Sorry for the obtuse first post. To take your thought further, the wider implication of a more global regulation of airborne particulates in this political and economic climate is a non starter, and it is as if ( at least to me) this was the hidden agenda of the suit to have the language be global. Call it a test case. But again, it's like taking a pea shooter to a battleship.
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
wallyworld Bucyrus: wallyworld: This is a noisy tempest in a teapot that will bounce like a bad check for years...written on a Rube Goldberg theory of semantics whose cost is carried to us as another trickle in a leaking dike. Not enough thumbs to go around. Stupidity squared. Ad hoc and random. What is needed is to drop the cross purposes get a national plan and do it..stop the endless parsing over who does what and who sits on his butt. We need a national policy that ties energy-pollution-efficiency..a long term plan..one minor issue .. the nation is broke and it is spinning around in narrowing semantic circles like a rudderless speedboat while commentators prattle on and on and on 24\7. No more FA's on the California Wine train putting soot on the grapes for the Chardonnay.No more buses belching more soot than a Mallet..ah, California..land of dreams and navel gazing. Iconoclasts need a PAC to regulate intelligence quotas.Good luck on that one, eh? Could you be a little more specific? Lawsuits originating on the premise of the greater good of the public that use a semantic manipulation of legal language to set a new standard of airborne particulate matter as a hazardous waste is a form of pretzel logic..meaning that it's effectiveness is moot . Endless future legal tests will come in the courts and this suggests to me that if this "case" of language interpretation went to the Supreme Court..after bouncing around the lower courts for years..and as a background, consider the context of this case we already know the watered down EPA wont touch this topic with a ten foot stick with power plants, automobiles blah, blah, because it interferes with commerce, the profitability of the nation which translates into the health of the economy which by then will either be terminal or in the ER along with other nations by that time. It's a non starter. .My son in his previous position was a federal attorney, a prosecutor with the EPA..and his experience was that politics is just a background for commerce versus special interests and guess who wins? Fines are paid and it's business as usual. Or a drawn out work out is arranged which then falters adds more fines..it's cheaper to pay the fines as they say. Commerce trumps particulate matter as it stands to think otherwise is naive.Of course, in my opinion. Think of it this way, forget about railroad yards in California..think of the implications a successful suit would bring to other sources of hazardous waste..if the language is affirmed by way of semantics..I don't see it happening.unless they discover that affordibilium. ..
Bucyrus: wallyworld: This is a noisy tempest in a teapot that will bounce like a bad check for years...written on a Rube Goldberg theory of semantics whose cost is carried to us as another trickle in a leaking dike. Not enough thumbs to go around. Stupidity squared. Ad hoc and random. What is needed is to drop the cross purposes get a national plan and do it..stop the endless parsing over who does what and who sits on his butt. We need a national policy that ties energy-pollution-efficiency..a long term plan..one minor issue .. the nation is broke and it is spinning around in narrowing semantic circles like a rudderless speedboat while commentators prattle on and on and on 24\7. No more FA's on the California Wine train putting soot on the grapes for the Chardonnay.No more buses belching more soot than a Mallet..ah, California..land of dreams and navel gazing. Iconoclasts need a PAC to regulate intelligence quotas.Good luck on that one, eh? Could you be a little more specific?
wallyworld: This is a noisy tempest in a teapot that will bounce like a bad check for years...written on a Rube Goldberg theory of semantics whose cost is carried to us as another trickle in a leaking dike. Not enough thumbs to go around. Stupidity squared. Ad hoc and random. What is needed is to drop the cross purposes get a national plan and do it..stop the endless parsing over who does what and who sits on his butt. We need a national policy that ties energy-pollution-efficiency..a long term plan..one minor issue .. the nation is broke and it is spinning around in narrowing semantic circles like a rudderless speedboat while commentators prattle on and on and on 24\7. No more FA's on the California Wine train putting soot on the grapes for the Chardonnay.No more buses belching more soot than a Mallet..ah, California..land of dreams and navel gazing. Iconoclasts need a PAC to regulate intelligence quotas.Good luck on that one, eh?
This is a noisy tempest in a teapot that will bounce like a bad check for years...written on a Rube Goldberg theory of semantics whose cost is carried to us as another trickle in a leaking dike.
Not enough thumbs to go around. Stupidity squared. Ad hoc and random.
What is needed is to drop the cross purposes get a national plan and do it..stop the endless parsing over who does what and who sits on his butt.
We need a national policy that ties energy-pollution-efficiency..a long term plan..one minor issue ..
the nation is broke and it is spinning around in narrowing semantic circles like a rudderless speedboat while commentators prattle on and on and on 24\7.
No more FA's on the California Wine train putting soot on the grapes for the Chardonnay.No more buses belching more soot than a Mallet..ah, California..land of dreams and navel gazing.
Iconoclasts need a PAC to regulate intelligence quotas.Good luck on that one, eh?
Could you be a little more specific?
Lawsuits originating on the premise of the greater good of the public that use a semantic manipulation of legal language to set a new standard of airborne particulate matter as a hazardous waste is a form of pretzel logic..meaning that it's effectiveness is moot . Endless future legal tests will come in the courts and this suggests to me that if this "case" of language interpretation went to the Supreme Court..after bouncing around the lower courts for years..and as a background, consider the context of this case we already know the watered down EPA wont touch this topic with a ten foot stick with power plants, automobiles blah, blah, because it interferes with commerce, the profitability of the nation which translates into the health of the economy which by then will either be terminal or in the ER along with other nations by that time. It's a non starter. .My son in his previous position was a federal attorney, a prosecutor with the EPA..and his experience was that politics is just a background for commerce versus special interests and guess who wins? Fines are paid and it's business as usual. Or a drawn out work out is arranged which then falters adds more fines..it's cheaper to pay the fines as they say. Commerce trumps particulate matter as it stands to think otherwise is naive.Of course, in my opinion.
Think of it this way, forget about railroad yards in California..think of the implications a successful suit would bring to other sources of hazardous waste..if the language is affirmed by way of semantics..I don't see it happening.unless they discover that affordibilium. ..
Well thanks for clearing that up. I agree with your suggestion of this setting a precedent that could lead to wider regulation.
Bucyrus wallyworld: This is a noisy tempest in a teapot that will bounce like a bad check for years...written on a Rube Goldberg theory of semantics whose cost is carried to us as another trickle in a leaking dike. Not enough thumbs to go around. Stupidity squared. Ad hoc and random. What is needed is to drop the cross purposes get a national plan and do it..stop the endless parsing over who does what and who sits on his butt. We need a national policy that ties energy-pollution-efficiency..a long term plan..one minor issue .. the nation is broke and it is spinning around in narrowing semantic circles like a rudderless speedboat while commentators prattle on and on and on 24\7. No more FA's on the California Wine train putting soot on the grapes for the Chardonnay.No more buses belching more soot than a Mallet..ah, California..land of dreams and navel gazing. Iconoclasts need a PAC to regulate intelligence quotas.Good luck on that one, eh? Could you be a little more specific?
wallyworld This is a noisy tempest in a teapot that will bounce like a bad check for years...written on a Rube Goldberg theory of semantics whose cost is carried to us as another trickle in a leaking dike. Not enough thumbs to go around. Stupidity squared. Ad hoc and random. What is needed is to drop the cross purposes get a national plan and do it..stop the endless parsing over who does what and who sits on his butt. We need a national policy that ties energy-pollution-efficiency..a long term plan..one minor issue .. the nation is broke and it is spinning around in narrowing semantic circles like a rudderless speedboat while commentators prattle on and on and on 24\7. No more FA's on the California Wine train putting soot on the grapes for the Chardonnay.No more buses belching more soot than a Mallet..ah, California..land of dreams and navel gazing. Iconoclasts need a PAC to regulate intelligence quotas.Good luck on that one, eh?
In regards to electrifying existing urban ROWs here. Trying to put in new power transmission lines here is about as easy as proposing a new freeway.... seams like everyone here wants green energy, they just dont want to look at it or be reminded how it gets there, Catch 22.
Have fun with your trains
RCRA was enacted by Congress in 1976 during President Jerry Ford - and amended in 1984 and 1986 during President Reagan - precisely pursuant to and under the Commerce Clause's grant of authority to do that. See this website for a summary of RCRA's original scope and as broadened by those amendments: http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/rcra.html
CSSHEGEWISCH has it about right on which cases the U.S. Supreme Court will choose to review - it's mostly discretionary with them, they can't be legally forced to take or review a case (with some limited exceptions of "original jurisdiction" such as disputes between states, impeachments, etc.). A split or differences between the various Circuit Courts in their decisions on the same exact legal question is one circumstance that usually motivates the SupCt to take a case for review. But interpretation/ application of a Federal statute - as this issue is, of whether diesel particulates are solid waste subject to regulation and control under RCRA - would also be substantial enough of a Federal question to involve the Supreme Court, either way - i.e., to decide that "Yes, they are", or "No, they aren't". Without doing any research, to me it's a 'coin toss' right now - could go either way, as several recent 5-4 decisions would indicate.
- Paul North.
It is called the Commerce Cause of the Constitution. The US Goverment regulates INTERSTATE COmmerce and Railroads and OTR trucking by LAW are part of it. Therefore they are part of the Federal Court System. Also CARB has been trying for 20+ years to get rid of anything that is diesel powered from the state of CA. Their Anti Idle Regualtiobns are Draconian to the extreme when a Man has less rights to be cool than a dog. Yet the man after trying to rest for 10 hours has to drive a truck that weighs 80K lbs. But you will never see a Envirmentalist that is screaming Save the Planet shut off their AC when they are trying to sleep but they force the person that needs it to maybe stay ALIVE to.
edbenton The 9th Circut court was also told by the US Supremem court that they MUST use the US Constuitition when Judging Cases not going by what a Tree or some LEft wing Paper thinks. Remember this the case will be Heard in the 9th Court butt more than likely OVERTURNED in the US Supreme Courtsince the 9th thinks they do not need to use anything resembleimng our laws anymore to judge cases. Either that or they make it up as they go along it seems.
The 9th Circut court was also told by the US Supremem court that they MUST use the US Constuitition when Judging Cases not going by what a Tree or some LEft wing Paper thinks. Remember this the case will be Heard in the 9th Court butt more than likely OVERTURNED in the US Supreme Courtsince the 9th thinks they do not need to use anything resembleimng our laws anymore to judge cases. Either that or they make it up as they go along it seems.
Unless another Appelate Court comes up with a different decision on the same issue, it would be unlikely for the Supreme Court to rule on this issue (assuming it gets that far) unless a substantial Federal or constitutional issue is involved.
I think Bucyrus has a better grasp of the theory, potential scope, and implications of this lawsuit - esp. his 1st and 3rd paragraphs above - based on my limited review of the article from the Original Post. California just happens to be where this suit was initiated, where the U.S. District Court will first hear it, and where the resulting judgment will be technically binding (only). But the RCRA law is nationwide in its scope and application.
Further, my understanding (and again, I could be wrong on or mistaken in this) of the factual basis of the suit is the mere presence or existence of any solid particulates in diesel exhaust, whether idling or in motion. The concentrations of those solids in the air are a convenient and visceral/ emotional 'talking point', but I did not see and am not aware of anything which indicated this suit was based or dependent on those particulates exceeding a certain allowable level or concentration that is specific or localized to the LA Basin and other California areas (though again, I may be inadequately informed on that point).
While the particulates are indeed most troublesome by being inhaled or ingested while airborne, that is not the only basis for the RCRA suit, and to that extent I disagree mildly. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act is intended to broadly cover any form or phases of emission and disposal of industrial wastes - whether as a gas, liquid, or soild, and whether those wastes remain in the air or come to rest in the soil or water - they're all wastes, and they're all being disposed of someplace.
Unfortunately, only some forms and sources of pollution are subject to and capable of being addressed by each of the very specific environmental laws and policies - the others seemingly get a 'free pass', even if it would be more cost-effective to address them instead or as well. And the plaintiffs here evidently intend to use the legal tools they have at hand for as far as they will work, even if there are other tools that would work as well or better, or other situations that need attention or could provide greater benefits.
I, therefore, stand by my initial post on this thread concerning lawyers.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
schlimm Bucyrus: henry6: And where did that come from? Stop putting words into play that aren't here. It comes from the theory of the lawsuit. If the solid particulates of diesel exhaust including lead, cadmium, and arsenic, are not allowed to be emitted in the California rail yards because they are considered to be a health hazard, then surely they should not be allowed to be emitted anywhere in the country. I don’t know what remedy would solve the problem, but the recommendation from the environmentalists is electrification. If it is progress in California, it would be progress in the rest of the country as well. Your generalization is much too broad here. It is a CA lawsuit and refers specifically to concentration of air pollution, specifically several heavy metals, in rail yards and urban areas by idling locomotives. I may be wrong, but the metals mentioned probably do not stay airborne long enough to be a problem with diesel-powered freights traveling on mainlines outside cities. Furthermore, and beyond the scope of the original posting, is it your contention that electrified rail lines produce greater amounts of air pollution than the alternatives? I realize that electrification may not be a cost-effective alternative, but that would be a separate though related issue.
