The Leaf SL in the comparison is the top trim level available.
257 karma · joined November 10, 2011
http://www.seriouseats.com/2016/10/why-you-can-and-sometimes...
http://www.autonews.com/article/20160307/OEM11/303079956/aft...
>any sudden punishment of violators from outside reeks of market protection.
Perhaps it's because the EU lacks the authority of the member states to regulate & police emission laws. They started legal proceedings against their member states precisely because of their inaction.
"The European Commission on Thursday began the so-called "infringement procedures," calling Germany, Britain, Spain and Luxembourg to account for not imposing the same kind of penalties Volkswagen faced in the United States for using illegal software to mask health-harming emissions."[2]
Isn't that market protection as well?
[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/15/business/international/co...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection_in_the_Unit...
[2]: http://www.dw.com/en/eu-launches-legal-case-against-germany-...
>“VW employees determined not to disclose to US regulators that the tested vehicle models operated with a defeat device,” says the criminal complaint. “Instead, VW employees pursued a strategy of concealing the defeat device in responding to questions from US regulators, while appearing to co-operate.”
While Trump is unquestionably protectionistic, that doesn't mean the case isn't without merit and other countries & regions wouldn't have done the same. The EU is hampered from action because only the member states have the authority to do so as well as the politics of it all[3].
For the record, South Korea was the first country to jail a VW executive regarding the scandal[4].
[0]: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-cartel-collu...
[1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-23/u-s-files...
[2]: https://www.ft.com/content/04aa04aa-d648-11e6-944b-e7eb37a6a...
[3]: https://phys.org/news/2017-02-eu-pains-vw-dieselgate-scandal...
[4]: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-volkswagen-southkorea-idUS...
We clustered sites into triplets (>3.2 km between sites) and randomly allocated sites to one of three treatments: (i) clothianidin applied at 11.86 to 18.05 grams of active ingredient per hectare (g a.i. ha−1) with a fungicide (thriam and prochloraz) and nonsystemic pyrethroid (beta-cyfluthrin) (trade name Modesto); (ii) thiamethoxam applied at 10.07 to 11.14 g a.i. ha−1 and combined with the fungicides fludioxonil and metalaxyl-M (trade name Cruiser); and (iii) control OSR receiving a commercial fungicide (thriam and dimethomorph in Germany and Hungary and thriam and prochloraz in the United Kingdom) but no neonicotinoid seed treatment.
Fungicides may have synergistic effects when used with pesticides. [0][1][2]
The other study, "Chronic exposure to neonicotinoids reduces honey bee health near corn crops" is a bit more credible. Corn is a non-uniform seed and more apt to ablate the seed coat and generate significant dust issues, hence Canada's regulation to for seed lubrication. Ground persistence and mobility make setting up adjacent pollinator refuge sites a potential source of neonicotinoids in addition to the irrigated surface water. That corn is wind pollinated and only provides a nutrient poor pollen kind of exacerbates that, I think. Contrast that with western Canada where CCD hasn't been observed in canola regions, canola seed is uniform and canola provides both nutritious pollen and nectar.
I still don't think an outright ban at this point is the right choice especially given the limited alternatives and research into those alternatives. Organophosphates are significantly worse for both humans and bees. Pyrethrins aren't exactly safe for bees either, with both being broad-spectrum insecticides and requiring more frequent application via foliar spraying. Even IPM guidelines for a pest like the flea beetle rank several types of neonicotinoids above using pyrethrins[3].
There really aren't any easy solutions but, reevaluating the use of prophylactic seed treatment should be worth a consideration.
[0]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ps.4449/abstract
[1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3558502/
[2]: http://lib.gig.ac.cn/local/ejournal/ETC/ETC1996/1504/ETC-199...
The Army wouldn't take the A-10s if they were offered.[0]
>doesn't want to get involved with smaller fixed-wing aircraft for close air support.
But they have[1]. An OA-X demonstration is scheduled for August, of which they're looking to field an off-the-shelf plane.
[0]: http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/02/25/army-not-inter... [1]: http://www.defensenews.com/articles/air-force-leaders-confir...
As per the source of the image says, "On the other hand, American regulators are focused on smog and health impacts of air pollution." Which the graphic you provided well indicates.
