Split court rules against Bush on greenhouse gases

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/02/sc....ap/index.html

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ordered the federal government on
Monday to take a fresh look at regulating carbon dioxide emissions from
cars, a rebuke to Bush administration policy on global warming.

In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the
Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions
of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars."


If we had more mass-transit and fewer traffic jams, we wouldn't need to
worry so much about emissions from cars. Modern car engines are already
much cleaner than they were years ago, and more legislation from
environmental lobbyists probably won't improve them. We need a better,
high-speed and clean-fuel transit network that would make cars for
everyday transportation no longer a necessity.

> If we had more mass-transit and fewer traffic jams, we wouldn't need to
> worry so much about emissions from cars. Modern car engines are already
> much cleaner than they were years ago, and more legislation from
> environmental lobbyists probably won't improve them. We need a better,
> high-speed and clean-fuel transit network that would make cars for
> everyday transportation no longer a necessity.

That would require everybody to live within easy walking distance of a mass
transit terminal. In other words, it aint gonna happen, ever. But you
****ing morons will never stop dreaming about it. Worse, you'll never stop
lobbying for government to throw more money at mass transit. (which is like
burning money in a huge bonfire) -Dave

On Apr 2, 1:58 pm, Alexander Rogge > wrote:
> http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/02/sc....ap/index.html
>
> "WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ordered the federal government on
> Monday to take a fresh look at regulating carbon dioxide emissions from
> cars, a rebuke to Bush administration policy on global warming.
>
> In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the
> Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions
> of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars."
>
> If we had more mass-transit and fewer traffic jams, we wouldn't need to
> worry so much about emissions from cars. Modern car engines are already
> much cleaner than they were years ago, and more legislation from
> environmental lobbyists probably won't improve them. We need a better,
> high-speed and clean-fuel transit network that would make cars for
> everyday transportation no longer a necessity.

If you consider carbon dioxide to be a greenhouse gas, then no,
engines have not become "cleaner." CO2 emissions are directly
proportional to the amount of fuel burned, that's just basic
chemistry. The *only* way to reduce CO2 emissions is to reduce fuel
use.

nate

On Apr 2, 1:58 pm, Alexander Rogge > wrote:
> http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/02/sc....ap/index.html
>
> "WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ordered the federal government on
> Monday to take a fresh look at regulating carbon dioxide emissions from
> cars, a rebuke to Bush administration policy on global warming.
>
> In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the
> Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions
> of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars."

Mark this day: The beginning of the end of the US Auto Industry.

> If you consider carbon dioxide to be a greenhouse gas, then no,
> engines have not become "cleaner." CO2 emissions are directly
> proportional to the amount of fuel burned, that's just basic
> chemistry. The *only* way to reduce CO2 emissions is to reduce fuel
> use.

Or an even more expensive emissions packagin on a vehicle.

The problem is, the people that believe CO2 is bad and push for
Hydrogen cars don't understand that water vapor is an even MORE heat
trapping greenhouse gas.

On 2 Apr 2007 15:15:48 -0700, "Larry Bud" > wrote:

>On Apr 2, 1:58 pm, Alexander Rogge > wrote:
>> http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/02/sc....ap/index.html
>>
>> "WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ordered the federal government on
>> Monday to take a fresh look at regulating carbon dioxide emissions from
>> cars, a rebuke to Bush administration policy on global warming.
>>
>> In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the
>> Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions
>> of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars."
>
>Mark this day: The beginning of the end of the US Auto Industry.

You got it!

There's only 1 way to attack this, and that's to make rollerskate cars.

But Americans don't want rollerskate cars and won't buy 'em. They want SUV's,
and won't be _able_ to buy 'em.

It's not only the end of the American auto industry in 10, 15, 20 years, or
however long it takes, it is also the end of American prosperity, such as is
left of it.

And as for "drive a smaller car", imagine a family of 2 parents and 3 kids. How
do they go anywhere without a large car or van, such as an SUV or
3-rows-of-seats van? They don't. You get 2 kids in "child safety seats" in
the back seat, and 2 parents up front, and that's it - you need a 3rd row of
seats for the 3rd kid. Period. They're only alternative would be to have Dad
drive 1 rollerskate car, and Mom drive the other rollerskate car, average 20
mpg for the trip if the 2 rollerskates both get 40 mpg, and you just _ain't_
gonna get fuel efficiency like that. And these damn child safety seats are
required for kids under 8. 2 of those seats eat up a whole row.

The large pool of people that won't be able to travel because of this nonsense
will greatly adversely affect the entertainment and recreation industries (can
you see Walt Disney World losing money - I knew you could), but the demise of
the American auto industry will have hundreds of thousands of people out of
work. Big recession, if not a depression.

So, go ahead and get the law involved with something that should be cured with
science. That's what's happening. Its the beginning of the end.

Dave Head

On Apr 2, 6:15 pm, "Larry Bud" > wrote:

> Mark this day: The beginning of the end of the US Auto Industry.

What cars are made in the U.S.?

bob z.

Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), bob zee said in
rec.autos.driving:
> On Apr 2, 6:15 pm, "Larry Bud" > wrote:
>
> > Mark this day: The beginning of the end of the US Auto Industry.
>
> What cars are made in the U.S.?

IIRC, Toyota, Nissan, Kia etc... have assembly and parts lines in the
US.

--
--
necromancer

Official Overseer Of Kooks And Trolls In rec.autos.driving

>
> And as for "drive a smaller car", imagine a family of 2 parents and 3
> kids. How
> do they go anywhere without a large car or van, such as an SUV or
> 3-rows-of-seats van?

Well that family gets around just fine if they aren't living in the U.S. Go
figure. -Dave

On Apr 2, 6:17 pm, "Larry Bud" > wrote:
> > If you consider carbon dioxide to be a greenhouse gas, then no,
> > engines have not become "cleaner." CO2 emissions are directly
> > proportional to the amount of fuel burned, that's just basic
> > chemistry. The *only* way to reduce CO2 emissions is to reduce fuel
> > use.
>
> Or an even more expensive emissions packagin on a vehicle.

No, not at all. CO2 is not an "emission" it is the intended end
product of burning a hydrocarbon fuel. HC + O2 yields CO2 + H2O. The
*only* way to get rid of CO2 "emissions" short of burning less fuel
would be to absorb or adsorb it in some kind of holding container that
would be periodically removed and disposed of. This does not seem
practical.

>
> The problem is, the people that believe CO2 is bad and push for
> Hydrogen cars don't understand that water vapor is an even MORE heat
> trapping greenhouse gas.

Possible, but condensing water and letting it drip on the ground (or
holding it in a storage tank that is periodically emptied) is easier
than getting rid of CO2 from the burning of hydrocarbon fuels.

Of course, to produce the H2 in the first place, you need energy
input, which is likely going to come from the burning of hydrocarbon
fuels...

nate