Bucyrus: henry6: And where did that come from? Stop putting words into play that aren't here. It comes from the theory of the lawsuit. If the solid particulates of diesel exhaust including lead, cadmium, and arsenic, are not allowed to be emitted in the California rail yards because they are considered to be a health hazard, then surely they should not be allowed to be emitted anywhere in the country. I don’t know what remedy would solve the problem, but the recommendation from the environmentalists is electrification. If it is progress in California, it would be progress in the rest of the country as well.
henry6: And where did that come from? Stop putting words into play that aren't here.
And where did that come from? Stop putting words into play that aren't here.
It comes from the theory of the lawsuit. If the solid particulates of diesel exhaust including lead, cadmium, and arsenic, are not allowed to be emitted in the California rail yards because they are considered to be a health hazard, then surely they should not be allowed to be emitted anywhere in the country. I don’t know what remedy would solve the problem, but the recommendation from the environmentalists is electrification. If it is progress in California, it would be progress in the rest of the country as well.
Your generalization is much too broad here. It is a CA lawsuit and refers specifically to concentration of air pollution, specifically several heavy metals, in rail yards and urban areas by idling locomotives. I may be wrong, but the metals mentioned probably do not stay airborne long enough to be a problem with diesel-powered freights traveling on mainlines outside cities. Furthermore, and beyond the scope of the original posting, is it your contention that electrified rail lines produce greater amounts of air pollution than the alternatives? I realize that electrification may not be a cost-effective alternative, but that would be a separate though related issue.
I do not know if it is too broad. Perhaps it is too broad as a one-shot conclusion, because for now, it only involves a part of California. But it does stand to set a precedent, which could take it down a slippery slope. We should be aware of the big picture with this. I understand the point about the suit being aimed at the highest concentrations, but the argument will be scalable if they win the lawsuit.
My interpretation of the issue is that the problem being addressed is solid particulates being inhaled or ingested while they are airborne, and not a problem of them accumulating on the ground and in the soil to be somehow ingested later. I do not know if this pertains only to idling locomotives as is mentioned in the article. I do not know if the particulates are emitted only from idling locomotives. If that were the case, I do not know why electrification is being offered as the remedy.
The novelty of the theory is that the particulates are solid rather than a gas, so they can be classified as solid waste, thus making them subject into a different set of laws and regulations.
It is not my contention that electrified railroads produce more pollution that dieselized lines. My only objection relating to electrification is that it could be forced upon the railroads by environmental regulations, beyond what is reasonable.
Hay guys (and gals). This is supposed to be a fun and informative forum. Granted we will have differing views on subjects from time to time, but lets not degenerate into a petty war. Lets bury the ax (preferably not in someone's head) and be friendly.
schlimm Bucyrus: It comes from the theory of the lawsuit. If the solid particulates of diesel exhaust including lead, cadmium, and arsenic, are not allowed to be emitted in the California rail yards because they are considered to be a health hazard, then surely they should not be allowed to be emitted anywhere in the country. I don’t know what remedy would solve the problem, but the recommendation from the environmentalists is electrification. If it is progress in California, it would be progress in the rest of the country as well. Your generalization is much too broad here. It is a CA lawsuit and refers specifically to concentration of air pollution, specifically several heavy metals, in rail yards and urban areas by idling locomotives. I may be wrong, but the metals mentioned probably do not stay airborne long enough to be a problem with diesel-powered freights traveling on mainlines outside cities. Furthermore, and beyond the scope of the original posting, is it your contention that electrified rail lines produce greater amounts of air pollution than the alternatives? I realize that electrification may not be a cost-effective alternative, but that would be a separate though related issue.
Bucyrus: It comes from the theory of the lawsuit. If the solid particulates of diesel exhaust including lead, cadmium, and arsenic, are not allowed to be emitted in the California rail yards because they are considered to be a health hazard, then surely they should not be allowed to be emitted anywhere in the country. I don’t know what remedy would solve the problem, but the recommendation from the environmentalists is electrification. If it is progress in California, it would be progress in the rest of the country as well.
Cost-effectiveness is an important consideration with any environmental regulation or legislation (though cost benefit ratio might be a better term). In the case of the lawsuit, the figure of interest is how much money will need to be spent for each pound of metal removed. My guess is that spending several billion dollars on electrifying the So Cal railroads would end up costing orders of magnitude more per pound than by concentrating on other sources. If the cost of shipping by rail increases due to electrification, in might even make things worse with traffic going to trucks. There are better ways of spending the money for reducing air pollution.
