Slashdot Mirror

http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/title2.html Clean Air Act provides the mentioned penalties for vehicles sold without "a certificate of conformity". So I assume that these vehicles are only legal under California's experimental "pilot test program" and have not been certified. Seeing the actual Volvo memo might answer this, of course.

Under terms of the Clean Air Act--in the kind of delicious irony only our government can pull off--anyone (dealer, consumer, automaker) involved in an out-of-bounds PZEV sale could be subject to civil fines of up to $27,500

This statement is meant for no other reason than to give weight to the claims, not discuss the issues intelligently.

Even if true, "most scientists" once thought we would see an ice age within 50 years of the 1970's.

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/dioxane.html

I think it's a bit early to call a judgement call here. The article mentions that the bacterium can be altered to make sulfer-free crude, so there's obvously the potential to make a cleaner gasoline/fuel by eliminating or "refining" the refinery process (See EPA Tier 2). Perhaps if anyone could shed light on the necessity of carbon in gasoline? If it's not necessary, this could be a path to a carbon negative(?) fuel system.

"Are there even that many undeveloped, practical miles left in the US?"

I don't know what you mean by "practical", but keep in mind that less than 10% of US land is developed while an additional 15% is used for farmland and an additional 35% for pasture land.

That means there are roughly 4 million square kilometers of unused land in the US. So 34,000 square kilomenters is less than 1% of the unused land. A meaningful chunk, no doubt, but there is still lots of empty land out there.

Another way to look at this is that approximately 125,000 square kilometers of formerly used farm and pastureland was removed from use between 1982 and 1997. In other words, you would only have to put back into production one-third of the land taken out of production between 1982 and 1997.

Notes: I use "less than 10%" for developed land, because the only estimate I could find was 4.3% in 1997 and I know there has been significant development in the last ten years, but I can't imagine developed land has more than doubled in that time period. Similarly, the numbers listed for 1997 for farmland and pastureland were 16% and 36%, respectively, but both have been in long-term decline for decades. Finally, the 125,000 square kilometers of land removed from agricultural production is net of development. That is, there was actually 225,000 sqkm taken out of production but 100,000 sqkm was developed for other uses, netting 125,000 sqkm net removed from use.

All numbers taken from this EPA report:
http://www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/html/roeLandU.ht m

The energy balance isn't particularly meaningful anyway, and pays no attention to the kind of energy used (electricity vs oil for example). And it is useful to note that the energy balance for gasoline is quite negative. But if you would like to know, you can look at the EPA's rule making for the Renewable Fuel Standard http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/ Or this paper http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/103/30/11 206 published in the proceedings of the national academy of science is also a credible source. These are all fairly comprehensive and fairly consistent with the 1.3 to 1.0 ratio. Costs are probably the best measure actually, (if we properly account for government subsidies and externality costs such as environmental or otherwise). Most credible estimates find that externality costs very roughly equal government subsides, so actually they cancel each other out.

doesn't matter if they plug this particular loophole. there a few others: radioactive waste and medical equipment. doesn't have to be from this country, ship it in in a lead lined cargo container. oh, we inspect all of those, right?

take a white van, pack it with TNT and strontium-90 from radiotherapy equipment or nuclear waste/ nuclear plant parts and set it off in times square. doesn't have to cause a lot of damage. the real "bomb" is the psychological and economic bomb: no one will want to go to midtown manhattan anymore

after the explosion which would kill a half dozen people and shatter some windows (nothing, right?), you'd have reporters walking around with geiger counters, and talking about the half-life of strontium-90 (28 years). 5.5 years after 9/11, we are still talking about the air quality issue of the particles of concrete and steel and diesel fuel and aluminum and asbestos. that's all washed away by now. but radioactive contamination doesn't work that way. it sticks around for decades

in other words, you can kill a bunch of people. ok, they are gone, done for. case closed. people grieve, people move on. psychologically, it's cut and dry. but you can do another kind of bomb, something more sinister and insidious: you can damage a society more by introducing a permanent nagging environmental degradation in the form of low level radiation. this is far more damaging economically and psychologically. it's scandalous, it's a permanent nag in your head, not something you get over. and that's the whole point of terrorism: the instilling of terror. terrorists can't kill us all, but they can influence our thinking. to paraphrase stalin ("a single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic"): the endless fretting over a nonquantifiable and continuous degradation to your health for years is perhaps more terrorizing than outright killing someone

that's why a dirty bomb is so nasty a concept, and why we should worry about it

doesn't matter if they plug this particular loophole. there a few others: radioactive waste and medical equipment. doesn't have to be from this country, ship it in in a lead lined cargo container. oh, we inspect all of those, right?

take a white van, pack it with TNT and strontium-90 from radiotherapy equipment or nuclear waste/ nuclear plant parts and set it off in times square. doesn't have to cause a lot of damage. the real "bomb" is the psychological and economic bomb: no one will want to go to midtown manhattan anymore

after the explosion which would kill a half dozen people and shatter some windows (nothing, right?), you'd have reporters walking around with geiger counters, and talking about the half-life of strontium-90 (28 years). 5.5 years after 9/11, we are still talking about the air quality issue of the particles of concrete and steel and diesel fuel and aluminum and asbestos. that's all washed away by now. but radioactive contamination doesn't work that way. it sticks around for decades

in other words, you can kill a bunch of people. ok, they are gone, done for. case closed. people grieve, people move on. psychologically, it's cut and dry. but you can do another kind of bomb, something more sinister and insidious: you can damage a society more by introducing a permanent nagging environmental degradation in the form of low level radiation. this is far more damaging economically and psychologically. it's scandalous, it's a permanent nag in your head, not something you get over. and that's the whole point of terrorism: the instilling of terror. terrorists can't kill us all, but they can influence our thinking. to paraphrase stalin ("a single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic"): the endless fretting over a nonquantifiable and continuous degradation to your health for years is perhaps more terrorizing than outright killing someone

that's why a dirty bomb is so nasty a concept, and why we should worry about it

It seems like you're just hand waving. Combustion consumes oxygen and ends up producing carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrous oxides, particulate matter, etc. You can read about what these do at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/invntory/overview/pollutan ts/index.htm.

