We have to obey the Pope!
Posted on 06/19/2015 8:04:51 AM PDT by Zakeet
The Obama administration is issuing new rules intended to improve fuel efficiency for medium and heavy-duty trucks and cut pollution blamed for global warming.
The proposed standards are expected to lower cardon dioxide emissions by about 1 billion metric tons ...
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
We have to obey the Pope!
Just a question. Is there a government mandated mileage standard for electric or hybrid vehicles?
I think that they all fall under the same standards — make/model, etc.
Just how do they propose to do that? Invent a magical engine that runs on unicorn farts?
Thanks
Shut down the trucking industry, shut down the airlines and shut down the coal electric plants.
We must save mother erf. We can all huddle in a big pile and sing kumbyai and admire dear leaders work.
I am not figuring that manna from heaven will happening this time. Quick someone ask the Pope.
One of the best questions of all time!!!
EPA proposes tougher mileage standards for trucks (to prevent them from being used for any economically productive purpose)
There. Fixed it.
Yep, no matter how much Obama thinks of himself as god, he cannot repeal the laws of physics or change the caloric heat value of diesel fuel.
They use a very dishonest method for determining an ‘equivalent’ mileage.
Without getting into the specifics of how their method is flawed, consider a 2015 Volt. It has a battery range of 38 miles, and an mph of 35 city/40 highway. Using the 40 mpg, a fully charged Volt could travel 78 miles on a gallon of gas...yet the gubmint rates it at 98 mpge (e for equivalent). Makes perfect sense.
And since these mpg ratings are being used in calculations for making decisions to save us from globul warming, the methodology is even more flawed. The method treats electricity as magic fairy dust that comes out of the wall, and does not assign a ‘carbon footprint’ to it as it does to gasoline.
IOW, its just like statistics, and they can manipulate the parameters to get the results they want...and the sheeple lap it up.
They are dishonest period.
Thanks!
But Pope, er uh God says it is so. /sarc.
I know. It is all a feel good, love mother earth movement, that is a direct attack on middle class Americans and our livelihood in the form of new and higher taxes. Taxes on everything. EVERYTHING! It is based on faulty models and tainted data and a consortium of so called scientists who rely on the fear generated to insure that the grant money keeps flowing.
Belief in AWG is almost religious in nature in that it requires a leap of faith to believe that it is actually happening. And like a religion, it follows the rule: it is better to believe in it and be wrong than to not believe it and find out you were wrong (and be damned to the secular Hell whatever that might be).
It’s about time someone pointed out that these mileage standards really have nothing to do with protecting the environment, or with conserving energy. The real purpose of these changing regulations is to force obsolescence in major products through legislative mandates, thereby driving up demand for these products that otherwise wouldn’t be its. This is why the EPA introduced similar “pollution-control” mandates for diesel engines a couple of years ago ... and to no surprise for me, the diesel engine manufacturers were among the biggest supporters of those mandates.
Sorry ... “that otherwise wouldn’t be there.”
Can anybody explain to me what is meant by one billion metric tons of carbon emissions?
Firstly, there is no such critter as a metric ‘ton’. It is a metric tonne, or simply tonne, and is a unit of mass equal to 1000 kilograms.
The part that mystifies me is how can the emissions weigh more than the fuel that is being burned? A large part of the fuel is hydrogen, which combines with oxygen to form water.
I simply cannot fathom how you can create a billion tonnes of carbon emissions by burning 100 million tonnes of fuel. Or is the “metric ton” of carbon emissions just some silly term that has no basis in reality?
Silly term with no basis in reality.
Much like the left’s claim that we “murdered one hundred thousand civilians” in Iraq in 2003.
Take arbitrary number “a”, apply it to made up problem “b”, then apply it to result “c” basically.
The emissions are the weight of CO2, with the O2 coming from the atmosphere. So, 1 mole of carbon (12 grams) creates 1 mole of CO2 (44 grams). That’s won’t get to a 10:1 ratio, even for pure carbon fuels; but it does result in the emissions weighing more than the fuel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.