Another point, the largest source of atmospheric arsenic is from Owens Lake - the quickest way to cut that down is simply telling LADWP to stop taking water from the Owens river - but try getting that by the City of LA.
- Erik
Bucyrus henry6: And where did that come from? Stop putting words into play that aren't here. It comes from the theory of the lawsuit. If the solid particulates of diesel exhaust including lead, cadmium, and arsenic, are not allowed to be emitted in the California rail yards because they are considered to be a health hazard, then surely they should not be allowed to be emitted anywhere in the country. I don’t know what remedy would solve the problem, but the recommendation from the environmentalists is electrification. If it is progress in California, it would be progress in the rest of the country as well.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Well, the question posed is electrification progress per se or is the elimination of the diesel engine progress? I am neither the lawyer nor the judge so cannot answer that question until all facts are in from both sides and I am convinced one is better than the other.
henry6 And where did that come from? Stop putting words into play that aren't here.
henry6 I used it as a parallel scenerio to define what was progress. The replies led to more commentary than I intended and I stated so.
I used it as a parallel scenerio to define what was progress. The replies led to more commentary than I intended and I stated so.
I see. So then if it is a parallel scenario, do you agree that ending the use of diesel engines is progress?
henry6 Who is the wacko? Those who want to move cautiosly and safely environmentally or otherwise or those who want ot unabashadly make money at any cost putting envorinmental and other safety concers aside? I live in the Marcellus Shale area. In some places water naturally contains enough methane to ignite. SInce Hydro Fracturing drilling has occured there has been an increase in methane in water...incidenltyh that means the water will ignite. So we've made progress in determining the cause of the excessive amount of methane and know that we shouldn't drill until we have solved the problem. Or isn't that progress? We should keep drilling despite what dangers we know. And we also know other pollutants have been brought into the ecosystem with this. And that the roads and other infrastructure have been damaged if not demolished because of the drilling. Progress is where? In the drilling for gas at any expense? In the ceasing of drilling until known fixes are applied? I guess the question is progress the making of money by drilling? I say no. Is it by the making of money drilling safely? I say yes. This is a good arguement to get into in that it argues minutia by mincing words instead of addressing the problem itself.
Who is the wacko? Those who want to move cautiosly and safely environmentally or otherwise or those who want ot unabashadly make money at any cost putting envorinmental and other safety concers aside? I live in the Marcellus Shale area. In some places water naturally contains enough methane to ignite. SInce Hydro Fracturing drilling has occured there has been an increase in methane in water...incidenltyh that means the water will ignite. So we've made progress in determining the cause of the excessive amount of methane and know that we shouldn't drill until we have solved the problem. Or isn't that progress? We should keep drilling despite what dangers we know. And we also know other pollutants have been brought into the ecosystem with this. And that the roads and other infrastructure have been damaged if not demolished because of the drilling. Progress is where? In the drilling for gas at any expense? In the ceasing of drilling until known fixes are applied? I guess the question is progress the making of money by drilling? I say no. Is it by the making of money drilling safely? I say yes. This is a good arguement to get into in that it argues minutia by mincing words instead of addressing the problem itself.
Henry,
What does gas fracking have to do with the California lawsuit to prevent diesel exhaust emissions? It seems to me that you are making up your own winnable argument and using it to counter those who argue that the California lawsuit to ban diesel exhaust is unreasonable. If the California suit has merit and represents progress, as you say, then certainly its reasoning applies to all railroad operations in the country. It would also apply to all trucking as well as construction and mining earthmoving.
In most cases they do get the royalty...but they were snookered by $25 an acre price, told everything was safe and nothing would happen, in short, they were lied to. But, I stated that, yes, the methane was already often present in the drinking water but not detected by many until fracking occured. There is a long, sorry story here, not meant for these pages. My point was about defining what is progress.
