EPA CO2 comment deadline for cars and light trucks fast approaching – get your comments in now

So, if the temperature is expected to rise by 6 degrees by 2100, this plan will reduce it to 5.984 C degrees. Well, halleluiah. We are saved.
Are you sure this isn’t April 1st?

ETS BILL IN NEW zealand now in law passed about 20min ago .

AGW has never been about science. The EPA, the New Zeland and Australian Governments and soon our own (and the UN) are just using it as a club to drive the proles. Once cap & trade and Copenhagen are passed, we’ll hear as much about AGW as we’re now hearing about the ozone hole. Al Gore is already beginning his new crusade.

I’m sorry, but I have no more faith in our government. (lower case intentional) They were told not to pass a lot of this stuff by resounding numbers of constituents, but they pass it anyway. They don’t care, they don’t listen, they don’t represent me or my family. All I can do now is to wish them great amounts of ill will and to rejoice in any misfortune that visits them.
I guess that makes me a bad person.
So be it.

DONE:
Attn: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472
RE: Proposed Rulemaking to Establish Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is not justified in regulating carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles. These regulations will only increase the cost of our cars, harm our economy, and limit our transportation options. We need efficient, affordable transportation to rebuild our economy and create American jobs.
DUE TO THE RECENT RELEASE OF EMAILS AND OTHER DATA FROM THE “Climatic Research Institute at the University of East Anglia” which has direct influence over the IPCC, this proposed rulemaking as well as any others related to Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards must be halted until an independent review of any Climate Temperature increase due to CO2 has been Scientifically Verified and all data for this determination has been made public, along with the computer model used!
According to the proposed regulations, EPA wants to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from cars and trucks, “because of the critical need to address global climate change.” (74 Fed. Reg. 49454).This regulation does not achieve EPA’s stated goal because, according to EPA data, it does not reduce global warming or sea level rise in a meaningful way. The regulation states that the carbon dioxide reductions “are projected to reduce global mean temperature by approximately 0.007–0.016°C by 2100, and global mean sea level rise is projected to be reduced by approximately 0.06–0.15 cm by 2100.”
To be clear, EPA is proposing to increase the price of automobiles by $1,100 per car (74 Fed. Reg. 49460) in exchange for (according to EPA) a global temperature decrease of 16 thousandths of a degree Celsius in 90 years. Also, according to EPA, sea level won’t rise by an extra 1.5 millimeters. These tiny amounts are so inconsequential that they will not affect global climate at all nor will they affect “public health and welfare” (See Clean Air Act Sec. 202).
The proposed regulations will harm our economy. A few years ago, the National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimated that increasing fuel economy standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2020 would cost the car companies $114 billion. (See Detroit News, “Fuel Plan Would Cost Big Three” (March 1, 2007). Inexplicably, today NHTSA claims that achieving the 35 miles per gallon fleetwide standard by 2016, four years earlier, would cost only $60 billion. (75 Fed. Reg. 49479). This change from NHTSA is not credible. The cost of technology-forcing regulations do not decrease by half as a result of companies only having half the time to comply with the regulations.
EPA and NHTSA’s plan will increase costs for car companies and further reduce auto company jobs. Higher priced cars and trucks will make life more difficult for American families who need affordable transportation options.
To make matters worse, these regulations would start a regulatory cascade. EPA would start regulating emissions from millions of sources, including large buildings, churches, sports arenas, office buildings, farms, schools, hospitals—you name it. EPA will be forced to regulate greenhouse gases with many sections of the Clean Air Act, including sections 108, 111, and 112. This will further harm our economy, reduce American jobs, and worsen our employment situation. NHTSA already has the ability to regulate fuel economy without EPA further harming the economy.
Lastly, we care about our families’ safety as much as the Secret Service cares about the President’s safety. There is a clear correlation between size and weight of a vehicle and its safety. That is why the President’s limo only gets a reported 8 mpg, not 35 mpg. The Secret Service should not have to cut corners in keeping the President safe, just as we should not have to cut corners to keep our families safe.
EPA should not regulate carbon dioxide or greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. These regulations will make our high unemployment even worse. It does not make sense for EPA to reduce American jobs, increase the price of cars and trucks, and make America less economically competitive in exchange for an immeasurable and meaningless reduction in global temperature.

