2015vwgolfdiesel
Top Post Dawg
Maybe the Okie Pruitt can get ahold of itAgreed. The EPA got to powerful and forgot what they were about, IMHO.
Maybe the Okie Pruitt can get ahold of itAgreed. The EPA got to powerful and forgot what they were about, IMHO.
I think the EPA started off right, then they went off the beaten path, started making rules that were costing business's money so what do they do, find a cheaper way-here comes China with the cheaper way and here we are today,
And by 'censorship', I presume that you mean 'sanity checking', since it's common knowledge that the fruitbats have been misrepresenting things for years, and not presenting equally valid dissenting research . . .
the problem is creeping gradualism
regulators start off fixing a problem. Then subsequent generations of regulators feel a need to "continually improve" the standards in order to justify their existence.
It's never "good enough". (No one is going to argue that there were real problems that lead up to the regulations that came about in the 70's. But now it's gone too far in may respects)
"we need more funding to enforce the standards" then they develop tighter standards that are tougher to enforce and "now we need more funding again".
It becomes all abotu the agency and its interests instead of what is supposed to be getting accomplished by the agency.
This push to zero emissions vehicles is not sustainable from a national security standpoint.
Because the rare earths all need to come from china. Which makes it not environmentally sound, either. They hydrogen economy is a pipe dream at this point
Well light that pipe up! GM and Honda just announced a partnership to design fuel cell vehicles. They claim they should be in production around 2020.This push to zero emissions vehicles is not sustainable from a national security standpoint. Because the rare earths all need to come from china. Which makes it not environmentally sound, either. They hydrogen economy is a pipe dream at this point
Slightly an aside, and doesn't really change the logistics issue, but I can personally attest to the fact that carbon based fuels also make for a military liability in many ways. As an OPFOR for the JRTC (1/509th ABN INF) back in the early 90's, we would wreck havoc on the BLUFOR by attacking their fuel points and fuel bladders. Not to mention the always vulnerable supply routes to keep the diesel / jp4 fuel flowing.This push to zero emissions vehicles is not sustainable from a national security standpoint. Because the rare earths all need to come from china. Which makes it not environmentally sound, either. They hydrogen economy is a pipe dream at this point
From a manufacturer's standpoint, I would be concerned that Trump's tennure is limited. Whatever "damage" he may inflict, drastic changes he places through his executive orders, the next president may/will reverse them. I'm not sure if manufacturers would be willing to invest in a new US-spec (deregulated) vehicle for a couple years worth of production. The profit is just not there.
there will be changes at the EPA, but these will not be wholesale decade-scale rollback of regulations.
rules which are in the final stages of approval can just not be signed (a couple toxic substance rules, some clean water rules....)
and future standards could be bent along the curve. (mpg standards for example)
And they can prioritize enforcement actions and legal defense (meaning lack of defense) that can reduce effectiveness of regulations.
It also seems likely that some form of censorship will be applied to research results.
That's pretty atrocious if you ask me.
And by 'censorship', I presume that you mean 'sanity checking', since it's common knowledge that the fruitbats have been misrepresenting things for years, and not presenting equally valid dissenting research . . .
Peer review - not politician review - might not be a perfect process but it's the best we have.
I'm going to sum these all up with the comment that it won't be pushing back current regulations but stopping pending regulations from taking effect. I think one of the first things we will see is the push back of CAFE standards, which is the wrong direction if we want more diesel vehicles.the problem is creeping gradualism
regulators start off fixing a problem. Then subsequent generations of regulators feel a need to "continually improve" the standards in order to justify their existence. It's never "good enough". (No one is going to argue that there were real problems that lead up to the regulations that came about in the 70's. But now it's gone too far in may respects)
"we need more funding to enforce the standards" then they develop tighter standards that are tougher to enforce and "now we need more funding again". It becomes all abotu the agency and its interests instead of what is supposed to be getting accomplished by the agency.
