🚀 go-pugleaf

miles" <nope@nopers.com> wrote in message
news:%Lu_h.80289$NK5.2980@newsfe23.lga...
> mcs wrote:
>> what needs to be done?
>> limit amount of emission ( gasses) in a city
>
> Federal and state laws already do this and they get stricter every few
> years based on goals.

what are the sense of goals if the city has air that is more dangerous then
others still after goals are met? Goals should be geared to the extent of
the pollution to a city.. higher goals in areas with more pollution..duh?


  States who fail Federal limits are subject to
> considerable penalties in the form of lost highway tax $'s etc.

> they can't fail like they should  if goals are not to get to clean air
> ..or  goals are not really relative to effecting quality of air. to good
> zone. They can tell me every five years such and such is going to be done
> but if there are more cars for example what good are universal goals.
> Goals should be imposed relative to pollution in city.Now its up to me to
> get legislators to listen right? its never their responsiblity to get the
> cities to safe levels is it? whatever


>> , by passing of new laws that fail cars that do not meet standards in the
>> city.
>

> Many states already have emissions laws with vehicles requiring inspection
> every year.  If they fail, no license registration.
this is obviously having little effect until the soot and air in my region
is effected positively. when my system shuts down, bet your bottom dollar
its shuts down and causes illness for others and studies do show damage so
what good is changes if the end result of pollution levels don't change?
>
> > Retrofit city buses to use
>> cleaner diesel or engines.
>
> Almost every state now requires use of the lower sulpher content diesel in
> their state and city vehicles.  This year it applies to consumer diesels
> as well.
so what is the new diesel standard that is suppose to be 99 percent
pollution free? when and where.? Why do some buses have much lower pollution
then others. You can't tell me all state have it. If you had to live in back
of a bus you would die much faster then even in my moderate or worse
polluted city.Allot of these buses are still killing zones.. and you cant
prove otherwise. Assume its bad untill they show me the results of peoples
health who had to breathe it..
>
>> Start transferring buildings to solar energy grids if possible
>
> Not possible at this time.  Solar energy is VERY expensive especially on a
> large scale.  Technology is improving but it has a ways to go before it's
> ready for the mainstream in an affordable way.
>

affordable is subjective opinion  correlated to priorities. Peoples lives at
risk should be a prority.you sould like a republican... thank god for good
people like you who impose your poisoning on others. you must believe in God
right and live in good air city like Bushs , or near cape cod?




>> mandate coal or sue coal industry  to lower emissions to a sustainable
>> level where cities downwind can expect air better then moderate in soot
>> and particuate pollution.
>
> Can't happen unless an affordable alternative is available.  People need
> to heat their homes.

 gov can mandate changes faster where people can't drive unless they use
much more fuel effecient cars and coal gets more emission caps. Here again
we  get commericals for ge to utilize cleaner coal where is it?  what
happend to burning grasses and stalks.. My company stkl keeps going up where
is the use of this stuff? Mandate changes where peoples health becomes
livable the point in which moderate particulate pollution invaded the bodies
is the point in which changes have to happen period. I don'tcare if they
send people home from Iraq and impose 40 dollars surcharge on cars that
dont' get better emission standards. you can't tell me the govt is doing all
it can.. amazing.. only you can live with your philosophy about what is sane
.. unbelivable the level of concern for people you have... amazing
>
>> Whatever that cost is get it from Senate
>
> The consumers ultimately have to bare the cost of any changes.  They are
> the only ones paying the $'s be it through taxes or through product costs.
>
>> in the end a healthier public will more then pay for this. but they are
>> not doing it fast enough why? can you spell conspiracy. Yes many places
>> have clean air but there are places that don't.
>
> I agree we need to clean up.  We are making progress.  You want it faster
> but have no solutions.  The technology isn't ready to just change over
> today.  It sure is.. even people from the epa has said this over and
> over!!!!!!


Some cities are cleaner or dirtier because of their
> geography.  Take San Fransisco bay area for instance.  You'll never see a
> smoggy day in the northern sections there despite millions of people

wait a second for the longes time people were telling me that all areas with
more pollution would get polluted the same , based on more cars and people
and pollution....I am the one that said wind direction and geography play a
part thats why these places cost more to live in for one....
> living and driving an incredible amount of cars in a small area. Phoenix
> has a fraction of the number of people and has worse smog.  Why? You think
> it's because of laws?  Hell no.  It's geography.

I said some areas need laws more then others.. You obviously hear what you
want cause your agenda is allowing all this to continue and for people to
assume there is nothing they can do... WRONG you have your god to play
homage to if you believe that. experts around the world have said if we
changed policy sooner and we did more we can undo this world co2 problems
quicker. some people though might not profit like they did before.. be
scared right?