California adopts landmark low-carbon fuel rule

[Paul's Here 0]

We are aware of the fact that we don't know everything.

An unusual admission from a bureaucrat. But that doesn't stop them.

California continues its anti-industrial revolution regulations.

California on Thursday adopted a first-ever rule to slash carbon emissions in automotive fuels, and spur the market for cleaner gasoline alternatives, after a last-ditch appeal to ethanol advocates who fought the plan.

The low-carbon fuel standard approved by the state's influential air-quality regulators was hailed by backers as an historic initiative that the rest of the United States and other countries were likely to emulate.

It marks the first attempt by government anywhere in the world to subject transportation fuels -- as opposed to the cars and trucks they power -- to limits on their potential for releasing greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.

The measure, if it works as designed, will hasten the transformation of vehicles and the supporting transportation network built for more than a century around refined petroleum products and the internal combustion engine.

"California's first-in-the world low-carbon fuel standard will not only reduce global warming pollution, it will reward innovation, expand consumer choice and encourage the private investment we need to transform our energy infrastructure," Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said in a statement.

----------------------------

PRODUCTION TO COMBUSTION

The heart of the rule is a new standard requiring refineries, producers and importers of motor fuels sold in California to reduce the "carbon intensity" of their products by 10 percent by 2020, with greater cuts thereafter.

Fuel suppliers can achieve those targets by reducing the carbon content of their own products, buying and reselling cleaner-burning fuels from others or by purchasing carbon credits as offsets.

The rule is supposed to lower California's carbon emissions by 16 million metric tons over the next decade, and replace 20 percent of the state's fossil fuels with cleaner options, such as electricity, hydrogen, natural gas and biofuels.

The measure thus creates a market for alternative fuels insulated from the volatility of petroleum prices and lets the market decide which new fuels will thrive commercially.

So capitalism will once again take the blame when the system fails.

[piz 0]

The measure thus creates a market for alternative fuels insulated from the volatility of petroleum prices and lets the market decide which new fuels will thrive commercially.

I shifted the emphasis to highlight a claim I see more and more when governments want to control economic activity: that by instituting their restrictions they are creating a market.

Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of (valid) economics knows that markets cannot be created in this way. In fact, to call such a creation a market is a perversion of the concept. "Market" is a term that refers to an aggregate of voluntary exchanges; coercion destroys markets, and all government action is coercion.

Another example of destroying language to advance evil.

[B. Royce 0]

The measure thus creates a market for alternative fuels insulated from the volatility of petroleum prices and lets the market decide which new fuels will thrive commercially.

I shifted the emphasis to highlight a claim I see more and more when governments want to control economic activity: that by instituting their restrictions they are creating a market.

Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of (valid) economics knows that markets cannot be created in this way. In fact, to call such a creation a market is a perversion of the concept. "Market" is a term that refers to an aggregate of voluntary exchanges; coercion destroys markets, and all government action is coercion.

Another example of destroying language to advance evil.

Good point, piz. Thanks for the shift.

[Laure 0]

Do we have any chemists on the forum? I am bothered by the implication that fuels that give off carbon dioxide as a product of combustion are "dirty". (And not just because of the political implications of that!) What would be a "clean" product of combustion? Is carbon monoxide or sulphur or soot considered "cleaner" than carbon dioxide nowadays?

[ewv 0]

I think they should create a market in non-carbon by outlawing the use of carbon in petroleum.

[ewv 0]

I think they should create a market in non-carbon by outlawing the use of carbon in petroleum.

This could also open up bold new frontiers in science by literally redefining organic chemistry. Trillions in stimulus money would go through the State Science Institute.

[Paul's Here 0]

Do we have any chemists on the forum? I am bothered by the implication that fuels that give off carbon dioxide as a product of combustion are "dirty". (And not just because of the political implications of that!) What would be a "clean" product of combustion? Is carbon monoxide or sulphur or soot considered "cleaner" than carbon dioxide nowadays?

Combustion is defined as the burning of fuel - hydrocarbons (most frequently) - and an oxidizer (usually oxygen). Complete combusion yields CO2 and H2O (carbon dioxide and water). Anything else is dirty to that extent. Today's viros would regard the absence of burning hydrocarbons from society to be clean, with the earth being squeeky clean when the humans are gone too.