This push to zero emissions vehicles is not sustainable from a national security standpoint. Because the rare earths all need to come from china. Which makes it not environmentally sound, either. They hydrogen economy is a pipe dream at this point
It's more than the fuel supply. If you study wars and battles through history, what's the first lesson? Cut off the supply lines. An army cannot fight without food or ammunition. Hybrid electric and fuel cells will only enable the army to move but not to eat.Slightly an aside, and doesn't really change the logistics issue, but I can personally attest to the fact that carbon based fuels also make for a military liability in many ways. As an OPFOR for the JRTC (1/509th ABN INF) back in the early 90's, we would wreck havoc on the BLUFOR by attacking their fuel points and fuel bladders. Not to mention the always vulnerable supply routes to keep the diesel / jp4 fuel flowing.
I believe the US military is investigating hybrid electric and fuel cell technologies to alleviate the logistical vulnerabilities posed by our reliance on carbon based fuels.
Unfortunately, much of the peer review comes from those in the environmental industrial complex, living off of the Government teet, so it is political.Peer review - not politician review - might not be a perfect process but it's the best we have.
If they can build and sell w/o the force of government, I am all for that.Well light that pipe up! GM and Honda just announced a partnership to design fuel cell vehicles. They claim they should be in production around 2020.
Good point about the probability of CAFE standards being relaxed. It might have unintended negative consequences for TDI enthusiasts and the like :-(I'm going to sum these all up with the comment that it won't be pushing back current regulations but stopping pending regulations from taking effect. I think one of the first things we will see is the push back of CAFE standards, which is the wrong direction if we want more diesel vehicles.
As for "zero" emmissions, we are already well beyond resonable measurable regulations. If your equipment and scientists cannont keep up with being able to measure to the regulation, then it is meaningless. You also have the issue that the FTC says that nothing can be "zero". There will always be some part that can be measured. Even if that part is in ppb.
I think something people fail to properly estimate when they talk about manufacturing jobs being sent overseas is that while certainly government environmental regulation added to the cost of goods, it pails in comparison to the added cost that is/was the American Worker.At some point, their demands for cleanliness exceed industries ability to maintain production, so the only way to "eliminate" dirty air, water, and soil is to eliminate jobs. So we've been outsourcing our jobs and the pollution that goes with them to China for 40 years, except China produces more pollution per product made than if we did it here.
I bet they'll only be sold in major metropolitan areas, like LA, San Fran, Portland, Seattle, Austin, and maybe New England. I can't imagine fuel cell vehicles taking off in rural areas, which is still a bulk of the US.Well light that pipe up! GM and Honda just announced a partnership to design fuel cell vehicles. They claim they should be in production around 2020.
I doubt impeachment will happen anytime soon. If Obama made it through 8 years, so will Trump.Hopefully Trump undoes some of the lame regulations before he gets impeached.
80%? I don't suppose you'd have a source for that claim? I concur, that it's both labor costs and environmental regulations, but it sounds dubious to assign an arbitrary percentage without a source to back it up.I think something people fail to properly estimate when they talk about manufacturing jobs being sent overseas is that while certainly government environmental regulation added to the cost of goods, it pails in comparison to the added cost that is/was the American Worker.
Make no mistake 80% of the reason jobs were shifted over seas had nothing to due with the cost of EPA regulations, but because it allowed for the elimination of the reasonably or well paid, protected, and at the time, unionized American worker. The costs of which, in comparison to their Chinese/Southeast Asia counter parts, was astronomically higher.
Bold is mine. I would really love to see your "80%" source.I think something people fail to properly estimate when they talk about manufacturing jobs being sent overseas is that while certainly government environmental regulation added to the cost of goods, it pails in comparison to the added cost that is/was the American Worker.
This is not really true. When GM was going through their whole bailout fiasco, they testified before Congress that the labor cost was only about 10% of their operation. So the "difference" in US labor vs. foreign labor is negligible in the end price of a new car.
