THe GW Scan Is Still Alive, Amazingly
in [Cars]
|
Prev: Besides the Revolution, what influence do the French hve in USculture?
Next: Ridiculous Speed Limits
From: Larry G on 15 Jul 2010 18:35 On Jul 14, 10:38 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2010-07-14, rally2xs2 <david.h...(a)navy.mil> wrote: > > > The ones that are suggesting / enacting new, tighter environmental > > controls are all 'round the bend, over the top, etc. Yeah, they're > > wackos. No new / tighter controls are needed, we achieved everything > > we needed about 20 years ago, and those initiatives that are now in > > progress have as their aim the damaging of US Industry and the country > > in general much more than any other goal they may have. As I said, I > > think their mostly anti-capitalists, socialiist / communists, and are > > using the issue as a weapon against us, the American people. > > The problem isn't that better environmental controls aren't a good > thing, the problem is that rich countries like China get a pass. A rich > country like China isn't even held to mid 1970s let alone 1980s > environmental standards. That level is dirt cheap now, there's no excuse > for not using it from an environmental point of view. Thus the reason > must lay elsewhere. > > Who funds the environmentalists? Who pushes for the foreign and trade > policies that have shaped the shift of manufacturing to China? What sort > of people spend their time trying to manipulate the political and > economic conditions of the world for their own benefit? Who benefits > from the conditions being created and has had the influence, time, and > money to further the creation of those conditions? so who do you trust?
From: Larry G on 15 Jul 2010 18:38 On Jul 14, 9:15 pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:29:35 -0700, "Floyd Rogers" > > <fbloogy...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >"rally2xs2" <david.h...(a)navy.mil> wrote in message > >news:584248b1-fabe-489f-a6ef-21751299edde(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com.... > > >> As I pointed out before, we cannot use the same diesel engined cars > >> that Europe has been using for years. Why? Because 5 enviro-wacko > >> state EPAs have passed radically strict diesel emission laws for their > >> states. > > >As I pointed out earlier, it's not 5, it's 17. > > It _was_ 5 when I 1st read it several years ago. Here is an article > that mentions them: > > http://green.autoblog.com/2007/10/18/audi-launches-tdi-initiative-in-... > > The states were: > > California, New York, Massachusetts, Maine and Vermont. > > I don't go looking these things up every time I discuss a subject to > see if they've changed. It took about 45 minutes to find _that_ when > I knew what I was looking for. > > > And the US EPA has > >pre-empted even those 17 and now requires that diesel engines > >meet the same requirements as gasoline engines. > > Tier 2 Bin 5 - the envirowackos are having a field day making things > harder for manufacturers and more expensive for us. Meanwhile, it > will take some kind if sensitive electronic meter to tell the > difference. No person with unaided 5 senses will be able to tell the > difference. > > >>It requires a special reservoir of a chemical to meet it, and > >> manufacturers aren't wild about installing such Rube Goldberg > >> devices. > > >They have installed them on several cars, and exported them > >to the US. Further, US heavy diesel manufacturers are going > >to be using them. > > Just great. And the prices of everything transported by heavy trucks, > which is basically everything, can be expected to continue to rise. > Has anybody noticed that the Dow Jones is _smaller_ than it was 9 or > 10 years ago when it nearly touched 14,000, while the cost of living > has increased fairly dramatically? Just keep loading down the economy > with useless BS like this, as well as raising the taxes, and we should > be looking at a several decade long economic depression. No kidding, > I think that's where we're going. > > >> So, we cannot have the diesels that are perfectly OK in > >> Europe. Is that not "envirowacko"? Dang straight it is. And it does > >> enourmous harm to our situation, since we could really, really USE 68 > >> mpg vehicles for sale in the country. > > >The smaller engines - VW's 2L TDI for instance - use a filter > >that lasts for the lifetime of the car, and can then use non-urea > >catalysts. It's very likely that you will see Fiat and other > >small cars using similar technology in the next 2-3 years. > > OK, but we needed them 5 years ago. We also need bigger engines than > that to be diesels, too. > > >Seems like you need to actually read other people's responses, > >and do some research before you make wild, wacko postings. > > I've seen the other responses, but I also know what I read. And its > bloody difficult to get solid information on this stuff - lots of > internet searches that return things like 22,000 responses. it's possible to slice and dice to much fewer... though who do you trust to speak about the pros and cons of things like the Diesel? do you not trust any groups?
