Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Saturday September 20, 2014
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences Home Registration is free! Visit the NASIOC Store NASIOC Rules Search Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Calendar Archive NASIOC Upgrade Garage Logout
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC General > News & Rumors > Non-Subaru News & Rumors

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-17-2009, 02:32 PM   #1
AVANTI R5
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 73805
Join Date: Nov 2004
Default EPA declares greenhouse gases dangerous

Quote:
Washington --Greenhouse gases from autos and other sources "endanger the health and public welfare," federal regulators ruled today, setting the stage for limits on gases tied to rising global temperatures.

The finding, which does not become official until after a 60-day public-comment period, was opposed by automakers but strongly encouraged by environmental groups. Today's announcement does not include new regulations, but would make possible such regulations under the Clean Air Act.

Perhaps most importantly, it will increase pressure on Congress to approve federal limits on greenhouse gas emissions. President Barack Obama and many Democrats have called for a "cap and trade" system that would limit such emissions, and the White House renewed its call for congressional action"The president has made clear his strong preference that Congress act to pass comprehensive legislation rather than address the climate challenge through administrative action," White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage said after the announcement. "That's why the president has repeatedly called for a bill to provide for market-based solutions to reduce carbon pollution and transition to a clean energy economy that creates millions of green jobs."

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and a strong proponent of carbon limits, praised the ruling, calling it "long overdue."

"However, the best and most flexible way to deal with this serious problem is to enact a market-based cap and trade system, which will help us make the transition to clean energy and will bring us innovation and strong economic growth," Boxer said in a written statement.

Automakers have opposed carbon emissions regulations, saying that regulations would impose billions of dollars in new costs and that such controversial measures should be considered by Congress. But an industry trade group was largely conciliatory in reacting to the announcement.

"In the end we all share the same goal," Dave McCurdy, the president and CEO of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said in a written statement. "Today's administration has the opportunity to reset the debate to address the environment and today's economic realities."
EPA's announcement said it would hold public hearings in the Washington, D.C., area and in Seattle.

EPA regulation would cap a long political and legal battle over the issue. A 2007 Supreme Court decision required the EPA to examine whether carbon and other emissions were a threat to health.
http://www.detnews.com/article/20090...433/1148/rss25
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
AVANTI R5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2009, 02:51 PM   #2
Balantz
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 101457
Join Date: Nov 2005
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Vehicle:
Czar of Sweet Dance
Moves

Default

*applause*

IBmovetoPP
Balantz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2009, 04:30 PM   #3
Scrotus
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 167465
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Oregon
Vehicle:
2006 STI
2006 Legacy 2.5i

Default

What a scam.

I propose the first place to cut carbon emissions is from Washington, DC. So much useless high temperature CO2 emanating from there...
Scrotus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2009, 04:42 PM   #4
masson
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 177145
Join Date: Apr 2008
Default

These politicians should just stop breathing as that would reduce their co2 emissions dramatically.
masson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2009, 06:25 PM   #5
ilara72
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 24047
Join Date: Sep 2002
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: Southern California
Vehicle:
2009 STI
2002 WRX

Default

If the federal government wanted to do its part in curbing emissions, they would cut spending dramatically. They won't. This is about a carbon tax.
ilara72 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2009, 10:21 PM   #6
dboz
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 191302
Join Date: Oct 2008
Default

They could make us all wear a carbon filter mask to catch all expiration. I figure they could get $500 each, if you don't buy, you are not allowed out in public. I always knew I was a danger to myself, I just did not know it was from breathing. Stupid me.
dboz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2009, 10:58 PM   #7
delongedoug
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 124113
Join Date: Aug 2006
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: To infinity
Vehicle:
and beyond!

Default

The government doesn't five a **** about emissions or enviro-green horse****. They care when they green is money.
delongedoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2009, 08:32 AM   #8
mbs627
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 99794
Join Date: Nov 2005
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: Lower Bux, PA
Vehicle:
2013 FR-S
Darky dark

Default

I've decided to sue the oceans of the world for producing the world's most prevalent greenhouse gas under the Clean Air Act. Damn that pesky water vapor.