Look, California was probably the first governmental entity to regulate tailpipe emissions. Such so that it's written in the Clean Air Act by name to run its own regulatory scheme to enact stricter regulation(with federal waivers, but that's another issue). The reason being, that LA's unique geography makes smog worse. Heck, in the 1940s, they had an episode severe enough they thought they were under chemical attack by the Japanese. As such, CARB's emission standards were focused on reducing the more directly harmful pollutants like hydrocarbons, ozone, NOx & PM. So, given California's influence on the original 1970 Clean Air Act and the 1988 California Clean Air Act's influence on the subsequent amendment in 1990, I don't see how that graphic would support your argument. I mean, had they such hypothetical power, they could have also blocked the banning of leaded gasoline that was in the same amendment.
>Well duh, let's keep diesel cars to petrol standards so that their benefits don't matter and their disadvantages are prohibitive!
Emissions vs fuel economy. You're being facetious, but if that argument was true, why bother importing diesel passenger vehicles into the states? They didn't even start reintroducing diesels in America until they thought they could harmonize emissions from Euro 5 with Tier II Bin 5.
No, that was a result of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 for the reduction of acid rain. Though it was targeted towards industrial emissions of SO2 & NOx, but stricter regulation for vehicles were an additional effect.
>specifically disadvantaging European diesel cars
That's a weird argument given that diesel passenger vehicles in the US are held to the same standard as gasoline ones, but to a separate standard from their petrol counterparts in the EU. I mean, one could argue the opposite, that an EU emissions policy favorable to diesels amounted to an equivalent 13-16% import tariff. [1] Several domestic rather than just foreign diesel engine manufacturers were also penalized for using defeat devices in 1998.[2]
> (which are much cleaner overall)
That's quite arguable, trading lower CO2 & CO for increased NOx & PM.
[1]: http://www.eugeniomiravete.com/papers/MMT-Diesel.pdf
[2]: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1998-10-23/news/981023011...
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-volkswagen-southkorea-idUS...
Yes, there is no potable reuse at the moment because their initial plant opened during an election year & valley secession movement, but a pilot plant for indirect potable reuse is in the works and current reclamation efforts still yielded 35.4% of total county sanitation districts effluent per FY 2014-2015.
There are sites that take segment height for bifocals, but the intended frames need to be in hand for the user to measure.
Even in the original intended usage of the term, patronizing and mansplaining aren't quite the same; despite roughly analogous root words, mansplaining includes a degree of gender essentialism that patronizing lacks.
That's not really true; improved stormwater capture, potable reuse, and fixing leaking infrastructure are far more economical & environmentally friendly options being planned or undertaken. MWD put out a proposal last year for a billion dollar potable reuse plant and the SWRCB put out a draft report for regulation of direct potable reuse out last month.
Desalination plants are really an option of last resort given their cost, environmental impact, and capacity. The Carlsbad desalination plant cost $1 billion, runs their RO membranes at 800 PSI, produces 50 MGD, and is ~ $2,000 per acre-foot of water. Whereas OC's GWRS(indirect potable reuse) cost ~$623 million after an initial expansion last year, runs their RO membranes at 150 PSI, produces 100 MGD, and is ~ $476(~$850 before subsidies) per acre-foot.
So, again, referencing the tweets & subjects preceding their announcement as context aren't unreasonable as Golden says there's more context on Twitter. Emily Rose, notably, unleashed a series of tweets at them until they capitulated. It's still not the official word you're seeking, but to ignore it seems willfully dismissive.
Moreover, in what manner would a direct affirmation or counterpoint by the Nodevember organizers be advantageous to them? I'm not trying to be conspiratorial about it; being quiet and vague is the far more diplomatic path. It's not in Nodevember's interests to be precise with the particularities of the disinvitation, nor are we, as outsiders, owed any sort of particular explaination. But neither were any details provided to Crockford for him to ameliorate. "It is a mystery to me too." per https://paulstraw.svbtle.com/crockford
Granted, it still isn't official, but even one of the conference's founders said to look to twitter for more context for the disinvitation of Crockford, so it isn't too off base.
The composite metal foam that was comparable to lead utilized steel with higher concentrations of tungsten and vanadium.
Isn't it a little strange to be comparing plywood with 3" teak? Can you even get sheets of teak that aren't a veneer? Wouldn't LVLs or glulams be a more apt comparison?
I suppose one could say that being more concerned with the more directly harmful and smog forming emissions(NOx and PM) over CO2 would constitute 'bias' against diesels. But, conversely, there's a rather compelling argument that the more lax European diesel regulations spurred diesel adoption and protect their domestic manufacturers.