| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ski
><((((°>
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12831 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma |
|
Ski
><((((°>
|
 Mon Jul 27, 2015 8:49 am |
|
|
| Quote: | | Drive under the speed limit at freeway speeds to save wear and tear on my vehicle and improve mileage |
unless you're driving 10-15 miles per hour less than "freeway speed" the difference in fuel economy (MPG) is negligible. if you are driving 10-15 miles per hour less than "freeway speed" on the freeway you are impeding traffic and should get off the interstate.
higher speeds don't necessarily cause more "wear and tear" on automotive components; sustained high speeds are a contributing factor in failure of automotive components.
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
|
| Back to top |
  
|
|
gb
Member
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6309 | TRs | Pics
|
|
gb
Member
|
Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:31 pm |
|
|
| Cohokiller wrote: | | gb wrote: | | #1 the cost of relocating people who are threatened/displaced by rises in sea level (some of this may be after an emergency such as a hurricane).#2 Costs of severe storms, such as floods.#3 Costs of fires such as loss of natural resources and the cost of firefighting, and to a degree loss of houses/infrastructure.#4 Increased food costs, grains, fruits and vegetables in particular, plus higher costs of seafood (due to scarcity).#5 Potential cost of increased disease episodes due to greater durability of infectious agents.#6 Cost of buying and operating air conditioning.#7 Percieived value of it not being as hot - no hiking, being miserable, etc. |
What would be the baseline that you would be comparing against in order to measure the cost? |
I thought you might look at the link to the White House release on this. Neither I (nor you) have any of the statistics at all.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gb
Member
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6309 | TRs | Pics
|
|
gb
Member
|
Mon Aug 03, 2015 7:52 pm |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joker
seeker
Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Posts: 7953 | TRs | Pics
Location: state of confusion |
|
joker
seeker
|
Mon Aug 03, 2015 11:57 pm |
|
|
The article is behind the pay wall now, I'm afraid, so those of us who don't subscribe won't see it, unless they also give you permalink you can post (like the NYT).
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ski
><((((°>
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12831 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma |
|
Ski
><((((°>
|
Tue Aug 04, 2015 12:08 am |
|
|
yeah.
but that's okay, because logging onto that WSJ site made me realize that with David Letterman no longer on the air, we'll never see any new episodes of Trump or Monkey.
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drm
Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR |
|
drm
Member
|
Tue Aug 04, 2015 6:37 am |
|
|
Will be interesting to see if any of these Governors will be influenced by the letter from corporations and investors supporting the new rule. I don't really hold it against those with high dependence on coal to oppose this, but it seems clear now that opposition is mainly either fossil fuel-based or partisanship.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cohokiller
Member
Joined: 18 May 2015
Posts: 462 | TRs | Pics
|
There is no such thing as left or right leaning, all government these days leans left.
The biggest obstacle to lowering emissions from coal plants has always been the EPA and that was before they started regulating a non-pollutant.
Don't delude yourself into thinking it was anything different.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cohokiller
Member
Joined: 18 May 2015
Posts: 462 | TRs | Pics
|
| drm wrote: | | Will be interesting to see if any of these Governors will be influenced by the letter from corporations and investors supporting the new rule. I don't really hold it against those with high dependence on coal to oppose this, but it seems clear now that opposition is mainly either fossil fuel-based or partisanship. |
As with any rule regulating carbon, it's merely so others can hone in and get a piece of energy dollar and be on the up side when energy prices increase.
If reduction of pollution was actually the motivation, EPA and environmental groups wouldn't have been hindering and blocking upgrades at coal plants for the last umpteen thousand years.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NacMacFeegle
Member
Joined: 16 Jan 2014
Posts: 2653 | TRs | Pics
Location: United States |
It's hard to believe how incredibly divorced from reality all of Coho's comments are. 
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadCapLaughs
Member
Joined: 05 Jul 2007
Posts: 954 | TRs | Pics
|
It's like Colbert's character turned into an forumite. 
The coal industry has been trying to reduce emissions, but the EPA and environmentalists have been preventing them? Ha!
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joker
seeker
Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Posts: 7953 | TRs | Pics
Location: state of confusion |
|
joker
seeker
|
Tue Aug 04, 2015 10:09 am |
|
|
| Cohokiller wrote: | | As with any rule regulating carbon, it's merely so others can hone in and get a piece of energy dollar and be on the up side when energy prices increase. |
 I find somewhat bitter amusement in the way you seem to be able to divine the unstated intentions of others on a fairly regular basis. This quoted claim is of course as ridiculous as your claims about "the environmental industry" being all about raising funds for personal gain on that other thread. 
Sure, there will always be bottom feeders looking for an angle, but that's different from driving policy like this merely to drive some more energy $ into someone's pocket.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cefire
Member
Joined: 03 Feb 2010
Posts: 523 | TRs | Pics
|
|
cefire
Member
|
Tue Aug 04, 2015 10:51 am |
|
|
| Cohokiller wrote: | | Don't delude yourself |
ditto.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cefire
Member
Joined: 03 Feb 2010
Posts: 523 | TRs | Pics
|
|
cefire
Member
|
Tue Aug 04, 2015 11:01 am |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cohokiller
Member
Joined: 18 May 2015
Posts: 462 | TRs | Pics
|
| MadCapLaughs wrote: | | The coal industry has been trying to reduce emissions, but the EPA and environmentalists have been preventing them. |
Yes.
Here is an analogy to help you understand.
Lets say you drive an old car with a really big carbureted V8 engine.
You do some math and figure you can save 30% on fuel if you swap in a new, more advanced fuel-injected engine.
You go ahead and do it but then get pulled into court by the EPA because in the eyes of the EPA, your new engine in your old car is a NEW SOURCE of pollution and must go through a costly review process that takes 8-10 years and won't be approved because of the deception imposed by environmental groups that you are actually creating a new source of pollution.
The reality is that it's reducing fossil fuel consumption and emissions from an old source.
The controversy regarding new source review isn't new one or even a mystery but you just learned about it right now.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cohokiller
Member
Joined: 18 May 2015
Posts: 462 | TRs | Pics
|
| joker wrote: | | This quoted claim is of course as ridiculous as your claims about "the environmental industry" being all about raising funds for personal gain on that other thread. |
It's merely an observation of the reality of how the policies play out in real life and who ends up benefiting.
With every failed social experiment and group of regulations, there is always a long list of excuses as to why they failed yet somehow the beneficiaries and people paid to solved the problem always get their paychecks.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