The doctors, representing OraTaiao: NZ Climate & Health, a large group of senior doctors and other health professionals acting to prevent runaway climate change, say that the changes to New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme will harm health as well as the economy.
http://www.voxy.co.nz/politics/doctors-say-emissions-trading-scheme-will-hurt-our-children/5/30456

[snip – policy – using WUWT to push an unrelated website/product]

Huffington post is putting some stuff up on Climategte. Will CNN be next?

Last chance for Australians to reject massive new taxes.
Rudd Attempts to Bribe Carbon “Polluters” to Get Law Passed
The Australian government has made a last ditch effort to win over opposition parliamentarians to its proposed carbon emissions trading laws after agreeing to at least double compensation to the coal and electricity generation sectors.
The latest amendments, which must win support from the opposition Liberal party if the government is to have its law passed by the country’s upper house senate later this week, follows an earlier decision to exclude the agricultural sector from its planned emissions trading scheme.
Under the changes, assistance to the coal industry will double to A$1.5bn (US$1.4bn), while power generators, which chiefly burn brown coal, will be awarded A$7.3bn worth of free permits over 10 years. More than A$1bn has also been offered to assist manufacturing and mining businesses handle higher electricity prices.
Kevin Rudd, Australia’s prime minister, wants the scheme passed into law before the Copenhagen climate change summit next month. Mr Rudd is keen to take a leadership role at the summit and was last month asked by Lars Lokke Rasmussen, Danish prime minister, to serve as a ”friend” of the chair, along with Mexico and the United Nations.
However, Mr Rudd’s watered down emissions trading scheme has been attacked by Australia’s Green party because it does not go far enough, while the National party has vowed to reject the legislation outright arguing it imposed a massive tax on Australian business and community at a time when other countries had yet to rule on their schemes.
The issue has also been divisive for Malcolm Turnbull’s Liberal party, which holds the key for the government’s plans to have the scheme passed. Mr Turnbull, a former environment minister in the previous Australian government, has had to stare down climate sceptics from within his own party amid threats to his own leadership.
The Liberal shadow ministry is thought to back the government’s amendments to at least double compensation payments to the coal and power generating industries but Mr Turnbull is yet to secure support from the wider party room.
The Greens on Tuesday rejected the government’s amendments, saying the proposed legislation was “worse than useless”. “There is absolutely no way we will be voting for a scheme like that,” a Greens spokesperson said. “The Greens oppose the CPRS [carbon pollution reduction scheme] as it stands not because it is too weak but because it will actually point Australia in the wrong direction with no prospect of turning it around in the 2015 time frame within which emissions must peak. “This is why we say it is not just a failure, but it locks in failure,” the Greens said.
However, Mr Rudd urged parliamentarians to back the amended scheme. A failure to reach agreement would be to ”roll the dice” with the future of Australia’s children, Mr Rudd said. ”Act for the future, not for the past. Act for your children. Act for your grandchildren,” he said. “Failing to act today is the riskiest course of action available to the parliament.

watch—http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=429xoDtqS-A&feature

They hard-coded the hockey stick into the program which draws the curve! And with the fudge factor they can alter how much the curve bends like the want it to…
To sum up the FUDGE FACTOR postings so far:
—
Willis Eschenbach (18:59:05) :
This is interesting:
From the progrm file FOI2009/FOIA/documents/harris-treebriffa_sep98_e.pro
…
;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’
;
; Now normalise w.r.t. 1881-1960
;
mknormal,densadj,x,refperiod=[1881,1960],refmean=refmean,refsd=refsd
mknormal,densall,x,refperiod=[1881,1960],refmean=refmean,refsd=refsd
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj
That is more than interesting. It is a perfect example of why the code needs to be released. [..] But look at what they are actually doing. They are fudging the numbers by an arbitrary amount to get the result they want. You probably understand this code, but let me see if I can explain it in English for those who don’t.
First, they put together a list of numbers that will be used to calculate the yearly adjustment. The numbers start at zero, get a bit smaller, and then gradually increase. This list is called “valadjust”.
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]
At the end of their calculations, they use valadj to make a yearly adjustment string, yearadj, by interpolating (taking intermediate values) from the values in valadj. This gives a value for each year, by which each year’s data will be adjusted up or down.
densall=densall+yearlyadj
But of course, they’re fudging things, so it won’t come out right the first time. To control the process, they put in a “fudge factor”, a single number that they can use to change the size of all the data adjustments. This is the “fudge factor” referred to in the code, which at the moment is set to 0.75. This is the 0.75 at the end of the line for setting up the valadj values:
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
They are using arbitrary values plus a fudge factor to make the result just what they want …
——–
Or here (it is IDL not plain Fortran):
debreuil (04:25:44) :
Ok, haven’t done fortran in 20 years, but if I read this right, it is creating a weighting hash for each 5 year period starting in 1904 (two arrays, 1st is year, second is weighting). The forties area are multiplied by as much as -.3, then in 1960 the ‘fudge’ creeps positive, up to 2.6 in 1980 onwards. It then interpolates this over the data. Please correct if this is wrong…
1904 0.
1909 0.
1914 0.
1919 0.
1924 0.
1929 -0.1
1934 -0.25
1939 -0.3
1944 0.
1949 -0.1
1954 0.3
1959 0.8
1964 1.2
1969 1.7
1974 2.5
1979 2.6
1984 2.6
1989 2.6
1994 2.6
1999 2.6
original code (..FOIA..documents..osborn-tree6..briffa_sep98_d.pro)
;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

