California air rosources board. What changes have they impacted on the designs of engines, cost of cars, etc? Anything you can think about, good or bad.
What has carb done to the auto industry?
- Thread starter drive it forever
- Start date
- Status
Reduced fuel efficiency and increased CO2 emmissions through their attacks on both clean-burning diesel engines as well as NOx emmissions.
Also increased groundwater, evaporative, and soil pollution as the result of necessitating the construction of additional petrol filling stations and infrastructure to serve the increased demand.
From an engineering standpoint, the NOx issue is probably the most severe effect of CARB, as it effectively requires engines not run as hot as modern metallurgy could allow, which in turn, decreases power and efficiency. Since NOx isn't even really a pollutant (and in fact, is a natural fertilizer) outside of a few densely populated urban centres, it has imposed an onerous burden on everyone.
[ April 02, 2005, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: pitzel ]
Also increased groundwater, evaporative, and soil pollution as the result of necessitating the construction of additional petrol filling stations and infrastructure to serve the increased demand.
From an engineering standpoint, the NOx issue is probably the most severe effect of CARB, as it effectively requires engines not run as hot as modern metallurgy could allow, which in turn, decreases power and efficiency. Since NOx isn't even really a pollutant (and in fact, is a natural fertilizer) outside of a few densely populated urban centres, it has imposed an onerous burden on everyone.
[ April 02, 2005, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: pitzel ]
I'm all for "clean" air but there needs to be reasonable "checks and balances" to our clean air rules and regulations. It seems at this point in time we have a bunch of out of control bureaucrats dictating their whims and desires on the general population without having to justify what they are doing and is it even worthwhile. At what parts per million is it even worthwhile to try to reduce it further without an honest cost to benefit ratio. Yes, we would all love Zero pollutants, but it's not realistic.
Are all these botique gasoline blends really necessary throughout the country? I'm in NJ and I know that at best I get 16 mpg on the highway with my truck and NJ oxygenated gasoline. Yet if I get nonoxygenated gasoline say in PA then my highway mpg jumps up to over 21 mpg for the same type of driving. Really, how can using more gasoline help the enviroment
? As I understand the oxygenated gasoline had it's inception during the era of carburated vehicles. But bureaucrats being what they are never changed their slow wheels of progress and when computer controlled fuel injected vehicles became the "norm" they still insisted in using now outdated data.
Ronald Reagan was right when he said the phrase to fear the most is "...I'm from the government and I'm here to help you..." .
Whimsey
Are all these botique gasoline blends really necessary throughout the country? I'm in NJ and I know that at best I get 16 mpg on the highway with my truck and NJ oxygenated gasoline. Yet if I get nonoxygenated gasoline say in PA then my highway mpg jumps up to over 21 mpg for the same type of driving. Really, how can using more gasoline help the enviroment
Ronald Reagan was right when he said the phrase to fear the most is "...I'm from the government and I'm here to help you..." .
Whimsey
I have heard the auto industry can make more efficient engines, but emmissions somewhat limits what they can achieve. I have noticed the newer VW diesels are rated 46mpg highway, but have 10 more HP. The older tdi diesels were rated 49mpg highway. Is the fuel economy of the new VW diesel a result of stricter emmisions, 10 more HP, or both? I know you cant even get a VW diesel in california, and the other states who adopted their emmissions also.
Whimsey's point about the oxygenated fuels is a glaring example of how bad CARB is. Another thing to note is PPM emmisions are best at a 14.7 AFR so that is where O2s and pcms keep the motor at cruise, BUT motors can safely run leaner than that with the primary "negative" being increased NOX, if what pitzel says is true they there are just as wrong on this. I think we would be better served watching emmisions volume weighted off against PPM with being realistic and not mandating 3 cylinder cars.
Then with modifying cars you have to pay big money for a part just because the manufacturer had to pay $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ for CARB approval, tell me how does a K&N or the like intake tract in front of the TB affect emmisions. How about shorty headers that retain stock catalitic converters, they increase efficiency but cost way too much due to the CARB bribes. I am not saying they should allow any modification you want emmisions be ****ed just saying a little common sense is needed.
Then with modifying cars you have to pay big money for a part just because the manufacturer had to pay $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ for CARB approval, tell me how does a K&N or the like intake tract in front of the TB affect emmisions. How about shorty headers that retain stock catalitic converters, they increase efficiency but cost way too much due to the CARB bribes. I am not saying they should allow any modification you want emmisions be ****ed just saying a little common sense is needed.
CARB has existed longer than the EPA/Clean Air act inasmuch as the courts allow two emissions tiers: "49 state" (which is around 45 now) and "California" which also includes some northeast states.
California, et al, has been allowed to set stricter standards than the nation as a whole. So even if the national government takes one tangent environmentally, Cali is free to pursue their own stricter standards. Third party states may only go as far as CARB rules to keep it somewhat sane.
So, CARB's formation and existence in the 1960's (?), grandfathered them into being allowed something that would not otherwise being allowed today. This was being tested recently when Cali tried to legislate CO2 emissions-- effectively their own Corporate Average Fuel Economy rules.
California, et al, has been allowed to set stricter standards than the nation as a whole. So even if the national government takes one tangent environmentally, Cali is free to pursue their own stricter standards. Third party states may only go as far as CARB rules to keep it somewhat sane.
So, CARB's formation and existence in the 1960's (?), grandfathered them into being allowed something that would not otherwise being allowed today. This was being tested recently when Cali tried to legislate CO2 emissions-- effectively their own Corporate Average Fuel Economy rules.
CARB guidelines are used in Pa. at gas stations where stage 2 vapor recovery is required. This yearly testing and bringing the stations up to these standards really helps the gas stations from leaking vapors into the air and ground.
[steps on soapbox]
CARB has two contradictory mandates. The first, the ostensible one, is to formulate rules and regulations that protect air quality in California. The second, the hidden one, is to increase it's power and budget. All government agencies operate under the 2nd mandate.
CARB has discovered that the more that air pollution is perceived to be a problem by Californians, the more money and power they are given--hence the contradictory mandates. If CARB actually solved the air pollution problem in California, they would cease to exist. Once you understand this inherent conflict of interest, their policies start to make sense.
CARB pursues the two mandates by attacking the air pollution problem where it doesn't exist. We have oxygenated gasoline that doesn't help air pollution, we have increasingly strict regulations on new cars that are already clean running. We have a whole host of expensive, non-sensical regulations that not only don't reduce air pollution, but actually increase it.
Meanwhile, the main cause of air pollution, the stinking beaters, go unchecked. We have air pollution laws governing the gross polluters (that emit 1000 times, or more, the pollutants of a new vehicle) that say this essentially: "You must maintain your vehicle's engine in operable condition unless it is old, or unless you are poor." Since most of the beaters are old and/or owned by "poor" people, their owners have carte blanche to poison everyone else.
The best thing we could do to clean the air in CA is to get rid of CARB, and all their phony rules and regulations, and impose strictly-enforced, no- exceptions rules that get these beatermobiles off the roads.
[/steps off soapbox]
CARB has two contradictory mandates. The first, the ostensible one, is to formulate rules and regulations that protect air quality in California. The second, the hidden one, is to increase it's power and budget. All government agencies operate under the 2nd mandate.
CARB has discovered that the more that air pollution is perceived to be a problem by Californians, the more money and power they are given--hence the contradictory mandates. If CARB actually solved the air pollution problem in California, they would cease to exist. Once you understand this inherent conflict of interest, their policies start to make sense.
CARB pursues the two mandates by attacking the air pollution problem where it doesn't exist. We have oxygenated gasoline that doesn't help air pollution, we have increasingly strict regulations on new cars that are already clean running. We have a whole host of expensive, non-sensical regulations that not only don't reduce air pollution, but actually increase it.
Meanwhile, the main cause of air pollution, the stinking beaters, go unchecked. We have air pollution laws governing the gross polluters (that emit 1000 times, or more, the pollutants of a new vehicle) that say this essentially: "You must maintain your vehicle's engine in operable condition unless it is old, or unless you are poor." Since most of the beaters are old and/or owned by "poor" people, their owners have carte blanche to poison everyone else.
The best thing we could do to clean the air in CA is to get rid of CARB, and all their phony rules and regulations, and impose strictly-enforced, no- exceptions rules that get these beatermobiles off the roads.
[/steps off soapbox]
Excellent post Jay. It's sad, but you're spot on about all government agencies seeking power and money.
- Status
Similar threads
