in the atmosphere.

So, therefore, the question should never be: Is there enough oil to last our lifetime, or EPA standards to increase the mileage of cars and trucks is directed on "saving the oil", but rather, are we prepared to face the consequences of Global Warming: because those consequences are starting to appear.

Ocean levels are rising because of glacier melts, warmer air does allow more moisture to collect and when there are storms, they are much more violent, and more rainfall causes more flooding, and damage in some areas, but other areas will, and have experienced severe draught. Forests that experience those draughts are more susceptible to catastrophic fires, and the land that they once held is now susceptible to severe erosion and landslides.

Areas once rich with conditions allowing to grow copious amounts of food will be effected, and not only will food costs increase, but there will be a huge ripple effect that will be detrimental to the entire world.

Perhaps we should actually realize that this situation is one which needs our attention now, because without a healthy Earth, there will be no civilizations to occupy it.

There IS CLIMATE CHANGE. WHO CARES WHAT STARTED IT...WE NEED TO GET SOME STRATEGIES TO LIMIT OR REVERSE IT AND BURNING CARBON IS LIKE POURING GASOLINE ON A FIRE.

You've just explained why we should be against fuel economy - because it prolongs the agony.

Any environmentalist who is a realist and understands that we will burn fossil fuels until they are gone would want this this to happen as soon as possible and would advocate for lower fuel economy.

I continue to believe that high MPG requirements are in place to hurt the oil companies.

Side Question: If oil is a finite resource, why are we trying to use all of ours up first? Should we buy it from other companies and when they run out, we still have some left?

Evidently you don't care for the future generations
 

We live in a time where there is active species extinction. We have seen, but now are diminished, many species of animal life. On our current course, our children, and grandchildren and their children will not see or experience those species that we have placed in such peril that they may become extinct. That will be the norm for them, and it is not only animal extinction that we give them as inheritance, but also Earth. Why is it that people like you do not see that we are actually killing the planet, or leaving it in such grave condition that our future children will not even conceive of having a healthy environment in which to live. The question is not using up the resource, but rather using so much of it that it has poisoned our only place that we live....there is no other planet that we can escape to...we will give our children an inheritance of a poisoned planet, with no escape.

Thanks for caring so much about not having good gas mileage....your concern is squarely centered on YOUR wallet, and not the lives of your, or any of our children.

You must be so proud.

I simply want to know how "aggressive fuel economy targets" affect pollution.

No one has a sensible answer?

Yes we are...the active extinction of white people.

Here in America alone, we've gone from 90% white to 49%...the future is NOT very bright.

If total miles driven remain constant, the higher the fuel economy, the less fuel burned and the less emissions released.

Maybe... MANY also say hydrocarbons are CREATED inside the earth (abiotic oil).

abiotic oil - Google Search

If hydrocarbons came from the "dinosaurs", then why does Titan a moon around Saturn have a TON of hydrocarbons?

hydrocarbons in space - Google Search

CO2 has been MUCH higher in the past.

CO2 isn't really that great of a greenhouse gas.

Water vapor is a much "stronger" greenhouse gas and it's all around.

Earths temperature has been MUCH higher in the past. It may continue to rise until it begins to fall in preparation for the next ice age...which WILL come.

Things work in cycles. Things are also chaotic in the small and short term scale.

The more pressing problem is the white genocide and rising populations of minorities. What's the point of saving the world when the world will become a 3rd world cesspool full of the worst of "humanity"? 80% of the worlds 9 billion people are poor.

"Almost half the world — over three billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day. At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day. More than 80 percent of the world's population lives in countries where income differentials are widening."

what percent of worlds population is poor? - Google Search

Civilization is doomed...like every one of them before us.

Less fuel burned - true
Less emissions released - Less true than anything any politician ever said. Confusing emissions controls with fuel economy is like confusing carbon monoxide with carbon dioxide.

Huh? Less amount of gallons are being burned. Emissions go down. What makes you think that increased miles per gallon would make emissions go up?

Carbon monoxide comes from inefficient combustion...CO2 comes from efficient combustion. Efficient combustion leads to more MPG as you get more bang from each gallon.

Well, that's a great example of "A little learning is a dangerous thing".
Efficient combustion does not equal efficient use of energy.

Well then...explain to us all how a less efficient combustion engine is MORE energy efficient.