I hate to be cynica, but you can’t possibly believe that Browner & Co. at the EPA intend to pay the slightest attention to any comments or evidence contrary to their agenda. The law requires public comment and hearings before new regulations can go into effect. The regulations are already written, ready to be issued in the Federal Register the minute the law allows them to be issued.

The AGW fraud in one sentence — Pay more taxes to the government, so government scientists can pretend to control the weather.
The bad news, we all know it is pretend science now.

The entire scam and all attempts to tax, regulate and limit CO2 emissions are under questions as the science is disputed.
So the only way to tacle this is to demand a total stop of any legislation directed at CO2 until we have got the science right.
For me it’s unbelievable that our political establishment continues to push their agenda when the core of the scientists that produced the scientific reports are suspect of scientific fraud.
That should be the message to EPA.
And the US population should go into the streets in protest.
You can no longer afford to wait for the next elections. This is an acute emergency and it will determine your future.
Your moment is now.

My interview with Al Gore (provides a sobering view behind the madness)
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2009/11/my-interview-with-al-gore.html

Round II
It’s the only right conclusion: Demand a Public Investigation of Climate Gate and get the science right. It’s the last chance for a death man’s hanging.
http://algorelied.com/?p=3269

Petition the Law Makers to Stop this Scam
They say we’ll loose a little Freedom, what’s the fuss
Freedom is Cheep there’s plenty of it
It was only bought with the others blood
The Stick is broken Open your eyes
The MWP was grafted Upside Down
Stop believing, The IPCC lies
Set may CO2 FREE and STOP insanity
I Will Not go down that California Road to Prosperity
The Question remains, the Question is bound
What side will You be on, LAW MAKER
As the Team goes Down
Will You fight for my Liberties
Or sell your Soul for a piece of gold?
By FIRE ANT

Nylo (01:18:39) :
“Sorry, I am a convinced skeptic, but I cannot see how establishing some limit on emissions for cars can be a bad thing to do. A less emitting car is a car that uses less fuel. Upon combustion, it is not only CO2 that you produce, there are other polutants too, real polutants. Less fuel consumption means less polutants in the air…”
Somehow you see causality where I don’t believe it necessarily exists. Lower emissions don’t reduce fuel consumption. In fact, I suspect emissions restrictions cause fuel consumption to increase.
That notwithstanding, our vehicles emit VERY little pollution when compared to cars from 20-30 years ago. I remember US cities enveloped in yellow-brown haze and brown smoke pouring out of tunnels. By the way, your limits on emissions show up in the form of catalytic converters. In fact, I have to have my cars tested by next month to ensure they meet some bureaucrat’s measure of acceptable emissions.
Government intervention in the free market is a losing proposition. However, I’ll grant them some leeway in the areas of safety (i.e. seat belts). [even safety can be regulated in the free market…Saab and Volvo success due to their attention to crach protection] Restrictions such as traffic laws should be the purview of state govts – nod feds.
EPA should go the way of the do-do.

