Todos
← 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) Más...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.]
I do not agree with you on that.... Prop planes cannot go nearly as high as they cannot pressurize in the RVSM Airspace. the newer planes are really much more fuel efficient. Sure the C-130 might get better gas mileage than a 777, but look at how many people you can seat and get them there quicker. They are looking at fuel burn per hour, but if you take a plane that can get there much quicker and carry more that is going to off set the Passenger Mile per gallon of which obama has no clue of, and by the amount of vacations that he takes in Air Force one that is of little concern to him as well... Maybe his next trip to Hawaii he should take a C-130 or an Electra...
Sorry I have to disagree as pure jets are more efficient, there are no thermal and mechanical losses through a complex gearbox or free turbine drive shaft system. Also the much higher service ceilings of the jet allow for greatly reduced air resistance and the decrease in ambient temperature at provide a significant boost to thrust.
If we went back to turbo props we would have service ceilings around 25000ft. severely congesting already crowded airspace, and loose over 200mph necessitating even more aircraft in the air at the same time (also more aircraft at already overcrowded airports). The end result for airlines would be more planes, more maintenance, more crews, more payroll, and very probably increased overall fuel usage. Also, you have to admit even with synchrophasers the propeller noise in the cabin can be very uncomfortable.
As for more efficient cars, I guess that depends on your idea of efficiency. If you measure as MPG yes there has been modest increases, mostly due to overall reduction in total car weight allowing smaller engines. Aircraft already incorporate the lightest design they can there is no easily available way to make the structure lighter, so the only way to show a decrease in MPG is to count MPG per seat and increase the number of seats per flight.
That is the way I see it anyway. I agree there is no real solution.
If we went back to turbo props we would have service ceilings around 25000ft. severely congesting already crowded airspace, and loose over 200mph necessitating even more aircraft in the air at the same time (also more aircraft at already overcrowded airports). The end result for airlines would be more planes, more maintenance, more crews, more payroll, and very probably increased overall fuel usage. Also, you have to admit even with synchrophasers the propeller noise in the cabin can be very uncomfortable.
As for more efficient cars, I guess that depends on your idea of efficiency. If you measure as MPG yes there has been modest increases, mostly due to overall reduction in total car weight allowing smaller engines. Aircraft already incorporate the lightest design they can there is no easily available way to make the structure lighter, so the only way to show a decrease in MPG is to count MPG per seat and increase the number of seats per flight.
That is the way I see it anyway. I agree there is no real solution.