Vehicles produce non-zero amounts of the above. The Bluetec Mercedes E320 produces far higher levels of the above than many passenger cars and also wasn't clean enough to be sold in California and the other CARB states. So, you're telling me this dirty car is cleaning the air?

That's total BS to claim that you're CLEANING the environment by driving any car. I guess you've never bothered to look up actual emissions nor the meanings of air pollution scores. Per http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm, the 07 Mercedes E320 Bluetec emits 8.1 tons/year of greenhouse gases. It's greater than 0 or negative. FWIW, the Prius is estimated to emit 4 tons/year.

The air pollution score for the Merc for some reason is unavailable, but http://www.trucks.autoblog.com/2006/08/29/bluetec- diesel-fails-to-meet-50-state-emissions-requiremen t/ mentions it failed to meet Tier 2 Bin 5. You can lookup the meaning of that on page 1 of http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/detailedchart.pdf vs. the PZEV (9.5 score that CARB spec Priuses get) on page 3. You'll see that for Tier 2 Bin 5, the allowed emission limits for all pollutants except one are MANY times higher than that of a PZEV car. Again, both of these are non-zero values.

Sure can:

Sugar Ethanol
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironm ent/wm1074.cfm
http://forums.wsj.com/viewtopic.php?t=247http://fo rums.wsj.com/viewtopic.php?t=247
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/09/sugar-ethan ol.htmlhttp://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/11/27 /061127ta_talk_surowiecki
http://blog.tomevslin.com/2007/03/tax_gasoline_im. html
http://www.iags.org/es82905.htm
http://www.forbes.com/2005/11/15/energy-ethanol-br azil_cx_1116energy_adams.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8769619/site/newsweek
(there are tons more links all over)

USA Gas Mileage Standards:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/overview. htm
http://zfacts.com/p/414.html
http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG2007_GasolineVeh icles.pdf [Warning: PDF]

There are tons and tons and tons of links, data, charts, .pdf files and things you can pour over if you research the topic via Google, local library, watch CSpan, etc.

And to the AC earlier: Yes, corn farmers helped influence the decision, as did domestic sugar producers, but, oil companies are also to blame for this, as they don't want competition from ethanol PERIOD.

The cars you speak of are likely MUCH lighter and smaller than their current versions.

http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/11310/the-stee ring-column-minicars-i-dont-see-no-stinking-minica rs.html
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/ 20070604/AUTO01/706040309/1148/AUTO01
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/fetrends/420s0600 3.htm

I'm actually impressed by some of the mileage improvements that automakers can still manage despite increasing size and weight. I used to have a 91 Toyota Camry V6: 2.5L 156 hp V6, curb weight of 3087 lbs and EPA rating of 18/24. I replaced it w/a 2002 Nissan Maxima: 255 hp 3.5L V6, curb weight of 3218 lbs, EPA rated 20/26. That's pretty impressive to me: a much larger car that weighs 131 lbs more, has 99 hp more yet is EPA rated 2 mpg better for city and highway.

CO2 emissions from a gallon of gasoline = 2,421 grams x 0.99 x (44/12) = 8,788 grams = 8.8 kg/gallon = 19.4 pounds/gallon

CO2 emissions from a gallon of diesel = 2,778 grams x 0.99 x (44/12) = 10,084 grams = 10.1 kg/gallon = 22.2 pounds/gallon

For many pollutants, using a grease/oil like vegetable oil is actually LESS polluting than using fuel oil or diesel, and for some pollutants, it's on a similar clean-burning level to natural gas. IIRC, grease/oil will emit a higher amounts of particulates (i.e. soot) but lower amounts of nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide (versus fuel oil/diesel).

The US has a population of 300 million.

There are about 2 million farms in the U.S. and about 1 million full-time farmers. Ag 101

It is damn hard work that doesn't end with the harvest.

The geek might usefully spent some time at the wholesale markets (3 AM - 5AM) or a meat processing plant. These are not the kind of jobs that attract volunteer labor.

Subsistence agriculture - non-profit by definition - essentially employs 100% of your population. There are few chances to specialize, little opportunity for the farmer to trade or barter for the goods and services that might improve his lot in life.

There seems to be a fair amount of denial going on, not only at the geopolitical level, but here as well.

Cries of "It will hurt the economy!" ... "Those are our jobs you're talking about!" ... "It aids the terrorists!" ... "It's fuzzy math/science/reporting!" fly from both sides.

But the cold, hard fact remains, we *are* changing our environment, as a look at these articles, some of which are decades old, will attest. Taken as a whole many of those changes are not at all beneficial.

So rather than focusing on who-said-what games, maybe it's time to quit clicking the heels of our ruby slippers, and begin cleaning up the mess we've made.

