The Political Discussion Thread

[Gatefan1976]

^ I have never understood leasing. Let's see.. make car payments for 3 or whatever years, and then give the car back! Works great for the dealer, not so great for me.

And regarding "Given that tobacco is clearly unhealthy yet still not fully banned, i see a very difficult future ahead for any politicians trying to ban petrol completely"

I wouldn't be surprised a bit if some nut job like Al Gore tried this.. Consider what the government has already done.
In the 1970's, a sizable percentage of the cars on the road at the time required lead or equivalent in gasoline as a lubricant for the valves. Without it, the engine's valves would destroy themselves.

Except, this is not why lead was used in petrol.
Lead was added for 2 reasons, to remove the "annoying" engine knocking on ignition, and to increase the octane rating of the fuel. The fact that removing engine knock increased the life of the valves was not a goal at all, but a nice side effect. In fact, the valves got more life extension from the lack of vibration than any lubricating factor.

But in 1975, the government all but mandated the removal of lead from gasoline, not because it was toxic to young brain development, but rather it was on the altar of environment;

People had warned of the damaging effects of lead back in the 1920's, people died and or were hospitalized for it back then, Of course the Lead companies and Petrol companies produced "experts" saying that the threat was negligible...........
So, they tried to stop it based on direct heath effects, but that failed. In the 70's, the evidence of the worldwide impact of leaded petrol on the environment was so overwhelming, that they had no choice but to look for alternatives.

Catalytic Converters were the best method of meeting emissions standards of the time, but lead would destroy the converters, so it had to go. There was another suitable substance to keep the valves happy, I think it was phosphorus, but the govt. said that was a no-no too. How many otherwise perfectly good cars had their engines destroyed by this?

You mean dangerous pollution emitting vehicles?
Who cares.

Now, go forward 25-20 years. Now, in the 1980's and 90's, Oxygenated fuels were the enviro's fuel of choice, and this was mandated. To the detriment of small engines such as marine engines, lawn mowers and other power equipment, which were not designed to handle this.

You mean the kind of engines that they invented specific lead replacement additives for, or in some cases still allow leaded fuels?

Even now, Ethanol is being added to our fuel by govt. decree. Guess what folks? A lot of engine fuel system components were made of rubber. And alcohol chemically attacks rubber. Why do you think you find so many lawnmowers and such in junk piles at the end of people's driveways and at garage sales? The fuel systems are shot!

Sure, they are shot because of ethanol, because, guess what folks, you are not supposed to use E10 in them, just ULP. If you are dumb enough to use E10 in them, that's on you because these kinds of engines specifically state not to use them.
Now, while learning all this, I came across something rather disturbing, several states in the US do not require gas stations to list if they use Ethanol, or only if it is over a certain percentage.
Perhaps this is something you folks might want to look into on getting done at a federal level?

So, within the past 50 years, we've had 3 separate instances of government mandated changes to the fuel supply, all detrimental to vehicles in use at the time at the behest of the enviros.

All based on correcting the error that was made in the 1920's when Oil and lead companies bought out the scientific studies.

The idiot occupying the white house today actually had "driving the coal industry out of business" as one of his campaign planks in 2008.

A stupid choice of words, but not exactly a bad goal if you find cleaner, better alternatives.

So I'm not so willing to trust that someone might convince some left-leaning political idiot to try to outlaw gasoline.

Will never happen until there is a viable alternative fuel source.

[SoulReaver]

People had warned of the damaging effects of lead back in the 1920's, people died and or were hospitalized for it back then, Of course the Lead companies and Petrol companies produced "experts" saying that the threat was negligible...........

that MO is eerily familiar (something to do with the climate iirc )

[Gatefan1976]

that MO is eerily familiar (something to do with the climate iirc )

Nah, never.

[Womble]

Netanyahu government in Israel near collapse

This follows the recent abrupt resignation of the Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon, a well-liked figure in Israel. Yaalon claims that he wants a break from political life, but he also said he has no more trust in Prime Minister Netanyahu. Hawkish politician Avigdor Liberman was appointed as the new Defense Minister, and despite his relative popularity among the Israeli Right, few people see him as a good choice for that particular position. Liberman
s appointment triggered the resignation of the Environmental Protection Minister Avi Gabay of the centrist (or rather single-issue, economics oriented) party Kulanu.

Now, up until now Netanyahu's government existed on the razor's edge, with the majority of 61 out of 120 Knesset seats. It had to tread very lightly for fear of alienating even the smallest of the parties in the coalition. Negotiations for a "national unity government" with Labor (think US Republicans and Democrats co-governing on equal terms) lasted for months and brought nothing. Bringing Liberman's party into the government ostensibly creates a solid 67-seat majority, but if Kulanu bolts from the coalition, the government could fall and early elections would be called.