Make no mistake 80% of the reason jobs were shifted over seas had nothing to due with the cost of EPA regulations, but because it allowed for the elimination of the reasonably or well paid, protected, and at the time, unionized American worker. The costs of which, in comparison to their Chinese/Southeast Asia counter parts, was astronomically higher.not true, see above. Most assembly of many of the consumer goods is done via robots anyway. The electric bill can exceed the labor cost in some factories. China brings cheap, powerful coal fired power plants online almost weekly it seems, and they have hardly any of the emissions compliance devices the EPA mandates for ours. Whose electric bill do you thing is higher?
Does the EPA have certain policies that over extended, certainly. But consider that when the EPA was created in 1970, the US population stood at 205 million people. Today it stands 318 million. We have added over 110 million people, that produce, consume, emit etc. And yet generally speaking in virtually every metric environmentally we are in far better place than we were in 1970.Yes, because we've moved the pollution to quite literally the other side of the planet, and now pat ourselves on the back for "cleaning up our act".
This may not be true for much longer, not sure of the environmental ramifications but should be better from a national security view.This push to zero emissions vehicles is not sustainable from a national security standpoint. Because the rare earths all need to come from china. Which makes it not environmentally sound, either. They hydrogen economy is a pipe dream at this point
I have to wonder what if any environmental impact restrictions they will pratice. Seems like concern for the rain forest from those countries is very weak. I would hate to see mass destruction just for batteries to run our cars. On the other hand, I wonder how much longer lithium will be the king metal of batteries. There are many companies working on alternatives that are lighter, cheaper, hold a charge longer, and can be recharged quicker. All keys towards moving society away from ICE.This may not be true for much longer, not sure of the environmental ramifications but should be better from a national security view.
https://panampost.com/raquel-garcia...o-become-the-world-leader-of-lithium-exports/
To quote me correctly I said 80% of the reason, not 80% of the cost.Bold is mine. I would really love to see your "80%" source.
<snip>
A negative side effect is that jobs and employeers like this tend to force the younger people into colleges and away from journey trades. It starts in middle school with no shop or home ec classes.
Everything is focused on being college bound. If we want to "make America Great Again", we need to look at a trade track for those not cut out for college.
Exactly. Everyone speaks of offshoring of Jobs and its affect on the American economy but never links the environmental regulations that are dodged also.Hah! It wasn't obvious but after reading this post I agree it perhaps should have been.
But that brings another topic to the equation: countries with no regulatory burdens, be it emissions standards, safety standards, working conditions, pay scale, blah blah blah. That "not in MY back yard" mentality which can serve to simply push bad things somewhere else, and often compounds those bad things. NASA's timelapse imagery around the globe of industrial pollution would be a good indicator of such a phenomenon. We (North America) enjoy a relatively clean area for an industrialized nation, no doubt due in large part to the EPA.... but China (and much of Southeast Asia in general) easily eclipses the rest of the planet combined. And if you consider the fact that much (most?) of that is from the manufacture of products that are destined to be shipped elsewhere...much of it here...what is the net result to the environment as a whole?
Not sure what the answer to this problem is, but at least admitting it is a problem would be a good first step in finding a solution. But as individuals, we can at least do some tiny part to help. I just spent $120 at a local shop having my 31 year old Hoover upright vacuum cleaner reconditioned. It is an overbuilt machine that works fantastic still, was made in the USA, and while I could have just gone to Wal-mart and bought a brand new Chinasuck vacuum for $89.95 I instead chose what I feel is a more environmentally sound decision. And I'll bet this Hoover will still work after another 31 years and that new one would have long since died.
I'm sure my Hoover has no Energy Star rating (if there is such a thing on vacuum cleaners), and it probably had some paint process that the EPA banned back in the '80s, whatever, it still works. It won't end up in a land fill somewhere. I refuse to succumb to the disposable consumer goods methodology of living.