I'm one of those .01% too. And to back up your claims of biased nonsense, Think about this.

The article linked to doesn't even use the same data set the White House uses. It grabs data from two separate sources and one of those sources is labeled as a draft report. But more importantly, the data sources provide different data calculations all together. The US data is derived from here (pdf) which covers everything under the sun and the Europe numbers come from here(pdf) Now the US data lists everything it is counting while the EU data list reported totals whatever they may be. They list a few more details in the other parts about the data ofr the EU here I read through some o it and it doesn't look like everything counted is the same. I haven't and will not do an in depth analysis of it to find out one way or another.

I won't do this because the White House cited data from the International Energy Agency which pulls the same data from the countries and do the same calculations for it. We know the data here, even though it doesn't encompass anything that isn't Co2 or from burning fuel sources, uses the same information available for both geographical areas. I think this is interesting for several reasons. One is because the White House said that according to a report by the IEA, and then made their claims. And another is that as I said above, we know the information collected is accurately represented for both areas. There must be a reason they selected only natural gas for some extra supporting evidence at yet another site with more different data.

SO the article makes several claims that are just blatantly false. One is that the White House cherry picked information, The truth is an international agency provided the data, the years were selected because they were the years he was president and you need a qualifier year previous to this to show the changes between what he claims has been accomplished. Another is that there is some conspiracy to skew science. The fact is, the only people manipulating numbers are the one throwing rocks.

Another problem is that they aren't even talking about the same stuff. Yet the Pacinst report claims it is for some reason. The president/White House has said from the start that the IEA provided the numbers. and the IEA report only talks about emissions from combustible sources.

I hope I haven't rambled on too much. It didn't take long to find these problems out when I first saw the pacinst thing on the 9th or 10 of may. This thing is a sham from the start and as you put it, the bias just elevates it.

They wouldn't need to claim ignorance. The claims the whit house said was that according to the IPCC, we were leading less. This study as well as the initial version of the report gets it's data from a different source. There is no lie, and what was said it true. As for cherry picking, this so called report specifically uses a different data set in order to make a claim of misleading and wrong doing. Nothing could be further form the truth.

Here is the link to the numbers the pacinst uses. and here is the link to what the white house used.

Three things to be noted. One is that the IEA publication costs a lot of money so unless some one is willing to pony up the change and do the actual comparisons, we won't know for sure. Using numbers from another study or data set does nothing to show anyone mislead anything. If anything, it is misleading of this study to suggest something that doesn't exist.

Second, the IEA numbers don't cover the same numbers the other report does. It used numbers from fuel combustion were as the EPA numbers account for all use including purpose full manufacturing of Co2.

Third and probably the most important is that the EU and the rest of the world have only been attempting to reduce Co2 emisiosn since 2000 when the kyoto accord was in effect. Comparing to anything previous is senseless and misleading. It implies there was an effort that isn't and attempt to say look, we are guilty because we done this before that.

In all, It would be note worthy to have numbers that come form the same source and cover the same data. This report doesn't do it and even attempts to use the disconnect from consistancy as a basis to refute the conclusions of a report that does use the same source and same data collections. I have contacted them by email about their apparent misleading and have not received a response from them. Also they have listed this second "refined report" after that.

So this convesation would require a small library of books to cover all the relevant and critical issues properly, some of which include;

You really wanna play this game? OK, then, we'll play this game.

• Are you really comfortable being part of a process which uses disaster, criminal neglect, and the mass displacement of tens of thousands of American citizen as a means of urban renewal?

You make it sound as though we intentionally asked for the hurricane and resulting diaspora to happen; do you really want to make that allegation? As for what you mean by "criminal neglect", you'd have to be more specific; that can refer to many things.

• Who are you expecting to save your behind when you and your neighbors are doing the backstroke in your living rooms (FEMA has already demonstrated a poor track record here)?

This is a person of means. He can evacuate on his own. The people who did not evacuate were the people who did not have the means to evacuate and the people who chose not to evacuate.

• The land you are building on is either below sea level, or with rising ocean levels (i.e. global warming), increased storm severity (again global warming), and ongoing distruction of the Mississippi delta, will very soon be. How will you protect yourself longterm from an unplanned aquatic life?

Nearly every city on the coast is going to get fucked over by global warming, and we're working on coastal restoration. We'll undo mistakes that were made by closing MR-GO, allowing the Mississippi to resume properly depositing its sediment so that it forms new wetlands, not letting storm surge enter the outfall canals so that the floodwalls (the weakest, and only, failing part of the system) are not subject to the stresses they were during the storm. Then we'll build flood protection higher as necessary.

• Have you had your land checked for chemical and biological contamination... (benzene, dioxin, stachybotrys, and coliform bacteria make for lousy neighbors)?

Did you read any of the reports?

• With the severe social impact in the more devasted areas of New Orleans, crime is off the chart. Does pimping out your crib include bullet proofing, and having a secure entry and exit to avoid increasing random street violence?

The vast majority of murders happen with a very specific combination of location, demographics, and motive. The submitter, if his information on his web site is accurate, is a black man, but I should hope that he does not involve himself with the drug trade and does not live near any of the Projects or in Central City.

• How high is the water table? Is it higher than your kitchen table?

DIAF.

• Are you going to provide a high, dry, easily accessible place for storing emergency supplies, meds, fuel, power sources, first aid, communication, transportation (raft(s), bikes, whatever), tools, direct access to roofs and high platforms (many of the people who died in New Orleans, died in their atics, trapped by the flood.)