Nylo (01:18:39) :
“Sorry, I am a convinced skeptic, but I cannot see how establishing some limit on emissions for cars can be a bad thing to do. A less emitting car is a car that uses less fuel. Upon combustion, it is not only CO2 that you produce, there are other polutants too, real polutants. Less fuel consumption means less polutants in the air.”
Nylo, sorry, but yours is just about the stupidest comment anyone can make. People like you are the reason that CO2 has been demonized — your ridiculous collapse of logic disenables all scientific thinking. If you want to control the pollutants, then control them; don’t falsely identify a non-pollutant to do your work for you. “Less fuel consumption means less pollutants in the air?” Well, less fuel consumption also means that less and less gets done and we have fewer and fewer resources– declining industry, declining travel, declining living conditions, etc.
If you want to put your passion and commitment to positive use (instead of the evil your position enables), support abundant fuel use of the most economic kind — with pollution controls (yes, clean coal is still messy, but so much less so than in the past) — and let us continue to make technological progress. As soon as it is financially feasible and competitive, lower (or different) fuel-using cars and trucks will be “invented”. Our history from the 19th century proves this to be so. When we become affluent, we clean up things — because we have the resources to do so!!! You have the argument bass-ackward.
Also, listen to Dr. Pielke. It’is land-use change (human-caused!) that is the greatest cause of “climate change” in a variety of micro-climates and regions. When land is stripped of its natural resources and natural functions, we create problems far greater than that of the pollution of fuel use. Please wake up to your stupidity.

Kick-ass blogpost, great looking weblog, added it to my favorites!

Like I said before in Canada this climategate is hardly registering. Government is acting as though nothing has come to light at all.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091125/greenhouse_meeting_091125/20091125?hub=Canada

Obama going to Copenhagen!
What a mess he will find!
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Official-Obama-going-to-apf-3029436597.html?x=0
Ecotretas

Breaking News:
Obaka is going to Copenhagen.
Moving before the tide leaves him high and dry, I’m thinking.

Nylo (01:18:39) :
Sorry, I am a convinced skeptic, but I cannot see how establishing some limit on emissions for cars can be a bad thing to do. A less emitting car is a car that uses less fuel. Upon combustion, it is not only CO2 that you produce, there are other polutants too, real polutants. Less fuel consumption means less polutants in the air. Not to mention that if you use less fuel you are certainly saving money. I would like that law to come true, although I know very well it will do nothing related to saving the world from a supposedly terrible global warming. The reasons are different.
Essentially what you are saying is that the ends justify the means. Sorry, no they don’t. The AGW Lie has to be exposed and destroyed, the EPA is in the process of codifying that lie, and if you think they will stop with cars and trucks then I have a very nice bridge for sale at a bargain price.

The Verdict is out, spread the message:
“Scientists” falsified the databases on which alarmist models are based. The reports of the IPCC are untenable — their “scientific” basis has been demolished.
So too the whole “sustainable” energy industry. Money talks, but money can also walk, and it will, when recognition of the fraud spreads. Support for alternative energy projects will fade. There is no cause for vast subsidies. Carbon fuels can be phased out slowly, through market forces, as more efficient and cheaper sources of energy are developed.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/climate_fraud_and_the_environm.html
from: http://www.seablogger.com

Nylo (01:18:39)
Oh my, nothing wrong wanting less fuel consumption, who wouldn’t those days, but please skip the BS.

Is the Supreme Court going to ask for a do-over? Their first look see into science showed us why judges are not the place for science.

Here’s the confirmation on the Copenhagen story:
http://2su.de/4M

Forget about CO2. The world isn’t warming anymore so it can’t be CO2.
Henrik Svensmark nailed the answer to the wall right in front of them in ’96 and they laughed at him. Here’s what caused global warming, watch:

They won’t be laughing at Svensmark now. He got access to an old particle accelerator in Switzerland. The experiments are being condicted right now:
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/Research/CLOUD-en.html
They’ll have irrefutable proof in the Spring, but you don’t have to wait that long because the now quiet Sun is causing exactly what Svensmark predicted. Do none of these charlatans have a backbone? They all know the truth now. The first one among them who stands up and shouts “Stop!” will be a hero.
If they don’t own up long before Copenhagen they risk condemning humanity to the guilt of an original sin they didn’t commit and a life of working to buy indulgences for breathing.
Watch the Youtube video up there, it wasn’t really warming; it’s a cycle.

The Denialists are complaining about the code? Wake up. The data was just as bad. Garbage-in-garbage-out is a phrase used to describe bad information being fed to a computer giving useless results.
These geniuses took it to a whole new level:
They put garbage data into a garbage program and managed to get it to give whatever answer they wanted! Nobel Prizes all round!
Here’s the laureates’ winning equation: *drumroll*
Garbage into Garbage = Whatever you want!!

