Cali AGW-Apparatchiks Overestimate EMissions By 340% To Pass Enviro Regulations

[roo_ster]

Why don't we trust them?  I dunno, it might be because they are big fat liars.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/07/BAOF1FDMRV.DTL#ixzz11iqEfuN9

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) overestimated the emissions by off-road vehicles/machinery to the tune of 340% in order to pass tougher regs than would otherwise have been implemented.

Not thefirst time CARB has pulled this sort of trick.

[230RN]

Maybe part of the estimate was all the emissions from their burning pants.























(Liar, liar, pants on fire.)

Terry, 230RN

[Ben]

CARB did the same thing with shipping traffic. They passed a law requiring low sulfur fuel  within 24 miles (or close to it, can't remember exactly) of the CA coast to reduce emissions. Here are a few of the unintended consequences:

1) Because the new fuel is so expensive, ships are deviating well outside of the designated shipping lanes in order to use cheaper fuel instead of the expensive "clean" stuff that's not good for their engines.

2) Because they're outside the shipping lanes, they're pretty much driving around willy nilly and things are starting to get dangerous.

3) The area outside the lanes they now go through is part of the Pacific Sea Test Range, and the ships have been causing havoc with important military training and exercises.

4) When they get within the "clean fuel" range of the coast and have to switch fuels, an uncomfortable amount of ships have been drifting dead, sometimes for a couple of hours because the engines don't want to start with the clean mixture.

5) CARB is happy because they don't see any ships in the lanes and they can show reduced pollution there. LA is not happy, because all the pollution that was in the Northern lanes coming into the harbor, has now, due to the new traffic patterns and prevailing winds, increased air pollution in the LA area. But that's not CARB's fault of course. It's those nasty shipping companies that "circumvented" the rules and didn't behave as expected.

[kgbsquirrel]

CARB did the same thing with shipping traffic. They passed a law requiring low sulfur fuel  within 24 miles (or close to it, can't remember exactly) of the CA coast to reduce emissions. Here are a few of the unintended consequences:

1) Because the new fuel is so expensive, ships are deviating well outside of the designated shipping lanes in order to use cheaper fuel instead of the expensive "clean" stuff that's not good for their engines.

2) Because they're outside the shipping lanes, they're pretty much driving around willy nilly and things are starting to get dangerous.

3) The area outside the lanes they now go through is part of the Pacific Sea Test Range, and the ships have been causing havoc with important military training and exercises.

4) When they get within the "clean fuel" range of the coast and have to switch fuels, an uncomfortable amount of ships have been drifting dead, sometimes for a couple of hours because the engines don't want to start with the clean mixture.

5) CARB is happy because they don't see any ships in the lanes and they can show reduced pollution there. LA is not happy, because all the pollution that was in the Northern lanes coming into the harbor, has now, due to the new traffic patterns and prevailing winds, increased air pollution in the LA area. But that's not CARB's fault of course. It's those nasty shipping companies that "circumvented" the rules and didn't behave as expected.

Tangent on post four! (Not a record no, but a commendable effort I think.)

Could you elaborate on No.2 and explain what you mean by willy-nilly as compared to the usual shipping lanes? It isn't as though the usual shipping lanes are themselves clearly delineated with lines, signs and stop lights. From what I can remember, the current shipping lanes, as in the most common routes traveled, only came into being due to an optimal combination of prevailing winds, sea currents and distances between particular ports (with the first two becoming less of a concern as the age of sail gave way to the ages of steam and internal combustion). If the DPRK (Democractic People's Republic of Kalifornia) has decided to make a veritable exclusion zone 24 miles out (which I should note violates international law as past 12 miles you are in international waters) due to onerous fueling requirements it would certainly follow that those optimal patterns of shipping traffic would shift to accommodate such. I'm not sure it can rightly be called willy-nilly, especially since every ship is still personally responsible for watching the traffic around it and maneuvering as necessary to avoid collisions, common sea lane or no.

Pertaining to No.3, such test ranges are not always closed off to non-military traffic, but instead when a test is preparing to, or actually taking place an advisory is put out about the location and duration of the exclusion zone, and, again, any sea going vessel should be adequately aware (I smell a hint of personal responsibility by the ship's Captain for monitoring such advisories in the interest of the safe operation of their vessel here) of any exclusion zones declared by the various militaries of the world which are publicly announced.

[Ben]

On #2, we have a traffic separation zone coastal shipping traffic is required to follow between the Channel Islands and the southern ports. South of the islands, they can go wherever they want, but with there not being a required traffic scheme into the 2nd largest port in the country, ships come from all directions into a narrow "funnel" as they all head into the ports. The Marine Exchange and Coast Guard are not amused.

On #3, the Navy is not amused either. Yes, the test range is a warning area (actually areas, as there are several whiskeys from the deck to unlimited), so no, they can't force traffic out, but besides notices to mariners, aircraft are deployed pre-exercise to try and warn out small boat traffic so they don't meet a missile flying at 20' off the deck. Big ships, especially international ships, often ignore the warnings, and because of the fuel switching engine problems, in a couple of cases, have been unable to comply in a quick enough time not to hold up or stop an exercise. The traffic in the range has increased from a few ships a day to dozens. Hence exercises have been postponed or canceled at a significant cost to the taxpayers.

[kgbsquirrel]

On #2, we have a traffic separation zone coastal shipping traffic is required to follow between the Channel Islands and the southern ports. South of the islands, they can go wherever they want, but with there not being a required traffic scheme into the 2nd largest port in the country, ships come from all directions into a narrow "funnel" as they all head into the ports. The Marine Exchange and Coast Guard are not amused.

So most of the traffic issues are actually close in where restricted maneuvering doctrine would be an issue? For some reason I thought you were referring to open blue water.

[PTK]

For some reason I thought you were referring to open blue water.

Ditto. At least it's been clarified so that I can follow along again! 

[Ben]

Yeah. Being ex-Navy, you're likely familiar with the area. It's between the Northern Channel Islands and San Nicholas Island, so it's an area probably 75 x 150 nautical miles. It's still outside designated separation schemes, so ships can do whatever they want. The port commission created a "voluntary" scheme at the tip of the funnel that I spoke about in my earlier post, but that doesn't help the Navy. In fact it probably hinders them more.

It's become enough of a safety issue that USCG has initiated a Port Access Routes Study (PARS). It will probably end up being a moot point however. The Obama EPA decided they liked the CARB plan so much, that they're looking at making it a requirement in the entire EEZ by 2012, so there will be no more cost saving to shippers by taking the longer route. They'll likely go back to the shorter travel route of the designated lanes. 

Of course once that happens, people who hate Walmart will have to come up with a new line, as "cheap crap out of China" is going to be a lot more expensive once international shippers are forced to retrofit their vessels for the new fuel, not to mention the high expense of the fuel itself compared to normal bunker.