This has been addressed; the submitter most likely would evacuate.

• What kind of home will you design that can survive a class 5 huricane, tornadoes, flood, and armed neighbors who didn't prepare for devastation, but survive after the initial onslaught?

You know, it's not like we live in shanties here. The homes can survive category 5 storms as well as the next place. So is anybody allowed to live within 50 miles of the coast because of wind? (Flood water doesn't cause the kind of damage wind does unless you have nothing to dissipate the energy.)

I know these topics are not fun, in fact they're serio

That's just plain wrong. A dyno has a controllable load, because you can't measure power without a load; you'd just be measuring the RPM of the wheels. The load is important, whether you are measuring power or fuel economy, and that is why the EPA uses dynamometers instead of ordinary rollers.

Ok this is an improvement, but allow me to point out another blotch on the EPA testing...

Information available http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/420f06009.htm

Apparently the highway test is done at a maximum of 60 miles and hour and an average of 48 miles an hour? I don't know anyone who drives on the highway like that.

Apparently they also have all accessories off. AC? nope. Radio? Nope. Weather? 75 degrees.

Let's face facts, the EPA mileage estimates are bubcas. We have manufactures tailoring their cars to tests rather then the way ACTUAL people drive. I think it's time to demand the EPA revamp their entire testing procedures and not just trying to randomly estimate.

I've discussed the data and the theories with a number of people. It's useful to remember that global warming caused by CO2 is just a theory, based on two observations: First, the world is warming up. Second: observations of prior world temperature changes commensurate with observations of CO2 levels, and notably higher CO2 with higher temperatures. There is some evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, however there are much stronger greenhouse gases (i.e. methane) which we now produce at industrial levels.

The consequences are numerous. First, we may not address the actual problem that is causing global warming. Second, we may cause huge social and economic consequences for no benefit. Third, if there is no benefit, any future notion of relying upon "scientific evidence" may be viewed skeptically by the masses.

Let's do some math!

"For bituminous coal it is assumed that 16 pounds of mercury per trillion Btus is emitted; for anthracite coal, 18 pounds per trillion Btus (USEPA 1997a);"
www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r02104/600r02104chap4.pd f

"1 BTU = 0.00029307107 kilowatt hour"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox- a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs= ooc&q=BTU+to+kilowatt+hour&btnG=Search [google.com]

293,071,070 KWH per 16 pounds Hg, that makes 18,316,942 KWH per pound of HG,
that makes 40.3819444 KWH per milligram Hg released from coal-burning utilities in the US

So, one 15watt CF lasts 6000 hours, conservatively, and so compared to 60 watt incandescents, it saves 45 watts * 6000 hours = 270,000 watt hours or 270KWH of juice,
270 / (KWH per mg Hg released) = 6.6861565 miligrams of Hg not emitted to power the CF (as compared to an incandescent, and assuming that your power comes from coal)

This is 270 KWH generated (i.e. raw BTU content of coal), and Hg "emitted" (unsure if scrubbers and cleaned coal have been accounted for)

Assuming that coal to your light socket involves a 50% loss, then it's more like 500KWH saved, or 12 miligrams of Hg kept out of the environment.

"The mercury content of compact fluorescent bulbs varies between 2 and 15 mg per bulb, depending on the model."
http://www.productstewardship.net/productsMercuryF luorescentFAQ.html [productstewardship.net]

So, I'm not convinced that even if you just throw your CF in the trash that you have actually put more Hg into the environment than you've taken out. Of course, we should dispose of CF's responsibly (I'm sitting on a pile of about 6-7 dead bulbs).

And yeah, Steve Milloy is a troll.

More links:

According to
http://www.nei.org/doc.asp?catnum=2&catid=106 [nei.org]
it takes 1 pound of coal to generate 1 kilowatt hour

According to the DOE, one kilowatt hour from coal releases 2 lbs of CO2
www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/ co2report.html

"according to Environmental Protection Agency figures released in 1984, average values of uranium and thorium content have been determined to be 1.3 ppm and 3.2 ppm"
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/ colmain.html [ornl.gov]

"Approximately 75 tons of mercury are found in the coal delivered to power plants each year and about two thirds of this mercury is emitted to the air, resulting in about 50 tons being emitted annually" (which, in turn, is about one third of all domestic mercury emissions)
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/control_emissions/index .htm [epa.gov]

Let's do some math!

"For bituminous coal it is assumed that 16 pounds of mercury per trillion Btus is emitted; for anthracite coal, 18 pounds per trillion Btus (USEPA 1997a);"
www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r02104/600r02104chap4.pd f

"1 BTU = 0.00029307107 kilowatt hour"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox- a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs= ooc&q=BTU+to+kilowatt+hour&btnG=Search

293,071,070 KWH per 16 pounds Hg, that makes 18,316,942 KWH per pound of HG,
that makes 40.3819444 KWH per milligram Hg released from coal-burning utilities in the US

So, one 15watt CF lasts 6000 hours, conservatively, and so compared to 60 watt incandescents, it saves 45 watts * 6000 hours = 270,000 watt hours or 270KWH of juice,
270 / (KWH per mg Hg released) = 6.6861565 miligrams of Hg not emitted to power the CF (as compared to an incandescent, and assuming that your power comes from coal)

This is 270 KWH generated (i.e. raw BTU content of coal), and Hg "emitted" (unsure if scrubbers and cleaned coal have been accounted for)

Assuming that coal to your light socket involves a 50% loss, then it's more like 500KWH saved, or 12 miligrams of Hg kept out of the environment.

