全部
← Back to Squawk list
White House takes aim at a fast-growing source of emissions: airplanes
The Environmental Protection Agency on Monday took a key step toward limiting pollution caused by the nation’s fleet of commercial aircraft, part of a broader push in the Obama administration’s waning months to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA issued a scientific assessment known as an “endangerment finding,” which determined that emissions from certain kinds of plane engines contribute to pollution that fuels climate change and creates health risks for Americans. Emissions that… (www.washingtonpost.com) 更多...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
These new engines burn so clean, they actually clean the air of many pollutants, especially in nasty air communities like LA
The EPA was created in 1970 by a Republican, Richard Nixon. These days, most of what is in the media is propaganda about how the EPA gets in the way of business. Few understand that business was destroying our environment before the EPA made them stop. We would have air like Beijing if it weren’t for the EPA.
[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]
Yes it was created under Nixon as was the Clean Water Act when his veto was overridden in 1972. The original intent of the EPA was appropriate however under successive Administrations the agency has been perverted into a legislation free law maker through the use of manipulated data and junk science to promote policy well beyond the original intent. They have ignored the courts and legislators. They have used taxpayer funds to bully individuals and small government bodies. They are due for a thorough re-evaluation of their role in American and those presenting the false data and lying to Congress fired with loss of pension.
There is always good and bad actors in anything you do. We got the EPA because of the bad actors in commerce, i.e. Times Beach, Love Canal, ect. As others have said, we don't need over-reaction. For example, there is no need to try and regulate farmers who create dust during harvest. But, that is exactly what the EPA has proposed.
Airlines are already very aware that the less they spend in fuel, the better their bottom line. So you see them purchasing more efficient craft, lessening idle time where possible, and filing intelligent flight plans.
Airlines are already very aware that the less they spend in fuel, the better their bottom line. So you see them purchasing more efficient craft, lessening idle time where possible, and filing intelligent flight plans.
that tractor-dust thing was a fake by a think tank (the same ones that say Love Canal was no biggie)
It was not a fake. The House in 2011 (H.R.1633) ensured that the EPA could not issue any new rule that regulates "nuisance dust" , after which the EPA backed off it's plans. It (the EPA) still has dust from farming and other sources in it's regulatory sights.
[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]