
Originally Posted by
discretedancer
Your statement was that the environmental regulation has no scientific basis . The scientific basis for emissions testing is that air pollution is a known contributor to health issues -that air pollution is bad
The FACT that we cannot mandate people buy newer cars (that would be too much a burden on the lower income people, for one) has NOTHING to do with the environmental or scientific validity of the testing. Logically, as these cars age out of the system (and theoretically, newer cars get better and can be subjected to more stringent testing) the overall quality of our air will improve.
Who says we can't? In my state we mandate that in order to drive a car you have to have auto insurance. Driving a car is a privilage, not a right. If air pollution is bad, why should low income people be allowed to do it while middle and upper income people are not allowed to? I'm being a little sarcastic here, but only to prove a point. The atmosphere doesn't know or care what the socio-economic status is of the person driving the car is. If the emissions coming out of a car are bad for the environment, they should be stopped regardlesss of that persons income level. Anything else is not scientifically valid.
Therefore, I don't see how the environmental regulation lacks scientific basis, simply because the legislators agreed to apply it to only newer vehicles.
May I see this evidence? I would argue that MILLIONS of SUVs and consumer trucks spew alot of pollution too - many of which get worse gas mileage than the old 1978 Ford Fairmont I had in college.
My comment was from a news report I heard. However, from, Measurement of Carbon Monoxide in Auto Exhaust Using a Fast and Inexpensive Sensor
by Dan Jaffe and Rick Vos
University of Washington Bothell
Submitted to the Journal of College Science Teaching, 3 May, 2002
I offer the following:
Carbon monoxide is an important pollutant because of its severe health effects at high concentrations...Previous studies have shown that a small number of high emitting vehicles are responsible for the majority of the CO emissions in most urban areas...Several studies of on-road emissions have shown that a small fraction of high emitting vehicles emit the bulk of all CO. For example in the study by Beaton et al (1995), they found that 7% of the vehicles were responsible for 50% of the CO emissions. Similarly a National Research Council document (NRC 2001) reiterated this point in a recent review of this issue by stating “Typically less then 10% of the fleet contributes more then 50% of the emissions for any given pollutantâ€. These vehicles are called “gross emittersâ€, in that they have CO emissions that were well above the levels of most vehicles. The average age of the gross emitters is usually above average, but even some new vehicles, with modern emission controls, were found to be gross emitters. The authors concluded that these vehicles either had their emission controls tampered with or there was a serious malfunction in some component of the system. In addition the authors of these studies found that vehicles registered in areas that required participation in an IM [Inspection Maintenance] program do not have lower on-road emissions, on average. In other words the IM programs don’t seem to be effective in reducing CO emissions from these high emitters. Blue emphasis is mine.
So there you go. Not only are we testing the wrong vehicles. The testing itself doesn't do a damn bit of good.
I stand by my statement. If less than 10% of the vehilces are responsilble for more than 50% of the harmful emissions, you should concentrate your efforts on that 10% not ignore them. Anything else is not a scientfically valid solution.
How would you deal with this? Ask the minimum-wage parent to invest money they don't have in a car they could never get a loan for?...No, this must be a state law and one I would WORK TO CHAGE. If it is a car which should pass but doesn't - it fails. Period.
But what if the car that failed is owned by that minimum-wage parent? For what its worth, I'm not so cold hearted as to really suggest that we take away people's cars just because they are poor and that's all they can offord. I'm just saying that as long as we take things like a person's income into account in making environmental rules, the process will be scientifically invalid.
Here we agree. if that were not true, Coal and oil would not have been included in Bush/Cheney's "alternative fuel" section of the energy bill
Yes but you forgot to mention ethanol that all the politicians from farm states have kept in business all these years with their subsidies.
BTW I enjoy reading your posts, even the one's I don't agree with. You're very smart and can make your point without being angry.
Bookmarks