🚀 go-pugleaf

jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:

> 
> 
> Well what do people think about the emmisions testing?
> (I drive a '91 car, so NYAH! no testing for me).
> 
> It seems like a step in the right direction, but
> it seems a bit complicated, and inconsistent.
> 

I agree that it's a step in the right direction, although I disagree with 
some of the procedures. It seems to me that if your car produces the 
specified amount or less of pollutants, it ought to pass, whether or not 
it has all the factory equipment as it was built. 

For example, if I equip a car with natural gas instead of gasoline, and 
the car produces less pollutants than is specified for my year of car, it 
ought to pass the test whether or not, for example, it still has a 
catalytic converter.

The same goes for people who have had to install parts from earlier or 
later models of cars - due to availability, etc - in their engines. If it 
produces the specified or less pollutants, it ought to pass, whether or 
not the engine is as originally installed.

> The majority of economists believe that a pollution tax would cut pollution
> quickly and efficiently. Air care is sort of a tax, but not really:
> you either pass and get your insurance, or don't pass, and no insurance.
> 
> Instead of causing a scramble, and windfall profits for mechanics, the
> govt could raise money by charging a sliding scale tax based on the
> emmissions. Ie, a car with x% of NOx or CO or whatever, would have to
> pay $50 or $100 or whatever. More pollution, more tax. 
> 
While you might charge more for a car with higher pollution levels, it 
doesn't seem to take into account the amount of use the vehicle gets. For 
example, you might have an older vehicle, without pollution control 
equipment, but only driven once a week to the store, that puts far less 
pollution in the air than a newer car driven all day every day by a 
salesman. IF you're going to enact a pollution tax, it seems to me it 
would be far fairer to enact it as a gasoline (or fuel) surtax. That way, 
those who use the most fuel (and drove/polluted the most) would pay the 
most. It would also reward more fuel efficient vehicles.

> A tax is probably
> a more efficient and fair way of letting people depreciate their investments
> (instead of paying big fees to mechanics). They would probably buy newer,
> more efficient cars sooner, than if they paid for repairs. And the govt.
> would get more money. 
> 
> Qualifying for insurance (spreading and managing risk
> among a large number of policy holders) has absolutely nothing to do with
> polluting (where you should pay for the use or damage of a publicly owned
> resource: air).
> 
> I also think it's very inconsistent to be basing the tests on the year of
> the car. Either x% of pollution is bad, or it's not. I don't think a car
> should be allowed to pass just because it meets specs at the time the
> car was made.
> 

While it's no guarantee, it IS far less likely that a new car will 
pollute far less severely than one which has been poorly or indifferently 
maintained for a number of years. Eventually, as the bugs get sorted out 
in the Air Care program, thse cars, too, will require certification.

> Also, why are ordinary citizens forced into one pollution class, and yet
> (as far as I know) commercial trucks, busses, farm equipment are exempt?? 
> If you've
> ever seen a bus driving along, they must spew at least as much pollution
> and particulate emmissions as the equivalent number of passenger carrying
> cars, and probably more. Just look at the black filth pouring out
> of busses, dumptrucks,  etc. I've been told by a mechanical eng. (hi julie!)
> that diesel engines don't give off too much CO, NOx, but they DO give off
> a lot of solid particles (that's why the smoke is black). True, there
> are a lot more cars, but I'd bet that the smaller number of trucks contribute
> a substantial amount of pollution. 
> 

On at least one talk show I heard, a government representative stated 
that buses/trucks etc will also be required to undergo certification, but 
that they are bringing it in first for cars because they cause 80 % of 
the pollution resulting from vehicles. 

After they get the program working properly, they'll bring it in for 
buses/trucks, too. He estimated it would take a couple of years at least.

> I think the Airport should be subject to a  pollution tax. Airplanes burn
> the kerosene extremely efficiently  (ie CnH(2n+2) + O2 ----> CO2 + H2O )
> but only at high speed. The planes at the airport spend a lot of time
> taxiing, idling, and flying holding patterns at low throttle. In Richmond,
> I can often smell oily exhaust that I'm sure is caused by the planes.
> It's a busy airport too, which compounds the problem. In the USA, airlines
> pay a fee for landing rights; I think in Canada it's different, but some
> kind of charge could be levied on airlines based on what they pay for
> airport access.
> 
> Does anyone know the gases they test for?
> I heard that CO2 is one component they test for. But CO2 is harmless.
> I'm sure they must do NOx testing. Do they also test for particulate emmision
> What about uncombusted hydrocarbons (heptanes, octanes, nonanes etc. benzene)
> 
> Anyway, I think the reason for these iconsistencies is that ordinary 
> citizens are too used to being lined up and subjected to yet another taxe
> regulation etc.
> 
> Special interests like truckers, farmers, airports, busses etc seem to get 
> off the hook, even though their contribution to the problem is significant.


I think you're being excessively suspicious, and that the inconsistencies 
are more due to inertia, bureaucracy, normal start up problems and the 
long lead time required to set up programs this complex than to any 
planned imposition on those least likely to squawk.


Robert Smits Ladysmith B.C. emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they 
want, and deserve to get it good and hard. - H.L. Mencken