You think our economy is teh sux now, wait for cap and trade!
mbs627 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2009, 09:34 AM   #9
Mike Wevrick
RIP 1/19/64 - 7/23/11
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 24654
Join Date: Sep 2002
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: saraseager.com
Vehicle:
1957 Taggart Comet
atlasshruggedpart1.com

Default

^^yup

Quote:
Originally Posted by ilara72 View Post
If the federal government wanted to do its part in curbing emissions, they would cut spending dramatically. They won't. This is about a carbon tax.
^^agree again. Obama claimed he won't raise taxes on most people but a carbon tax would impose a huge tax increase on almost everyone.
Mike Wevrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2009, 09:39 AM   #10
SCRAPPYDO
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 873
Join Date: Feb 2000
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Just outside of Houston TX
Vehicle:
2013 F150 King Ranch
Datsun 71 240Z & 68 2000

Default

CHANGE... can you feel it folks, its coming.. its that pain up your back side knowing you voted to get raped.
SCRAPPYDO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2009, 10:06 AM   #11
Scrotus
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 167465
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Oregon
Vehicle:
2006 STI
2006 Legacy 2.5i

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCRAPPYDO View Post
CHANGE... can you feel it folks, its coming.. its that pain up your back side knowing you voted to get raped.
Coming? We've been feeling that pain up the backside for years now, especially since 2001.
Scrotus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2009, 02:12 PM   #12
Eyeflyistheeye
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 69694
Join Date: Sep 2004
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: My personal hell
Vehicle:
2014 EuroPinto 5MT

Default

Here goes those socialists trying to stop people from having free choice again. How about those of us who like greenhouse gases and pollution?
Eyeflyistheeye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2009, 04:49 PM   #13
matt30
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 97330
Join Date: Sep 2005
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: California/New York
Vehicle:
2003 WRX

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Wevrick View Post
^^yup



^^agree again. Obama claimed he won't raise taxes on most people but a carbon tax would impose a huge tax increase on almost everyone.
You won't hear this in public but it's Republicans that want a straight carbon tax rather than Cap and Trade.
matt30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2009, 05:36 PM   #14
jigga
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 9960
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: in bed...
Vehicle:
2002 Impreza WRX
WRBlue Perl

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyeflyistheeye View Post
Here goes those socialists trying to stop people from having free choice again. How about those of us who like greenhouse gases and pollution?
What exactly are you referring to when you say "socialists"? You know there are a few branches of the commonly used term right?
jigga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2009, 07:17 PM   #15
Balantz
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 101457
Join Date: Nov 2005
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Vehicle:
Czar of Sweet Dance
Moves

Default

1. ZOMG, Obama is moving in the direction he said he would on the campaign trail!!!!1 I'm unhappy cuz my guy lost!
I ride the WAAAMBULANCE, etc, etc, ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

2. We don't really need to revisit the debate over the human effect on climate change, cuz...well...the debate has been over for a while. Those of you who think otherwise are either A) not caught up on the research of the last 20 years, or B) in denial. Seriously, you guys, the "other side" of this debate is essentially restricted to a tiny minority.

NOW, even if there WAS a debate over whether or not human burning of fossile fuels was contributing to the greenhouse effect, there can be no debate over whether or not cars, coal burning, etc, pump pollutants that are bad for us into the air. I.E., sitting in a garage with the car running can kill you. Duh. So, regardless of whether you want to believe the vast majority of scientists on the issue of human involvement in climate change, you should still be all about a reduction in air pollution. Period. MMKAY?

The move to PP - it is inevitable.
Balantz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2009, 09:35 PM   #16
matt30
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 97330
Join Date: Sep 2005
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: California/New York
Vehicle:
2003 WRX

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balantz View Post
NOW, even if there WAS a debate over whether or not human burning of fossile fuels was contributing to the greenhouse effect, there can be no debate over whether or not cars, coal burning, etc, pump pollutants that are bad for us into the air. I.E., sitting in a garage with the car running can kill you. Duh. So, regardless of whether you want to believe the vast majority of scientists on the issue of human involvement in climate change, you should still be all about a reduction in air pollution. Period. MMKAY?