"The mercury content of compact fluorescent bulbs varies between 2 and 15 mg per bulb, depending on the model."
http://www.productstewardship.net/productsMercuryF luorescentFAQ.html

So, I'm not convinced that even if you just throw your CF in the trash that you have actually put more Hg into the environment than you've taken out. Of course, we should dispose of CF's responsibly (I'm sitting on a pile of about 6-7 dead bulbs).

More links:

According to
http://www.nei.org/doc.asp?catnum=2&catid=106
it takes 1 pound of coal to generate 1 kilowatt hour

According to the DOE, one kilowatt hour from coal releases 2 lbs of CO2
www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/ co2report.html

"according to Environmental Protection Agency figures released in 1984, average values of uranium and thorium content have been determined to be 1.3 ppm and 3.2 ppm"
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/ colmain.html

"Approximately 75 tons of mercury are found in the coal delivered to power plants each year and about two thirds of this mercury is emitted to the air, resulting in about 50 tons being emitted annually" (which, in turn, is about one third of all domestic mercury emissions)
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/control_emissions/index .htm

1. The article is NOT a news piece, it's an op/ed essay. Its author, Steven Milloy, is better known as the owner of JunkScience.com, and is presenting CFLs in the worst possible light.
2. The Bridges family is out $2000 (and this sensationalist story consequently exists at all) mainly because whoever they talked to at Maine poison control hotline went way overboard. EPA recommendations say that a small amount of mercury (5mg qualifies as small) can easily be cleaned up by a normal person without much trouble.

I suggest that you read up on the price-anderson act. Nuclear power plants actually have $300 million in private insurance, $10 billion in a collective insurance pool

Another little fact: The government hasn't paid out yet for the catastrophic clause, and would intercede far sooner for something like a chemical disaster.

From wiki:
Over the first 43 years of the Price-Anderson Act to 2000, the secondary insurance was not required. A total of $151 million was paid to cover claims (including legal expenses), all from primary insurance, including $70 million for Three Mile Island. Additionally, the Department of Energy paid about $65 million to cover claims under liability for its own nuclear operations in the same period.

This is actually pretty standard in the insurance world. For example, my car insurance policy is capped at $250k per person for medical, with a $500k cap per incident. If, god forbid, I were to cause a major enough accident, for example, causing a man to become parapalegic, his continuing care would quickly exceed the $250k cap. He then comes after me, I have another $100k of personal liability protection. After than, I'm finished. You're down to raiding my retirement funds for a few $k and garnishing my wages. That's not going to cover much, not in comparison with the insurance. Medicare is likely to take over at that point.

You want to know what's scary? Most people in my area have a $100k/300k policy. I have what's considered a large amount of insurance.

I challange you to name for me a chemical facility with more than 10 billion in insurance, or even $300 million. There are plenty of chemical plants out there that with a catastrophic leak could cause damage comparable with a nuclear meltdown.

[quote]
The tax on my cigarettes, pays for your healthcare. I have not been to a doctor or the hospital once in over then years, though over that ten years I have probably paid $10400 in tobacco tax directly subsidising the wasteful and frivolous healthcare system. (about two $10 packs a week for 10 years) Not to mention the 10% sales tax I pay on everything else I buy - everything, which is supposed to pay for the healthcare system. (Compounded by an additional 8% federal sales tax - the "GST").
[/quote]

If you think $10k pays for a lot of cancer drugs, you're wrong.

http://www.epa.gov/oppt/coi/pubs/II_5.pdf

Figures I see there are an initial three month cost around $25k with a per year maintenance of $10k. With much more possible if you survive.

I think you'd need to pay more like 500% tax to make up the diff. Something to think about.

Actually, many pesticides are at least somewhat effective nerve agents against mammals in high enough concentrations. Certain people can be extremely effected by certain pesticides over and above average reactions, too. Many of them are toxic in other ways instead of or in addition to being nerve agents in people. In the U.S., the EPA makes no suggestion that pesticides are not toxic to humans. They rate them by how toxic they are and how quickly they break down. They then clear some of them for use in certain concentrations with certain labels and certain restrictions on who can use some of them. Pesticides are known to be a danger to the nervous, endocrine, and reproductive systems. The health benefits of having higher yields and therefore cheaper prices on foods -- especially fruits and vegetables -- is often thought to outweigh the risks. This may be true when properly designed pesticides are properly used and your food is properly cleaned before you eat it. As with most things in life, though, there are trade-offs.

I, for one, have been in the emergency room for a number of hours before with what the doctors called giant hives due to exposure to pesticides. Giant hives are just like regular hives, only my hives were 2-3 inches wide, 4-8 inches long, and up to a quarter of an inch raised from the normal surface of the skin. They itch like hell, are pretty painful, they're very discolored, and they can last for days or weeks. They're caused by a number of things, but mine were caused by pesticide exposure. The doctors were monitoring to make sure my throat didn't close since I had such a strong reaction in the skin.

Lots of people are even saying that lower IQ scores, more asthma, and other health problems among children are due the amount of pesticides used in schools. ADD, Asperger's, and many of the issues that have been increasingly diagnosed are neurological in nature. Those rates may or may not have something to do with pesticides. The truth is, no one really knows what the levels of pesticides in U.S. schools is doing to kids. The EPA has guidelines to reduce exposure due to suspicion that it can't be good to have children inundated with the stuff. The state of Washington a few years ago pass a law stating that parents must be notified when there children's schools would be using pesticides. The state of New York has a nice writeup on a study it did in which it states that 87% of schools in NY used pesticides, that no pesticide be considered completely safe, and lists the more usual effects of several common pesticides and herbicides.

Actually, many pesticides are at least somewhat effective nerve agents against mammals in high enough concentrations. Certain people can be extremely effected by certain pesticides over and above average reactions, too. Many of them are toxic in other ways instead of or in addition to being nerve agents in people. In the U.S., the EPA makes no suggestion that pesticides are not toxic to humans. They rate them by how toxic they are and how quickly they break down. They then clear some of them for use in certain concentrations with certain labels and certain restrictions on who can use some of them. Pesticides are known to be a danger to the nervous, endocrine, and reproductive systems. The health benefits of having higher yields and therefore cheaper prices on foods -- especially fruits and vegetables -- is often thought to outweigh the risks. This may be true when properly designed pesticides are properly used and your food is properly cleaned before you eat it. As with most things in life, though, there are trade-offs.

I, for one, have been in the emergency room for a number of hours before with what the doctors called giant hives due to exposure to pesticides. Giant hives are just like regular hives, only my hives were 2-3 inches wide, 4-8 inches long, and up to a quarter of an inch raised from the normal surface of the skin. They itch like hell, are pretty painful, they're very discolored, and they can last for days or weeks. They're caused by a number of things, but mine were caused by pesticide exposure. The doctors were monitoring to make sure my throat didn't close since I had such a strong reaction in the skin.

Lots of people are even saying that lower IQ scores, more asthma, and other health problems among children are due the amount of pesticides used in schools. ADD, Asperger's, and many of the issues that have been increasingly diagnosed are neurological in nature. Those rates may or may not have something to do with pesticides. The truth is, no one really knows what the levels of pesticides in U.S. schools is doing to kids. The EPA has guidelines to reduce exposure due to suspicion that it can't be good to have children inundated with the stuff. The state of Washington a few years ago pass a law stating that parents must be notified when there children's schools would be using pesticides. The state of New York has a nice writeup on a study it did in which it states that 87% of schools in NY used pesticides, that no pesticide be considered completely safe, and lists the more usual effects of several common pesticides and herbicides.

Location makes a big factor in green power. A non mountainous land locked state has fewer options, wind being one of them. A ocean state with mountains has more options.

Here is a link to the goverment EPA website with green power links. Click on Oklahoma and notice the 3 wind options. Click on Washington state and notice the 15+ green power options (wind, PV, Hydro, landfill gas, Bio gas).
http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/locator/index.htm.

All of the proposals have merit and need research. I suggest, however, that we do it with knowldge of what is being reserached now. The best sources for gathering all the research together is linked here:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
http://www.nano.gov/
Yes, our government is working on the problem(s), if budget cuts don't go too far, this is one place where our Tax money is well spent.

OSHA and the EPA. We're talking potential Superfund sites in every server room! Yeah baby!

Per http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/fetrends/420s0600 3.htm, the average curb weight of 2006 model year vehicles sold in the US was 4142 lbs. 50% of them were "light trucks" which includes SUVs, minivans, pickups and some vans.

There are an insane # of solo and/or soccer mom driven 5000+ lb. SUVs such as Ford Expeditions, Chevy Suburbans, Yukons, Tahoes and Lincoln Navigators. Hummer H2s are even worse w/ 6400 lb. curb weight. They're exempt from even being TESTED for mileage and don't even count against GM's CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy Numbers) per http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/which_tested.shtml because they have over 8500 lb. GVWR.

They're gross polluters and a danger to other drivers.

The Court told the EPA that they had to DO THEIR DAMN JOBS, regulate greenhouse gasses, or provide a reasonable explanation why they won't. You see for years in the face of overwhelming evidence they have simply failed to act in accordance with the law.

The Clean Air Act, Sec. 108, calls for regulation of substances that "cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." (Emphasis added.) Even accepting the idea of global warming at face value -- that it's real, human-caused, and dangerous -- is carbon dioxide really an "air pollutant" under that definition? Normally we think of pollution as something that poisons people in some way, not something that has long-term, cumulative effects on the weather. By the new definition that includes CO2, water is also an air pollutant, because it too (in vapor form) is a greenhouse gas. Arguably it's even the most important greenhouse gas. Why aren't people calling for mandatory regulation of water as a deadly air pollutant? Human emissions of it may be minor, but if it contributes to global warming, it's an "air pollutant" by the same logic the USSC uses and must have a national regulation plan.

This doesn't even get into the constitutional problem of regulating emissions of a substance produced by breathing, or the EPA's constitutional authority in general.

Diesel engines are pollutin' machines.

Diesel engines are much cleaner now, if the proper technology is used to clean the exhaust. Unfortunately all that technology got clogged up by the sulphur in US diesel through last year, so none of it was used.

US diesel switched to a low-sulphur blend at the start of the year, and all 2007 model year diesel cars require it. It exchange, they now have the particulate filters that make diesels run cleaner. This does little to clean up the millions of diesel cars and trucks built before 2007, unfortunately, but it shows that the problem hasn't been forgotton.

Please don't attack diesel based on a complete lack of information and one anecdote. For more information, see the National Clean Diesel Campaign.

Are the power to weight ratios comparable to current internal combustion engines?