From: Larry G on 15 Jul 2010 18:39 On Jul 14, 9:30 pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 14:38:00 +0000 (UTC), Brent > > <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >On 2010-07-14, rally2xs2 <david.h...(a)navy.mil> wrote: > > >> The ones that are suggesting / enacting new, tighter environmental > >> controls are all 'round the bend, over the top, etc. Yeah, they're > >> wackos. No new / tighter controls are needed, we achieved everything > >> we needed about 20 years ago, and those initiatives that are now in > >> progress have as their aim the damaging of US Industry and the country > >> in general much more than any other goal they may have. As I said, I > >> think their mostly anti-capitalists, socialiist / communists, and are > >> using the issue as a weapon against us, the American people. > > >The problem isn't that better environmental controls aren't a good > >thing, the problem is that rich countries like China get a pass. > > Those are both problem things, I think, especially when "better > environmental controls" are unreasonably expensive, which, after years > and years of simply raising the standards, and raising the standards, > and raising the standards, all that are left _are_ unreasonable. > > And, another reason that I believe this is all part of an effort of > those that wish to attack the US and its industry is that NOBODY > mentions anything like a pollution tax, to be applied to pollution > from both US _and_ foreign manufacturers. That is, if its > manufactured in China or Korea or whever, if they don't allow US > inspections and envirnomental monitoring, or if they do and fail the > environmental standards, they get that taxed extra for damage to the > environment of OUR PLANET. It doesn't matter if they're spewing > (insert your favorite pollutant) in China or Korea or Japan, its all > still on this planet. Screw everybody equally, and internationally, > with these super-expensive requirements, and I'd be inclined to be a > little less suspicious of the ultimate goals of these people. But > right now, I think thier ultimate goals are to harm the US. > > >A rich > >country like China isn't even held to mid 1970s let alone 1980s > >environmental standards. That level is dirt cheap now, there's no excuse > >for not using it from an environmental point of view. Thus the reason > >must lay elsewhere. > > You bet the reason is elsewhere. It is that nobody gives a S, 'cuz > what the whole thing is about is harming the US. China, et. al., can > have a pass. They don't care. > > >Who funds the environmentalists? > > Left wing sources to a large extent, I believe, but I'm guessing. I > don't really know. I'd expect George Soros is one source. > > >Who pushes for the foreign and trade > >policies that have shaped the shift of manufacturing to China? > > Oh, we're doing that all by ourselves with our taxation schemes. We've > had only ourselves to blame for that. > > >What sort > >of people spend their time trying to manipulate the political and > >economic conditions of the world for their own benefit? > > The Al Gore sort. > > >Who benefits > >from the conditions being created and has had the influence, time, and > >money to further the creation of those conditions? > > The Al Gore sort. This global warming nonsense is just another > attempt to bring this country down by making things ridiculously > expensive. I am _sooooo_ tired of such nonsense. so the EPA is really a bunch of enviro wackos and not to be trusted for environmental policy?