The move to PP - it is inevitable.
Well CO2 isn't toxic, so it won't kill you if you breath it in, even in large doses. But it is a greenhouse gas.
matt30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2009, 11:25 PM   #17
AshJWilliams
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 189781
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: OH
Vehicle:
2010 Tacoma
Black

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balantz View Post
1. ZOMG, Obama is moving in the direction he said he would on the campaign trail!!!!1 I'm unhappy cuz my guy lost!
I ride the WAAAMBULANCE, etc, etc, ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

2. We don't really need to revisit the debate over the human effect on climate change, cuz...well...the debate has been over for a while. Those of you who think otherwise are either A) not caught up on the research of the last 20 years, or B) in denial. Seriously, you guys, the "other side" of this debate is essentially restricted to a tiny minority.

NOW, even if there WAS a debate over whether or not human burning of fossile fuels was contributing to the greenhouse effect, there can be no debate over whether or not cars, coal burning, etc, pump pollutants that are bad for us into the air. I.E., sitting in a garage with the car running can kill you. Duh. So, regardless of whether you want to believe the vast majority of scientists on the issue of human involvement in climate change, you should still be all about a reduction in air pollution. Period. MMKAY?

The move to PP - it is inevitable.
...Are you Al Gore...?

Seriously though, the debate is not over. The debate has never even initiated. The "scientists" (I use that term loosely) that believe in anthropogenic global warming will not debate the issue with any knowledgeable person who holds an opposing opinion as they will lose the debate.

Here are the real facts: current evidence indicates that CO2 follows global temperature (not the opposite; that CO2 drives global temperatures), the computer models developed to "predict" future climate conditions are incapable of accurately simulating past known climate conditions (ie with known climate conditions in say 1950 they do not arrive at the known climate conditions in say 1960; in other words the models are inaccurate), during multiple time periods of the global industrialization era (for example 1880-1910) global temperatures have decreased (while CO2 levels increased), global temperatures have been decreasing for about a decade, antarctic ice is actually growing and has been (roughly 90% of the Earth's ice and 80% of the Earth's freshwater is in Antarctica), and the data of one of foremost proponents of anthropogenic global warming, NASA's James Hansen, has been proven to be fraudulent (on a number of levels). Anthropogenic global warming is not a real phenomenon.

I have a Bachelor's and Master's degree in Mechanical Engineering from a top 20 engineering insitution. My primary occupational experience is in fossil power but for the past year I have played a significant role in developing a Concentrated Solar Power Plant (the product is being shipped to the customer as we speak; obviously for a variety of reasons I cannot elaborate). My knowledge base on this material is more advanced than yours (and I'm not insulting anyone; obviously your knowledge base in regard to your occupation would be more advanced than my own) and it is more advanced than Al Gore's. He is a politician; I am an engineer who is directly addressing this issue. Anthropogenic global warming is not a real phenomenon.

It seems science is no longer just science. Science has become deeply political. You must also keep in mind that the "scientist" benefits monetarily from his work, and in some cases obtaining certain results could prove to be more beneficial to the "scientist". I understand that not everyone has the time, patience, capacity, or motivation to evaluate the current research in regard to anthropogenic global warming. I understand that the majority of American's at some point will decide to trust someone's judgment on this issue. I am asking you all to trust mine. Anthropogenic global warming is not a real phenomenon. Tell your elected representatives that you do not want them to pass legislation based upon fraudulent science that will put additional, unnecessary strain on the American economy.

