CA's tougher emission standards valid and have scientific basis

[Ugg]

Link (http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309101514?OpenDocument)

The basis for California's pioneering role in setting emissions standards for cars, trucks, and off-road equipment is scientifically valid, says a new congressionally mandated report from the National Academies' National Research Council. California's standards -- which are generally stricter than the federal government's -- are still needed because of persistent pollution in parts of the state, said the committee that wrote the report. California's standards also tend to spur the development of better emission-control technologies that benefit the rest of the nation, the committee noted. It did not comment on the state's recent standards for greenhouse-gas emissions because they were adopted while the report was in progress, and because there are no federal standards to which they can be compared.

bushco was attempting to limit California's ability to force automakers to meet more stringent air pollution standards. This is a big win for air quality in California and also for gas mileage standards across the nation. It's also a big win for states' rights.

[Kingsly]

This is a big win for air quality in California and also for gas mileage standards across the nation.
Lord knows we need it.

[WildCowboy]

In spite of our great emission standards, we still have the second dirtiest air in the country (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/03/22/state/n014052S14.DTL). And given that we're on the West Coast, we can't blame other states for blowing their smoke our way.

[Ugg]

In spite of our great emission standards, we still have the second dirtiest air in the country (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/03/22/state/n014052S14.DTL). And given that we're on the West Coast, we can't blame other states for blowing their smoke our way.

Desertrat posted something the other day that up to a third of California's air pollution might be coming from China.

[pseudobrit]

bushco was attempting to limit California's ability to force automakers to meet more stringent air pollution standards. This is a big win for air quality in California and also for gas mileage standards across the nation. It's also a big win for states' rights.

Science? Well that's fine for blue states, but where's the faith-based report for the red states?

[Desertrat]

Yeah, "up to" or "as much as" one-third of air pollutants are traced back to China, per an article on energy use, Chinese development and such.

To me, a scary thing about the California air quality is that I know from observation how much worse it was back forty years ago. Visual pollution as to particulate matter, anyway. I once saw--1967, IIRC--from 30,000 feet, the entire LA Basin was invisible due to an inverted bowl of yellow brown smog. Houston was about the same, in those days.

You think back to 100 years ago, when those "far-sighted" LA folks were using the Congress to rip off the water rights of Arizona and Colorado to create the All-American Canal, and using the Cal legislature (through the years) to rip off the folks in the Owens Valley and in Northern Cal. The name "Mulholland" comes to mind; several others but I'm blanked for the moment.

My point is that without all that stolen water, the LA Basin would not have grown like cancer to the mess that it is today..."California's colon cancer"?

'Rat

[pseudobrit]

Yeah, "up to" or "as much as" one-third of air pollutants are traced back to China, per an article on energy use, Chinese development and such.

To me, a scary thing about the California air quality is that I know from observation how much worse it was back forty years ago. Visual pollution as to particulate matter, anyway. I once saw--1967, IIRC--from 30,000 feet, the entire LA Basin was invisible due to an inverted bowl of yellow brown smog. Houston was about the same, in those days.

Upon first visiting L.A., I was taken aback with how close the air quality in western Los Angeles was (even during afternoon rush hour) to the air quality in my neck of the woods, here in rural southeastern Pennsylvania. (The valley is much worse than either. Pea soup.)

I guess we can thank Michigan, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio and the superstacks that hold the junk aloft just long enough to land on us.

[Desertrat]

pseudobrit, air-mass movement is from west to east.

Air movement from east to west is a localized phenomenon and is short-term, as low-pressure centers pull air in--but the movement of the centers also is from west to east.

'Rat

[pseudobrit]

pseudobrit, air-mass movement is from west to east.

Air movement from east to west is a localized phenomenon and is short-term, as low-pressure centers pull air in--but the movement of the centers also is from west to east.

'Rat

Well, all the weather in the L.A. basin is highly localized.

[IJ Reilly]

pseudobrit, air-mass movement is from west to east.