“Wow, smoking gun? I can hardly believe it! I don’t know Fortran (I’m a C++/C# developer); is yrloc defining a range (1400 -> findgen(19)…) or is it defining a two dimensional array? How is “yearlyadj” subsequently applied to actual temperature data?
Dumb question of the week: what is the theoretical basis for the number series [0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6] having any significance to the historic temperature record? What does the $ sign mean in fortran (or IDL)?”
^^^^^^^^^^
Yes indeed. I wrote forcasting models in fortran (years ago)and they weighted the heat in the 30’s downward and the recent heat upward. Who needs a thermometer?
By adding so much in the last years, it bends the curve upward and sharply steepens the slope. Mann bent the line to create a vector. Taking the last 2-3 points, we have a steep slope in a vector and he uses the tree proxy (singular) to negate the actual temp reading.
If you use his formula and altered data, you replicate his resuslts. If you assess the raw data and create an equation from your own analysis, you can’t replicate his results.
Now to answer the “dumb question”. What is the basis for adjusting the data by reason of weighting in certain years?
It is personal preference. It gets them the number they want the Power Point presentation to show.

Everyone seems to forget that
USA UK Australia New Zealand et al CONNIVED
with the hacked scientists to
get the results they got–
They would have received no funding if
they had not made it clear to their masters that they would
produce positive agw results —
they would have been simply persecuted like
all other agw opponents had there been
any hint that they would NOT fudge
the data.
In fact the emails are so outrageous–and possibly
unnecessary–that it appears that
the intention may have been to
have them forwarded to
certain govt officials to show them
the efforts being exerted on their behest
and perhaps encourage more funding–
Contrary to the media fecal spin that
USA UK Australia New Zealand et al
are not neck deep in this fraud–
USA UK Australia New Zealand et al
did pillory castige and still
intend to prosecute(under antiterror laws) those scientists and
pundits opposed to the
agw train–
the fact that the wheels are coming off
this govt backed runaway train has no effect
on it –there are no brakes –it will roar ahead
like any other imbecilic govt backed policy–
and long after the total wreck the
history books will still be
glowingly portraying
the remarkable forsight of the
sponsoring govt officials–
(contrast the prosecution and
guillotining of the pioneering utah cold
fusion scientists 20 years ago vs the current
resurgence of cold fusion research with no mention
of them or their achievements)–
anyway–
here is a bit of current reality
weather as opposed to climate
–
Early sea ice formation traps
Greenland towns and stops supplies
until spring–
http://sermitsiaq.gl/indland/article103562.ece?lang=EN
First time in 20 years–
Early sea ice formation traps
Greenland narwhales in ice
and they are shot–
http://sermitsiaq.gl/indland/article103734.ece?lang=EN
http://englishrussia.com/?p=2495
http://pafc.arh.noaa.gov/data/ice/ice.png
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/seaice/hires/global.xml

Nylo, glad to hear that upon second thoughts you oppose the EPA rule. By all means let us all limit the amount and place of exit of dangerous pollutants. That will not happen by limiting CO2 or fuel when the rule or legislation is all cost and no benefit. We must live in the real world and not a romanticized version of it. Living has a cost; all living makes waste (entropy, if I am accurate enough); affluence — living well enough — enables us to be inventive in sorting out, curtailing, corralling, and eliminating that waste. It provides the essentials for technological development.

Stephen Shorland (06:52:27) : ice-momentors ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
“Because water molecules containing heavier isotopes exhibit a lower vapor pressure, when the temperature falls, the heavier water molecules will condense faster than the normal water molecules. The relative concentrations of the heavier isotopes in the condensate indicate the temperature of condensation at the time, allowing for ice cores to be used in local temperature reconstruction after certain assumptions.”
Note the important last three-word phrase: after certain assumptions …
In the suggested chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
Note, the Temp curve (blue) leads the CO2 curve (green). Seen clearly at 150 thousand years ago – temp rises rapidly while CO2 is still low and even falling. (I use another open window as a straight-edge and line up the peak at 150 with the left-hand edge. Observe what the green line is doing.)