Recent polls indicate that had elections been called now, the Likud would drop form 30 to 21 seats, the once-mighty Labor would be reduced from 24 to a measly 11 seats, while a centrist bloc formed around Kulanu and headed by Yaalon could become the largest party with 25 seats. If the party composition remained as it is, the Likud would still dominate, if by a smaller margin, the Left would still shrink but not by as much, and the centrist parties would become the second most powerful political force.

[Gatefan1976]

And what do you think of this development Womble?

[Womble]

And what do you think of this development Womble?

I'm not entirely sure what to think about it.

Liberman as a Defense Minister is a really bad idea, not least because I prefer an actual military man for that position. The Defense Minister needs to know the IDF's capabilities and needs inside and out, so a former Chief of Staff would always be the best choice. I also think that Netanyahu as Prime Minister is past his use-by date. He did good, but right now he is stuck in political horse-trading and too enamored with his chair. Time to replace him.

The big problem is, who would replace him? There isn't really anyone except maybe Naftali Bennett. But Bennett for Prime Minister would be worse than Liberman for Defense...

[Annoyed]

Except, this is not why lead was used in petrol.
Lead was added for 2 reasons, to remove the "annoying" engine knocking on ignition, and to increase the octane rating of the fuel. The fact that removing engine knock increased the life of the valves was not a goal at all, but a nice side effect. In fact, the valves got more life extension from the lack of vibration than any lubricating factor.

Lead was indeed used as an antiknock compound, but there are/were other ways to increase the octane rating of fuels, so that wasn't the main downside of its removal. Most engines of the period had "soft" valve seats, which required lead. While not strictly a lubricant in the traditional sense, it did deposit a coating which protected the valves. The fix was for engine manufacturers to begin using hardened valve seats, but this didn't help the millions of owners of engines made before the removal of lead from the fuel supply.

Refer to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrae...r_preventative

Tetraethyl lead works as a buffer against microwelds forming between the hot exhaust valves and their seats.[9] Once these valves reopen, the microwelds pull apart and leave the valves with a rough surface that would abrade the seats, leading to valve recession. When lead began to be phased out of motor fuel, the automotive industry began specifying hardened valve seats and upgraded exhaust valve materials to prevent valve recession without lead

People had warned of the damaging effects of lead back in the 1920's, people died and or were hospitalized for it back then, Of course the Lead companies and Petrol companies produced "experts" saying that the threat was negligible...........
So, they tried to stop it based on direct heath effects, but that failed. In the 70's, the evidence of the worldwide impact of leaded petrol on the environment was so overwhelming, that they had no choice but to look for alternatives.

Check your history.

From : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrae...aseout_and_ban

In most industrialized countries, a phaseout of TEL from road vehicle fuels was completed by the early 2000s because of concerns over air and soil lead levels and the accumulative neurotoxicity of lead. The use of catalytic converters, mandated for 1975 model-year cars and afterwards to meet tighter emissions regulations, started a gradual phase-out of leaded gasoline in the US.

Where there certainly were overall health concerns regarding lead, just as there was for tobacco products, that was not the trigger for its removal from the fuel supply in the US, that was strictly the catalytic converter, required for emissions regulations. The overall lead bans due to health concerns didn't occur till roughly 25 years later.

Sure, they are shot because of ethanol, because, guess what folks, you are not supposed to use E10 in them, just ULP. If you are dumb enough to use E10 in them, that's on you because these kinds of engines specifically state not to use them.
Now, while learning all this, I came across something rather disturbing, several states in the US do not require gas stations to list if they use Ethanol, or only if it is over a certain percentage.
Perhaps this is something you folks might want to look into on getting done at a federal level?

While doing your research, did you happen to stumble onto the fact that many states, such as The People's Republic of New York REQUIRE the addition of ethanol to gasoline despite the proven fact that ethanol lowers the energy content of a gallon of gas, requiring more of it to be burned to drive the same distance and its deleterious effect on fuel systems?

This was actually discussed on the national stage recently, within 10? years or so. The ethanol requirement was originally at the behest of the enviros (not a particularly clear thinking group of folks, if you ask me*), but the corn producing states make a ton of $ growing corn for ethanol production, and they successfully lobbied for its continued use and expansion.

So I'm not so willing to trust that someone might convince some left-leaning political idiot to try to outlaw gasoline.

Will never happen until there is a viable alternative fuel source.

Again, review your history. We already have three (3) demonstrated situations where the government, at the behest of the enviros, has basically told the owners of millions of vehicles and other power driven equipment to go fly a kite, we're going to render your equipment useless by legislative fiat.

PS # 1: Regarding the thinking ability of the enviros in general. If you recall, for many years, paper bags were the standard at grocery stores. While this wasn't accomplished legislatively, the enviros successfully used a PR campaign to convert the nation to using plastic bags.

