New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[Sasquachulator]

Originally Posted by pgranberg11

the sad part behind this climate change is that it isn't even the cars. have you guys seen how much pollution BOATS produce??? and EPA doesn't say shit about that.

How many people have boats vs how many people have cars?
Gotta go after the bigger fish!


hm....sounds somewhat familiar.....

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by pgranberg11

the sad part behind this climate change is that it isn't even the cars. have you guys seen how much pollution BOATS produce??? and EPA doesn't say shit about that.

not just any boats, but international-flagged shipping vessels.. we really need better global epa laws...

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by pgranberg11

the sad part behind this climate change is that it isn't even the cars. have you guys seen how much pollution BOATS produce??? and EPA doesn't say shit about that.

It is going to take every industry including personal transportation vehicles, which are much more than shipping at 2-3%, but sure, we can improve shipping too. Some will take longer and require different considerations. We won’t be able to go to electric jumbo jets anytime soon. Maybe biofuels or hydrogen. That is what the shipping industry might do or just change their behavior.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mar...o-go-green/amp

The IMO calculated that a speed reduction of just 10 percent across the global fleet by 2010 would result in a 23.3 percent reduction in emissions. Hapag-Lloyd found that slowing some of their ships by just five knots, or 20 percent, resulted in savings of around 50 percent on fuel costs. Restrictions on vessel speed would reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, black carbon, nitrogen oxides, and nitrous oxide.

https://europe.oceana.org/en/shipping-pollution-1

[brzlegend]

Didnt I read that plants need CO2 or has the science changed on that also.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

It is going to take every industry including personal











transportation vehicles, which are much more than shipping at 2-3%, but sure, we can improve shipping too. Some will take longer and require different considerations. We won’t be able to go to electric jumbo jets anytime soon. Maybe biofuels or hydrogen. That is what the shipping industry might do or just change their behavior.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mar...o-go-green/amp



https://europe.oceana.org/en/shipping-pollution-1

[NARFALICIOUS]

Originally Posted by brzlegend

Didnt I read that plants need CO2 or has the science changed on that also.

Yes, they do need it.
And people need food and water, but I'm not going to eat 100 burgers in one day.

[brzlegend]

Originally Posted by NARFALICIOUS

Yes, they do need it.
And people need food and water, but I'm not going to eat 100 burgers in one day.

But you could feed more people or in this case feed more plants.








A forest is always cooler than a parking lot.

[ZDan]

Plants are fine with 250 ppm CO2, they don't need "more CO2".
Of course we should be planting the bezeezus out of plants/trees etc. One of the biggest things we could do would be to stop deforesting and begin reforesting.

[soundman98]

LESS CONCRETE JUNGLE MORE JUNGLE BOOK

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by brzlegend

Didnt I read that plants need CO2 or has the science changed on that also.

Well, plants do, but everything has a toxicity limit. Oxygen for us can be over-prescribed. CO2 can’t go up indefinitely, or we would die. Our hemoglobin has a higher affinity for CO2, so we would literally suffocate. This happens when fermenting tanks get a leak and someone gets too close. We would see other health problems before that time though.

Even if someone says that the CO2 levels now aren’t enough to cause many problems for the planet, most would agree that we can’t continue to add millions of tons of CO2 and methane to the atmosphere indefinitely. A reasonable person would concede that eventually there would be an environmental impact. We really only differ on whether there is an effect now, not on the eventuality of things to come without change.

This article talks about how higher levels of CO2 could be bad for global warming because high CO2 leads to thick leaves and that seems to be a problem.

https://www.washington.edu/news/2018...aves-high-co2/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/yalecli...than-it-helps/

[WolfpackS2k]

I'd argue that deforestation and habitat destruction is far worse for the planet that the increase of CO2 from 0.00025 to 0.00050 percent. Not even sure how you can argue that with a straight face.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

I'd argue that deforestation and habitat destruction is far worse for the planet that the increase of CO2 from 0.00025 to 0.00050 percent. Not even sure how you can argue that with a straight face.

0.025% to 0.041%
Quite significant in fact...

[Stonehorsw]

Hey, open a %#}]+ topic for that, this one is to bash California for hassling everyone that likes a good old burning dinosaur car.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

I'd argue that deforestation and habitat destruction is far worse for the planet that the increase of CO2 from 0.00025 to 0.00050 percent. Not even sure how you can argue that with a straight face.