Ryan said:
I personally believe that it is our responsibility to do sensible things to reduce our impact on the environment. This is why I strongly support incentives for individuals and businesses to increase use of renewable energy, realistic proposals to reduce fossil fuel dependence (such as nuclear power), alterations to the residential and commercial building codes to improve energy efficiency, and, yes, increasing fuel efficiency for vehicles.
You are the victim of fuzzy thinking, Ryan. Any sane, sensible energy policy must be based on science and on reality, not on science fiction and pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking. Otherwise, you wind up with unintended consequences which can (and often do) do the exact opposite of the very thing you are trying to accomplish.
Take ethanol. Please. And that is just one example of many.
Once again, the ends, no matter how noble you may think they are do not justify the means.

No sane person would go forward with any of this climate change nonsense until all facts are reviewed. Me thinks something stinks!

Re: Bruce Cobb (09:06:09) :
Perhaps you should read more carefully before replying. I specifically mentioned ethanol as something I do not support. You also failed to notice that the items I listed that I do support are anything but “pie-in-the-sky” and “wishful thinking”.
You might consider clarifying your own thoughts before accusing others of fuzzy thinking.

There are many good points here…
First and foremost, however, you can’t legislate laws of physics. The ONLY way to reduce CO2 emissions with our current technology is to reduce the use of currently available fuels. There is no magic way to continue our current lifestyle while making any sort of measurable difference. WE ONLY HAVE our current technology.
In other words, just because there is a reduction law in effect, just because there is CAFE, just because someone legislated CO2 reduction, does NOT mean that alternatives exist. They do not, period.
It’s all very nice to talk about “alternatives” and “renewables” and “sustainability”, but look beyond these warm fuzzy “feel good” words to what they mean. They mean insufficient heat in winter, less A/C in summer, driving less, ridiculously expensive fuel, dismantling or banning many types of energy-intensive businesses (ie. jobs). The next step after legislation is enforcement, and that may well mean mandatory mileage reporting on your vehicle so you can be taxed more when you renew your license, at the very least. The next step would be worse.
This is what needs to be fought. By this time, the gigantic AGW machine has been working for so long that even “skeptics” are talking about reducing CO2 emissions, even people who know better are stopping and thinking about what they do (which was the goal all along). There is no need, but even the most well educated is starting to roll over and let it happen.
This WILL mean a dramatic reduction of YOUR quality of life. No more will it be “someone else”, but YOU.
Those of you who have a hard time arguing against what the EPA is going to be party to need to seriously evaluate how it will affect YOU, because it will. There is no positive to this. None.

Ryan O (10:33:15) :
Re: Bruce Cobb (09:06:09) :
Perhaps you should read more carefully before replying. I specifically mentioned ethanol as something I do not support. You also failed to notice that the items I listed that I do support are anything but “pie-in-the-sky” and “wishful thinking”.
You might consider clarifying your own thoughts before accusing others of fuzzy thinking.
It makes no difference that you are against ethanol; the fact remains that it was and is one of the harmful, unintended consequences of a wrong-headed energy policy. You mentioned “renewable energy”, but for the most part renewable energies, at least for now are just that – pie-in-the-sky. They cost too much, are often unreliable, and in some cases do more harm than good. As for increasing energy efficiency, the devil is always in the details. The crucial question is, what is the payback period for your investment in increased energy efficiency? And secondarily, with vehicles, you have the unintended consequence of lower safety with smaller, lighter vehicles to consider. As for more energy-efficient buildings, why would people need “incentives” to save money? I recently added insulation in my attic, and the only “incentive” I needed was that I wanted to cut down on my heating costs. I don’t want, or need Joe Public to help me pay to insulate my house.

Nylo (11:29:00) :
May I repeat that:
…
2) … Measures that enforce efficiency gains in the use of fuel are good things,…
Might I suggest they are BAD things. The best enforcer of efficiency is the free market. As a consumer, I’m more likely to buy or invest in efficient goods. Govt is dreadful at creating incentives without unintended consequences.
As was mentioned earlier, wealth has been the driver to clean our industry and environment. The wealthier we are, the more we care about our environment and the more we are able to apply resources to improve it.
I also want efficient fleets of cars, planes, trains, ships, etc. but govt regulation is not going to get us there.

helpgetmeoutofhere (12:00:14) :
FYI – 1936
http://ssa.nls.uk/film.cfm?fid=2363

This issues has become completely political. They claim that theglobal warming debate is over. Well I don’t ever remember there ever being a debate. All opposing non global warming science is being covered up. Diverse opinions are not tolerated. Do not trust your government.