How The EPA Spent 35 Years Killing The Diesel Engine
Through overreaching emissions standards, with little regard to how automotive manufacturers will meet these standards and who ultimately pays for it, which in the end is always the consumer, the EPA is trying to kill the diesel engine, an extension of one of man kind’s most important inventions.
Without it, goods couldn’t be transported across countries; construction, farming, and mining equipment wouldn’t be as efficient; public transportation wouldn’t be as good; and so much more.
While the internal combustion engine is quite literally one of mankind’s most important inventions to date, the diesel internal combustion engine takes it even further.
Despite it being incredibly vital to transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has spent the last 35 years slowly destroying the diesel engine, with plans to force it out of commission as soon as possible.
WATCH:
h/t Joe O.
Trackback from your site.
Joseph Olson
| #
The EPA 8s another agenda driven, anti-science ROGUE feral government agency. Clean coal solved the fictious “acid rain” problem with scrubbers to remove Sulfur, which was sold as fertilizer (a mandatory life element). The 500 PPM of Sulfur in diesel is less than release by forest fires. I explain this rotten burecracy in “AGW-9” a Dr Fetzer discussion April 23, 2022 on Bitchute
Reply
Tom Anderson
| #
There is evidence (as usual little known) that fossil-fuel combustion most probably cools he atmosphere.
In 1971 NASA directed two scientists, S.I. Rasool and S. W. Schneider, to determine if CO2 from fossil-fuel combustion could hold off a perceived “ice age” threat. Forgotten now, the “threat” was in all major media.
Rasool and Schneider concluded, No. First, any warming by CO2 (so far as the spectral band was warm) would be offset by the other, more familiar, product of burning fossil-fuel – smoke and airborne soot, i.e., aerosols. People contribute about 30% of aerosols to the air annually, according to Dr. Murry L.Salby. These tiny particles cool the atmosphere by (1) screening out sunlight (you can see the shadow on the ground), (2) reflecting solar energy back to space, and (3) providing nucleides for water vapor to condense on, making fog or cooling clouds.
Rasool and Schneider advised against using fossil fuels to warm the planet in 1971 because they were atmospheric “coolants.” They still are.
Also, while aerosols from combustion cool in direct proportion to their increase, CO2’s smaller but warmer radiant emission bands are soon “saturated,” efficiently damping off any increase. All later studies and the IPCC are in agreement. And it means no “runaway warming.”
(See: Rasool, S.I., & S.H. Schneider, “Atmospheric carbon dioxide and aerosol effects of large increases on global climate,” Science, July 1971, Vol. 173, pp. 138-141.)
Reply
Bryan Leyland
| #
[email protected]
Have a look at the Achates Engine. https://achatespower.com
Reply