You probably mean the external combustion engine, also known as the jet engine. Only small airplanes use pistons and such. And the answer is: of course not. This is yet another PR stunt aimed at the Gasoline Is Eeeeeeevil ninnies of the world who failed freshman chemistry.

If not, what about fuel cell powered dirigibles?

I don't think the problem with dirigibles is how to power them. I think the problem is that there's just about zero demand for a transport service that's about as slow as a ship or train but neither as efficient nor as reliable.

A big cargo ship carrying 70,000 tons of cargo can cruise at 15 knots with its 50,000 HP engines running at 80%. The EPA helpfully estimates big marine engine fuel consumption as about 250 grams per kilowatt-hour, which lets you work out that a cargo ship consumes about 4 grams of fuel per ton of cargo per kilometer traveled.

Four locomotives pulling a hundred-car freight train at 60-80 MPH, with each car carrying 100 tons of cargo, will burn about 7.5 gallons each per mile. That works out to 7 grams of fuel per ton of cargo per kilometer traveled.

There's no way any vehicle that flies can ever come close to that kind of fuel efficiency. So who would want cargo delivery that's just as slow, but much more expensive?

The Prius was never for real environmentalists anyway. It's for lazy yuppies who want to put out an environmentally conscious image.

I came to that conclusion when I did a calculation of the energy saved by turning off my computer when I wasn't at work. It's amazing how many people leave them on all night to save minor hassle (I know sometimes there good reasons, but not for most cases where I see it).

I worked out turning my one work computer off as I leave the office keeps about 1 ton of CO2 per year out of the atmosphere (workings below), plus an amount of mercury and other pollution, assuming the electricity here comes from coal. It takes 100 gallons of gasoline to produce 1 ton of CO2. Please correct me if I'm wrong

• My machine: a twin Xeon, draws 140W at idle. More efficient machines may draw little more than half of that. Laptops, significantly less again.
• If it's off 15 hours at night and all weekend: 123 hours
• Coal generation produces about 2.3lb CO2 per KW/h (reference)

0.140 * 123 * 52 * 2.3 = 2059lb

• CO2 per gallon of gasoline: ~19.4lb (reference)

therefore 2059 lb is produced by around 106 gallons of gasoline.

That's about how much I'd save if I had a Prius (I do ~8000 miles/year). Sure, many people do more, and have more efficient computers, but it puts it in perspective.

Data demonstrate a lack of mammalian toxicity at high levels of exposure (well above exposure levels that are reasonably anticipated in corn) to the pure Cry3Bb1 proteins. Gross necropsies performed at the end of the three acute oral toxicity studies in mice indicated no findings of toxicity attributed to exposure to the test substance. LD50 s were greater than 2,700; 2,980; and 3,780 mg Cry3Bb1 protein/kg body weight (highest doses tested). The potential for the Cry3Bb1 proteins to be food allergens is minimal. Data demonstrate that the Cry3Bb1 protein is rapidly degraded by gastric fluid in vitro. Further, a comparison of amino acid sequences of known allergens and toxins uncovered no evidence of any homology with Cry3Bb1. A tolerance exemption exists under 40 CFR 180.1214 (for Bacillus thuringiensis Cry3Bb1 protein and the genetic material necessary for its production in corn) that includes Event MON863. The extraction and detection method submitted in support of 40 CFR 180.1214 is adequate for analysis of Cry3Bb1 protein in corn grain. However, Monsanto is required to submit method validation data by an independent laboratory, as well as reagents to the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs Ft. Meade Laboratory for their validation of the method. In addition, to assure that grain handlers have a test method in place prior to harvest, Monsanto must make available Cry3Bb1 strip tests to grain handlers. EPA further understands that these are 'qualitative' test kits and that Monsanto is in discussions with USDA/GIPSA about providing methodology and reagents for their use in developing a validated 'quantitative' method for MON 863.

Data demonstrate a lack of mammalian toxicity at high levels of exposure (well above exposure levels that are reasonably anticipated in corn) to the pure Cry3Bb1 proteins. Gross necropsies performed at the end of the three acute oral toxicity studies in mice indicated no findings of toxicity attributed to exposure to the test substance. LD50 s were greater than 2,700; 2,980; and 3,780 mg Cry3Bb1 protein/kg body weight (highest doses tested). The potential for the Cry3Bb1 proteins to be food allergens is minimal. Data demonstrate that the Cry3Bb1 protein is rapidly degraded by gastric fluid in vitro. Further, a comparison of amino acid sequences of known allergens and toxins uncovered no evidence of any homology with Cry3Bb1. A tolerance exemption exists under 40 CFR 180.1214 (for Bacillus thuringiensis Cry3Bb1 protein and the genetic material necessary for its production in corn) that includes Event MON863. The extraction and detection method submitted in support of 40 CFR 180.1214 is adequate for analysis of Cry3Bb1 protein in corn grain. However, Monsanto is required to submit method validation data by an independent laboratory, as well as reagents to the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs Ft. Meade Laboratory for their validation of the method. In addition, to assure that grain handlers have a test method in place prior to harvest, Monsanto must make available Cry3Bb1 strip tests to grain handlers. EPA further understands that these are 'qualitative' test kits and that Monsanto is in discussions with USDA/GIPSA about providing methodology and reagents for their use in developing a validated 'quantitative' method for MON 863.

