Cork, wouldn't you agree that a poll can be manipulated by who you ask to take the poll? I honestly don't know enough about climate change to give a solid rational answer or opinion but I do have questions. For one, if we've been trying to reduce emissions in autos since about 1980 or so, why isn't it getting cleaned up and changing climate? If, of course auto emissions are a main driver of the problem. We have scrubber systems on factory emissions output also. Historically it seems as though the climate alarmists don't really have a working thought process on unintended consequences. For example, landfills; once a landfill is full what next, we get more land to do it again, at the same time the original land now useless. Sure they have some ideas of what to do with that land, but it certainly isn't usable for human habitat. Anyways, carry on, I'm intrigued by the responses.
IF your base goal is to skew the poll response, yes. Why specific origin poling data is embraced by different cohorts on the political, social array spectrum.
You mention the technology that is operating in the United States, but do not address its overall implementation status by industry, or the proportion within an industry that currently utilizes the state of the art technology. Take your example of auto emissions standards, which have increased slowly through time, but in each instance the cars being produced to meet those standards do not actualy fully backfill all the autos in current use. Actually the average age of the cars on the road in the U.S. has incrementally increased over time. Oddly, our population has expanded over the same interval' the economy has grown, and the number of cars per household has increased as well. In 1960 only 22% of households in this country owned two or more vehicles. In 2020 that proportion had grown to 59%- 37% with two cars per household and 22% of U.S. households with three cars per household. Are these all autos with that meet current emissions standards? Not likely.
Additionally, you would be better served to view climate and the rate of climate change on a global scale and then break the drivers into ranked blocks from greatests to least by country and sector within that country. The United States is an emissions producer outlier based largely on use rate arrayed by economy sector.
China has four times more inhabitants that the United States; India three times as many people than us. China largely uses a variety of fossil fuels, but mainly coal to power factories with very poor to zero emissions control and limited national standards. As the wealth of inhabitants has increased, largely on a spotty urban centered locale basis, consumption and burning rates have increased and emissions rates have increased nearly exponentially. India is essentially the same scenario.
Landfills were not concieved or created as a climate change solution or modifier. However, I am wiling to bet that the "waste" methane burn-off total from the U.S. fracking industry well exceeds the methane produced by all the landfills in the U.S.
https://time.com/6183376/landfills-becoming-solar-farms/
halt the 80% completed and partially federally funded windfarm of the coast of the Rhode Island...
Remember, most economists conclude that tariffs are largely paid for by domestic business owners and end consumers.
Yup, yup, yup....we're going to the zoo, and then the circus, followed by the baseball game!
www.mlive.com
