Obama Promises Higher Emissions Reduction In Less Time Than China

[Star_Cards]

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/envir...trophes-n98011

Straight from the idiot up top.

obviously the article from MSNBC uses "doomsday" to help sell the article, but I flipped through the actual report (no way I have time to read the full report at 841 pages) and didn't see it as being presented in a fashion or fear mongering or telling everyone to run out in a panic. Obviously if you are a person who thinks humans don't effect the earth negatively whatsoever you are going to feel that it's coming "straight from the idiot up top". I however think that it's obvious that humans have negative effects on the world and should take action to ease that negative effect whether. Saying that we need to act now and showing all of the different effects we have a negative impact isn't something I see as something they want people to panic.

[Star_Cards]

There needs to always be a balance for the cost of meeting the next environmental target. Take engines for trucks and construction equipment. Over the past 12 years the engines have gone through multiple steps to reduce emissions. The latest Tier Engines will have the exhaust be nearly as clean as the air that they intake. This is all well and good, but the cost of the engine for a small to medium construction machine will go up by $10,000. The end user gets little or no benefit from this upgrade, but the additional cost to him/her is no small deal. Other regions of the world (including China) do not have the same emissions requirements. The good news is that any engine used in the US (no matter where it is manufactured) must meet the same requirements.

I understand that there can be added expense to things like you mention. It's definitely a tough extra cost to swallow. Obviously there has to be a balance and there's a trade off between cost and cleanliness for any new regulation. Saying that X will cost a certain amount of dollars more really isn't that arguable if it's an important change that needs to be made. Either way I have no issue with having targets to have less negative effects on the earth. I'm sure there are actions that make much more sense than others. Those would all have to be discussed on a case by case level.

[pwaldo]

wrong thread

[37jetson]

I understand that there can be added expense to things like you mention. It's definitely a tough extra cost to swallow. Obviously there has to be a balance and there's a trade off between cost and cleanliness for any new regulation. Saying that X will cost a certain amount of dollars more really isn't that arguable if it's an important change that needs to be made. Either way I have no issue with having targets to have less negative effects on the earth. I'm sure there are actions that make much more sense than others. Those would all have to be discussed on a case by case level.

Thanks for the response. I agree that it all needs to be reviewed on a case by case basis.