Calif. OKs Toughest Auto Emissions Rules

[jsharp]

By TIM MOLLOY, Associated Press Writer

LOS ANGELES - California has adopted the world's first rules to reduce greenhouse emissions for autos, taking what supporters see as a dramatic step toward cleaning up the environment but also ensuring higher costs for drivers.

The rules may lead to sweeping changes in vehicles nationwide, especially if other states opt to follow California's example. New York has already said it will follow the regulations, and several other states are expected to do the same.

Under the regulations, unanimously approved Friday by the California Air Resources Board, the auto industry must cut exhaust from California's cars and light trucks by 25 percent and from larger trucks and sport utility vehicles by 18 percent.

"In the short term we probably won't see much effect because global warming is a very long-term problem," said Terry Tamminen, secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (news - web sites). "People won't see immediate benefits from this but they need to understand that their children will."

Complete article

Note the costs cited in the article that it's the start of regulations of CO2 emissions...

 

[Kestas]

It's getting out of hand. I've heard some auto industry execs throw up their hands and say "If Californians don't want pollution, then let them build their own cars!" I guess the extra 10% market in California still makes it worthwhile selling cars there.

This is an example of a governing body - in this case the CARB - trying to justify their empire and existence by coming up with new regulations, intead of disbanding or trimming their operations to policing existing legislation after accomplishing so much in the past few decades.

The CARB is focusing too much on pollution from automobiles and not enough on all other sources. It's a known fact that I pollute more in one week by mowing my lawn for an hour than by commuting 300 miles.

 

[jsharp]

One older auto that's in poor tune and considered a gross polluter can output more pollutants than hundreds of current new cars. At some point it would cost society less to buy all of these old vehicles up just to get them off the road than to continue to decrease new car emissions...

 

[TallPaul]

What kind of pollution are we getting every time a jet takes off? I think this makes emissions from modern automobiles insignificant.

 

[brianl703]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kestas:
It's a known fact that I pollute more in one week by mowing my lawn for an hour than by commuting 300 miles.

---

I bought a Black and Decker electric lawnmower when I bought my house about 4 years ago. It cost $180 but I have had to do zero maintenance to it, and it works great. I live in a townhouse (with a small front and back yard)but even if I had a house with a larger lot I think it'd work well there too.

 

[brianl703]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jsharp:
At some point it would cost society less to buy all of these old vehicles up just to get them off the road than to continue to decrease new car emissions...

---

If there's something wrong with some of these gross polluting vehicles that's easily fixed, perhaps the community colleges and high schools can supply free labor to fix them as part of auto shop class. It'd be cheaper than buying them up.

 

[Kestas]

This may have been true some time ago, but any car built in the past 25 years runs pretty darn clean as long as any problems have been fixed. And it's reasonable to assume these cars are fixed because these cars have to pass emission in California. Anything over 25 years old is probably in the collectable car category (at least for the owner), and probably not a daily driver.

 

[Matt_S]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kestas:
Anything over 25 years old is probably in the collectable car category (at least for the owner), and probably not a daily driver.

---

Keep in mind, though, that this is California, not Michigan. Cars there don't rust out and deteriorate nearly as bad as they do here. I'd bet there are actually quite a few 25 year old daily drivers there. Probably not a large percentage, but certainly more than you see here in the rust belt.

 

[labman]

Typical do gooder, feel good, counter productive legislation. Push up the price of new cars going way beyond the cost effective point of reducing pollution, and you keep more old polluters on the road. Did the AAA oppose this stupidity? How did your unreprestatives vote?

 

[Kestas]

If you study the cost/benefit of tailpipe emission standards and how much it costs to meet them, you'd find that the automotive industry has done an excellent job of removing HUGE amounts of pollution from the tailpipe. This incremental amount of pollution they want to remove from tailpipes will cost (ultimately to the consumer), a whole lot of money with not too much benefit.

In other words, we'll be spending huge sums of money chasing tiny amounts of pollution. This money from the public at large can be better used elsewhere for environmental purposes.

Thank heavens the Metro Detroit area did away with emissions testing. After 10 years, they found this program cost the public 2 billion dollars which resulted in a 1% reduction in tailpipe emissions. Any learned person would know that 1% is not statistically significant.

Unfortunately, the Federal goverment are putting the pressure on our Metro area to do something about our air. We cringe every time we get a hot hazy day with no wind (called an Ozone Action Day). Everytime this happens we get dinged by the Feds. We're only talking about a handful of days every year.

 

[tom slick]

quote:

---

What kind of pollution are we getting every time a jet takes off? I think this makes emissions from modern automobiles insignificant.

---

reducing those emmissions is in the works also. i believe the industry is trying to fix it before it becomes regulated like automobiles.

anyone ever seen an older B-52 take off with it's water injection on? certainly a "gross polluter"

 

[Jimbo]

quote:

---

Originally posted by labman:
Typical do gooder, feel good, counter productive legislation. Push up the price of new cars going way beyond the cost effective point of reducing pollution, and you keep more old polluters on the road. Did the AAA oppose this stupidity? How did your unreprestatives vote?

---

Am I the only one from the Peoples Republik of Kalifornia here? There is no legislation, no vote of representatives and therefore no bill that can be vetoed by the Governator.

The Air Resources Bord is an appointed body that makes "rules" based on old enabling legislation that empowed them.

Most of you are missing the KEY point here. This is the first time these leftists are trying to regulate CO2, not CO, HC or NOX, as in previous regulation. It is a product of the "global warming" alarmist crowd. The ONLY way to meet the standard is to reduce the amount of fuel burned. This should not be a state or local issue, since Federal CAFE standards actually do the same thing.

One way to reduce CO is to have more turbodiesel cars.Guess what? CARB wont allow us to buy them.

NOTHING is being done about CO2 from fossil-fuel burning power plants. Americans are so paranoid or guilt-ridden about nukes that we are denied that answer also.

 

[crashz]

Why don't they focus on something easier and more effective. Like re-foresting and urban planning that utlizes more eco-efficient features. By increasing the amount of trees, bushes and plants in urban areas, the amount of CO2 is reduced by natural reactions.

 

[Dan4510]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jsharp:
One older auto that's in poor tune and considered a gross polluter can output more pollutants than hundreds of current new cars. At some point it would cost society less to buy all of these old vehicles up just to get them off the road than to continue to decrease new car emissions...

---

At this point the old cars left on the road are mostly good old cars in good repair.

I own three and you will only get them by prying them out of my cold dead hands, just like my guns.

Dan

 

[moribundman]

Well, here in the San Francisco Bay area the air is mostly bad -- and not only in the urban areas! We regularly fail to meet the federal air quality standards. San Francisco is especially bad off, and if you look at the city from afar, you can very often actually see the smog and haze lingering above the whole area. People wheez and cough at increasing numbers, the number of people, especially children who suffer from non-hereditary asthma are rising.

Downtown SF has been especially bad, and when MUNI (public transportation) began switching to many 0 emissions buses and a fleet of brand-new buses, downtown improved noticeably! While it may not make a difference in the grander scheme of things, tougher emission standards will affect people on a local level.

PS: You'd be surprised how many smoke-blowing junkers are legally on California roads. Cars usually don't rust away.

 

[TallPaul]

quote:

---

Originally posted by moribundman:
You'd be surprised how many smoke-blowing junkers are legally on California roads. Cars usually don't rust away.

---

I understand that in the corridor from Denver Colorado northward including Fort Collins they will NOT allow foggers to pass inspection. An inspector from there once told me that foggers either get a rebuild of the engine or they park them. Zero tollerence. I have to admit I hate being behind a fogger.

 

[brianl703]

In Northern Virginia you can't get an emissions repair waiver for visible smoke, so it's rare to see one here.