Evidently you don't care for the future generations
 

Tie 20,000 pounds of weights to the back of your golf cart and drive to the He-Man-Women-Haters clubhouse.
The combustion in the engine is just as efficient as before, but I'll hazard a guess that your MPG is a little lower than it used to be.
Now. The gov't notices that your MPG is not exactly up to required levels so they tell you to improve it. Do you contrive to make your little engine achieve MORE efficient combustion? What if you changed out that wimpy but efficient 9 HP engine for a 1950's Hemi? I daresay your MPG would skyrocket.
I'll say it again.
Aggressive vehicle fuel economy targets have nothing to do with pollution.
I really don't know why you keep trying to bring emissions standards into your argument. That wasn't the original premise.

Aggressive vehicle fuel economy targets burn less fuel, thus emitting less products of combustion i.e.: Carbon Dioxide (among others) which contribute to the warming of Earth. Even a high school chemistry class teaches you more than you seem to be spewing.....

I'm just sitting back, laughing and shaking my head...reading his/her idiocy. :D

I shouldn't really be laughing though, I should be doing the right thing...and try to educate him/her.

In that vein....

The Worst Climate Pollution Is Carbon Dioxide - Scientific American

Well I have nothing to show to quote, so I'll go from memory...MATTER isn't being created you dolt...a MOLECULE is...hydrocarbons. MANY believe that hydrocarbons form naturally in the crust and seep towards the surface.

So hydrocarbons can form on a moon of Saturn...but couldn't have formed here on earth? Why not? Maybe oil has always been here, slowly seeping to the surface. Nobody knows for sure.

Water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas by far.

Tag: Archive (ABC Science)

"Water vapor is really the primary greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and has a greater influence on global warming than carbon dioxide"

CO2 is really a minor contributor to any warming.

Water vapor it proportional to the temperature, the hotter it is, the more water vapor the atmosphere can hold. That in turn leads to more warming because the added water vapor holds more heat. Up to a point. The point at which clouds form that block and reflect solar insolation. Water vapor is an atmospheric self regulator. Ice ages have more to do with orbital and rotational perturbations than anything to do with the atmospheric gasses.

As usual...the jury is out on whether the earth is hotter now than ever. To claim it is...is not necessarily true.

has the earth been warmer? - Google Search

In that regard...Hitler was right ans I am right too. The races are FAR different. Different species different. Did you get your "race facts" from the same place you grabbed your climate "facts"? You were right...a LITTLE knowledge IS a dangerous thing.

You ARE right here though...what will income matter when the country has gone 3rd world.


I know right? He's trying to tell me a more efficient combustion motor will be LESS efficient.

And I don't know WHY he brought up emission standards. I've been solely talking about MPG efficiency. The more efficient it is...the higher the MPG...the less fuel it will burn.

People don't realize HOW MUCH oil we burn through each day. Getting enough for day to day use requires ALL those wells pumping away. It's not a shortage in available oil...it's a shortage of getting it out as fast as we burn it. That is why we put well in the arctic and out in the oceans. Fracking is to get out every last drop from already dug wells...cheaper than drilling a new one.

That's a bullsh!t story HOSTED on Scientific American's web site. It's a propaganda piece.

Adjusted for water vapor...CO2 gas contributes 3.6% towards greenhouse heat retention.

By Gayathri Vaidyanathan, ClimateWire on November 4, 2014

Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. E&E News -- The essential news for energy & environment professionals, 202-628-6500


"Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics Percent of Total Percent of Total adjusted for water vapor
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 72.369% 3.618%
Methane (CH4) 7.100% 0.360%
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 19.000% 0.950%
CFC's (and other misc. gases) 1.432% 0.072%

Once again...woman...you're proven to be wrong. Stop bringing a rock and a stick to an atomic age fight.

You're laughing IN ignorance...I'm laughing at you BECAUSE of your ignorance.

Yeah right, everyone should listen to the resident racist, instead of scientists...and an extremely reputable scientific journal. :1rotfl: :1rotfl:

Good one! :thumbup:


Not to even mention, that your OWN link to E & E has this to say (did you even read it dip$hit :D)?


SCIENCE: Global CO2 emissions are flat, but it's not all good news -- Monday, March 20, 2017 -- www.eenews.net

Thanks for making it so easy for me to eviscerate you...again. :ho:



Deepest Sincere Wishes: :wave: