How much do you care about pre emissions

[WinterDeere]

... and at least on my tractor, running it at PTO speed from time to time basically negates the need to regen. I just did a job that had me running near PTO speed for several hours, after weeks of running the thing at mostly idle. Dropped my soot level down 10% in just a few hours.

When it does regen, no big deal. If I'm going to have it running awhile anyway, I just let it do its thing while I keep running the machine. If I was planning on shutting down, I have the choice to delay regen until later, or just park it outside the barn for 20 - 40 minutes while it does a parked regen. Parked regen takes longer, but takes soot level all the way back to zero.

 

[jyoutz]

I dont think we have a pollution problem in the western world at this point. Air, water, even road side trash, is Way less than it was in late 80s/early 90s. I do think they keep trying to squeeze a tiny bit more (or less really) out of a shrinking pool.

In the 60s/70s were things out of control; yes! Did some regulations need to be placed, also yes. Have we gotten to the point that we have gotten to the 80% better, and them trying to squeeze the last 15-20% going to not worth the cost; IMO also yes.

Kinda like cars. Sure, we have gone from 12mpg being pretty normal for a 160hp truck, to 19-21 mpg being the norm for a half ton, making 420 hp, yep. Moving from 12 to 18; even at a 50% increase in cost, is worth it. Now, getting another 1-2 mpg, at another 50% increase in cost, definitely not.

I do know that after they closed the San Juan coal generating station in my state a few years ago, the regional haze that was infamously associated with the four corners area has disappeared.

 

[IndyIan]

And don't get started on the gases released from a volcanic eruption! Just one, one event outputs more the we do on a year!

Does it? Find some research done by some earth scientists on the topic, and post the links to their papers. IIRC only the few very largest eruptions over the last few hundred years emitted more than we do in a year now.

 

[NoTrespassing]

I disagree with that actually. Every state and municipality with emissions testing is sniffing your tailpipe and if you don't pass, you don't get your license plates renewed. Kalifornia is especially hard on that. So is Illinois.

Illinois? Maybe Chicago or suburbs but not where I live.

 

[IndyIan]

Assuming global warming is a fraud (which I'm 100% sure it is at this point; we haven't even reached Temps of the medieval warm period); what urgent environmental problems are we facing? Fresh water in some areas, yes, but that's not generally a pollution issue. Landfills overfilling, like they told us in school, zero signs of that. Running out of oil in next 50 years, nope. Acid rain, nope. Lithium shortage, no, they've discovered vast amounts in Chile, Boliva, Afghanistan, ect.

The only issues I really know, are mostly legacy issues; old landfills leaking contaminants, old pole pole treatment yards, old gas tanks left in the ground, old lead/asbestos. Yeah, there is a nuclear bomb in the ocean somewhere off S. Car allegedly dropped in an airforce incident; but that wouldn't go up, and it is probably no more than a blip in the ocean,

I disagree on the global warming issue, and it shows especially in Canada's northern boreal forest, with soaring record temperatures and regular large forest fires in places that haven't had fire like that before. Even the rise in house insurance pricing in Florida means the insurers can see that the historical averages for storms and storm severity are likely to increase their payouts.
I don't think we should go back to the horses and sailing ships tomorrow, but moving towards less greenhouse gases would be a good idea. Sure it will cost more than doing nothing, but we do only have one planet with all our eggs in one basket, so erring on the side of caution would be a good idea IMO.

 

[jyoutz]

I disagree on the global warming issue, and it shows especially in Canada's northern boreal forest, with soaring record temperatures and regular large forest fires in places that haven't had fire like that before. Even the rise in house insurance pricing in Florida means the insurers can see that the historical averages for storms and storm severity are likely to increase their payouts.
I don't think we should go back to the horses and sailing ships tomorrow, but moving towards less greenhouse gases would be a good idea. Sure it will cost more than doing nothing, but we do only have one planet with all our eggs in one basket, so erring on the side of caution would be a good idea IMO.

I do agree the climate is changing, but please don’t use false examples. The North American boreal forests have evolved by periodic long interval large fires and regeneration. These events were historically very infrequent (every 200-300 years). but yes they did have high severity fires. These forests in North America are all very old and it’s time for renewal by fire. It goes in cycles that are hundreds of years apart.

 

[WinterDeere]

And don't get started on the gases released from a volcanic eruption! Just one, one event outputs more the we do on a year!

I doubt the validity of this claim, but even if true, I don't see how it's relevant.

Knowing that one neighbor kid probably pees in your pool, do you tell all of the kids they can too? I mean, if one volcano is emitting greenhouse gasses, we might as well go whole-hog, and add to it as much as we can?

 

[Snobdds]

I disagree on the global warming issue, and it shows especially in Canada's northern boreal forest, with soaring record temperatures and regular large forest fires in places that haven't had fire like that before. Even the rise in house insurance pricing in Florida means the insurers can see that the historical averages for storms and storm severity are likely to increase their payouts.
I don't think we should go back to the horses and sailing ships tomorrow, but moving towards less greenhouse gases would be a good idea. Sure it will cost more than doing nothing, but we do only have one planet with all our eggs in one basket, so erring on the side of caution would be a good idea IMO.

I just outlined how we are conflating pollution and climate.

They are two separate things. The drastic reduction in pollution is having zero effect on a climate that is always changing. Why is that?

 

[WinterDeere]

The drastic reduction in pollution is having zero effect on a climate that is always changing. Why is that?

Many scientists have been debating this determination for several decades, and still fail to reach a consensus. Who knew they could have all saved billions of dollars and millions of man-hours, and just asked you!?

 

[Snobdds]

Many scientists have been debating this determination for several decades, and still fail to reach a consensus. Who knew they could have all saved billions of dollars and millions of man-hours, and just asked you!?

I understand how common sense and logical conclusions drawn from readily available studies baffles a lot of people.

Have you not figured out, there is more money in the fear hustling of climate change then there is in the solation of climate change. Why solve it when we can debate for several decades at a cost of billions...