EPA finds greenhouse gases pose a danger to health »
Posted By Eagle_Eye 7 months, 1 week ago in Science & TechnologyWASHINGTON – The EPA on Friday declared that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases sent off by cars and many industrial plants "endanger public health and welfare," setting the stage for regulating them under federal clean air laws. The action by the Environmental Protection Agency marks the first step toward requiring power plants , cars and trucks to curtail their release of climate-changing pollution, especially carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels .
Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com »
730 Views Share Story 47 Comments Report
Submitted By:
Eagle_Eye
I am a female who has lived a complex life with complex situations and have learned a lot from my experiences.
I love the Environment ...
Who Also Submitted:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 47 (view all)
-
90%
Eagle_Eye7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is such "Old" news, but the past administration choose to minimize it.
Reply
"The action by the Environmental Protection Agency marks the first step toward requiring power plants , cars and trucks to curtail their release of climate-changing pollution, especially carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels ."
Perhaps there is a higher power overseeing this transformation of America and the automotive industry. Now that the auto companies have to rethink the vehicles they make they now have to make them cleaner.-
88%
lfergie8127 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
EE
Reply
When the Republicans and Bush came in power, they went through all of Clinton's executive orders that dealt with the environment and reversed them. That created a situation of industrial pollution that will take more years to clean up. Republicans are not for clean environment. Republican are for making money at any cost to the environment or the people exposed to pollution.
"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it." G W Bush or Dan Quayle -- doesn't make any difference because both are Republicans against clean air
-
-
-
-
33%
4thchance7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"carbon dioxide" is what we as humans exhale, so how dangerous can it be? If a bunch of people were together in a small room, then all the carbon dioxide that they breath out is DANGEROUS! Take a concert hall that has thousands of people in it, all of those people breathing in and out, that too can harm you... So, no more crowded rooms folks, that may kill you...what a joke all this is, I mean really, EARTH TO WHO EVER COMES UP WITH THIS GARBAGE, you're full of CRAP!
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
cloud157 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
4th, too much or anything can kill us. Too much oxygen, too much water, too much food, etc.
Reply
The one thing is I doubt carbon emissions from fossil fuels are adding enough CO2 to the atmosphere to have any effect on our health. It would have to be in extremely high concentrations to kill us, or even harm us.
-
-
rally-monkeyComment removed: Abusive8 Replies
-
11%
4thchance7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh, I missed the best part of this stupid article.
Reply
"cars and trucks to curtail their release of climate-changing pollution, especially carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels "
Hey to the nitwit who wrote this article, yes you, the uneducated moron who wrote it. Here's a heads up for ya. When cars burn fossil fuels, they DO NOT release "CARBON DIOXIDE", they release "CARBON MONOXIDE", you pea brain! And yes "CARBON MONOXIDE" is deadly poisonous. Get your facts straight before you go out and prove to the world that you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. "CARBON MONOXIDE" is deadly "CARBON DIOXIDE" is only deadly is it's pure or near pure form.
Hey Goppy, try to argue with my above statements, PLEASE?-
80%
lfergie8127 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
4thchance
Reply
You're showing your ignorance. Carbon monoxide is the result of incomplete combustion in the internal engine as well as the charcoal grill and any other carbon based product. Automobiles when running efficient will emit carbon dioxide and water. Any carbon monoxide or excess hydrocarbons will be burned in the catalytic converter to produce more carbon dioxide and water (and compounds of impurities in gasoline). And then of course there is the nitric oxide produced from engine emissions but that's another story
""CARBON DIOXIDE" is only deadly is it's pure or near pure form."
Really not a statement that makes much sense. Carbon dioxide is dangerous when it reduces the percentage of oxygen to under 20%. You see, oxygen has to be at or near 21% for animals to function properly and the more carbon dioxide in the air, the less oxygen with nitrogen staying at or around 78% so if the percentage of oxygen is under 20% it doesn't matter what the percentage of carbon dioxide is. Doesn't have to be "pure"--whatever that means. For the sake of argument, OSHA places the safe low limit of oxygen at 19.5% in confined spaces.
-
-
88%
DarkWizard7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Excellent find EE.
Reply
I was just at a chapter meeting of the ISPE (I'm a member) last night in Boulder, CO and the topic was biofuels. A presentation was made on isobutanol. The talk was about how we already have an abundance of this product and it has been around since 1919. The only reason it hasn't been in competition with petroleum is isobutanol has to be produced from other products and petroleum just needed refinement.
The good news is that 150 ethanol plants that have been built over the past 6 years, here in America, can be easily modified to produce isobutanol and compete with the petro market. Ethanol can't be transported through pipelines and has to be transported special, which increases it's cost. Also, the EPA standards are getting tougher and want an RVP rating of 7.8. Right now they've got isobutanol at 1.8 without losing viscosity, mileage, or octane.
Isobutanol isn't a perfect solution, but isobutanol breaks down in the environment within days without MSDS issues. Sulfur and benzene issues have been resolved along with carbon issues. Isobutanol can be transported through pipelines like gas and will work with diesel and jet engines. This has all been verified through actual usage. The CEO of the company making isobutanol has been using it in his car for a year and there are no gasket, rubber degradation, or engine issues.
Some people are worried that this will take away needed food products, but that has been addressed too. There is a separation process that leaves about 17% of the product unusable. The rest is used for fuel and high protein feed. A lot of water is used in the cooling process, but they recycle the steam 4 times in an effort to be efficient with resources.
Just thought some of you more informed would like to know.-
83%
Eagle_Eye7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"isobutanol breaks down in the environment within days without MSDS issues. Sulfur and benzene issues have been resolved along with carbon issues. Isobutanol can be transported through pipelines like gas and will work with diesel and jet engines. This has all been verified through actual usage"
Reply
thanks DW, wonderful information, this sounds like a better substitute than ethanol, keep staying involved with your group, every voice matters and is important so that a better earth can be left for our children to inherit.
-
-
71%
Eagle_Eye7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I really have to wonder about users like 4th and monkey that can do nothing but negative comment and not come up with any good solutions. What is wrong with these humans??? Why do these people persist? What are they getting out of being so negative, name calling and nasty??
Reply -
rally-monkeyComment removed: Abusive4 Replies
-
rally-monkeyComment removed: Abusive
-
rally-monkeyComment removed: Abusive4 Replies
-
-
rally-monkeyComment removed: Abusive1 Reply
-
83%
Goppy7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LOL ... Ratskii ... rally-monkey does not care who listens to him ... he/she is here simply to vent an inner anger.
Reply
... ❝ ... rally-monkey's commentary reveals a utter lack of psychic integrity. ... #&10078 ...
Sooner or later, he/she's mind will snap - as it has so often in the past - he/she will unload a stream of obscenities and racist remarks ... (as an avowed racist) ... and he/she will be looking for a NEW name and avatar.
Is it any wonder this 'person' is a member supports The Modern Republicans? I mean - it IS the party of Moral Vacancy and Intolerance.
.
-
-
100%
pokydoke7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wow! Where oh where did monkey get these ideas? I am appalled at the nonsensical gibberish coming out of him/her. That's what a bad eighth grade education combined with living in an old trailer park and too much cheap beer will do to a person. That and listening to a pastor who's trying to grow his flock.
Reply
More News
Download Squad
Back from the dead? Yahoo Upcoming gets some surprise feature love
iGoogle keeps on growing with some yummy new food themes
5 ways to save money with an iPhone
Hate the new Windows 'start menu'? Get the classic XP menu back with this little app!
Google's Chrome and Android operating systems will converge sooner rather than later
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.