Dairy farmers will be required to reduce methane emissions from manure to 40 percent below their 2013 levels by 2030, with the help of $50 million from the state’s fee charged to polluters, known as cap-and-trade.

But then it's just possible recent events will back the 'cap-and-tax' bandits up five squares and make them sit out a few turns!

Best regards
HP

 

Dairy farmers will be required to reduce methane emissions from manure to 40 percent below their 2013 levels by 2030, with the help of $50 million from the state’s fee charged to polluters, known as cap-and-trade.

The money will help a handful of them buy dairy digesters, which use methane from manure to generate energy that’s sold to electrical utilities.

You know California cows don't fart in public.

But... everyone else....

 

But then it's just possible recent events will back the 'cap-and-tax' bandits up five squares and make them sit out a few turns!

Best regards
HP

Naw, It's CA. They love to spend their money. Look what they did with emissions. They made us build two kinds of cars and at least 2 kinds of gas, and in the end the result was standards very similar to the original CA standards.

 

Carrier:
It's a little hard to tell who won.
Gotta wonder what FORD will get. Who is Michigan's governor?
In response to a CNBC report that Carrier will receive Inducements from the state of Indiana, international trade attorney and Cato Institute Adjunct Scholar Scott Lincicome tweeted criticism of the deal. [embed] "'New inducements'" = Subsidies," he wrote, adding "CONGRATULATIONS INDIANA TAXPAYERS! YOU INVOLUNTARILY BOUGHT AN INEFFICIENT AC FACTORY."

 

Okay? What exactly are you trying to define and argue about? We seem to be on two very different topics here. I'm talking aobut how emissions compliance hurts fuel efficiency numbers plus how it has compared over the years and how I got around the designs and what was gained from it. That's all and I have never claimed anything otherwise.

Now as for the rest of it, How exactly do you define today's vehicles?
I define them as any modern vehicle still in active use today that falls anywhere close the statically defined average age and design characteristics of all modern vehicles registered and newer. I have never claimed otherwise. For me personally, 'today's vehicles' I drive are anything newer than 1994 since that's the oldest actively used vehicle I have on the road but to be fair given the average age of vehicles is 11.5 years that by the numbers would say that the vast majority of vehicles are less than 23 years old or of post ~ 1994 manufacture date just as everyone of my registered vehicles are. 2017 - (11.5 x 2) = 1994

That seems to fit very well into everything I have said and referenced so far.

So if that's wrong how do you define the statistical range of a large subject group Vs a narrow field of its subsets without using some degree of average and defined min/max comparison points?

The numbers I am finding say that ~17.5 million new vehicles were sold in the last 12 months of which by my basic math that 17.5 million of the registered ~253 million represents ~ 6.9% of which of that ~6.9% only a fraction of them have the new 9 and 10 speed automatics putting the 9 and 10 speed automatics comparison value insignificantly low compared to what is on the road as a whole today just as my comparison to how many million dollar plus super cares are on the road today.
Both validly are out there but they do not represent a significant value and quantity of the definable active whole group as of today.

I think the point people are trying to make is that today's (2016) engines have about the same mileage and horsepower as your modified one and don't pollute nearly as much. So the problem was not the standards as much as it was lagging technology. Car guys are famous for that.

 

I hope Trump gets rid of all the rules about greenhouse gases, carbon emissions, alternative fuels, mass transit, plastic grocery bags, low flow toilets, etc.

None of these do anything about improving the environment and they just cost the consumer big $$$.

 

We could be seeing a great cattle drive, from CA to points east. Too bad the XIT ranch isn't 2 million acres anymore.

 

I hope Trump gets rid of all the rules about greenhouse gases, carbon emissions, alternative fuels, mass transit, plastic grocery bags, low flow toilets, etc.

From your mouth to Trump's ears...

 

Winning, winning, winning...

“If the employer provision is enforced and the news gets out that the Justice Department is finally enforcing that provision … that will lead to large numbers of individuals self-deporting,”

 

And more winning!

Funny how just assumptions about future sane economic policy increase confidence.

 

I hope Trump gets rid of all the rules about greenhouse gases, carbon emissions, alternative fuels, mass transit, plastic grocery bags, low flow toilets, etc.

None of these do anything about improving the environment and they just cost the consumer big $$$.

You should talk to your State Representative about that. Trump's going to be busy.

 

We're going to win so much we'll get tired of winning...

Wow, that's a really good win. But no where near the one Romney had when he ran. He reported that Chrysler/Jeep was going to export Jeep production from Toledo, Oh to China. But after he made it public, they decided to keep it here. (truth is it was never going to China, but what's a little truth among friends)

 

And more winning!

Funny how just assumptions about future sane economic policy increase confidence.

It really is an amazing time. I can't recall so much enthusiasm about a new regime, although they did give Obama a Nobel prize before he'd done anything to earn it.

There's a lot pf projection going on right now, from both sides. The optimists are thrilled about what he might do, and the pessimists are scared for the same reason. Interesting times.

 

We're going to win so much we'll get tired of winning...

Your easily pleased..
GWB, Dec 2007 minus 474,000.
BHO, Oct. 2016 Plus 161,000.

 

Winning, winning, winning...

This will help you how?

 

This will help you how?

?? You don't think enforcing the law is a good thing? This will help everyone in very big ways. Other than the law-breakers, obviously.

 

Must be nice. Cut production by 4% and the price goes up by 8%.
OPEC clinched a deal to curtail oil supply, confounding skeptics as the need to clear a record global crude glut -- and prove the group’s credibility -- brought its first cuts in eight years. Crude rose as much as 8.8 percent in London.

OPEC will reduce production by 1.2 million barrels a day to 32.5 million a day, two delegates said Wednesday during a ministerial meeting in Vienna, asking not to be identified as the decision isn’t yet public. The breakthrough deal showed an apparent acceptance by Saudi Arabia that Iran, as a special case, can raise production.

But we are a step closer to getting TCMTech back to work.

 

?? You don't think enforcing the law is a good thing? This will help everyone in very big ways. Other than the law-breakers, obviously.

The question remains:
How will this help you, specifically?

 

And more winning!

Funny how just assumptions about future sane economic policy increase confidence.

Does this mean I should go buy my wife a new (cheaper) Toyota?

 

The question remains:
How will this help you, specifically?

Well, my children and grandchildren may face a more attractive job market, for one. Infrastructure dollars can be spent on potholes and bridges instead of education and health care for illegals. I could go on.