When surface temperatures change (whether from CO2 or solar forcing or volcanos etc.), you can therefore expect water vapour to adjust quickly to reflect that. To first approximation, the water vapour adjusts to maintain constant relative humidity. It's important to point out that this is a result of the models, not a built-in assumption.

Here are two items I found regarding Federal regulations. Some Googling reveals sites that discuss the summer requirement. http://www.arb.ca.gov/bluebook/bb06/40cfr/40cfr80_ 27.htm http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/420b05012.pdf

The average emissions rates in the United States from natural gas-fired generation are: 1135 lbs/MWh of carbon dioxide, 0.1 lbs/MWh of sulfur dioxide, and 1.7 lbs/MWh of nitrogen oxides. Compared to the average air emissions from coal-fired generation, natural gas produces half as much carbon dioxide, less than a third as much nitrogen oxides, and one percent as much sulfur oxides at the power plant. In addition, the process of extraction, treatment, and transport of the natural gas to the power plant generates additional emissions.

methane, use say. Now I'm assuming you have NOT checked ANY sources at ALL. Or only crackpot websites. So,

http://www.epa.gov/methane/scientific.html

so at about 1700 ppb (billion) or 1.7ppm at about 21 times greenhouse effect than CO2.

CO2 concentrations are at 380ppm (million),

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm

So methane "heat trapping equivalence" would be 1.7ppm*21 => 38ppm CO2. CO2 is at 380ppm or 10X that of methane equivalent. So, methane does not account for the greenhouse. It only accounts 10% of the greenhouse effect.

Oh, and since you are comparing uneducated people with idiots, then you must be a big one. Methane *used* to play the vital role in keeping Earth warm. That was, 4 billion years ago. As soon as oxygen jumped to ~0.1% or 1% of atmosphere, methane disappeared and CO2 became THE major source of keeping the Earth warm. That disappeared about 500 million years ago when O2 spiked to over 20% (quickly - plants developed). Each of the events caused Earth to freeze for some time. Anyway, I'm sure you'd not research these facts either... (facts - they are in rocks!)

On the contrary. Short-sightedness consists in the assumption that future generations won't have a use or a need for all the weird stuff we toss out right now. For example, think of all the effort that people went through to compost their food and yard waste. Composting is simply ultra-low-speed bacteria-assisted combustion, releasing all the carbon back into the air (much of it as greenhouse-causing methane). Whereas now we have landfill-powered generating stations that harness the bacteria-produced methane and generate power from it. The composting movement was wasteful because it was stupidly premature.

BS! Composting is not only not waste but actually returns nutrients to soil. I love to garden and I always compost, I even compost food scraps. Living soil" is not only needed for healthy vegetation but also eliminates the need for added inputs whether they be fertilizers, herbicides, or pesticides. And get what is used to make each of these? Petroleum. When all the petroleum is used up what will replace these chemical inputs? Organic compost. The so called Green Revolution was only possible by mechanization and the use of petroleum and it led to the depletion of nutrients in the soil, some of which were replaced by petrochemical based fertilizers. However using said fartilizers don't replace all of the trace minerals plants need, such as selenium which is toxic in large amounts. Heck even humans need trace amount of selenium to properly utilize vitamin E. Fact is is composting reuses and recycles nutrients needed for life. And it does not release all of the carbon into the atmosphere, all that organic matter left after composting is rich in carbon.

That particular problem has been solved.

Can you prove this? Fact is is potable water is not safe in many parts of the world. Even in the US there has been E Coli in water causing outbreaks. Compleatly, thoroughly, composting though destroys E Coli. Then there's other toxins to deal with. Arsenic, though found in most water in South Asia in also found in US drinking water.

your comment does not take into account that the number of livestock likely is increasing, while our rainforests and other "CO2 eaters" are decreasing.

However.. "Manure management" is one of the key sources of methane emissions ( http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html ). Methane is one of those greenhouse gases that people tend to attribute to such things as.. I dont know.. global warming...

Your comment seems to only address CO2, which even if CO2 was the worse part of "cow farts" as you put it, your comment does not take into account that the number of livestock likely is increasing, while our rainforests and other "CO2 eaters" are decreasing.

However.. "Manure management" is one of the key sources of methane emissions ( http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html ). Methane is one of those greenhouse gases that people tend to attribute to such things as.. I dont know.. global warming...

So yeah.. Manure == bad... and things such as livestock DO have a measurable affect on the amount of NEW greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere.

There is a huge black market in CFCs. Very, VERY large, actually. It is so large that one of the mob rackets in Miami is supposedly dedicated full-time to bringing it in and selling it to people who need it due to the cost of replacing hardware that requires CFC-12.

One of my vehicles is a 1993 Chevy Blazer, and it requires R-12 freon. I ran out of it, and my mechanic in my tiny town told me he can get as much as I want for $30 a pound -- as much as I want and as often as I want. I elected to upgrade to the newer freon replacement, which was a $1000 upgrade. Now my vehicle's air conditioner performs about 70% less than before -- in the hot summers of Chicago the vehicle isn't used because it won't chill enough. I've had it looked at by 3 mechanics, and they all told me to go back to the old R-12 freon, which is readily available on the black market.

Don't believe for a minute that CFCs are gone -- they're banned, but they're still in use and will continue to be.

but I assume that mercury is disposed of properly, unlike the mercury that is in your CFL bulb and ends up in the trash Actually that mercury is spewed out into the atmosphere http://www.epa.gov/oar/mercuryrule/basic.htm Since air contamination causes more health problems than ground contamination, I don't think mercury is much of an issue.