Pontiac Solstice Forum banner

Big Brother's Oppression Hovers Over Us

5K views 46 replies 19 participants last post by  GS Stage 1 
#1 ·
I for a long while have groused and complained :cuss: about the restrictions foisted on us by the oppressive smog Nazis (the CARB) here in California, and have envied the relative freedom to modify and enjoy your cars as you will those of you who live in states with less heavy-handed air pollution laws. But today, while searching the net for info on the penalties in California for changing or removal of the catalytic converter, I was saddened. It seems the Obama administration is considering agreeing to California's request for exemption from federal laws and allow even stricter smog regulations.

Here is an article from a recent issue of the New York Times on the issue.

WASHINGTON — President Obama will direct federal regulators on Monday to move swiftly on an application by California and 13 other states to set strict automobile emission and fuel efficiency standards, two administration officials said Sunday.
jkThe directive makes good on an Obama campaign pledge and signifies a sharp reversal of Bush administration policy. Granting California and the other states the right to regulate tailpipe emissions would be one of the most emphatic actions Mr. Obama could take to quickly put his stamp on environmental policy.
Mr. Obama’s presidential memorandum will order the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider the Bush administration’s past rejection of the California application. While it stops short of flatly ordering the Bush decision reversed, the agency’s regulators are now widely expected to do so after completing a formal review process.
Once they act, automobile manufacturers will quickly have to retool to begin producing and selling cars and trucks that get higher mileage than the national standard, and on a faster phase-in schedule. The auto companies have lobbied hard against the regulations and challenged them in court.

Here is the link to the compete article. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/us/politics/26calif.html


For all in California and other states that have applied for exemption from federal regulations to allow even more restrictive state smog regulations who voted for Obama who promised change, it looks like change is coming, along with some stifling changes you didn't anticipate.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Sooooo --- my advice is to just repeat "change" and "hope" until you can replicate the incredible act of voluntary fainting that all those Obama supporters were able to do at his rallies. If you have a true, undying, and nonsensical devotion to the man you can begin to put on the all too comfortable blinders and choose not to see the incredible disaster his policy choices will prove to be. That way you can be giddy with hope at the same time that American automakers are hit by another cannon, the country follows the timeless correlation of becoming more socialist and thus less wealthy, and we rely increasingly on the government instead of ourselves. That is the only way for happiness in an increasingly gloomy future :) Good luck!

(Yes --- seeing the best country, which was always the most enabling for its citizens, go slowly down in a sea of lofty rhetoric turns one into just a bit of a cynic -- that's were the "hope" and "change" chants can come in)
 
#3 ·
So some states are now permitted to have stricter regs if they want. "Let the states decide!"

Wanna bet what would happen if a state "decided" to eliminate ALL smog regulations as burdensome on its citizens and too costly to enforce? You can be sure the feds would be chanting a different mantra.

Don't get me started............
 
#4 ·
So some states are now permitted to have stricter regs if they want. "Let the states decide!"
I agree, let the states decide. But further than that, for those owners who as individuals decide they want their ride to be different, and are willing to pay for their own modifications, let them do it (within reason related to the safety of others). Most drivers are not enthusiasts and would not be interested in engine or handling modifications, and it seems to me, the total overall impact would be minimal.

Wanna bet what would happen if a state "decided" to eliminate ALL smog regulations as burdensome on its citizens and too costly to enforce? You can be sure the feds would be chanting a different mantra.

Don't get me started............
The governmental do-gooders, along with special interest groups are, at every level from cities to the feds, destroying the greatness this country once enjoyed. (But from where I stand, it is still far better than the rest.)
 
#5 ·
Hello, while there is no doubt States should have rights. There also has to be a standard that we all can follow ( 12" is a foot). We cant have 50 states with differant regluations for car manufactures to follow, its hard enough with C.A.F.E and EPA also DOT whats next we all drive the same golf cart. Detroit has to make money not more penalties to restrict commerce. let the market decide (YOU) not a overpowering nanny government. Thanks Norm
 
#6 ·
i believe in states rights also. however, sometimes they seem to ignore the bill of rights with certain restrictions..2nd amendment lets say....anyway. If they increase efficiency and decrease pollution, and maybe improve performance too, I could maybe adjust.....watch the fed and state govts increase the gas tax so we can enjoy 4$+ per gallon to make up for the decrease in gas usage/tax revenue. the burden will always fall on the citizens. :brentil:
 
#7 ·
On the other side, you should look up how much the automakers have already spent in legal fees to fight regulations - it is approaching the amount needed to comply. If they would just collectively decide to make more fuel efficient vehicles, and meet the highest standard across the country (and not worry about individual states), the price per unit for additional pollution controls would be driven down and buyers would hardly notice.

I am no tree hugger by any means, but when I moved from the Midwest to the West Coast it was pretty obvious that pollution is a problem here in the US, not to mention the rest of the world. You would have to be blind and an idiot to fight with that fact. I mean seriously, what moron really wants polluted air and water.

Another thing - the "states rights" argument is ridiculous. Unless a state is able to contain all its air and water, then its "rights" are infringing on the "rights" of other states. Not to mention the fact that we have "Interstate Roadways" and while I don't have any hard facts, I would feel safe in saying that most vehicles operate in more than the state they are licensed in.
 
#9 ·
Ahh yes! We hastily jog towards automotive nirvana so that we can correlate hate emissions to hate speech. Politically correct auto designs were only a matter of time I guess. V8s to join cigarettes and fur coats on the list of not tolerated items in our "civilized society".
 
#10 ·
Ok, here is a question: Is anyone surprised by the new administration's move towards this agenda? I mean, come on people, it's not like candidate Obama didn't say what he would do as President Obama.:lol::lol:

This is what we as a Nation voted for, like or not. So this is what we have to look forward to. Time to tuck it up and adjust to the new reality. :grouphug:
 
#11 ·
It is like Seat Belts and Motorcycle Helmets - I don't like to wear either item. However, if I run into some, I am really glad they were "forced" to wear them by the "big bad government".

It is no different with automobile pollution - if you want to enjoy the benefits of operating an automobile on public roadways, there is a cost. Too many autos now = too much pollution.
 
#33 ·
It is like Seat Belts and Motorcycle Helmets
In the State of Delaware, they have a specific direction that is ok for your head to smash a windshield.

It is Unacceptable for your head to hit the interior side of the windshield.
Seat Belt Law

But,
It is completely acceptable for you to smash a windshield with your head, granted it is from the outside of the car
No Helmet law.

Other than the above, there is no rhyme or reason as to why one safety standard is enforced and the other isn't
as such, I am sticking with my theory.
:thumbs:
 
#12 ·
This is exactly why we have the SEMA action network, join it. Make your voice heard.

SEMA SAN - SEMA ACTION NETWORK

As an Obama supporter, I know that I won't agree with the guy 100% of the time. And even though I canvased many neighborhoods for the campaign, I won't hesitate to make my voice heard when I disagree with a policy the administration wants to make. Especially when it comes to my cars!
 
#14 ·
We have a winter blend here in Maryland to help protect the Bay, Virginia doesn't. Our winter gas cost more and as a side benefit produces less MPG. Ain't technology grand!
 
#16 ·
The issue is not whether there should be higher standards, it is whether it is feasible to have different standards in every state. The federal government must have the role of standardizing regulations, or commerce could grind to a halt.

It is interesting that individual nations in Europe are consolidating regulations to improve interactions among them even as we begin to move in the opposite direction.
 
#17 ·
One national standard. That should be the goal. The problem of having different standards for different states is the price of compliance. We already carry significant penalty for complying with separate noise and pollution certification. Look at how long it takes to get a CARB-certified factory mod through the system (Stage II Kit).

The other part is what I've always had a problem with: do as I say not as I do. Al Gore telling me I have to be green when the guy offsets 125 of me with only one of his households (as one simple example). California wants big vehicles that have the fuel efficiency of the Prius. Keep in mind that the Corvette, the Mustang, the Solstice - NONE of these vehicles even come close to meeting the proposed 2020 standards. Really only the Prius does. Or an electric vehicle does.

But if you like a vehicle that stops in an incredible 150 feet from 60 MPH, does 0-60 in a staggering 11 seconds, covers a 1/4 mile in a pavement ripping 17.5 seconds at an eye-bleeding head-spinning 79 MPH...

(...wait a minute, these specs looks strangely like another vehicle that used to get 50MPH+ on diesel. The lovely and engaging diesel Chevrolet.... CHEVETTE! ah, but I digress...)

...well then bully for you.

But mandating all of the fleet of cars from any given manufacturer get 40 some MPG and all trucks getting nearly 30 MPH (what the desired CO2 limits really mean)... it just ain't gonna happen by when CA wants it. If the technology really exists - show me a car that stops, accelerates, and corners even halfway decent that gets 40 MPG, and a full sized pickup truck that gets 29 MPG... I'm sure all of the autocompanies would love to have it.

Truth is, it ain't out there...

Do you REALLY think that all of the Californians out there follow CARB to the letter? Right.

Does EVERYONE in CA only drive a Prius?

No trucks?
 
#19 · (Edited)
Do you REALLY think that all of the Californians out there follow CARB to the letter? Right.
Of course we do! :rofl:

Carpe: Out of curiosity I swung by a smog only test station to ask about cats not long ago. These used to be considered the "hard to pass" places, but guess my impression was wrong. The owner said he didn't care. If he saw no cat, an automatic fail, but if he saw a cat of any kind, it didn't consider it his place to determine if it was OEM, hi-flow, whatever. When I pressed as to repercussions of failure for no cat, he just shrugged and said no refund for the test cost and come back when you have one. Pass the visual and the sniffer and you pass. Seems reasonable, but were those statements true, CARB might take exception.


CARB remains busy if one checks their press releases. http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/newsrel.htm A taste of CARB for the non CA folks so ya know what's coming if "we" get our way leading the fight on global warming. :) An extreme statement? Maybe, but CARB seems to feel strongly in their cause.

12/23/08 ARB chairman tells U.S. Senate committee Clean Air Act is powerful tool to fight global warming

Mary Nichols, chairman of the California Air Resources Board, today told a Senate Committee in Washington D.C. that Congressional action is urgently needed to set a firm and ambitious cap on greenhouse gas emissions.

The ARB chairman addressed the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works, chaired by Senator Boxer.

"California, and other states are already seeing the effects of global warming," said Nichols. "We need action now. Addressing climate change with tough federal legislation must be the first item in the new President's inbox."

In April, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and ordered the EPA to examine the impacts of global warming and how it could regulate greenhouse gases. Instead, the EPA only described the harm, but declined to make a definitive statement.

"We cannot wait another minute to begin to reverse the neglect of the past eight years and start to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," she said. "The Clean Air Act is a powerful tool that is ready to be put to use starting on day one of the next administration."

Nichols, who served as an Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation at the U.S. EPA for four years under President Clinton, also pointed out that the Clean Air Act could be used effectively to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from some of the largest sources in the country, including vehicles and power plants.

As chairman of the California Air Resources Board, Nichols oversees the implementation of California's pioneering climate change legislation. The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, usually referred to as "AB 32," was signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger on September 27, 2006, just shy of two years ago.

ARB staff are currently putting the finishing touches on the final plan outlining the measures, programs and policies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions in California by 30 percent over the next 12 years. Many of these programs are based on approaches outlined in the Clean Air Act.
.... continues

http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr092308.htm



1/26/09 - Rite Aid fined for air quality violations
The Air Resources Board announced today that it has fined Rite Aid Corporation $340,000 for violations of clean air regulations that require only windshield-washer fluid with specific chemical formulas be sold in California.

ARB cited the company for indiscriminately selling throughout the state windshield-washer fluid that is specially formulated for colder, mountainous areas. In these regions more volatile organic compounds are added to prevent the liquid from freezing and for removing ice formations on windshields. But in the heat of the sun VOCs contribute to ozone creation and are less necessary in the lower warmer regions.

?California?s retail stores are responsible for assuring that the products they sell comply with our anti-smog regulations," said Mary D. Nichols, ARB Chairman.

.... continues
Clearly contraband for the water-meth crowd from the drug store chain. :lol:


1/09/09 Kragen Auto fined $600,000

The Air Resources Board has fined CSK Auto, Inc. $600,000 for selling windshield washer fluid throughout the state that does not comply with the state's clean air regulations.

CSK Auto, Inc, is headquartered in Phoenix AZ and is parent company of several west coast automobile supply retail outlets, including California's Kragen Auto Parts, where the violations were found. ARB cited the chain for selling windshield fluid throughout California that was specially formulated with higher pollutants to prevent from freezing in the state's colder, mountainous areas.

...
The windshield washer menace continues. :eek:


12/20/08 New year brings requirement for labeling new cars

Beginning Jan. 1, every 2009 model year and newer car built for sale in California will be required to carry a label that clearly ranks the vehicle's environmental impact.

The label will show the simple ranking system that provides consumers practical information that can help them choose the most environmentally friendly vehicle that still meets their transportation needs.

"This label will arm consumers with the information they need to choose a vehicle that saves gas, reduces greenhouse gas emissions and helps fight smog all at once," said ARB Chairman Mary Nichols. "Consumer choice is an especially powerful tool in our fight against climate change."

The environmental performance label will have two scores on a scale of 1-10, a Smog Score and a Global Warming Score. The average new car will score five on both scales. The higher the score the more environmentally friendly the car is . The California Air Resources Board also hosts a consumer web site, www.DriveClean.ca.gov, that provides information on the cleanest, most efficient cars on the market.
The 2008 Solstice and "Solstice TC", um, GXP?, :rolleyes: have smog values of 4 out of 10. The 09 Solstice has a global warming value of 6 out of 10. Didn't care to look up how they were determined. Bad move discontinuing Envious, I guess. <shrug>


12/30/08 Bay Area ready mix company fined $7,000 for air quality violations

The Air Resources Board fined an East Bay concrete ready mix company $7,000 this month for failing to inspect its heavy-duty diesel fleets for 2007 and 2008.

An ARB investigation showed that Berkeley-Oakland Ready Mix, subsidiary of Hanson Aggregates, personnel failed to inspect and maintain records for their diesel truck fleet, as required by California law. Annual smoke tests are required for diesel truck fleet, in conjunction with ARB's roadside smoke inspection program; the law ensures that all vehicles are properly maintained, tamper-free and free from excessive smoke.
...

12/12/08 ARB adopts landmark rules to clean up pollution from "big rigs"

The Air Resources Board today adopted two critical regulations directly aimed at cleaning up harmful emissions from the estimated one million heavy-duty diesel trucks that operate in California. Beginning January 1, 2011, the Statewide Truck and Bus rule will require truck owners to install diesel exhaust filters on their rigs, with nearly all vehicles upgraded by 2014. Owners must also replace engines older than the 2010 model year according to a staggered implementation schedule that extends from 2012 to 2022.

Also adopted today, the Heavy Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction measure requires long-haul truckers to install fuel efficient tires and aerodynamic devices on their trailers that lower greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel economy.

...
They're offering financial assitance, but the initial read sounds tough.


On and on the press releases go. And of course the request to reconsider the EPA waiver.

How do you realistically expect to increase gas emissions from passenger vehicles 30 percent by 2016? That doesn't seem reasonable.


01/21/09 California Air Resources Board asks EPA to reconsider denial of waiver to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars

Today, ARB Chairman Mary Nichols sent a letter to Lisa Jackson, the new designated Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), requesting that she revisit the decision by the previous EPA administrator that denied California the waiver it needs to enforce its clean car law.

?We feel strongly that under its new leadership, EPA will recognize that the decision made by the former administrator to deny California the waiver to enforce our clean car law was flawed, factually and legally, in fundamental ways,? said Nichols.

Should the EPA grant the waiver, California, and 13 other states will begin a program to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles 30 percent by 2016.

The letter points out that the decision by the previous EPA administrator improperly evaluated California?s need for greenhouse gas standards in complete isolation, without also considering the context of California?s complete motor vehicle emission control program. This created a new set of hurdles and test that no other waiver request had triggered.

The letter also indicates that California believes that the EPA can reconsider its decision in a manner that fulfills its public notice and comment obligations without undue delay. This is because the issues to be reconsidered are limited in scope, and there has already been extensive comment input by stakeholders and the public on the waiver request.
...
http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr012109b.htm

I'd ask how much progress we could make if they could reduce gridlock and get folks out of the hours of crawling traffic each day, but I'm afraid of the answer.
 
#18 ·
This type of thing is a state decision. With all the problems going on in the world you guys are worried about what the government is gonna allow you to drive? So may other bigger issues I would expect an adult to be upset over.

Oh and as far as I am concerned nothing should be decieded at the National level EVER!!! You have no idea what you are asking for when you say things like that. Everything should be state by state. At least then you have some control over it. And if you don't like it you can leave that state. You cannot sell your house and all your belongings and leave the country.
 
#20 ·
I just wanted to clear a couple of things up. The first is there is a national standard for fuel economy and emissions. The second is that California is the only state that is allowed to regulate its own emissions. This works and doesn't. CARB has strickter emissions on "regular" vehicles and its tried, on several occasions, to regulate certain vehicle production. The latter has failed frequently.

About 5 years ago (the number I made up, it is realitively recently though), other states were allowed to adopt the CARB emissions rules. Essentially, the federal government said "since vehicle manufacturers are already producing vehicles to this standard, they can produce a few more and supply them to the other states but no other state can have individual regulations." However, the state needs about a three year warning period before they become effective in that state. As of last count (about 1 year ago) there were going to be 13 states that utilize the CARB standards.

Now the recent area of regulation and legal battles were focused on the regulation of CO2 directly. The reason CO2 is such a big issue is it is directly related to fuel economy i.e., at a certain MPG you are putting out exactly xxx PPM (parts per million) of CO2. In essence, this would give California the ability to create its own MPG ratings. This will cause many issues with compliance. Most automakers with a full line-up of vehicles, can not meet these.

What I imagine would happen is that the major OEMs would have to severly limit the amount and kinds of vehicles that California would see. I would predict people driving out of state just to buy a new vehicle they wanted. There is an exclusion to this though. The person would not be able to import a non-Californian vehicle into the state until it had 7,500 miles. Can't you just see a line of dynos running vehicles 24 hours/day just to reach this mark? :)

Anyway, there needs to be a combination of state and federal government. If every state could hap-hazardly define it's own regulations for something like this, then the vehicle produced in Nevada, that doesn't require seatbelts could not be exported to any other state. I know, a strange example, but nonetheless illustrates the point.
 
#21 ·
Oh, and one more strange twist to CARB's intended rule: the largest offenders will not be effected. Only manufacturers that produce over 60,000 vehicles/year (I believe, if not 60k exactly, then very close to it). This means that Californians could still buy the Porsche 911 Turbo or GT3 but not a Corvette, Z06, or ZR1. Oh, and "new" auto manufacturers also get a "bye" for several years so that they can get ready to meet the standard at a later time.

This really seems to put full line automanufacturers at a disadvantage. This is why Toyota sided with the domestics for the exclusion of the regulation while Honda was all for the competitive advantage it would receive.
 
#23 ·
Oh, and one more strange twist to CARB's intended rule: the largest offenders will not be effected. Only manufacturers that produce over 60,000 vehicles/year (I believe, if not 60k exactly, then very close to it). This means that Californians could still buy the Porsche 911 Turbo or GT3 but not a Corvette, Z06, or ZR1. Oh, and "new" auto manufacturers also get a "bye" for several years so that they can get ready to meet the standard at a later time.
And of course any low production, high price tag vehicle made: Mercedes Benz, Ferrari, Lambo, should I go on?:lol::lol::lol:

Again, is anyone surprised here? Of course the limousine liberals that come up with these policies are going to exempt the vehicles they drive. Why wouldn't they? All of these pollution problems are caused by the little people, so that is who needs to be regulated.

As far as meeting the new standards is concerned, the technology is there. And to a certain extent, GM has been leading the way. They have a little 1.4 turbo to deploy and have been testing in Europe already. Green Car Congress: GM Introduces Saab 9-X E-85 Optimized BioHybrid Concept at Geneva Motor Show

This should make Nancy Pelosi just quiver with anticipation and self satisfaction as she drives home in her stretch Limo.
 
#26 ·
So are you saying that you are in favor of dirty air and polluted water? I just want to make sure understand completely.
 
#28 ·
LOL, opened up a can of worms there.

Well put, DuckSol.

There in a nutshell is the problem with all of the hysteria about pollution. Everyone gets so caught up in trying to judge their fellow consumers and prove who is the "greener user" of the day, that the real science gets lost in the mix. No one is thinking about the ramifications from creating so many batteries, the disposal or recycle of said batteries, or just exactly where the power will come from to charge said batteries. If we could magically turn everyone's car into a battery overnight, the national grid would crash at charge time.:lol:

We have the same problem with the new mandate eliminating Thomas Edison's genius, known as the lowly incandescent light bulb, by 2014. By that time all light bulbs in the US will have to be replaced with compact fluorescent. Now I want everyone to really think about this one. Especially my "green" friends on the forum. When 165 million households have mercury vapor light bulbs in their homes, do you really think everyone will responsibly dispose of those light bulbs when they burn out? And even if they do, is there an infrastructure in place that can handle that massive environmental hazard safely? And the best part, no one seems to really be able to predict how much power consumption will be saved on a national basis. Why you ask; well because of the good old human factor. Studies have shown that people tend to get a little more sloppy with shutting off their lights, when the power bill goes down. :lol::lol:

So when I get the old "Don't you care about clean air?" statement, I put it the same category as a lawyer asking someone under oath, "when was the last time you beat your wife?" :lol::lol: No matter how you answer the question, you are implying guilt.
 
#29 ·
So when I get the old "Don't you care about clean air?" statement, I put it the same category as a lawyer asking someone under oath, "when was the last time you beat your wife?" :lol::lol: No matter how you answer the question, you are implying guilt.
But don't you see? It is CLEARLY a black and white only issue. There _IS_ no middle ground! You either revere the earth or you rape it. No third choice! It's like paying your taxes, either you do or you don't :devil:

Lawyer: "So, have you ever been caught driving drunk?"

:lol:
 
#30 ·
But it is much easier to sit back and say, "that is not the best solution", than to propose a better solution. I don't drive a Prius or use CFL's, but we should all be happy that there finally some realization that our current path is not the best solution. It will be trial and error for some time - history has proven this many times over.

The important fact is the general population has realized that we need better solutions. Yeah, maybe batteries are not the "be all end all" solution, but it does provide a bridge or stepping stone to new technology.

This is how innovation happens. Sometime it takes some "motivation" via federal enforcement to move things toward new technology. Solar, Wind, Cow Poo or whatever someone comes up with in their garage would not stand a chance against the lobbying dollars of the Petro Industry without some assistance.

At some point, you have to realize that Guns N' Roses is classic rock now - so innovate and accept things change or become a dinosaur.