[Paul's Here 0]

I think they should create a market in non-carbon by outlawing the use of carbon in petroleum.

This could also open up bold new frontiers in science by literally redefining organic chemistry. Trillions in stimulus money would go through the State Science Institute.

Life based silicon organisms seems like a good focus for investigation.

[ewv 0]

Life based silicon organisms seems like a good focus for investigation.

Save the extinct Horta.

[Vespasiano 0]

Life based silicon organisms seems like a good focus for investigation.

Save the extinct Horta.

Check that tunnel on the Left, Spock!

[RayK 0]

Do we have any chemists on the forum? I am bothered by the implication that fuels that give off carbon dioxide as a product of combustion are "dirty". (And not just because of the political implications of that!) What would be a "clean" product of combustion? Is carbon monoxide or sulphur or soot considered "cleaner" than carbon dioxide nowadays?

Combustion is defined as the burning of fuel - hydrocarbons (most frequently) - and an oxidizer (usually oxygen). Complete combusion yields CO2 and H2O (carbon dioxide and water). Anything else is dirty to that extent. Today's viros would regard the absence of burning hydrocarbons from society to be clean, with the earth being squeeky clean when the humans are gone too.

Clean except for all the manure (carbon) generated by the animals still left on Earth.

I could be wrong, but if I remember correctly I think carbon dioxide's percentage of the atmosphere is somewhere around 0.03 percent and oxygen is around 20 percent. So, even if man was increasing the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (which is obviously not very much), would it be harmful or helpful? I think it would be helpful if we intend on feeding all the people in this world as Carbon dioxide will increase the crop yields as carbon provides food for plants. And more plant growth means more oxygne through photosynthesis.

I guess California politicians did not take the same science classes that I did.

[Laure 0]

Do we have any chemists on the forum? I am bothered by the implication that fuels that give off carbon dioxide as a product of combustion are "dirty". (And not just because of the political implications of that!) What would be a "clean" product of combustion? Is carbon monoxide or sulphur or soot considered "cleaner" than carbon dioxide nowadays?

Combustion is defined as the burning of fuel - hydrocarbons (most frequently) - and an oxidizer (usually oxygen). Complete combusion yields CO2 and H2O (carbon dioxide and water). Anything else is dirty to that extent. Today's viros would regard the absence of burning hydrocarbons from society to be clean, with the earth being squeeky clean when the humans are gone too.

Thanks for the reply, Paul. That's what I suspected: "Clean-burning" means yielding only CO2 and H2O. And now they're redefining it so that "clean burning" can only yield H2O, which could be kinda tricky if we're burning hydrocarbons!

I love how politicians think they can legislate away natural laws. Or legislate an engineering improvement and then take credit for it. I remember Nancy Pelosi saying how Congress improved vehicle fuel efficiency. I wished I could heckle her: "Oh really, Nancy. So now Congress is moonlighting in an automotive engineering lab, huh."

[Paul's Here 0]

--------------

Thanks for the reply, Paul. That's what I suspected: "Clean-burning" means yielding only CO2 and H2O. And now they're redefining it so that "clean burning" can only yield H2O, which could be kinda tricky if we're burning hydrocarbons!

I love how politicians think they can legislate away natural laws. Or legislate an engineering improvement and then take credit for it. I remember Nancy Pelosi saying how Congress improved vehicle fuel efficiency. I wished I could heckle her: "Oh really, Nancy. So now Congress is moonlighting in an automotive engineering lab, huh."

Actually, H2O is a more significant greenhouse gas than anything else commonly found in the atmosphere. But let's not confuse them with the facts. They might start regulating water vapor.

[Carlos 0]

CO2 is not a pollutant in any way, shape or form. It's the most fundamental gas of life. Greenhouse Growers will regularly burn propane/other gases in their buildings to artificially enhance the CO2 concentration, and usually receive enormous bonuses in growth of vegetables, plants, etc. Also it has been shown repeatedly that placing a plant in a CO2 enriched atmosphere causes the plant to reduce the size or number of the stomata on it's leaves, which can help reduce the amount of water the plant loses through its leaves.

If you look at the full history of the Earth, if anything we live in a cold, very CO2 deficient climate.

Currently the concentration is something like 380ppm (parts per million), but through much of the Earth's history it has been at several thousand ppm.