From: Brent on
On 2010-07-14, rally2xs2 <david.head(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?

From: Floyd Rogers on
"rally2xs2" <david.head(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. And the US EPA has
pre-empted even those 17 and now requires that diesel engines
meet the same requirements as gasoline engines.

>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.

> 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.

Seems like you need to actually read other people's responses,
and do some research before you make wild, wacko postings.

FloydR

From: Dave Head on
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:29:35 -0700, "Floyd Rogers"
<fbloogyuds(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

>"rally2xs2" <david.head(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-us/

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.

Dave Head

>FloydR
From: Dave Head on
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 14:38:00 +0000 (UTC), Brent
<tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 2010-07-14, rally2xs2 <david.head(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.

From: Brent on
On 2010-07-15, Dave Head <rally2xs(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.