Airliner Emissions EPA Hearing

CeruleanBlu

Senior Member.
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.


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

Senior Member.
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
the article says
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

Closed Account
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

Member
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
the article says
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

Senior Member.
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

Senior Member.
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. :confused:

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.

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

CeruleanBlu

Senior Member.
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:

 

Leifer

Senior Member.
EPA_1.jpg

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")

 
Last edited:

Leifer

Senior Member.
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"
 
Last edited:

Leifer

Senior Member.
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

Senior Member.
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.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
TEEJ Claimed "UFO" filmed from airliner over Turkey, 21st March 2018 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 4
Trailblazer Jet Airways intercept video "UFO" (airliner, flight LH998 or LH66?) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 14
TWCobra Flat earth Debunk-change in apparent altitude of clouds as seen from airliner Flat Earth 2
MikeC The art of "turning around" an airliner Contrails and Chemtrails 6
MikeC Looking for a particular image - airliner contrail at takeoff Contrails and Chemtrails 9
Mick West Conspiracy or Accident? Piece of 9/11 Airliner found by planned Islamic Center in NY 9/11 60
MikeC Resource: airliner list by serial number Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Jay Reynolds Debunked: Only Four Airliner Flights/Day over Mt. Shasta, CA Contrails and Chemtrails 36
Mick West Measuring Smart Meter RF Emissions 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 1
Asylumkid Deadly emissions? [1% contribution of aviation emissions to harmful air pollution] General Discussion 10
Spongebob Climate Change Why it is NOT being caused by increased CO2 emissions from humans Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Cube Radio What is this woman hearing as WTC7 collapses behind her 9/11 40
Miss VocalCord Congressman Kerry Bentivolio chemtrail hearing Contrails and Chemtrails 1
sgirl Col. Richard French of the USAF States his Job was to Debunk UFOs - Citizen Hearing Conspiracy Theories 6
walliswallis UFO Congressional Hearing UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 9

Related Articles

Top