Say! This looks a little strange….

I’m confused, the world sends $billions in carbon tax to the China government that adds more U.S. coal carbon to the air, …what? Is “climate change” about “fed reserve” transfer to China & our business “partners”? Slick business!

 

 

“While there are some substantial differences between estimates from the set of models that appear to have the best forecasting ability,they agree that the magnitude of the increase is quite large relative to existing forecasts of Chinese CO2 emissions. To put the size of the increase in emissions in sharp perspective, it is several times larger than the decrease in emissions that is embodied in the Kyoto protocol.”

 


China becoming gold medalist in CO2 emissions

 

by Harry Fuller, CNETNetworks, March 22nd, 2008

 

 

If you believe global warming’s a crock, this blog’s worth another good belly laugh. If you suspect that CO2 and other greenhouse gases could be altering the climate, then this there’s more evidence that the U.S. and China are plunging us into a climatic sauna.

 

A study published in “Ecological Economics” journal says that previous estimates of China’s CO2 output have been too low. “While there are some substantial differences between estimates from the set of models that appear to have the best forecasting ability,they agree that the magnitude of the increase is quite large relative to existing forecasts of Chinese CO2 emissions. To put the size of the increase in emissions in sharp perspective, it is several times larger than the decrease in emissions that is embodied in the Kyoto protocol. That is, the disagreement between the models is over how many times larger the increase is likely to be.”

 

The authors of the study did simply accept grand estimates from the Chinese government or monitoring agencies but used estimates of energy use and emissions output at the provincial level. And those numbers add up to a lot more than anybody has been admitting. Of course, a major source of China’s CO2 is burning coal for electricity. China is also in the midst of an on-going construction boom. In the U.S. constructionand building operations account for over half the energy used. Right now that figure could be even higher in China where the number of vehicles is still relatively small and very few homes have air conditioners.

 

http://blogs.zdnet.com/green/?p=901

 

* Clean Air Performance Professionals (CAPP) supports a Smog Check inspection & repair audit, gasoline ethanol fuel cap and elimination of dual fuel CAFÉ credit to cut car impact over 50% in 1 year.

 

* Some folks believe ethanol in gasoline increases oil use and oil profit

 

* Ethanol uses lots of water

 

* A Smog Check audit would cut toxic car impact in ½ in 1 year. Chief Sherry Mehl, DCA/BAR, has never found out if what is broken on a Smog Check failed car gets fixed, never

 

* An ethanol waiver would stop a $1 billion Californiaoil refinery welfare program coming from the federal government @ $0.51 per gallon of ethanol used

 

* About 60,000 barrels per day of the oil used by cars is allowed by the “renewable fuel” CAFEcredit

 

 

CAPP contact: Charlie Peters (510) 537-1796 cappcharlie@earthlink.net

Thanks for this Charlie!

 

 

Advertisements

4 Responses to Say! This looks a little strange….

  1. Charlie Peters says:

    Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
    State Capitol Building
    Sacramento, CA 95814
    Phone: 916-445-2841
    Fax: 916-558-3160 ( new number )

    RE: IMRC policy

    Are carpetbaggers: Booz Allen, Carlyle Group, Applus, Meineke Car Care Centers and CARB working a deal to take CA small business “Smog Check”?

    —– Original Message —–
    From: Rocky_Carlisle@dca.ca.gov
    To: cappcharlie@earthlink.net
    Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 3:36 PM
    Subject: IMRC meeting

    Hi Charlie,

    You missed the first part of the last IMRC meeting when we announced we will no longer transcribe IMRC meetings since it is an extravagant expense that the state cannot afford. As you know, we are under no statutory requirement to do so. All that is required are meeting minutes. Therefore, when possible, we will record the meeting but when a recording is not possible, we will simply post the minutes of the meeting. Let me know of you have any questions.

    Regards,

    Rocky Carlisle
    Executive Officer
    IMRC
    (916) 322-8249

    Charlie Peters
    Cell: (415) 516-9909
    Fax: (510) 537-9675
    Clean Air Performance Professionals
    cappcharlie@earthlink.net

    CAPP contact: Charlie Peters (510) 537-1796 cappcharlie@earthlink.net

  2. Charlie Peters says:

    The CA Inspection & Maintenance Review Committee

    Monday, May 17, 2004, Sacramento, Ca., Afternoon Session

    (snip)

    VICE CHAIR COVELL: We’ll switch positions a little bit in terms of who’s asking the questions at this point and provide an opportunity now for those of you who listened to the presentation this morning as part of the audience to ask any questions that you have. The CARB representatives are seated and ready to go, so who would like to go first? Charlie, you’re up.

    MR. PETERS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Covell and committee, I’m Charlie Peters, Clean Air Performance Professionals, and we represent motorists. I found an awful lot of very interesting comments here today. Obviously some people have done some very hard work, sweat over a lot of data and information, making a lot of suggestions. But I’m confused by some of the things that I don’t hear, some of the things that are not included, and I’d just like to start with a little question for if there’s anybody on this panel or in the committee that could maybe give me a little help.

    What happens if you were to take the model that we’re discussing and evaluating this program and you increase the failure rate by double? Would that make the program performance go up or down?

    MR. CARLOCK: If you double the number of vehicles going to test only; is that what the question is?

    MR. PETERS: The question was, if you double the failure rate in the program, will the program performance go up or down in the model?

    MR. CARLOCK: It’ll go up.

    MR. PETERS: So the more failing cars we have, the more credit we get for emission reductions for the SIP; is that what you’re saying?

    MR. CARLOCK: In general, yes. That is, it depends on what you’re failing as far as whether you get an additional benefit or not.