Last edited by AshJWilliams; 04-18-2009 at 11:32 PM. Reason: SP error
AshJWilliams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2009, 11:36 PM   #18
Eyeflyistheeye
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 69694
Join Date: Sep 2004
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: My personal hell
Vehicle:
2014 EuroPinto 5MT

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jigga View Post
What exactly are you referring to when you say "socialists"? You know there are a few branches of the commonly used term right?
Sigh... since you're from England I'll explain. There are a bunch of rightwing tools who like to label everything Obama does "socialism." Being an Obama supporter myself, I'm doing a tongue in cheek impersonation of them.
Eyeflyistheeye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2009, 11:42 PM   #19
jigga
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 9960
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: in bed...
Vehicle:
2002 Impreza WRX
WRBlue Perl

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyeflyistheeye View Post
Sigh... since you're from England I'll explain. There are a bunch of rightwing tools who like to label everything Obama does "socialism." Being an Obama supporter myself, I'm doing a tongue in cheek impersonation of them.
Ahh... makes sense! It seems to be thrown around with such abandon around here that I tend to wonder whether those using the word know exactly what they are on about half the time
jigga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2009, 12:00 AM   #20
litowrx
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 132418
Join Date: Nov 2006
Chapter/Region: International
Location: #502 GT
Vehicle:
2004 EJ207

Default

a little late i believe
litowrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2009, 01:44 AM   #21
WagonWielding
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 143213
Join Date: Mar 2007
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: San Antonio, TX
Vehicle:
1990 ED7 Civic Si
'73 Honda CB350 / '06 S2K

Default

It does not take a scientific background to understand the negative environmental impact related to increased auto & industrial emissions/pollutants. While I am sure that much of the information available through popular media is biased, there is empirical evidence that any person can know solely through observation.

For instance, most days in Beijing one can stare directly at the sun without squinting or feeling a need to turn away. The air is filled with so many contaminants that it blocks out a good percentage of emitted light. Try this in say, Montana, and you won't be able to look long at all. Similarly, Los Angeles has many days that exhibit the same phenomenon, albeit on a slightly smaller scale.

Now related to global warming let's, for argument's sake, assume that this is just a cycle that the Earth would have gone through whether or not humans ever populated the planet and created industrialized societies. It still does not follow that the gases & chemicals introduced by humans in large amounts would have no adverse impact on the climate, air quality, etc. Coupled with the other gems that humans have brought about such as deforestation, pollution of various bodies of water, etc., it is plain naive to insist that the Earth is just following an unalterable course irrespective of human involvement. Humans & industrialized socieites have not been a "natural" phenomen on Earth for an appreciable amount of time, so to insist that it will basically "take care of itself as it has always done" is a clearly unreasoned argument.

It seems that parties on both sides refuse to acknowledge the interdependence that exists between all things, plants & animals, Republicans & Democrats, Western society & Eastern. Neither would be as we know it without its correlative partner. The picture needs to be broadened to a perspective that can see past tax percentages, elected officials, and who is causing who the most grief. In a hundred years, the current president will be an anecdote in history books & the tax you paid this year will matter even less. But, hopefully, there will remain a human race & their environment will be determined as much be their own actions as by those actions taken a hundred years earlier without their consent.

Are we really giving up that much by agreeing to slow down the emissions we know, for a fact, that we produce even if we cannot accurately predict their eventual effect? Is it responsible to go full steam ahead and justify this by claiming that nobody can say for sure that a negative result will occur? We know that cutting emissions certainly won't worsen the state of affairs, so why not take a chance? If revenue, taxes, & political parties are the primary deciding factors for a happy life, a major paradigm shift is in order.

But I must just be some socialist, tree-hugging, idealist nut-job who is out of touch with reality and how things work here :shrugs:
WagonWielding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2009, 01:46 AM   #22
matt30
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 97330
Join Date: Sep 2005
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: California/New York
Vehicle:
2003 WRX

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WagonWielding View Post
I must just be some socialist, tree-hugging, idealist nut-job who is out of touch with reality and how things work here :shrugs:
Yes. ^This.
matt30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2009, 01:50 AM   #23
matt30
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 97330
Join Date: Sep 2005
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: California/New York
Vehicle:
2003 WRX

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AshJWilliams View Post
...Are you Al Gore...?

Seriously though, the debate is not over. The debate has never even initiated. The "scientists" (I use that term loosely) that believe in anthropogenic global warming will not debate the issue with any knowledgeable person who holds an opposing opinion as they will lose the debate.
Just because "scientists" (also know as meteorologists who work at bonafide universities) haven't had a debate WITH you doesn't mean YOU doesn't mean they didn't talk about it. And frankly, I believe them rather than some nut-job on the internet.
matt30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2009, 02:33 AM   #24
AVANTI R5
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 73805
Join Date: Nov 2004
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WagonWielding View Post
It does not take a scientific background to understand the negative environmental impact related to increased auto & industrial emissions/pollutants. While I am sure that much of the information available through popular media is biased, there is empirical evidence that any person can know solely through observation.

For instance, most days in Beijing one can stare directly at the sun without squinting or feeling a need to turn away. The air is filled with so many contaminants that it blocks out a good percentage of emitted light. Try this in say, Montana, and you won't be able to look long at all. Similarly, Los Angeles has many days that exhibit the same phenomenon, albeit on a slightly smaller scale.

Now related to global warming let's, for argument's sake, assume that this is just a cycle that the Earth would have gone through whether or not humans ever populated the planet and created industrialized societies. It still does not follow that the gases & chemicals introduced by humans in large amounts would have no adverse impact on the climate, air quality, etc. Coupled with the other gems that humans have brought about such as deforestation, pollution of various bodies of water, etc., it is plain naive to insist that the Earth is just following an unalterable course irrespective of human involvement. Humans & industrialized socieites have not been a "natural" phenomen on Earth for an appreciable amount of time, so to insist that it will basically "take care of itself as it has always done" is a clearly unreasoned argument.

It seems that parties on both sides refuse to acknowledge the interdependence that exists between all things, plants & animals, Republicans & Democrats, Western society & Eastern. Neither would be as we know it without its correlative partner. The picture needs to be broadened to a perspective that can see past tax percentages, elected officials, and who is causing who the most grief. In a hundred years, the current president will be an anecdote in history books & the tax you paid this year will matter even less. But, hopefully, there will remain a human race & their environment will be determined as much be their own actions as by those actions taken a hundred years earlier without their consent.

Are we really giving up that much by agreeing to slow down the emissions we know, for a fact, that we produce even if we cannot accurately predict their eventual effect? Is it responsible to go full steam ahead and justify this by claiming that nobody can say for sure that a negative result will occur? We know that cutting emissions certainly won't worsen the state of affairs, so why not take a chance? If revenue, taxes, & political parties are the primary deciding factors for a happy life, a major paradigm shift is in order.

But I must just be some socialist, tree-hugging, idealist nut-job who is out of touch with reality and how things work here :shrugs:

Yeah but the air coming out of my old mans 03/V6 EX Honda is cleaner then went in the air box.It has zero emmissions.This cap and trade got to be a better way to do it.Global warming not proving to me 100 percent.My electric bill priceless..
AVANTI R5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2009, 02:41 AM   #25
Balantz
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 101457
Join Date: Nov 2005
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Vehicle:
Czar of Sweet Dance
Moves

Default

^^^ Um, dude. Too much 420. You're not making sense.
Balantz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New study calls for $45 trillion to cut greenhouse gases in half by 2050 FunkerVogt Political Playground 5 06-06-2008 03:24 PM
China about to pass U.S. as world's top generator of greenhouse gases FunkerVogt Political Playground 3 03-06-2007 05:06 PM
America's Quiet Efforts to Cut Greenhouse Gases Are Producing Results FunkerVogt Political Playground 9 02-16-2007 03:19 PM
Government: Effect of greenhouse gases rising DubyaAreEcks Political Playground 14 09-29-2005 12:11 PM
Danger! Danger! WagonMonster North West Impreza Club Forum -- NWIC 5 08-03-2001 09:12 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2014 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2014, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.