From: Larry G on 15 Jul 2010 18:39 On Jul 15, 12:28 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2010-07-15, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > > >>The problem isn't that better environmental controls aren't a good > >>thing, the problem is that rich countries like China get a pass. > > Those are both problem things, I think, especially when "better > > environmental controls" are unreasonably expensive, which, after years > > and years of simply raising the standards, and raising the standards, > > and raising the standards, all that are left _are_ unreasonable. > > You're missing the point. To those that fund the environmental movement, > China is the model for the world in many ways including that the elite > live well well while the poor live in polluted squallor. Pollution > control isn't about achieving a reasonable amount, which is really zero > leaving one's own property from a property rights standpoint, at least > for standing sources, but about who gets to pollute. > > > And, another reason that I believe this is all part of an effort of > > those that wish to attack the US and its industry is that NOBODY > > mentions anything like a pollution tax, to be applied to pollution > > from both US _and_ foreign manufacturers. That is, if its > > manufactured in China or Korea or whever, if they don't allow US > > inspections and envirnomental monitoring, or if they do and fail the > > environmental standards, they get that taxed extra for damage to the > > environment of OUR PLANET. It doesn't matter if they're spewing > > (insert your favorite pollutant) in China or Korea or Japan, its all > > still on this planet. Screw everybody equally, and internationally, > > with these super-expensive requirements, and I'd be inclined to be a > > little less suspicious of the ultimate goals of these people. But > > right now, I think thier ultimate goals are to harm the US. > > Of course it is. So look who funds it and what else they fund. Then look > at the people themselves. What they are doing is operating on the same > principles as the foreign policy you endorse. They are crushing the > american middle class because they view the middle class as a threat to > themselves, their wealth, and most importantly, their power. > > >>A rich > >>country like China isn't even held to mid 1970s let alone 1980s > >>environmental standards. That level is dirt cheap now, there's no excuse > >>for not using it from an environmental point of view. Thus the reason > >>must lay elsewhere. > > You bet the reason is elsewhere. It is that nobody gives a S, 'cuz > > what the whole thing is about is harming the US. China, et. al., can > > have a pass. They don't care. > > China is the model. China is the future. The question to ask is why and > who decided. Who manipulated things in this direction. The answer is > here in the US. > > >>Who funds the environmentalists? > > Left wing sources to a large extent, I believe, but I'm guessing. I > > don't really know. I'd expect George Soros is one source. > > Look deeper. Here's an entry point:http://www.rffund.org/environment/ > Remember where Rockefellers made their money? Getting interesting eh? > > >>Who pushes for the foreign and trade > >>policies that have shaped the shift of manufacturing to China? > > Oh, we're doing that all by ourselves with our taxation schemes. We've > > had only ourselves to blame for that. > > Look deeper as to why taxation and managed trade exists the way it > does and who it serves. > > >>What sort > >>of people spend their time trying to manipulate the political and > >>economic conditions of the world for their own benefit? > > The Al Gore sort. > > Al Gore is a tool. literally. a tool. but yes he benefits, that is his > compensation for being a tool. This goes way further up than Al Gore. > Gores and Bushes and Obamas are tools of those who fund them. > > >>Who benefits > >>from the conditions being created and has had the influence, time, and > >>money to further the creation of those conditions? > > The Al Gore sort. This global warming nonsense is just another > > attempt to bring this country down by making things ridiculously > > expensive. I am _sooooo_ tired of such nonsense. > > social darwinism at its finest. name two groups you support....
From: Brent on 15 Jul 2010 18:55
On 2010-07-15, Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 14, 10:38�am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On 2010-07-14, rally2xs2 <david.h...(a)navy.mil> wrote: >> >> > The ones that are suggesting / enacting new, tighter environmental >> > controls are all 'round the bend, over the top, etc. �Yeah, they're >> > wackos. �No new / tighter controls are needed, we achieved everything >> > we needed about 20 years ago, and those initiatives that are now in >> > progress have as their aim the damaging of US Industry and the country >> > in general much more than any other goal they may have. �As I said, I >> > think their mostly anti-capitalists, socialiist / communists, and are >> > using the issue as a weapon against us, the American people. >> >> The problem isn't that better environmental controls aren't a good >> thing, the problem is that rich countries like China get a pass. A rich >> country like China isn't even held to mid 1970s let alone 1980s >> environmental standards. That level is dirt cheap now, there's no excuse >> for not using it from an environmental point of view. Thus the reason >> must lay elsewhere. >> >> Who funds the environmentalists? Who pushes for the foreign and trade >> policies that have shaped the shift of manufacturing to China? What sort >> of people spend their time trying to manipulate the political and >> economic conditions of the world for their own benefit? Who benefits >> from the conditions being created and has had the influence, time, and >> money to further the creation of those conditions? > > so who do you trust? Do you trust the various robber baron and banking families that fund modern environmentalism / population control along with some newer wealth? |