Calif. Board Proposes 30% Cut in Auto Emissions

TDIMeister

Phd of TDIClub Enthusiast, Moderator at Large
Joined
May 1, 1999
Location
Canada
TDI
TDI
Reuters / June 15, 2004
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5420333


SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) -- The California Air Resources Board on Monday issued a draft plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks by 30 percent.

The air board's plan, which had been expected, would phase in reductions of gases linked to global warming in two steps for cars and trucks sold in California from 2009 through 2014.

The board set year-by-year levels for emission cuts for a passenger car/light-duty truck class and a second light-duty truck category.

The reductions would range from 2.3 percent in 2009 to 30 percent for cars and trucks sold in 2014.

The proposal to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases will be open for comment until July 7, and a final draft will be issued early in August, the board said.

The board is scheduled to consider the final plan on Sept. 23.

"The proposal protects public health and conforms to the language and spirit of Assembly Bill 1493, which requires the ARB to limit emissions from California passenger cars that contribute to global warming," said Catherine Witherspoon, executive officer of the ARB.

Environmental groups familiar with the draft plan, however, had called for a higher reduction level of 40 percent.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, a science and environmental group based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, had said that based on its analysis, California could hit a 40 percent cut in emissions within 10 years.

But a spokesman for General Motors told Reuters last week, "Our view is that innovative technologies like the one we're already putting in our cars and trucks will be the answer.

"Consumers will be able to buy full-sized hybrid pick-up trucks later this summer. We're confident hydrogen will be the long-term fuel of choice ... Our goal is to establish commercial viability of hydrogen technology by 2010," said GM spokesman Dave Barthmuss.

The California agency was required by state law to produce an emissions reduction plan by 2005 to be reviewed by the state legislature.

The plan would go into effect in 2006 and give car and truck makers until the 2009 model year to begin meeting emission rules.

The board's staff identified ways for automakers to improve the performance of car engines, transmissions and drive trains to cut emissions and also analyzed "technology packages" for cleaner air.

The average cost for the initial 2009-2011 phase would range from $241 for light duty cars to $326 for big pickups and sport utility vehicles, the board said.

Average costs for the 2012-2014 model years would range from $539 for light duty cars to $851 for heavier vehicles, the board said.
 

MrMopar

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Location
Bloomington, IL
TDI
none
To this day I still question why government boards propose even more strict regulations on top of what already exists when the problem is mostly the fact that the vehicle fleet doesn't turn over fast enough to even show the effectiveness of the old standards.

Sure enough cars that are sold today are the cleanest that have ever been built from an emissions standpoint. Even a huge Ford Excursion with a gasoline powered V-10 engine is a Low Emissions Vehicle. Anyone who drives (read: everybody) knows that the fleet of vehicles on the road is composed of many different model years of vehicles. New models account for only a small percentage of the vehicles on the road. Knowing this, it makes little sense to me to further regulate pollution when the source of 95% or more of auto pollution is those vehicles that have been in use for more than one or two years.
 

GoFaster

Moderator at Large
Joined
Jun 16, 1999
Location
Brampton, Ontario, Canada
TDI
2006 Jetta TDI
Ummmm .... have another read. This proposal is to address CO2 (translation: fuel consumption) and not further reductions in NOx, etc.

I hope that when they calculate the CO2 emissions from hydrogen vehicles that they account for the CO2 emitted as a result of its production from fossil fuel, rather than remaining blind to this issue. It's fine if the H2 is coming from renewable sources, but if that's the case, better start building a lot of windmills and solar power stations ... Otherwise, running a vehicle on H2 that's made from natural gas - the only method practical on an industrial scale right now - emits more CO2 than skipping the whole hydrogen step and using the fossil fuel directly ...
 

Mike_Van

Veteran Member
Joined
May 15, 2003
Location
Boulder, Colorado
TDI
(SOLD) 2010 Golf, 2 door
... It's fine if the H2 is coming from renewable sources, but if that's the case, better start building a lot of windmills and solar power stations ... Otherwise, running a vehicle on H2 that's made from natural gas - the only method practical on an industrial scale right now - emits more CO2 than skipping the whole hydrogen step and using the fossil fuel directly ...
Oh, but you forget the means the powers that be really want to use: nuclear. They want to double our electrical generating capacity to have enough juice for making H2 from water. Renewable Energy will be last on the list, because it makes too much sense, promotes sustainability, and directs financial resources toward the 'wrong' companies. Until science devises the means to make nuclear waste harmless, even in the wrong hands, the obstacles to the expansion of its use remain too great. The inability of the nuclear industry to operate without massive liability waivers from the government ought to bother a lot more people than it does.
 