What about these new "water saving toilets" that are the only type that are legally sold in the US? When it takes two or more flushes to dispose of the product how much water is being saved? What about the removal of tungsten filament light bulbs? The old reliable tungsten filament bulb which costs a quarter is replaced by the curly fry bulb that has mercury. A nice disposal problem for a bulb that costs 15 to 20 times more than its old style bulb. Maybe everyone should call the EPA every time one burns out, broken or not, and make them come out and pick it up for disposal. Now we could all go to the LED bulbs. To replace the current spot that costs $3.00 an LED version costs $60-75. Now I really want to save a few kilowatt hours with these especially since I have 55 spots in our house. I better check with Fanny Mae for a second mortgage or better yet maybe I can get some of the stimulus money. There is hope. Texas is passing a law allowing any tungsten bulb can be sold in the state if it is made in Texas. I cannot verify it but only 100 watt bulbs are being forbidden. If true I predict we will see 99 watt bulbs on the shelves soon. The idiots in Washington need to study the law of unintended consequences.
Re gas in water: The aquifer is at 300-500 feet whereas the Marcellus shale is about 6500 feet. It is very unlikely that the drilling operations caused the gas in water. Where the state has investigated these complaints there was gas in the water BEFORE and drilling occurred. I wonder how much complaining would be done by the residents if they were the party receiving the royalty from the gas production.
In many cases it is a case of examining what the long range effects and costs of a particular scheme are, beyond the immediate costs, for example, of "fracking" without taking account of the price to be paid later of cleaning up the aquifers, etc. long after the company has moved on.
edbenton Schlimm the same people that are teh one screaming the loudest about Global Warming are the ones in Charge at the EPA. They are the ones that with NO Authrity from CONGRESS have decided that they can regulate so called Greenhouse Gasses. Since Pres Obamas Cap and Trade Failed to get pass Congress as the Massive Tax it was they knew it was the only way they could regulate everything we did. Can you find a incandescanant Lightbulb anymore. Or a regular Screen TV anymore. If the EPA wanted to clean up the Enviroment they could real fast relax some of their Regulations on REusing Fuel rods in our own Nuclear Plants. The regulations that were tight under Clinton and the Bushes in the OTR industry now ubnder OBAMA right now are driving thousands of experianced drivers out of the industry and on to the Unemployment lines. Yet the EPA and CARB is not done yet with all the BS crap yet. In 2 years it is illegal to even cross into CA with a truck older than 2007 a reefer unit older than 2010. Now how is that helpful considering that those truck barely will get 40% less the mileage that onebuilt before that time will. Real world usage proves that every time. Yet they say we are doing it to Save the Planet.
Schlimm the same people that are teh one screaming the loudest about Global Warming are the ones in Charge at the EPA. They are the ones that with NO Authrity from CONGRESS have decided that they can regulate so called Greenhouse Gasses. Since Pres Obamas Cap and Trade Failed to get pass Congress as the Massive Tax it was they knew it was the only way they could regulate everything we did.
Can you find a incandescanant Lightbulb anymore. Or a regular Screen TV anymore. If the EPA wanted to clean up the Enviroment they could real fast relax some of their Regulations on REusing Fuel rods in our own Nuclear Plants. The regulations that were tight under Clinton and the Bushes in the OTR industry now ubnder OBAMA right now are driving thousands of experianced drivers out of the industry and on to the Unemployment lines. Yet the EPA and CARB is not done yet with all the BS crap yet. In 2 years it is illegal to even cross into CA with a truck older than 2007 a reefer unit older than 2010. Now how is that helpful considering that those truck barely will get 40% less the mileage that onebuilt before that time will. Real world usage proves that every time. Yet they say we are doing it to Save the Planet.
You are making statements and comparisons here which do not match up nor make common sense. It is a jumble of words of assumptions and opinions formulated without facts with accusations based on political alignment rather than with an understanding how politics and business actually work. Fact are that companies concerned with, acting positivey about, environmental issues are making money despite what you say. In so many arguements in the area it is noted that everywhere but in the US science is taken into consideration by business, industry, and government. Here science has become a political issue of those who understand science and those who either don't or don't want to.
OK Suppose we bow to the wackos and electrify everything. SCE gets rich selling power to the railroads. Oops I forgot SCE has to get the additional power from some place. Cannot build a new power plant in the L A basin because this will pollute. Lets build it out near Banning in the desert. Now the Banningites speak up and say we do not want the pollution from the new power plant. Sounds like NIMBY syndrome. Of course we could just dam up another river. Unfortunately the rivers to be dammed (no pun intended) are a finite resource and virtually all have already been dammed. If we did find a stream to dam to make a hydro plant some idiot would find a darter snail or some other critter there and stop progress for many years. As a retired oil man living in Texas we have a saying about the NIMBYs up east: Let the bast - - -s freeze in the dark.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.