Think about this:
Paper bags are made from a renewable resource, generally harmless if disposed of improperly and biodegrade in a matter of months in any case.

The plastic bags that replaced them, at the behest of the enviros, are made from petroleum products, are quite harmful to the environment, wildlife in particular if improperly disposed of, and don't biodegrade for hundreds of years or longer.

That's the kind of quality thinking you want to pay attention to? I'd rather just point at it and laugh.

PS # 2:
I am somewhat more familiar than most when it comes the the fuel/engine problems because I spent the first half of my working life dealing with it on a first hand basis from a service perspective. I spent the first half of my life as a mechanic, working on cars and boats, primarily. Although 30 years out of date and likely lapsed, I had factory training / certification from both major manufacturers of boat engines; Mercury Marine (Mercruiser Stern Drives / Mercury outboards) and OMC (OMC stern drives / Evinrude/Johnson outboards.) and before that I was working on automotive and other power products since the early 1970's.

So I'm extremely familiar with the problems caused by legislative changes to the fuel supply.

[Falcon Horus]

PS # 1: Regarding the thinking ability of the enviros in general. If you recall, for many years, paper bags were the standard at grocery stores. While this wasn't accomplished legislatively, the enviros successfully used a PR campaign to convert the nation to using plastic bags.

Think about this:
Paper bags are made from a renewable resource, generally harmless if disposed of improperly and biodegrade in a matter of months in any case.

As it turns out the "enviros" had a good point wanting paper bags replaced with plastic bags, but not for the reasons you so vehemently seem to believe.

Both are a thread to the environment but surprisingly paper bags more so than plastic. Or more accurately their production contrary to their finished state.

The Composite Environment Impact Index for paper and plastic grocery bags:
It traces every step of production, use, and disposal of the bags. Paper uses more resources, and pollutes more, than plastic.

Grocery bag, plastic
Impact: 6.46

Grocery bag, paper
Impact: 77.69

The production of paper consumes much more resources, and produces much more waste than plastic, even if the recycling is taken into account. Of course, most likely a reusable cotton bag will be better than either (unless its CEII is higher than either, than it's not).

[Annoyed]

I think the source you cite fails to take into account their fate after use. There is no practical way to ensure that they are disposed of properly and end up in a controlled landfill where they can rot for a hundred years or whatever time it takes for them to go away. (or in a few months for paper)
Those that are improperly disposed of, and it's not an insignificant number, based upon how many I see along the roadways are a severe hazard to wildlife.

30 seconds with a google machine gives the following article:
Silent Killers: The Danger of Plastic Bags to Marine Life from an apparently ecology-minded web site, I'm sure there are others.

I guess it depends upon the weight given to these poor creatures as opposed to the weight given energy used to make them and such. Myself, I'd rather use extra energy and not kill the critters.

[thekillman]

Check your history.
.

Check yours. the Romans used a lot of lead and were already aware it was poisonous. In the 1880's the UK already reduced lead exposure. America lags way behind in reducing lead use.

So I'm not so willing to trust that someone might convince some left-leaning political idiot to try to outlaw gasoline.

I don't think you make a convincing case when you refer to banning lead from oil as government meddling. There's no short supply of proof that lead is bad for you. I also don't care how it got sold to the public. Lead is bad for you and should be used as minimally as possible.

The other part of this is that what you illustrate is a political, not a technical problem. I can't vouch for the logic or reasoning of the american government, or any government for that matter.

Power grid is only dense in urban areas.

They're also the places that suffer most from the polluting effect of cars and are the most ideal targets for electric cars anyway. Although, i want to add that power grid density depends from country to country. Europe in general has a much denser grid than the USA.

This was actually discussed on the national stage recently, within 10? years or so. The ethanol requirement was originally at the behest of the enviros (not a particularly clear thinking group of folks, if you ask me*), but the corn producing states make a ton of $ growing corn for ethanol production, and they successfully lobbied for its continued use and expansion

So then it's not added for environmentalists, but for the corn industry.

[Falcon Horus]

I think the source you cite fails to take into account their fate after use.

It does, hence why it says in the end it would be better to go with a cotton bag instead of either plastic or paper.

[LtColCarter]

I know the discussion has been on renewable/alternative energy, but I was wondering if anyone who follows the election this year has an insight on the Libertarian Party? A friend of mine, who showed no interest in politics until April is suddenly a diehard libertarian. So much so that she's attending their convention this weekend. The basic premise of the party seems ok, but the platforms that the candidates are running on seems to not align with the party.

[Annoyed]

I'm ok with many of the stated ideals of the Libertarian party, but cutting to the chase, they don't have the resources to be competitive on a national scale yet. However, those that do vote for that party line are not wasting their votes. The votes they do get help to ensure that they remain on the ballot for some point in the future where they have a better shot at it.

