From: -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics,alt.politics.trump,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: "Bat poop crazy" - nyc1973beforeEPA.jpg (0/1)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2025 08:10:24 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On 7/31/25 20:20, pothead wrote:
> On 2025-07-31, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 23:50:41 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
>>
>>> Promoting American made cars or EV or both is not a problem for me as long
>>> as at the same time you don't tell me ICE cars will have major regulations
>>> put on them all for the purpose of destroying them and pushing the people to EV.
>>
>> Is clean air your complaint? I have no problem with tight emissions
>> regulation. None at all. See attached image of NYC skyline ca 1965.
>
> Of course not.
> However we have come very far since 1965.
so....past regulations which cleaned up the air were okay, but now taht
we can't visibly see the damage we're still causing, its no longer okay.
Check! /s
> Same for mining BTW.
> Strip mines are tightly regulated these days.
> Clean coal.
> Computerized emmisions on cars.
> etc.
>
> What is not needed is over regulation such as, "all ICE cars manufactured after
> 2028 need to average over xx number of mpg.
> That is a deliberate attempt at killing the ICE market.
Better read the fine print better in those sorts of rules: there's a
lot of provisions in there that provide MPG credits if they improve
things which aren't simply fuel efficiency.
> BTW, ever see a lithium mine?
> You might want to take a look.
>
> Ever see children mining cobalt in DR of the Congo?
>
> The US is way past the days where children were working in coal mines.
> Other countries are not.
> But you greenacs turn a blind eyeball to that.
Merely more examples of how providing corporate incentives to export our
jobs have had other costs besides loss of domestic jobs at home.
>> Further, EV isn't the only emissions free solution. ICE can be tuned
>> to extremely low emissions at least in certain rev bands and under
>> specific loads. Thus the explosion of DOHC, variable valve timing,
>> variable compression engines with six speed transmissions.
>
> The batteries still need lithium, at this point in time, and are extremely
> dangerous and subject to exploding and starting difficult to extinguish fires
> which is why a major shipping company will no longer transport them on their
> cargo ships.
>
> Thanks but no thanks.
The technology solution for EVs is currently lithium based (just like
your cellphone & laptop). Are you suggesting that there should be
government incentives for them to switch to more expensive technology
solutions in order to reduce these externality costs you're mentioning?
Or is it to have formal legal liability for these costs on society?
-hh