Those are also bad things, and those things can have an affect on global temperatures. For instance, it has been suggested that the Little Ice Age was partially caused by deforestation in snow areas, which caused the exposed ice to act as a mirror, reflecting heat that would have been normally absorbed, and that caused a cooling effect.

The percentage is not really that important, depending on the reference range, so in this case, it is the delta that is more import. For instance, say you were to lay out in the grass on a sunny day. Your body would have a certain surface area, and we could say there was a certain column of air sitting on top of that surface area going up for miles. Now, we could put a blanket on top of you, and that volume on top of you is such a small fraction of the volume compared to the air on top of you that if we just took that volume relative to the volume of air above you then it would be so small that it wouldn't seem to matter. That blanket might be feeling hot on a warm day, but now say we decided to add a second blanket. Well, now you could start burning up. The analogy works for adding double the leaves to a tree when talking about shade. The analogy works for doubling the shade of tint.

I think you are looking at it like the CO2 is just there in such small amounts that it doesn't matter. Spit on a raging fire once, and you won't be doing anything. Spit on it twice, and you still haven't gotten any closer to putting out the fire. But we know small things can have profound effects on a system. I could put the smallest volume by percentage of a neurotoxin in someone's veins, and it would be enough to kill them, and I could put half that volume, and nothing would happen.

If we took all the CO2 in the 300 miles of atmosphere and compressed it into a 1mm layer, how dense would that layer be? I don't know. Like laying in the sun with a blanket on your body, the blanket is blocking the sun's rays, but it is also trapping heat, so what would be the effect of doubling the thickness of the blanket or doubling the density of this 1mm layer? So yes, the CO2 is only 0.04%, but it is 300 miles of stratified density of CO2, which adds up.

Water vapor is much more prevalent than CO2, making up anywhere between 0.01% to 4% of the atmosphere, and it a larger contributor to greenhouse gases, but this effect has natural and anthropic sources, yet the idea is that water vapor can have huge impacts around the world when it condenses and falls to the earth or as a greenhouse gas, even if it is a small percentage.

Acid rain is another example of something that has natural and anthropic sources, and it is also an example of something that has real, noticeable effects, yet smog, or rather, excess NO and SO2, make up a relatively small percentage of the atmosphere. It is another case where the small percentage is less important than the delta. For smog, this delta was 10-20x the levels of natural air, and it had the effect of lowering pH from 5.4 to 1.8, and if you know you pH scale, this is a logarithmic scale, so that is why it says there is a 1000x difference in acidity.

Again, it is less important to talk about the parts per million or percentage. If you start with the supposition that the historical effects of CO2 are nothing or close to nothing then zero times any small increase just doesn't matter like spitting on a forest fire, but if there are effects already, even if the quantities are small, then doubling those values could be the difference of life or death like the difference of one bee sting versus two bee stings to a person who is allergic to bee stings: allergic reaction/mild-anaphylaxis versus severe-anaphylaxis/death.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Stonehorsw

Hey, open a %#}]+ topic for that, this one is to bash California for hassling everyone that likes a good old burning dinosaur car.

I got you bro:

https://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143867


You are from Michigan. Why do you care?

California allows for classic cars to be on the road. California has a path for people to do legal engine swaps. California allows for aftermarket parts like turbochargers kits that have EO#s (the 86 has like half a dozen FI kits to choose from like Harrop, Edelbrock, JR, Works, etc). California has huge areas of the state that are exempt from smogging their car. California has exempt new cars from needing to be smogged for eight years. A person could flash their car and uninstall parts before smog and then flash it back and be good for two more years. Yes, people wouldn't be running legal just like people have illegal levels of tint; a person takes a chance on getting caught, but it isn't that big of a deal, and I think it is odd that other states bash on California.

There is this idea that whatever California does will eventually be passed on to other states. Sometimes this is true because California has such a huge car market that they influence manufactures to meet their standards, and these manufactures sometimes make California and Federal cars, and sometimes they just change to meet California's standard, so they only have to produce one car. It is also often the case that California's standards are just a few years ahead of the federal standards, so it isn't that California is influencing the rest of the market, but rather, that the market is inherently delayed behind California, so even if California didn't exist, the federal standards would move cars to tighter emission standards.

In some ways, modifications that allow for coal rolling are federally illegal and many states have made these modifications more illegal or illegal at the state level or harsher. California was not listed at the time of this article:

https://www.motorbiscuit.com/rolling...pickup-trucks/