This year isn't their time, but depending upon what's left of the two major parties after this year, and the next 4 years, 2020 might give them a shot, if they can maintain their presence on the ballot.

[Gatefan1976]

Lead was indeed used as an antiknock compound, but there are/were other ways to increase the octane rating of fuels, so that wasn't the main downside of its removal. Most engines of the period had "soft" valve seats, which required lead. While not strictly a lubricant in the traditional sense, it did deposit a coating which protected the valves. The fix was for engine manufacturers to begin using hardened valve seats, but this didn't help the millions of owners of engines made before the removal of lead from the fuel supply.

Or, Alternatively, if lead was never used at all, they would have used hardened valve seats earlier............

Check your history.

From : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrae...aseout_and_ban

We have known lead was bad for decades. (centuries even)

Where there certainly were overall health concerns regarding lead, just as there was for tobacco products, that was not the trigger for its removal from the fuel supply in the US, that was strictly the catalytic converter, required for emissions regulations. The overall lead bans due to health concerns didn't occur till roughly 25 years later.

Catalytic converters were made to reduce smog and emissions, right?
What do you think the designer of the CC had in mind when he developed it?
Health concerns perhaps?
It wasn't to get rid of lead, sure, that was a side effect (a good one)
It also wasn't to meet some standards that did not exist when it was designed.

While doing your research, did you happen to stumble onto the fact that many states, such as The People's Republic of New York REQUIRE the addition of ethanol to gasoline despite the proven fact that ethanol lowers the energy content of a gallon of gas, requiring more of it to be burned to drive the same distance and its deleterious effect on fuel systems?

Actually, I found that only 7 states -require- it's addition, and NY was not one of them.
One source: http://www.greencarreports.com/news/...uire-e10-blend

However, this is an aside to the point I was making which is that fuels that contain Ethanol should be labelled as such be that 1% or 10%, or even 0.5%, and you should insist that it is labelled on a federal level to avoid the problems you are speaking of.

This was actually discussed on the national stage recently, within 10? years or so. The ethanol requirement was originally at the behest of the enviros (not a particularly clear thinking group of folks, if you ask me*), but the corn producing states make a ton of $ growing corn for ethanol production, and they successfully lobbied for its continued use and expansion.

Sure, just like lead was added at the behest of lead producing companies.
It's money in politics, something we both agree is a bad thing.

Again, review your history. We already have three (3) demonstrated situations where the government, at the behest of the enviros, has basically told the owners of millions of vehicles and other power driven equipment to go fly a kite, we're going to render your equipment useless by legislative fiat.

Except, it has not been rendered useless.
You might as well be arguing for a forth (4th) one getting horses off the streets because the millions of horse owners were told to get of the roads.

PS # 1: Regarding the thinking ability of the enviros in general. If you recall, for many years, paper bags were the standard at grocery stores. While this wasn't accomplished legislatively, the enviros successfully used a PR campaign to convert the nation to using plastic bags.

Think about this:
Paper bags are made from a renewable resource, generally harmless if disposed of improperly and biodegrade in a matter of months in any case.

The plastic bags that replaced them, at the behest of the enviros, are made from petroleum products, are quite harmful to the environment, wildlife in particular if improperly disposed of, and don't biodegrade for hundreds of years or longer.

That's the kind of quality thinking you want to pay attention to? I'd rather just point at it and laugh.

See FH's response.
You a good at identifying problems, not so good at determining what motivates "enviro's"

PS # 2:
I am somewhat more familiar than most when it comes the the fuel/engine problems because I spent the first half of my working life dealing with it on a first hand basis from a service perspective. I spent the first half of my life as a mechanic, working on cars and boats, primarily. Although 30 years out of date and likely lapsed, I had factory training / certification from both major manufacturers of boat engines; Mercury Marine (Mercruiser Stern Drives / Mercury outboards) and OMC (OMC stern drives / Evinrude/Johnson outboards.) and before that I was working on automotive and other power products since the early 1970's.

30 years ago I could program a computer, now, not so much.
I am not doubting your knowledge of the mechanical aspects, nor your knowledge of what Ethanol can do to an engine not designed to use it.

[Annoyed]

The overarching issue is that several times, the government has rendered the fuel supply harmful to a lot of hardware already in service. They did not phase it out over a 20 or some odd year period to let the existing equipment run out its useful lifespan anyway. They just told anyone who had such existing equipment that it sucks to be you.

So I'm not going to be all that surprised if some left wing idiot gets into government and wants to ban gasoline, regardless of whether there is an acceptable replacement available. The govt. has a demonstrated track record of telling people that their hardware is now obsolete.