VW Vs EPA drama ?

[Not_An_Abba_Fan]

The argument that emissions reduction is always about money has a few holes in it.

You only have to look at how much the internal combustion engine has improved in efficiency, both in terms of power output and emissions reduction, since emissions standards were introduced. Clever and innovative companies developed engines that were modern and extremely efficient. They used less fuel, developed more power and their emissions were a fraction of the engines that preceeded them. Some manufacturers got it right from day one. Australia, on the other hand, got the HX. Old timers like me recall what a dog the ADR 27A engines were. Time and money led to much better engines in local cars, but if emissions standards had never been introduced, what sort of engines might we have today?

California has the toughest standards in the US. They may seem excessive to us, but eventually, we will probably go the same way. It isn't just a matter of paying levies to governments - as technology evolves, more efficient engines continue to arrive and the consumer is generally the beneficiary, not just the government.

The internal combustion engine hasn't really changed in the 130 years that it has been around. It's the controls that have changed. Engine management systems and emission controls have become more efficient, the engine itself is the same. I think we would have very similar engines as we have now had not the controls been put in place, but they would have more power and be more economical, sure, they would produce more NOx, CO and other "pollutants", but would it really be much worse? From the numbers Raj put up, even if man contributed 5% to the worlds carbon emissions, it's still bugger all compared to the earth's own contribution to it's so called demise.

 

[Noeleter]

Y

The internal combustion engine hasn't really changed in the 130 years that it has been around. It's the controls that have changed. Engine management systems and emission controls have become more efficient, the engine itself is the same. I think we would have very similar engines as we have now had not the controls been put in place, but they would have more power and be more economical, sure, they would produce more NOx, CO and other "pollutants", but would it really be much worse? From the numbers Raj put up, even if man contributed 5% to the worlds carbon emissions, it's still bugger all compared to the earth's own contribution to it's so called demise.

Still very little understanding on here about the various emissions and their short term and long term effects. Yes if we had no emission controls global warming would be worse. However, the more immediate effect would be that many more would be dying now.

 

[hi_ryder]

global warming is a myth, warming and cooling is just natural cycles earth goes through....

 

[Noeleter]

global warming is a myth, warming and cooling is just natural cycles earth goes through....

The earth is flat

 

[Rajesh Koothrappali]

global warming is a myth, warming and cooling is just natural cycles earth goes through....

Yup! For BILLIONS of years...

Not only that but we're in a cooler than average period at the moment with much lower CO2. More CO2 in the air is actually good. It would instantly solve world hunger as crop yield would go through the roof...

 

[Rajesh Koothrappali]

Yep, miles from the nearest neighbour. Their choice or yours?:yeah:

Lol! Little from column A, little from column B.

"be where the jobs are" is so 20th century. Most jobs can be done anywhere these days. The trick is having the ability to convince the employer. I have 100Mbps FTTH in the sticks thanks to Telstra... Wouldn't have it any other way living where I do!

 

[Hangman]

Most jobs can be done anywhere these days.

Unless your job involves more than sitting at a computer.

 

[Eevo]

global warming is a myth, warming and cooling is just natural cycles earth goes through....

well its not a myth.
its very real.

but is it human caused....

earth has been going through cycles long before humans were here.
thats doent mean that the current cycle isnt caused by humans
in fact we have no idea whats causing it.


two big external influences over the last 100 years.

1) the earths magnetic field has been decreasing for the last 100 years.
2) solar radiation from the sun has been increasing for the last 100 years

 

[Calaber]

Lol! Little from column A, little from column B.

Most jobs can be done anywhere these days. The trick is having the ability to convince the employer.

Wish I could convince the 150 or so old farts in this town of that fact. Then they'd have to drive to my place to pick up their friggin' newspapers each day instead of the other way round.

 

[Calaber]

The internal combustion engine hasn't really changed in the 130 years that it has been around. It's the controls that have changed. Engine management systems and emission controls have become more efficient, the engine itself is the same. I think we would have very similar engines as we have now had not the controls been put in place, but they would have more power and be more economical, sure, they would produce more NOx, CO and other "pollutants", but would it really be much worse? From the numbers Raj put up, even if man contributed 5% to the worlds carbon emissions, it's still bugger all compared to the earth's own contribution to it's so called demise.

To a point, I agree. But the sort of internal combustion engines we drive these days are pretty far removed from the dinosaurs of the 70's. The basic principle is the same, but think multiple overhead cams instead of single in-block cams with dancing knitting needles, re-engineering to run unleaded but still operate on high compression, more efficient head designs, FI instead of carbies. Certainly, they are really just refinements of what once was, but they are major contributors to engine efficiency regardless of whatever management systems are employed. That was my original point.