Posted on 05/13/2004 2:55:12 PM PDT by snopercod
On May 11, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency unleashed a new clean-air rule that further cuts diesel emissions from off-road vehicles, generators, locomotives and marine vessels. The new “Tier 4” mandate is EPA’s fourth step since introducing off-road standards in 1996, and it lowers such pollution by 90% (ENR 6/23/03 p. 13).
The rule varies across engine sizes, but most producers will reduce nitrogen-oxide levels in new engines to 0.3 grams per brake-horsepower-hour and particulates to 0.01 g/bhp-hr by 2014. Under the new rule, EPA is not requiring pollution controls on existing machines in the field.
Off-road fuel also is discussed. Refiners will need to lower previously-unregulated sulfur content in off-road fuel to 500 ppm by 2007, and again to 15 ppm by 2010. Industry observers say this sulfur requirement is feasible, but it will require capital investment, including control-equipment retrofits, on some existing plants.
According to EPA, the entire move, which helps to align air-quality standards for on-road and off-road machinery, will cost producers and consumers about $2 billion annually. But the agency says the “enormous” benefits will prevent thousands of premature deaths, including an estimated total of $805 billion in public-health costs over the next 30 years.
IF that is the case, eeexcellent. So now prove it. Studies, scientific data?
I don't believe the ravings of an EPA houseplant.
Sorry, no generators for you.
Would you mind telling me specifically what "pollution" you are concerned about.
Smuggling?
The "science" upon which the EPA rules on diesel emissions are based have proven to be false.
Does that concern you?
IOW, do you think that the government should have to have some logic behind forcing individuals and companies to change what they are doing, or do you think that it's OK for America to be a fascist state with the government controlling industry?
But you must remember, the environMENTALists have repeatedly proved that they could care less about the environment; All they want is power over YOU.
As your friend, I advise you to reconsider. Mark's ideas as described in his book are the way of the future.
I hope so, or else I'm in the wrong place...
The "science" upon which the EPA rules on diesel emissions are based have proven to be false.
While I am certainly willing to entertain that idea, you must understand that I can not simply assume that "science" is wrong based on your statement. If you have specific examples I would be more than happy to discuss them further. You never know - I might be able to back your assertion up.
Does that concern you?
Not yet, but you have an opportunity to change my mind.
IOW, do you think that the government should have to have some logic behind forcing individuals and companies to change what they are doing,
Yes, I do. I would like to discuss the details of you assertions further however. I assume that you have some logic behind your assertation that would be much more useful in this discussion than generalizations. or do you think that it's OK for America to be a fascist state with the government controlling industry?
Nope. I do think however that responsibility is the key to conservatism.
Then those environmentalists need to be replaced by sensible ones.
I can remember when the Audubon society was run by suburban Republican ladies. And the Sierra Club was concerned about preserving nature, not aborting babies. The correct solution is to take back control of environmental matters from the leftists and do it responsibly and rationally.
agree....
Projected costs 4 cents means actual costs are at least a dime.
Even then, I think it seems like a pretty good idea.
The tightening of diesel emissions was based upon an EPA study which linked small particulate emissions to athsma. I believe that study has proven to be junk science, which has unfortunately not stopped the new regulations. Maybe I'm wrong.
Report Linking Deaths To Small Particulate In The Air Flawed By Computer Glitch!
Interesting. I believe CA is again ahead of the game. They have already gone after the tractors.
The local politicians, of course, blame the haze on industry (even though we no longer have any) and George W. Bush.
Give me a PING when you get it up and running.
"This rule will simply add costs to food production, and the consumer will pay those costs."
In the 50s or 60s when wheat was about $2/bushel, it was determined that there was about $0.04 worth of wheat in a loaf of bread. Don't know right off what wheat is today, but its cost versus the cost of the bread is insignificant. Also there is no way a farmer can pass along an increase in the cost of production. He sells his product at the market price on which an individual producer has no influence.
As a long time designer of electronic Diesel engine controllers, I can tell you that the reduction in emissions from Diesels during the 70's and early 80's has been phenomenal.
You will NEVER see black smoke from the stack of a properly running modern Diesel engine.
The problem now is that to get to Tier 4 emissions levels will take exotic technology that translates into big $$$ for the consumer.
The real agenda here is to kill the Diesel engine in North America.
If you actually look at pollution per MILE driven, Diesels are probably the most cost efficient, cleanest engines currently available.
That's why Europe is making so many of it's on road vehicles with Diesel engines.
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.