🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

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. 

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.

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. 

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 emmisions?
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.


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  
 Electrical Engineering                 |   .sig file without a cause
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  
________________________________________|_________________________________