Air movement from east to west is a localized phenomenon and is short-term, as low-pressure centers pull air in--but the movement of the centers also is from west to east.

'Rat

Most of the time, in the northern hemisphere. But retrogrades aren't at all uncommon and can happen on a pretty large scale. Every year, nearly, coastal Southern California gets monsoonal systems that back in from New Mexico and Arizona, and of course we are also frequently treated to our infamous Santa Ana winds, which originate from high pressure centers in the Great Basin of Utah, and can produce 50+ knot surface winds all the way the coast and beyond.

Anyway, your observations about the LA Basin's air 30 or more years ago are right on. Air quality in this region is measurably and visually much better than it was. When I moved here during the mid-70s, the air was often so filthy during the summer, I often didn't even want to go outdoors.

[Desertrat]

It's been hard to stay ahead of the game. We come up with far more fuel-efficent cars, and we have more people who drive more and commute farther. We put scrubbers on coal-fired power plants, and an expanding population and growing economy demand more electricity.

But we've reclaimed Lake Erie from "dead" status, and the Cuyahoga River won't again catch fire.

I look at where we were vs. where we are on environmental protection, and it's hard to get as emotional about the problems of today as I was about "the way it wuz" in the mid-1960s.

Interesting side-effect of NEPA '69: The Trinity River Authority issed bonds in the mid-1960s to finance Lake Livingston, intending to sell water to industries on the Houston Ship Channel. However, the mandated cleanup of effluents meant that a lot of re-cycling occurred. TRA darned near went broke, in large part because the inflow from Dallas on downstream was not as clean as the re-cycled water.

[mactastic]

Yeah, as long as you cant SEE the pollution, who cares, right? Mercury, lead, PCBs, VOCs, MTBE, all that stuff in our waterways and our air? But hey, as long as it's not creating an awful smoggy airmass over a city -- everything's hunky dory! No reason to get all 'emotional' over something you can't see...

[Desertrat]

mac, there is less now than there was then. Nobody's said that all's well and rosy wonderful. What's more important than your huffing and puffing is that the cleanup process is ongoing.

'Rat

[Ugg]

mac, there is less now than there was then. Nobody's said that all's well and rosy wonderful. What's more important than your huffing and puffing is that the cleanup process is ongoing.

'Rat

You're right on both points but the whole point of this thread is to point out the fact that the bush administration attempted to limit California's ability to clean up the air through higher CAFE standards. The pendulum always swings back and forth but when it gets stuck at one end or the other it's bad for all involved.

[StarbucksSam]

I want to see a federal tax of $0.15/mile every year for people who buy new cars starting in 2008 that get mileage of less than 20 per gallon (EPA estimate) and have the threshold raised to 25 mpg by 2012. I'm dead serious.

Someone who drives their Hummer 15k miles per year might think twice if they had to spend an extra $2,250 for doing severe damage to the environment.

I'M NOT SAYING:

"Do this on all cars and make it retroactive."
"Apply it to used cars purchased after 2008."

[zimv20]

I want to see a federal tax of $0.15/mile every year for people who buy new cars starting in 2008 that get mileage of less than 20 per gallon (EPA estimate) and have the threshold raised to 25 mpg by 2012. I'm dead serious.

i still think the solution is to increase gas taxes a little bit every year. when i first proposed this, i wanted the target to be $5 gallon, but that was when gas was cheaper.

i say let's make it $7 within 3 years. that should:
1. incent manufacturers to make more efficient cars
2. change driving habits
3. increase demand for better public transportation

[tristan]

What do you do with all of that tax money though? Hopefully it would go to build some decent public transportation. I don't want to drive 20mi to work every day, but I can do it in 35 mins each way (I go off hours), while public transportation would probably take 75-90 mins.

[zimv20]

What do you do with all of that tax money though?
1. fund research into and implementation of alternative energies
2. build / maintain public transportation

[skunk]

1. incent manufacturers to make more efficient cars
Is "incent" a word?

