Airliner Emissions EPA Hearing

[CeruleanBlu]

There's one thing I've noticed when it comes to trying to have a discussion about airplane emissions, I've often seen talk about fictional nefarious spraying activities completely and totally overwhelming the very real discussion about the increasing volume of air traffic and the effects of aircraft emissions on the environment. It's difficult to have a meaningful talk about reality when imagination is so much more interesting. This blurb in USA Today makes me think that there will soon be more eyes turning towards this topic.

Airline emissions threaten human health by contributing to climate change, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed Wednesday.

The proposal for a so-called "endangerment finding" under the Clean Air Act is a precursor to the EPA proposing regulations to limit heat-trapping emissions from plane exhaust. The agency will collect public comment about the proposal for 60 days and will hold a hearing Aug. 11.

"The EPA administrator is proposing to find that (greenhouse gas) emissions from certain classes of engines used primarily in commercial aircraft contribute to the air pollution that causes climate change and endangers public health and welfare," the agency said in a statement.

Content from external source

Seeing as how a number of popular chemtrail buzzwords appear throughout the article I'm slightly worried that the true believers will see this is some "thinly veiled admission of guilt" or "conditioning the sheeple to hearing MSM talk about airplanes emitting stuff".

I'm pleased with the prospect of the EPA bringing up these environmental concerns as we move towards a future with ever increasing air traffic, and I look forward to seeing more discussion about REAL issues, not made up ones.

 

[deirdre]

I'm pleased with the prospect of the EPA bringing up these environmental concerns as we move towards a future with ever increasing air traffic, and I look forward to seeing more discussion about REAL issues, not made up ones.

I'm confused.

i thought we already have studies that show exactly the effect of contrails (afa heat trapping) and how much pollution they contribute to the overall pollution of industry and transporation. the article itself says

Airlines produce about 11% of the country's greenhouse gases from transportation sources, or about 3% of total greenhouse-gas emissions, according to an analysis of EPA data by the International Council on Clean Transportation

Content from external source

the article says

But airlines have bridled at national or regional rules for curbing emissions, preferring worldwide standards for the competitive industry. Airlines worldwide agreed in 2013 to halt the growth in emissions from international flights by 2020

Content from external source

so I'm confused. are they proposing a new study to tell us what they already know just to waste more tax dollars? Or maybe they are just going to use the data THEY have already collected to propose stricter regulations for emissions in America but the article is worded unclearly.

 

[MikeC]

No they are not proposing a new study.

It looks to me like they are proposing adopting a classification of aircraft emissions that would enable regulation to be applied to them.

and then much of the article seems to be about the need for coherent international standards, when such standards might be expected to apply, how it might not have any effect for at least 10 years, etc.

 

[CapnPegleg]

I'm confused.

i thought we already have studies that show exactly the effect of contrails (afa heat trapping) and how much pollution they contribute to the overall pollution of industry and transporation. the article itself says

Airlines produce about 11% of the country's greenhouse gases from transportation sources, or about 3% of total greenhouse-gas emissions, according to an analysis of EPA data by the International Council on Clean Transportation

Content from external source

the article says

But airlines have bridled at national or regional rules for curbing emissions, preferring worldwide standards for the competitive industry. Airlines worldwide agreed in 2013 to halt the growth in emissions from international flights by 2020

Content from external source

so I'm confused. are they proposing a new study to tell us what they already know just to waste more tax dollars? Or maybe they are just going to use the data THEY have already collected to propose stricter regulations for emissions in America but the article is worded unclearly.

It's not about contrails, but about emissions.

 

[deirdre]

It's not about contrails, but about emissions.

ok. heard 'heat trapping' and assumed they also were referring to the contrails themselves since clouds trap heat.

It looks to me like they are proposing adopting a classification of aircraft emissions that would enable regulation to be applied to them.

: ) now when i read it, it makes alot more sense. thanks!

 

[solrey]

Here's a transcript of the speech Jim Lee plans on giving.

http://climateviewer.com/2015/08/09/my-speech-to-the-epa-about-flight-pollution/

He has no idea what he's talking about. He's concerned about pollution in the exhaust, seems to think that jet fuel is never tested and that jet exhaust has never been analyzed. He also wants the production of contrails and contrail induced cirrus to be regulated. However if commercial jets were to avoid all contrail inducing airmasses they would burn a lot more fuel and therefore would produce more of the pollution he's concerned about.

Here's just one of many companies that tests jet fuel:

http://www.intertek.com/petroleum/testing/jet-fuel/

Here's a list of studies related to the composition of jet engine exhaust:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=jet+exhaust+composition&btnG=&as_sdt=1,38&as_sdtp=

Of course chemtrails is mentioned in his speech.

The EPA and Obama administration are ignoring the global outrage over the most visible climate change concern from airplanes: CLOUD CREATION.

Do a search for the word “chemtrails” and you will see millions of concerned citizens who “Look Up” and wonder “What in the World Are They Spraying?” [10] Despite what you may think of the myriad of maladies attributed to these clouds, the global outrage is nonetheless clear. They are right to be worried and we should all be concerned.

Content from external source

Millions of concerned citizens, global outrage, myriad of maladies... Exaggerate much?

 

[Hama Neggs]

He's concerned about pollution in the exhaust

MadisonMoon has been using the term "aircraft pollution over top of my house" for a while.

 

[CeruleanBlu]

C-SPAN has made the hearing available on video from their site.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4547857/entire-epa-hearing-commercial-aircraft-emissions

The following link is to a page that breaks the individual speakers into shorter clips, for easier searching.

http://www.c-span.org/search/?searchtype=Clips&sort=Most+Popular&programid[]=410167

I haven't yet watched, so I won't comment on the content yet, but I will take notice of one of the headings:

EPA Chemtrails Witness
It's hard to feel sorry for the EPA, but...

Content from external source

 

[Leifer]

Here is great quality video for all/most of the recent (8/11/2015) EPA speakers who applied to gain "private citizen" speaking time.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4547848/epa-chemtrails-witness
(scroll down to find the rest of the video clips, organized by "speaker")

August 11, 2015
EPA Hearing on Commercial Aircraft Emissions
The Environmental Protection Agency held a public hearing its Washington, D.C., headquarters to hear from environmental groups, aircraft industry representatives, private citizens and others on their reactions to the agency’s newly-released carbon emissions standards for commercial aircraft.

Content from external source

 

[Leifer]

Unfortunately for the above public speakers, this EPA meeting is about "carbon emissions standards" (or current changes in standards) in relation to C02 domestic greenhouse gasses of aircraft emissions, ......not suggested deliberate geoengineering, or other subjects.
When these public speakers eventually claim, "the EPA did not address our points"....this is why.

See this opening video statement.....http://www.c-span.org/video/?327586-1/epa-hearing-commercial-aircraft-emissions
(actually, this video is the whole meeting in it's entirety, but I'm referring to just the beginning)

Section 231a "Clean Air Act"

 

[Leifer]

So.....what Lee, Amanda, Roddie, and Bliss did was........express their opinions to a panel that could never answer or even consider their opinions/data. (in a manner they would be satisfied with)
It seems their presence was more a guerrilla activist stunt....or they simply did not understand the topic being addressed.

 

[JRBids]

There are still emissions when there are no contrails, and even with stronger emission rules, there will be contrails. I wonder how the chemmies will react when emissions are tightened and the sky is still crisscrossed with tic tac toe lines.

 

[Spectrar Ghost]

Predictably.

 

[TEEJ]

Max not happy with the EPA. No surprise there!




https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...10153085663075396.1073741857.685100395&type=1

 

[CeruleanBlu]

A video released recently by NASA Langley Research center reminded me of this old thread, and since the video contains a lot of valuable information for debunkers of the chemtrail myth I thought I'd awaken this older thread to add some information. (If it fits somewhere better feel free to move it where it works best.)

The video involves several agencies testing of airplane emissions through direct sampling of contrails in flight, and has scenes of the actual aircraft used in testing.

Biofuels Take Flight: How Advanced Jet Fuels Reduce Cloudiness an Aviation's Climate Impact

 

[Inti]

There's one thing I've noticed when it comes to trying to have a discussion about airplane emissions, I've often seen talk about fictional nefarious spraying activities completely and totally overwhelming the very real discussion about the increasing volume of air traffic and the effects of aircraft emissions on the environment. It's difficult to have a meaningful talk about reality when imagination is so much more interesting. This blurb in USA Today makes me think that there will soon be more eyes turning towards this topic.

Airline emissions threaten human health by contributing to climate change, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed Wednesday.

The proposal for a so-called "endangerment finding" under the Clean Air Act is a precursor to the EPA proposing regulations to limit heat-trapping emissions from plane exhaust. The agency will collect public comment about the proposal for 60 days and will hold a hearing Aug. 11.

"The EPA administrator is proposing to find that (greenhouse gas) emissions from certain classes of engines used primarily in commercial aircraft contribute to the air pollution that causes climate change and endangers public health and welfare," the agency said in a statement.

Content from external source

Seeing as how a number of popular chemtrail buzzwords appear throughout the article I'm slightly worried that the true believers will see this is some "thinly veiled admission of guilt" or "conditioning the sheeple to hearing MSM talk about airplanes emitting stuff".

I'm pleased with the prospect of the EPA bringing up these environmental concerns as we move towards a future with ever increasing air traffic, and I look forward to seeing more discussion about REAL issues, not made up ones.

I first heard about the chemtrail conspiracy belief in this article by the environmentalist George Monbiot about six years ago. His thoughts echoed this thread in some ways;

The contrails conspiracy is not only garbage, it's letting aviation off the hook too​

The Guardian, Fri 4 Dec 2015 09.13 GMT

The real issue – global warming caused by aircraft emissions – calls on us to act. But focusing on ‘chemtrails’ absolves people of the responsibility to do so

You spend years trying to get people to take an interest in aircraft emissions. Then at last the issue gets picked up – but in the most perverse way possible.
The pollutants spread by planes are a major issue. They make a significant contribution to global warming, yet they are excluded from international negotiations, such as the conference taking place in Paris. As a result, aviation’s expansion is unchecked by concerns about climate change.

...

Until recently, I ignored this [chemtrail] movement, even as it spread among people I knew. So pervasive have the rumours become that the government, which seldom responds to conspiracy theories, felt obliged this summer to produce a factsheet debunking the principal claims.

But it was only when the editor of a major environmental magazine sent me what he called “a remarkable essay” in the hope of persuading me to take up the cause that I decided I could ignore it no longer. The “remarkable essay” was garbage: a long series of disconnected facts tacked together to create what appears to be a coherent narrative, but that bears as much relationship to reality as a speech by Donald Trump. On a bad day.

In my home town, the streets are now littered with graffiti advertising the website www.look-up.org.uk. So I looked it up. You might imagine, in reading what follows, that I’m picking an extreme example, but I’m sorry to say this is typical of the hundreds of sites promoting this nonsense. I keep meeting otherwise-intelligent people who seem prepared to believe it.

...

But there’s nothing boring about conspiracy theories. They make sense of what can sometimes feel like a senseless world. They tell you that you are among the elect: aware of a grand scheme that other people (or sheeple or sleeple as the conspiracy sites often like to call them) are unable or unwilling to see. It tells you that you are a lonely crusader fighting evil of the kind that’s otherwise encountered only in films about superheroes.

And if hardly anyone reads your website, it only goes to prove how important you are: why else would the authorities go to such lengths to limit your followers?

It also absolves you of the responsibility to act. Sure, you might feel moved to create a website, take some photos, perhaps sign the odd petition or even attend one or two noisy demonstrations. But you don’t have to change anything, because somewhere, buried deep in the forebrain, is the knowledge that there’s not really anything to change. You get the glory without the grind.

Perhaps such movements are also a response to a sense of helplessness. In a world so complex, chaotic and badly governed that its most dangerous predicaments often seem intractable, it is paradoxically comforting to believe that godlike powers are in control, even if those powers are malign.

We distance ourselves from uncomfortable realities by creating comfortable unrealities. And it doesn’t seem to matter how unreal they may become.