    MR. PETERS: Question number two. If the emissions failure result becomes twice as high, hydrocarbons, NOX

    readings on the failure are twice as high, and that’s the only change that’s going into the model, will the program performance go up or down?

    MR. CARLOCK: If the average failing vehicle has higher emissions that what we assume now; is that what you’re asking?

    MR. PETERS: That’s exactly what I said.

    MR. CARLOCK: Then the benefit would increase.

    MR. PETERS: So the program performance will improve if the emissions readings in the program, the data going into the program, doubles on failing cars, then the program performance will increase.

    MR. CARLOCK: In general, yes.

    MR. PETERS: My, that’s interesting data. So if we have a program that were to immediately determine when a car was failing and where it can immediately get fixed and we were to give appropriate credit to the program, the program credit would probably be zero.

    MR. CARLOCK: I don’t follow. No, it would not be zero.

    MR. PETERS: Every car that fell out of compliance with state standard was immediately identified and immediately fully repaired.

    MR. CARLOCK: By who?

    MR. PETERS: Doesn’t matter. By God.

    MR. CARLOCK: If it’s identified within the program, then there would be benefit within the program. If you as the owner of that vehicle was to identify and repair it, then the only thing that we could credit the program with is possibly a motivation for you to do that.

    MR. PETERS: You indicated, I believe, Mr. Carlock, that there were ongoing program evaluations where you are sending cars out in the marketplace to determine whether or not they get fixed for the program performance; is that correct?

    MR. CARLOCK: We do that periodically, we don’t do it all the time.

    MR. PETERS: How long has it been since you’ve done that?

    MR. CARLOCK: The last large item evaluation that we did was in the late nineties.

    MR. PETERS: And did you determine specifically what was wrong with those cars and what it took to repair them before they went out for evaluation?

    MR. CARLOCK: Dave corrects me. He points out that we are doing such an evaluation of the OBD cars.

    MR. PETERS: I’m sorry, I didn’t hear that.

    MR. CARLOCK: We are doing such an evaluation where we send the cars out with an OBD specific fleet right now, so we are doing an analysis right now.

    MR. PETERS: But my question is, when you do that, do you determine what the car needs repaired in order to fix it before you send it out —

    MR. CARLOCK: Yes.

    MR. PETERS: — to evaluate it?

    MR. CARLOCK: Yes.

    MR. PETERS: Have you also evaluated whether or not what was broken got fixed?

    MR. CARLOCK: Yes.

    MR. PETERS: And can you share with us what that result looked like?

    MR. CARLOCK: That’s difficult to tell you. I can tell you in generalities is the higher the vehicle emits, the more likely it is to fail. The more likely it is to fail, the more likely it is to receive an emissions benefit as far as repair. There are instances where vehicles that are marginal are failed, and when you try to fix those the results are mixed.

    MR. PETERS: But I believe when a car is out of compliance that has specific things that are wrong.

    MR. CARLOCK: Yes.

    MR. PETERS: And the question is about whether or not those specific things that are wrong are determined before the evaluation and whether or not the specific things that are at fault on the car get fixed. That’s not a very complex question. I think that should be fairly simple data as to whether or not what’s broken is actually getting fixed. You’re talking about emissions readings and the level of emissions readings, you’re not talking about specific failure …fault.

    MR. CARLOCK: There’s a very simplistic answer. Sometimes they get fixed, sometimes they don’t.

    MR. PETERS: But that should be some data that is available.

    MR. CARLOCK: Sure.

    MR. PETERS: And is it possible for you to share that data with the committee and with myself, if possible?

    MR. CARLOCK: Sure. Absolutely.

    MR. PETERS: So the failure rate, the emissions readings, the whether or not what’s broken is being repaired, I think would be very beneficial to the decision process of the committee and behavior of the public and the industry and whether or not they actually fixed what’s broken I think would be a key issue as to what appropriate kinds of actions are necessary here to improve how the public’s being treated, improve the air and improve the total emissions. Would you say that would be a reasonable possibility?

    MR. CARLOCK: I can say that the data is available to anyone that would like to request the data.

    MR. PETERS: And under what kind of timeframe might I expect to be able to get that data?

    MR. CARLOCK: Let’s see, my flight is about three. If you call me tomorrow, I think you’d have it by the end of the week.

    MR. PETERS: That would be delightful. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    VICE CHAIR COVELL: All right, Charlie, thank you. If you have further questions you want to hold them and we’ll move around the room and pick you up again.

    http://www.imreview.ca.gov/meetings/transcripts/transcript_may1704.doc

  3. Charlie Peters says:

    California Smog Check providers fail millions of cars but Chief Sherry Mehl, DCA/BAR, has never found out if what is broken on a Smog Check failed car gets fixed

    * * Smog Check fraud, by Parsons?

    http://cbs5.com/video/?id=62263@kpix.dayport.com

    * * If an elected official would request a copy of the Sierra Research SR 2007-04-01 and all communication about the report from CARB, DCA/BAR, IMRC & Sierra Research it might help improve performance of Smog Check….

    * * The Tom & Tom show: http://cbs5.com/video/?id=61255

    * * http://cbs5.com/local/smog.check.study.2.1468806.html

    * * A random ‘Smog Check’ inspection & repair ‘secret shopper’ audit, ethanol cap and elimination of dual fuel CAFE credit can cut California car impact over 50% in 2010. (Prevent Over 2000 tons per day of sulfur, PM, HC, O3, NOx, CO & CO2.) Improved performance of AB32 at reduced cost. (support H.R. 1207

    CAPP contact: Charlie Peters (510) 537-1796 cappcharlie@earthlink.net

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: