As a retired HVAC industry executive I have watched this evolve over the years. It is indeed “picking fly shit out of the pepper” but has enriched the entire industrial chain from manufacturer to installer. Having said that, it was also an unnecessary burden on the public. Great article.
"if you need to replace an air conditioner next year, you are going to drop some cool change on the newly mandated units. It’s just another price you have to pay for “saving the planet.”
Great stuff!
And what proportion of the dollars you'll be spending for the 'new mandated units' will end up in the pockets of environmental lobbyist lawyers, hmm?
Oh, don't worry. It's likely CFC's are being produced somewhere in the developing world and there's a market for them for limited industrial uses.
After all, most of the things that we ban in the US or EU happily get scooped up in the developing world with the hope they can use these items to reach something approaching our living standards, and hopefully get to the right side of the environmental Kuznets curve. Where we are.
Great article as always! And of course I couldn't help but to add my two cents-promise to kept it short and sweet. The vast majority of treaties, accords, and global agreements fails to achieve it's goals. Case in point The Montreal Protocol only reduce the CFCs in DEVELOPED countries allowing DEVELOPING countries, e.i. China, to continue using and vent CFC into the atmosphere. Shameless plug here I did a write up about it, you can go check it out, not going link it here out of respect for the author. So while the world governments-really Western Nations-can point to an global coordinated effort that "succeeded " because their CFCs reduce and the ozone "healed" when in reality all that has happen is a game of musical chairs-I call it carbon musical chairs-and proving that their ideas are garbage. Why, because while we-the developed world-lost jobs-offshoring-and absorbed cost-price increases-the developing world is enjoying GDP growth nominally and per capita, lower cost, more jobs as a result of government rules and edicts that did not any affect at all towards the ozone layer. The ozone layer shrank despite the growth in CFCs leading scientist to admit that the ozone layer has a cycle and when the Montreal Protocol came about, it was in it's growing phase. And the protocol did not even prove that countries can work together as there are a plethora of global accords and treaties in place.
Once a country creates and empowers an environmental protection bureaucracy the irresistible impulse is to continually create new and more restrictive regulations. This can be seen as a kind of job security for bureaucrats but, in reality, the people who work for these organizations are, or become, true believers and think each increment downward is “saving lives.” And so we go from parts per million to parts per billion to parts per trillion. If instruments are invented that can measure parts per quadrillion then we’ll require that too.
Oh, don't worry, we're going to ppQ sooner or later. Now, that said, safe levels of lead or other metals in soil in terms of redevelopment of real estate have always been expressed in ppm. For example lead in soil in your state may be 400ppm for industrial use, and 100 ppm for residential.
Same with groundwater. Drycleaning solvents (perchloroethylene aka PCE) in groundwater? Regulated at the level of 3-5 parts per BILLION. Has been for years.
It took PFAS to drill us down in to parts per trillion. Where we go from here is anybody's guess.
“Saving the planet” is the most meaningless mouthful of baffeldegabble in the entire ecofreak lexicon. The planet … the actual PLANET … does not give a shit what we do. Or don’t do. All the good things we do are about saving humanity. All the other things we do are usually a colossal grift justified by Kamala-esque virtue-speak.
Is it possible to be intelligent and like liberals who pretend that the West's problems are racism, too much speech, and right wing gun toters? I think not.
Runs somewhat counter to the ladies who successfully won the case against the powers that be that said global warming was giving them bad hair days or whatever clap trap they were claiming. Despite the fact that far more people freeze to death than die of global boiling. I suppose it’s just another way for big energy to shaft us and there’s not much we can do about it if we wish to keep our homes.
My next door neighbor in California replaced his electric stove with a gas stove because our electricity is too unreliable. We have frequent long (some days) power outages.
Hmmm. Maybe he wants to look in to a gas generator (Generac, or a similar version). We're thinking Permian Gas is going West to CA and then to an LNG terminal on the coast there at some point, for export to SE Asia. Maybe that brings more gas to you area.?
Please keep up your worthy commentary of explaining the tremendous costs for dubious benefits in the evolution of planet earth! Sensors maybe algorithms we should not trust completely to determine imaginary perfect worlds.
Great report, thanks! Seems there is a lot more "sure" deaths on the right hand side of these environmental equations than there is "potential" deaths realized. They scare us into compliance with big numbers and in their zeal to avoid said numbers add to the toll directly by their actions. It's as though they want to be sure the survival rate drops. But that couldn't be true, could it?
GHE theory says w/o it Earth would become a -18 C ice ball.
Wrong.
TFK_bams09 GHE balance graphic duplicates 63 & assumes surface upwells 396 W/m^2 of “extra” energy.
Wrong.
GHE theory assumes Earth’s surface radiates a 396 BB/333 “back”/2nd 63 forcing loop.
Wrong.
3 strikes=out!
As a retired HVAC industry executive I have watched this evolve over the years. It is indeed “picking fly shit out of the pepper” but has enriched the entire industrial chain from manufacturer to installer. Having said that, it was also an unnecessary burden on the public. Great article.
"if you need to replace an air conditioner next year, you are going to drop some cool change on the newly mandated units. It’s just another price you have to pay for “saving the planet.”
Great stuff!
And what proportion of the dollars you'll be spending for the 'new mandated units' will end up in the pockets of environmental lobbyist lawyers, hmm?
Mental, what an enlightening.
article. Is it too late to craft a MCFCGA (Make chlorofluorocarbons great again) hat?
