- Thread starter
- #81
No. Recall that to a large degree lead exposure has already been eliminated and if the law were followed, would be gone completely in this country.But you offer nothing to refute it.
You need me to refute the idea that CO2 is as dangerous than lead?
Tell me you're joking.
How many excess deaths are worth an automobile or a truck or a train or an aircraft or dinrking while we drive or owning a gun? I dispute that CAFE standards have increased fatality rates in car-to-car or car-to-pedestrian accidents. Car to large truck collisions always had bad numbers. And coincident improvements in passenger safety technology: seat belts, crumple zones, automatic emergency braking, antiskid brakes, blind spot detection, lane departure warning, electronic stability control, etc, etc, etc, with more on the way, are reducing accidents. I just read of a Nissan system that can detect alcohol in the sweat of your palm and will lock the transmission in Park if you attempt to drive drunk. So...Reducing fuel consumption, GHG emissions and pollution
How many excess deaths are worth an extra MPG?
From Are Vehicle Safety Features Actually Reducing Car Accidents?. "But do cars with advanced safety systems really make everything safer? Most studies suggest they do. For example, the crash involvement rate for vehicles with blind-spot monitoring was 14% lower than the same models without the equipment, according to a study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety."
Science has reacted by doing its best to get valid information to policymakers and the public. It has also done what it could to suppress intentionally spread misinformation the bulk of which originates with the fossil fuel industry fighting for its survival.When the topic represent a threat to humanity's well being and the question has been made political by people taken in by the fossil fuel industry's PR campaign, how would you suggest science react?
Obviously science reacts by not funding or publishing skeptics.
But you don't answer the question.What trillions of dollars? What money wasted? What bad priorities?
Hilarious!
You claimed that green mandates were costing PG&E billions of dollars and that that expenditure may have prevented them from performing maintenance on their towers that led to forest fires. I simply wnat to know what green mandates cost them billions of dollars. You could have answered it in less time than you took to deflect the question.What green mandates?
The stuff I have to explain to the greens. It's like they're children.
You didn't know that fracking was responsible for lower CO2, that CAFE
standards are killing people and now you've never seen a green mandate?