To quote Henry Ford, "If I asked my customers what they want, they would say a faster horse."
 
#31 ·
To quote Henry Ford, "If I asked my customers what they want, they would say a faster horse."
And if he or Bob Lutz had asked me what I want, I would, for now, answer that I want to be able to modify MY Solstice the way I want to without some tree-hugging government bureaucrat pontificating as to what I may or may not be allowed to do.

I'd be happy to comply with reasonable emission restrictions and a sniff test to show that my car is within certain prescribed limits for that make and model year. (It would be nice if those limits were relaxed somewhat for enthusiasts.) But here in California, technically and legally, we cannot change, or remove, or relocate certain components, even if there is no effect in the sniff tests or the sniff tests actually show reduced emissions. How restrictive and insane is that?
 
#34 ·
And if you think it's bad with Cars,
It's worse with 4x4's.

Bumper height, tread sticking out, what's the difference between fender extension vs flare and why is one legal but one isn't, Doors no doors
blah blah blah
 
#35 · (Edited)
Guns N Roses is by no means classic rock. We'll need something from the 70's when they still played music on the radio. :D

(These crazy kids and their music! :lol: )

I would agree that better solutions are needed, I would be in favor of looking beyond tomorrow, though. California's switch to MTBE as an anti-knock replacement for tetraethyl lead is a worthy example. Clean burning, non-toxic, seemed like a great idea. Seemed so until six months after its introduction a great number of ground water sources in the state were contaminated due to its great ability to leach through the soil. Non-toxic it is, foul smelling and bad-tasting it was also!

Let us make haste slowly.

BTW, we do not live in a democracy, we live in a representative republic, at least if our constitution still stands. :patriot:
 
#36 ·
BTW, we do not live in a democracy, we live in a representative republic, at least if our constitution still stands. :patriot:
Actually, if you want to be technical, we live in a Federal Republic or so all the books in my masters program told me.
 
#38 ·
Want some Meatloaf to go with your Bread?:lol:

New 1st line of the 1040 long form, due to recently appointed Treasury Secretary Status: "Have you ever been caught not paying your taxes?" :lol::lol:

Folkxrock hit the nail on the head when he mentioned number of cars on the road = we have to do something. Unfortunately the math is a little staggering. With a world wide population doubling rate of once every 53 years, things are going to reach a point of diminishing returns quickly, in all aspects of life. For 99.9 percent of humankind’s existence, our world population was less than 10 million people. We are well over 6 billion now.

I for one am a firm believer in mother earth's ability to self correct. Somehow I get the feeling that if humanity fails to fix it's own problems, humanity will get the big fix in a different way.:lol:

P.S. G&R has a new album, and it rocks!!!
 
#42 ·
Fastest, Green-est Solution

Applying ever tougher regulations to new vehicles is not very effective and is slow. If states are serious about cleanup, they need to get older vehicles off the road more quickly. Why wait until the low fuel economy, higher emissions vehicles die "naturally"?

Give a tax cut or rebate for every vehicle retired and replaced with a newer one that gets better fuel mileage and has less emissions

Give tax cut or rebate for every one recycled

The side benefit would be stimulus for new vehicle purchases
 
#43 ·
Applying ever tougher regulations to new vehicles is not very effective and is slow. If states are serious about cleanup, they need to get older vehicles off the road more quickly. Why wait until the low fuel economy, higher emissions vehicles die "naturally"?

Give a tax cut or rebate for every vehicle retired and replaced with a newer one that gets better fuel mileage and has less emissions

Give tax cut or rebate for every one recycled

The side benefit would be stimulus for new vehicle purchases
:agree:That is a very good point. There are some interesting statistics on that idea. If you remove one vehicle that gets 18 mpg, you get about twice the benefit of adding one vehicle that gets 30+ mpg. Almost any way you slice it, removing lower MPG vehicles is a much faster way to reducing overall petro consumption & emissions.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top