I anxiously await your next piece.
Oh, don't worry. It's likely CFC's are being produced somewhere in the developing world and there's a market for them for limited industrial uses.
After all, most of the things that we ban in the US or EU happily get scooped up in the developing world with the hope they can use these items to reach something approaching our living standards, and hopefully get to the right side of the environmental Kuznets curve. Where we are.
Great article as always! And of course I couldn't help but to add my two cents-promise to kept it short and sweet. The vast majority of treaties, accords, and global agreements fails to achieve it's goals. Case in point The Montreal Protocol only reduce the CFCs in DEVELOPED countries allowing DEVELOPING countries, e.i. China, to continue using and vent CFC into the atmosphere. Shameless plug here I did a write up about it, you can go check it out, not going link it here out of respect for the author. So while the world governments-really Western Nations-can point to an global coordinated effort that "succeeded " because their CFCs reduce and the ozone "healed" when in reality all that has happen is a game of musical chairs-I call it carbon musical chairs-and proving that their ideas are garbage. Why, because while we-the developed world-lost jobs-offshoring-and absorbed cost-price increases-the developing world is enjoying GDP growth nominally and per capita, lower cost, more jobs as a result of government rules and edicts that did not any affect at all towards the ozone layer. The ozone layer shrank despite the growth in CFCs leading scientist to admit that the ozone layer has a cycle and when the Montreal Protocol came about, it was in it's growing phase. And the protocol did not even prove that countries can work together as there are a plethora of global accords and treaties in place.
Thanks and thank you for contributing to the discussion. Space and the focus on the upcoming deadline didn’t permit enough discussion about Montreal.
In fact, we have the opposite view. We appreciate your “out of respect” comment but see it the opposite. We WANT you to post your link.
This entire project is about bringing more knowledge to a hoodwinked, underinformed electorate.
Please do include the link for readers!!!
Maven and a scholar
You’re being unfair to mavens lumping us in with them!
😉
Send back a link to your piece!!
Once a country creates and empowers an environmental protection bureaucracy the irresistible impulse is to continually create new and more restrictive regulations. This can be seen as a kind of job security for bureaucrats but, in reality, the people who work for these organizations are, or become, true believers and think each increment downward is “saving lives.” And so we go from parts per million to parts per billion to parts per trillion. If instruments are invented that can measure parts per quadrillion then we’ll require that too.
Oh, don't worry, we're going to ppQ sooner or later. Now, that said, safe levels of lead or other metals in soil in terms of redevelopment of real estate have always been expressed in ppm. For example lead in soil in your state may be 400ppm for industrial use, and 100 ppm for residential.
Same with groundwater. Drycleaning solvents (perchloroethylene aka PCE) in groundwater? Regulated at the level of 3-5 parts per BILLION. Has been for years.
It took PFAS to drill us down in to parts per trillion. Where we go from here is anybody's guess.
“Saving the planet” is the most meaningless mouthful of baffeldegabble in the entire ecofreak lexicon. The planet … the actual PLANET … does not give a shit what we do. Or don’t do. All the good things we do are about saving humanity. All the other things we do are usually a colossal grift justified by Kamala-esque virtue-speak.
Pls see George Carlin's piece on this on YouTube (search "save the planet"), circa 1987 maybe?
...but don't play it in the presence of children. ;-)
Is it possible to be intelligent and like liberals who pretend that the West's problems are racism, too much speech, and right wing gun toters? I think not.
I guess it's possible.
Send a picture if you find that species wandering the streets, pls.
Runs somewhat counter to the ladies who successfully won the case against the powers that be that said global warming was giving them bad hair days or whatever clap trap they were claiming. Despite the fact that far more people freeze to death than die of global boiling. I suppose it’s just another way for big energy to shaft us and there’s not much we can do about it if we wish to keep our homes.
This isn't a big energy thing. Maybe a big industrial chemical thing, but not big energy.
Mental gets practical environmentalist Mental, again
Oooohh, we like that Stephen. Can we use that with credit to you and TWM?
IMO this is all job security. I see this all the time in SF.
That, and a few other major cities in America is where you would expect to do so.
Great job, guys! Thanks.
Thank you!
My next door neighbor in California replaced his electric stove with a gas stove because our electricity is too unreliable. We have frequent long (some days) power outages.
Hmmm. Maybe he wants to look in to a gas generator (Generac, or a similar version). We're thinking Permian Gas is going West to CA and then to an LNG terminal on the coast there at some point, for export to SE Asia. Maybe that brings more gas to you area.?
My County has banned new houses with a natural gas connection. It is not likely we will be getting more natural gas.
No problem - we'll just have to sit in front of a fan and a block of ice. Assuming we still have electricity...
not to mention being able to find a block of ice in a "catastrophically warming" world.
Ha! Good point.
Please keep up your worthy commentary of explaining the tremendous costs for dubious benefits in the evolution of planet earth! Sensors maybe algorithms we should not trust completely to determine imaginary perfect worlds.
Thank you.
Great report, thanks! Seems there is a lot more "sure" deaths on the right hand side of these environmental equations than there is "potential" deaths realized. They scare us into compliance with big numbers and in their zeal to avoid said numbers add to the toll directly by their actions. It's as though they want to be sure the survival rate drops. But that couldn't be true, could it?
Nah, Pappy. Couldn't be true. Their motives are pure.
;)