TornadoRed

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Aug 3, 2003
Location
West Des Moines (formerly St Paul)
TDI
2003 Jetta TDI wagon, silver; 2003 Jetta TDI wagon, indigo blue; 2003 Golf GL 5-spd, red (PARTED); 2003 Golf GLS 5-spd, indigo blue (SOLD); 2003 Jetta TDI wagon, Candy White (SOLD)
The California Air Resources Board on Monday issued a draft plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks by 30 percent....
The reductions would range from 2.3 percent in 2009 to 30 percent for cars and trucks sold in 2014....
The average cost for the initial 2009-2011 phase would range from $241 for light duty cars to $326 for big pickups and sport utility vehicles, the board said. Average costs for the 2012-2014 model years would range from $539 for light duty cars to $851 for heavier vehicles, the board said.
First of all, this set of regulations won't fly, since the only way to lower emissions of CO2 is to reduce combustion. To do that requires smaller engines, and federal law takes precedence over state regulations, including California's.

Second, global warming is still a theory, expounded by many of the climatologists who were warning of a new Ice Age back in the 1970s. But even if the Earth is warming (a big IF), there is no consensus that warming in the upper latitudes would be a bad thing.

Third, what California does or does not do will have negligible effect on the entire planet. If every vehicle was converted to hydrogen-power, every fossil-fuel power plant was replaced by a nuclear plant, and every living creature stopped exhaling CO2, the climate of Planet Earth will be what it will be. Or perhaps the California Assembly will now dictate vehicle regulations for China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, etc?

Fourth, considering how this demonstration of environmental wackiness will accomplish absolutely nothing, why should the citizens of California pay hundreds or thousands of dollars more for their motor vehicles?

Will these regulations make the air healthier to breathe, and thus provide us with a better life? No. They will simply limit even further the choices we have in the vehicles we drive.
 

billsbuddie

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Location
Wichita, Kansas
TDI
GOLF, GLS, TDI, 05, Reflex Silver
I know I have a very "midwest" attitude, but it seems to me that the California Legislature should schedule their meetings about 400 miles west of Sacremento, with no ship. I think maybe everyone would be better off. Geeze, you have to go to Las Vegas to have a smoke, they have men marrying men, there are warning signs posted everywhere telling you that chemicals are used in food, etc., these people are out to lunch.
 

tadc

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Apr 13, 2001
Location
Stumptown
TDI
Golf GLS TDI, '01, Black
Second, global warming is still a theory, expounded by many of the climatologists who were warning of a new Ice Age back in the 1970s. But even if the Earth is warming (a big IF), there is no consensus that warming in the upper latitudes would be a bad thing.
First, try doing some factual research. You say it's "still a theory", implying that warming is not proven to be happening. This is false. The "theory" involves the exact mechanism and effects thereof. Whether greenhouse gasses increase heat retention is NOT in dispute by any real scientist.

The comment about ice age forcasts from the 70s, apparently intended to discredit Climatologists in general, is laughable for several reasons. Back then it was mostly media hysterics, but the irony is that the NEWEST predictions indicate that the short-term warming will trigger a shutdown of the systems that regulate global temp, resulting in hotter tropics and colder poles, with a definite likelyhood of big f-ing glaciers advancing gradually into the middle lattitudes in exactly the same way as during the last ice age. Again, do some research.

As for "no consensus that warming in the upper latitudes would be a bad thing", well, when you and your family are starving due to drought and collapsing food production, you'll probably think it's a bad thing. Or do you imagine you'll be enjoying a paper-umbrella drink on your newly formed piece of coastline?


Third, what California does or does not do will have negligible effect on the entire planet.
California is IIRC the 5th largest economy in the WORLD. What it does, for better or worse, has a sizeable effect on the entire planet.
If every vehicle was converted to hydrogen-power, every fossil-fuel power plant was replaced by a nuclear plant, and every living creature stopped exhaling CO2, the climate of Planet Earth will be what it will be.
Meaning what, exactly?? You seem to imply that mankind has no effect on the climate, which is obviously false.
Fourth, considering how this demonstration of environmental wackiness will accomplish absolutely nothing, why should the citizens of California pay hundreds or thousands of dollars more for their motor vehicles?
Do you have any evidence to back your rediculous assertions, or are you just expounding the view from beneath the sand?
 

alex_tdi

Veteran Member
Joined
May 15, 2001
Location
Los Angeles, CA
TDI
TDI GLS, 2001, Blue
As a big softie liberal, I have to defend efforts to improve the emission standards - even if it is not done in the most effective or logical way.

I just came back from living abroad for 2 years and traveling around the world in the last 3 years. It is true that what California does will not make even a tiny difference toward the overall global situation now. However, I think that if there is one group of people on earth with the ability and determination to make this world a better place to live, it is us - the citizens of the U.S.A.

The rest of the world has so many problems that they can careless about the environment. I have been to China, India, Europe, Egypt, and South America. Other than the U.S., only European countries (ok, and Japan) have the wealth to tackle environmental issues.

I am willing to make a few sacrifices (in the number of choices and higher prices) to be an example to the rest of the world, to subsidize the technologies that allows cleaner burning vehicles, and to make this world a better place (even if just a little). Once the technology is there, it is only a matter of time and money before the poorer countries adope the higher standards. For example, poor countries such as China and the rest of the 3rd world are benefiting from the technologies developed by the car companies to meet "unreasonable" emission standards of the U.S. and Europe.

It' not fair, I know. We paid for the development of those technologies and they get it for free. Buy hey, life is never really fair, is it? People in this country can work hard, get a decent job, and send their kids to college. I know, because my family of 4 came to this country with $1000 dollars and no English speaking skills. The people I have met elsewhere around the world have it much MUCH harder; their biggest worry is if they have food to eat the next morning.

So, I am a liberal. I love this country and this earth that we inhabit. So I pay $100 more, $500 more, $1000 more. I still go to bed every night thanking God and counting my blessings.

Alex
 

TornadoRed

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Aug 3, 2003
Location
West Des Moines (formerly St Paul)
TDI
2003 Jetta TDI wagon, silver; 2003 Jetta TDI wagon, indigo blue; 2003 Golf GL 5-spd, red (PARTED); 2003 Golf GLS 5-spd, indigo blue (SOLD); 2003 Jetta TDI wagon, Candy White (SOLD)
Do you have any evidence to back your rediculous assertions, or are you just expounding the view from beneath the sand?
I'll stack my ridiculous assertions against your ridiculous assertions.
 

TornadoRed

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Aug 3, 2003
Location
West Des Moines (formerly St Paul)
TDI
2003 Jetta TDI wagon, silver; 2003 Jetta TDI wagon, indigo blue; 2003 Golf GL 5-spd, red (PARTED); 2003 Golf GLS 5-spd, indigo blue (SOLD); 2003 Jetta TDI wagon, Candy White (SOLD)
I am willing to make a few sacrifices (in the number of choices and higher prices) to be an example to the rest of the world, to subsidize the technologies that allows cleaner burning vehicles, and to make this world a better place (even if just a little).
But these new regulations won't produce a cleaner burning vehicle. The only way a vehicle won't produce CO2 is if it doesn't burn anything. So basically it is the first step toward the elimination of the internal combustion engine (Al Gore's nemesis).

Now that is not necessarily a bad thing... depending, of course, on what replaces it. Hydrogen fuel cells? Very clean. But it takes a lot of energy to produce, and where does that energy come from? Nuclear fission plants? No. Nuclear fusion plants? Not invented yet, and when they are the wackos will probably try to keep them from being built. Am I wrong?

Electric cars? Fine, there are hybrids now, and probably more to come. But what are the real costs of manufacturing hybrid vehicles, and what are the real costs of recycling the battery packs? And we already know that hybrids don't get the greatest fuel economy, not in the real world. Also, just comparing the Prius to the Corolla, similar sized vehicles, the Prius is many thousands of $$$$ more.

The people who propose these regulations -- which we will all have to pay for -- would likely prefer that we all use mass transit, though they will deny it.

But in the meantime, these regulations would further limit our choices in the vehicles we buy. No diesel cars in California now -- and if they have their way, never again.
 

DrStink

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2003
Location
Providence RI
TDI
2003 Jetta GL - Platinum Grey
As for "no consensus that warming in the upper latitudes would be a bad thing", well, when you and your family are starving due to drought and collapsing food production, you'll probably think it's a bad thing. Or do you imagine you'll be enjoying a paper-umbrella drink on your newly formed piece of coastline?
Those lefty tree-huggers over at the Department of Defense apparently think it is a bad thing.

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/articles/0,15114,582584,00.html

(You can access a free version here: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/02/285157.html )

Stuff reads like Tom Clancy on crack.

Turning inward, the U.S. effectively seeks to build a fortress around itself to preserve resources. Borders are strengthened to hold back starving immigrants from Mexico, South America, and the Caribbean islands—waves of boat people pose especially grim problems. Tension between the U.S. and Mexico rises as the U.S. reneges on a 1944 treaty that guarantees water flow from the Colorado River into Mexico. America is forced to meet its rising energy demand with options that are costly both economically and politically, including nuclear power and onerous Middle Eastern contracts. Yet it survives without catastrophic losses.

Europe, hardest hit by its temperature drop, struggles to deal with immigrants from Scandinavia seeking warmer climes to the south. Southern Europe is beleaguered by refugees from hard-hit countries in Africa and elsewhere. But Western Europe's wealth helps buffer it from catastrophe.
and this:

Imagine Eastern European countries, struggling to feed their populations, invading Russia—which is weakened by a population that is already in decline—for access to its minerals and energy supplies. Or picture Japan eyeing nearby Russian oil and gas reserves to power desalination plants and energy-intensive farming. Envision nuclear-armed Pakistan, India, and China skirmishing at their borders over refugees, access to shared rivers, and arable land. Or Spain and Portugal fighting over fishing rights—fisheries are disrupted around the world as water temperatures change, causing fish to migrate to new habitats.

Growing tensions engender novel alliances. Canada joins fortress America in a North American bloc. (Alternatively, Canada may seek to keep its abundant hydropower for itself, straining its ties with the energy-hungry U.S.) North and South Korea align to create a technically savvy, nuclear-armed entity. Europe forms a truly unified bloc to curb its immigration problems and protect against aggressors. Russia, threatened by impoverished neighbors in dire straits, may join the European bloc.
 
S

SkyPup

Guest
The air in California is so degraded by the air blowing across the Pacific from China that the exhaust coming out of a California TDI is cleaner than the air that went into its intake tract!
 

kyote321

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2003
TDI
golf td1, 2002, black
anyone know where tdis running on low-sulfer fuel will fit into this? i thought europe had high air standards and diesels flouresh there despite of it.

california should suceed (i'd go live there). this country is being divided between texas and california points of view. if the current washington regime had it's way, everyone would drive a hummer and pay $1 a gallon for the next decade.
 

Rodg Petersen

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2001
Location
Pacific NW
Hmmm, I read somewhere the other day that southern California has a very high percentage of immigrants...people that historically have a bit less filthy lucre than others. These folks of course have to have wheels, and can't pay much for them...add to that the mild Southern California climate that really doesn't stress IC engines, and you have a bunch of ancient crates running around with a decade old tuneup.
You don't need to make the 2008's crystal pure, you need to get the 1975's off the road. Have Arnie buy 'em a new Kia.
2 cents worth...may have overcharged.
Rodg
2 cents worth, may have overcharged...
 

Mike_M

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2003
Location
Phoenix, AZ
TDI
Black 2002 Jetta GLS
"... We're confident hydrogen will be the long-term fuel of choice ... Our goal is to establish commercial viability of hydrogen technology by 2010," said GM spokesman Dave Barthmuss.
I wish the government, large industry, the media, and pretty much anybody else who has an influence, would pull their heads out of their tender parts and look at the data long enough to realize that hydrogen won't work as a mainstream fuel. It's just too energy-sparse (not dense) and requires pressurization systems that will provide both a financial and a safety burden, not to mention that it is inefficient to create and store.

Hell, it's not even a fuel, it's an energy storage medium.

Mike
 

tadc

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Apr 13, 2001
Location
Stumptown
TDI
Golf GLS TDI, '01, Black
Personally, I think that nuke power is the only practical solution to our energy problem. Everybody freaks out about the waste storage problem, but that is really a red herring for people with irrational fears of things they dont understand, like "radiation". It is certainly within our technical ability to build a sufficiently safe and secure hole in the desert somewhere with enough capacity to store all of our fission waste for a century or three. There are safe and meltdown-proof designs that pretty much eliminate any chance of idiot-induced failure. In much the same way as Americans don't like diesels due to the failure of 30 year old poorly made designs, people have developed a poor opinion of nuke plants due to their experience with plants designed and built with paper, pencil and slide-rule.

There hasn't been a new nuclear plant commissioned in the US in around 25 years, yet they still provide 20% of our power needs. All of those old plants will be going offline sooner rather than later, and our electricity supply will be even more squeezed then. It's time for us to stop paying so much attention to political BS and start letting the people who understand the science behind these things actually make intelligent decisions.
 

alex_tdi

Veteran Member
Joined
May 15, 2001
Location
Los Angeles, CA
TDI
TDI GLS, 2001, Blue
You don't need to make the 2008's crystal pure, you need to get the 1975's off the road. Have Arnie buy 'em a new Kia.
I think a few years ago (about 5 or 6 I think) CA actually DID have a program where you can junk your junk for money. This was when CA had money to burn due to the economy. I thought that was one of the best things this state govt did.

Now all we have to do is find a way to get rid of the old junks AND the SUVs that not only pollutes by increases our dependence on foreign oil.

Alex
 

RogueTDI

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2002
Location
San Diego
TDI
1998 Jetta TDI Black
Make no mistake - this type of hypersensitive, overbearing, over-reactive legislation will end up giving us dinky lightweight cars with crappy performance. 30% not enough? 40%?? Ridiculous.

Yeah, I know its possible - if everyone starts driving Corolla sized cars with diesels. Im sorry, but this sort of bureaucratic activism makes me sick. Want to offer tax incentives for better tech? - great. Want to force makers to comply with idiotic pie-in-the-sky dream legislation? Go to hell.



"Consumers will be able to buy full-sized hybrid pick-up trucks later this summer. We're confident hydrogen will be the long-term fuel of choice ... Our goal is to establish commercial viability of hydrogen technology by 2010," said GM spokesman Dave Barthmuss.
Bwahahahahahahaa!!!!


Sure, fuel cell cars will be commercially viable in 5 years!! Ahahahahahaha!!!

Ahahahahahahahaha!!

Maybe 50 years!

Ahahahahaha!!!! What a load of crap.
 

RogueTDI

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2002
Location
San Diego
TDI
1998 Jetta TDI Black
To this day I still question why government boards propose even more strict regulations on top of what already exists when the problem is mostly the fact that the vehicle fleet doesn't turn over fast enough to even show the effectiveness of the old standards.

Sure enough cars that are sold today are the cleanest that have ever been built from an emissions standpoint. Even a huge Ford Excursion with a gasoline powered V-10 engine is a Low Emissions Vehicle. Anyone who drives (read: everybody) knows that the fleet of vehicles on the road is composed of many different model years of vehicles. New models account for only a small percentage of the vehicles on the road. Knowing this, it makes little sense to me to further regulate pollution when the source of 95% or more of auto pollution is those vehicles that have been in use for more than one or two years.
Excellent excellent point. Although, as was pointed out, CO2 emission reduction has little to do with this point.
 

RogueTDI

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2002
Location
San Diego
TDI
1998 Jetta TDI Black
... It's fine if the H2 is coming from renewable sources, but if that's the case, better start building a lot of windmills and solar power stations ... Otherwise, running a vehicle on H2 that's made from natural gas - the only method practical on an industrial scale right now - emits more CO2 than skipping the whole hydrogen step and using the fossil fuel directly ...
Oh, but you forget the means the powers that be really want to use: nuclear. They want to double our electrical generating capacity to have enough juice for making H2 from water. Renewable Energy will be last on the list, because it makes too much sense, promotes sustainability, and directs financial resources toward the 'wrong' companies. Until science devises the means to make nuclear waste harmless, even in the wrong hands, the obstacles to the expansion of its use remain too great. The inability of the nuclear industry to operate without massive liability waivers from the government ought to bother a lot more people than it does.
What the heck are you talking about??


Science has devised a means to do that.

If you are arguing FOR nuclear power, then good - I agree. Nuclear is what it will take to make H2 even close to commerically feasible. (5 years away - LOL!!! ROFLMAO!!)
 

RogueTDI

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2002
Location
San Diego
TDI
1998 Jetta TDI Black
Second, global warming is still a theory, expounded by many of the climatologists who were warning of a new Ice Age back in the 1970s. But even if the Earth is warming (a big IF), there is no consensus that warming in the upper latitudes would be a bad thing.
First, try doing some factual research. You say it's "still a theory", implying that warming is not proven to be happening. This is false. The "theory" involves the exact mechanism and effects thereof. Whether greenhouse gasses increase heat retention is NOT in dispute by any real scientist.

The comment about ice age forcasts from the 70s, apparently intended to discredit Climatologists in general, is laughable for several reasons. Back then it was mostly media hysterics, but the irony is that the NEWEST predictions indicate that the short-term warming will trigger a shutdown of the systems that regulate global temp, resulting in hotter tropics and colder poles, with a definite likelyhood of big f-ing glaciers advancing gradually into the middle lattitudes in exactly the same way as during the last ice age. Again, do some research.

As for "no consensus that warming in the upper latitudes would be a bad thing", well, when you and your family are starving due to drought and collapsing food production, you'll probably think it's a bad thing. Or do you imagine you'll be enjoying a paper-umbrella drink on your newly formed piece of coastline?


Third, what California does or does not do will have negligible effect on the entire planet.
California is IIRC the 5th largest economy in the WORLD. What it does, for better or worse, has a sizeable effect on the entire planet.
If every vehicle was converted to hydrogen-power, every fossil-fuel power plant was replaced by a nuclear plant, and every living creature stopped exhaling CO2, the climate of Planet Earth will be what it will be.
Meaning what, exactly?? You seem to imply that mankind has no effect on the climate, which is obviously false.
Fourth, considering how this demonstration of environmental wackiness will accomplish absolutely nothing, why should the citizens of California pay hundreds or thousands of dollars more for their motor vehicles?
Do you have any evidence to back your rediculous assertions, or are you just expounding the view from beneath the sand?
You are misdirecting the argument. The fact is, the effect of a 30% reduction of Cali's CO2 emission on the earth's climate is COMPLETELY UNKNOWN and UNKNOWABLE with modern all the tools of modern science. Even so, its almost certainly insignificant in the extreme. The only effect will be, as was said, a decrease in consumer choice, and a more expensive choice at that.

TornadoRed's comments were right on.
 

RogueTDI

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2002
Location
San Diego
TDI
1998 Jetta TDI Black
I am willing to make a few sacrifices (in the number of choices and higher prices) to be an example to the rest of the world, to subsidize the technologies that allows cleaner burning vehicles, and to make this world a better place (even if just a little).
But these new regulations won't produce a cleaner burning vehicle. The only way a vehicle won't produce CO2 is if it doesn't burn anything. So basically it is the first step toward the elimination of the internal combustion engine (Al Gore's nemesis).

Now that is not necessarily a bad thing... depending, of course, on what replaces it. Hydrogen fuel cells? Very clean. But it takes a lot of energy to produce, and where does that energy come from? Nuclear fission plants? No. Nuclear fusion plants? Not invented yet, and when they are the wackos will probably try to keep them from being built. Am I wrong?

Electric cars? Fine, there are hybrids now, and probably more to come. But what are the real costs of manufacturing hybrid vehicles, and what are the real costs of recycling the battery packs? And we already know that hybrids don't get the greatest fuel economy, not in the real world. Also, just comparing the Prius to the Corolla, similar sized vehicles, the Prius is many thousands of $$$$ more.

The people who propose these regulations -- which we will all have to pay for -- would likely prefer that we all use mass transit, though they will deny it.

But in the meantime, these regulations would further limit our choices in the vehicles we buy. No diesel cars in California now -- and if they have their way, never again.
ALso in response to that comment - you may like to make an example for the rest of the world, but most of the rest of Cali probably doesnt agree with you, and regardless, it is absurd to force the rest of Cali to live by your standards by legislative fiat (and fiat it almost is, with the lopsided liberal wacko control of our state government).
 

RogueTDI

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2002
Location
San Diego
TDI
1998 Jetta TDI Black
Do you have any evidence to back your rediculous assertions, or are you just expounding the view from beneath the sand?
I'll stack my ridiculous assertions against your ridiculous assertions.

yeah, really. To me, supporters of the theory of human-induced global warming are a bunch of ridiculous buffoons.
 

Cincy_Mike

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2003
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio
TDI
Auto 2003 Jetta GLS TDI - Galactic Blue
The EPA is trying to clean up the power generating stations, too. Something to remember when thinking about hybrid-electrics and the pollution it takes to power 'em.
 

jrivers804

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 19, 1999
Location
Cape Charles, VA USA
TDI
Jetta, 1998, White
If pollution doesn't move you their are several other good reasons to improve fuel economy in this country. When we import over sixty percent of our oil that makes us vulnerable. Don't worry about how much of the world's resources we consume, worry rather that we are vulnerable to either political blackmail or destruction of faciities. We should be worried about better fuel economy because we are just sending our money into the pockets of people who hate us. On another note, why are some so worried about performance? How often are you going to be going over 100mph? How often is a sub five second 0-60 going to make any difference? How often are you going to need to tow 7000+ lbs? When we grow out of our "but I want it phase" we as a nation will be better off. Don't worry about what the tree huggers want, worry about what will happen to our economy if the terrorists cause a major disruption of oil supply. If OPEC or some other group cuts production and won't budge, what are we going to do, pay it or go to war?
 

MrMopar

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Location
Bloomington, IL
TDI
none
Hmmm, I read somewhere the other day that southern California has a very high percentage of immigrants...people that historically have a bit less filthy lucre than others. These folks of course have to have wheels, and can't pay much for them...add to that the mild Southern California climate that really doesn't stress IC engines, and you have a bunch of ancient crates running around with a decade old tuneup.
You don't need to make the 2008's crystal pure, you need to get the 1975's off the road. Have Arnie buy 'em a new Kia.
Speaking from personal experience, I totally agree with that point. That is also why I made the first post about the slow turnover in the vehicle fleet causing the bulk of pollution.

I live in Central Illinois. Unlike Southern California we do not have the benefit of a moderate climate. Most of the older vehicles here are in much worse shape due to rust and poor maintainence.

Due to financial circumstances and usage patterns, I own a few $500 cars instead of purchasing a new TDI like I have wanted to do for several years. I live within walking distance of a fair amount of the retail services that I need in my life, and my work is not so far away as to justify a brand new car with warranty to drive to and from my job. One of the vehicles I own is a 1987 Dodge Ram Pickup. When I drive this vehicle I know for sure that it pollutes much more than the average new vehicle. It probably pollutes 10 times as much. Hell, I'd even wager that it pollutes 50 times as much (or maybe even more than that!!) as a brand new SULEV vehicle for sale at any dealership in town.

I'm not thrilled with this level of pollution that I cause, but the reason I continue to tolerate it is simple. If I take a few longer trips, I will drive between 3000 and 4000 miles per year. This truck costs me nothing in terms of a payment, only costs $98.45 a year to insure, and cost only $78 to register. Factoring in a few other costs for maintainence such as maybe a tire now and then, some money for brake pads, an oil change once a year, and a few other things, I for sure spend less than $1000 per year (not including fuel) to own this vehicle. A decent sized payment on a new truck alone would easily run about $500 per month without other maintainence expenses added in.

All in all, it is the cost of a new vehicle that keeps me from reducing the pollution that I contribute to the air. If there were more of an incentive to trade up to a newer vehicle, I would do that. But my dollars only stretch so far, so I will not be spending them to upgrade my transportation when the vehicle I have runs just fine.

I'm not saying that the State of Illinois should go out and buy me a new car for the sake of air pollution, I'm just stating the reasons that I won't be buying a new car.
 

DrZhivago

New member
Joined
Jun 17, 2004
Location
Rye, NH
TDI
jetta, 1989, metallic grey
The big picture is definitely scary. Mainly with the fact that the U.S.,Japan and Germany, alone, account for more than half of the worlds GNP. More developed countries, which only amounts to roughly 1.25 billion people, command 87%of the world's wealth and use 89% of the natural resources, 72% of the commercial energy, 92% of the fossil fuels and generate practically all the trash and pollution on this earth. So what is to say about the rest of the 5 billion barely eking out a living? Well, they are adopting industrialization and westernization. The WTO has allowed Walmarts,fast-food restaurants and other corporate enterprises to sprawl around the world to stimulate economic trade without the scrutiny for environmental or cultural impact because there isn't an institution in place to monitor these aspects. Countries whom have little economic growth and are extremely poor will never be able to sign on with the WTO and be left on the wayside to starve. Are we showing a good example of freedom, sustainability and happiness, or are we so wrapped-up in our anthropocentic Americanization that we resort to trifles such as the performace of our vehicles. It's amazing to see that humans lived sustainably for 200,000 years, and then to see, 200 years ago humans reached a population of 1 billion and began to manipulate resources to placate the roughshod of life. Well, what we've learned to manufacture now is definitely superfluous to just surviving healthily, intelligently and vibrantly. Now, annual population growth is 1.6%. We are adding a billion people every 11 years. Do you remember we hit 6bil. in 1997. 7bil. should be in 2008! Honestly, I think California is going in the right direction, but until our federal government subsidizes renewable energy and puts solar pannels everywhere and offers public transportation via MagLev or bullet trains to get the airplanes and vehicles of the roads, then we might reap some benefits.

Americans will have no perspective if there is no cap on what they can have. The fact that I have a car and I live in a country where I can go buy all the materialic junk there is to buy, and consume as much food as I want isn't a luxury, but a painful hipocracy and speciesism to the rest of humanity and life on earth.

Let's just say, with the direction we're going, it is only going to be more painful. America will dominate the playing-field and maintain a caustic influence on other nations. More war, terrorism, starvation, and loss of earth capital is inevitable. Oil will run-out in a hundred years and disease will rise due to autointoxification via pollution, and nuclear waste and nuclear war is looming. My conservative conjecture for human extinction is roughly 500 years.

Well, we can say, "The hell with it!" We are a veritable speck of dust in the universe and we have the right to progress beyond our means. So what if we piss it against the wall, at least we had fun doing it.

I guess we need to ask some serious questions. If you are an American and feel that global warming and environmental degradation is a myth, then why would some scientists continue to show factual evidence and then other scientists show that they are adamantly skeptacle of this evidence, such as, oceans rising 1mm every year. Is there a place to test this claim? Yes. Do scientists get bought-out by corporations and delude the public with convoluted claims? Absolutely.

For me, I wouldn't wish anyone to starve or fight. So, I need to be careful about how I live to make sure my indirect or direct influence on other people is mitigated. Learning sustainable living from other cultures and sharing our own sustainable technologies with others would be ideal. Ultimately we need to regress a little if we want our children to be in a better place.

Peace-out
 

gaspasser

Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Location
Lorimor, IA USA
Very interesting thread with a lot of differing opinions. Here's my $.02. This country operates on capitalism, very little is done unless it affects the bottom dollar. Legislation of tighter standards will do little to affect our consumption. What happens in Commifornia will eventually spread to the rest of us, scary.
Why not impose a $1/gallon tax on fuel? I can hear people pissing and moaning already
. If this tax were imposed and the proceeds returned to the states, there would be immediate investment in alternative energy with little Federal involvement.
I know it would hurt, for awhile.
 

kyote321

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2003
TDI
golf td1, 2002, black
gaspasser,

great idea, but americans have a concept that it is their god-given right to cheap (almost free) fuel as compared to the rest of the world. a tax on gas would kill any politician that porported it. social programs and education are already being cut drasitically to pay for the war for oil. great idea, but no way are they going to tax americans for funding alternative resources. that would be un-american. going and taking from people thast look, dress, and have a different religion is the american way!

love it or move to france you hippie!
 
Top