[Big Dave]

Trebuchet’s link stated:
“China … says it will end all CFC production by 2010.”

Big Dave sez:
You believe what the Chinese say? Even in the remotely possible case they are speaking the truth, that means the US took an economic penalty for nearly two decades before any progress could be made at all – if indeed banning CFCs does anything at all beneficial for the ozone layer.


Trebuchet’s links also stated;
“On September 21, 2007, approximately 200 countries agreed to accelerate the elimination of hydrochlorofluorocarbons entirely by 2020 in a United Nations-sponsored Montreal summit. Developing nations were given until 2030.”

Big Dave says;
Great. The US takes yet another economic hit and the “developing nations” get another decade of a free ride and the “healing of the ozone layer” is deferred for another 22 years.


Trebuchet asked:
“And if the next mpg costs your health?”

Big Dave asks:
Will one microgram per cubic meter of either sulfur dioxide or PM2.5 ruin your health? I might note the air quality is the best it has been in living memory and life expectancy in the US is at an all-time high, so it rather appears that any claims about threats to public health from air pollution are more than a bit exaggerated.



Trebuchet posted a graph but failed to tell us how much of that sulfur dioxide emission could be attributed to diesel engines.


The reduction of lead was indeed an EPA success story. It took nearly two decades to restore the performance of gasoline engines.


I would ask roflwaffle: Do you really believe the pronouncements of CARB and SCAQMD? Have you ever worked with bureaucrats? I have. I was one for a few years and got a real close look at them. Have you ever noticed that they tend to be people who could not get real jobs? Why do you attribute veracity to the pronouncements of the incompetent?

How about this for the obvious: “Those most vulnerable are children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly who may have other serious health problems.” Please tell me one health situation where children and the elderly are not most vulnerable?

How about this one: “Studies have also reported links between diesel exposure and other cancers, including cancer of the bladder, kidney, stomach, blood (including multiple myeloma, leukemia, Hodgkin’s disease, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma), the oral cavity, pharynx, and larynx.” How did they miss mesothelioma? Just what substance in the world is not “linked” to some form of cancer? One could make the negative case that water and oxygen are linked to cancer. How strong are these “links?” At what concentrations does PM2.5 trigger cancer? Do they have a clue? You know that the dosage makes the toxin. Is there a published confidence factor for them? Or are they nebulous scare tactics?

What is the metric for the health payoff of these regulations? Reduced hospitalizations? A longer life expectancy? What are the American people getting in exchange for diesel fuel costing 70 to 90 cents a gallon more than unleaded and diesel vehicles being robbed of 4% of their efficiency. (If you are a fan of Al Gore, et al, this reduction in efficiency reads out in greater CO2 emissions, so that is another price of these regulations.) Is there a metric of the benefit like we had with lead, or is this like the ozone thing where the payoff is uncertain and many decades into the future, or is it (as I suspect) a sacrifice without payoff?