[StarbucksSam]

i still think the solution is to increase gas taxes a little bit every year. when i first proposed this, i wanted the target to be $5 gallon, but that was when gas was cheaper.

i say let's make it $7 within 3 years. that should:
1. incent manufacturers to make more efficient cars
2. change driving habits
3. increase demand for better public transportation

Why would you want to punish EVERYONE for some people's bad behavior? My cars gets 30/40 to the gallon - and I picked THAT car because of THAT reason among others. The people you SHOULD be targeting with taxes are the ones who are driving 5000 pound Yukon Denalis that get 11 miles to a gallon! I know someone who has one of those, lives alone, has no kids, and nothing to transport - that seems reprehensible to me.

[skunk]

Why would you want to punish EVERYONE for some people's bad behavior? My cars gets 30/40 to the gallon - and I picked THAT car because of THAT reason among others. The people you SHOULD be targeting with taxes are the ones who are driving 5000 pound Yukon Denalis that get 11 miles to a gallon! I know someone who has one of those, lives alone, has no kids, and nothing to transport - that seems reprehensible to me.Well obviously if you're getting 30/40 to the gallon and he's getting 11, he's the one paying the greater penalty already.

[zimv20]

Is "incent" a word?
barely (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=incent)

[Ugg]

I know someone who has one of those, has nothing to transport - that seems reprehensible to me.

Maybe he has a supersized-ego that is too fragile to be transported in low mileage cars :D One thing he obviously has is no concern for the environment nor the future of this country.

[IJ Reilly]

Well obviously if you're getting 30/40 to the gallon and he's getting 11, he's the one paying the greater penalty already.

True, but we all have to pay the wasteful use price.

[pseudobrit]

Why would you want to punish EVERYONE for some people's bad behavior?

Because the undesirable condition here is dependence on oil, not some arbitrary bad mileage figure.

There is of course a solution that does not involve punishing the consumer at all and it's simple: raise the CAFE standards significantly and apply them equally across the fleet of trucks and cars collectively.

[mactastic]

mac, there is less now than there was then.
True. Never said it wasn't.
Nobody's said that all's well and rosy wonderful.
Well you did say that there was nothing left environmentally for you to get all emotional about. What should I take from that? That everything looks OK to you?
What's more important than your huffing and puffing is that the cleanup process is ongoing.
That's rich coming from a guy who spends time kvetching about things on at least three different internet forums.

What's more important than my huffing and puffing is that we don't get complacent about pollution just because it doesn't make an ugly yellow haze anymore.

[OutThere]

Science? Well that's fine for blue states, but where's the faith-based report for the red states?

We feel that these theories (read: lies) really doesn't stack up, and shouldn't be taught in schools. Instead we'd rather the children were taught that God willed the cars to have higher emissions standards, and so it was.

[Timepass]

I want to see a federal tax of $0.15/mile every year for people who buy new cars starting in 2008 that get mileage of less than 20 per gallon (EPA estimate) and have the threshold raised to 25 mpg by 2012. I'm dead serious.

Someone who drives their Hummer 15k miles per year might think twice if they had to spend an extra $2,250 for doing severe damage to the environment.

I'M NOT SAYING:

"Do this on all cars and make it retroactive."
"Apply it to used cars purchased after 2008."

Another large problem is not those cars poor fuel econome but the number of people who drive large SUV and Trucks for everyday things and have no need for either one. The owners never use them like they where designed to do either towing stuff or moving a large amount of Cargo. That cargo being stuff or people.

SUV are good for family of 4 or more who go on long trips on a pretty regular bases. Sorry but for long distance driving driving a SUV or a truck is much more confortible than driving a car. Big time if you are a 6ft+. That the reason that my parents bought a 2003 trailblazer after we replace are subarn. family of 5 and we went on long trips quite offen plus we used the raw cargo room of that Surburbon for years. My brother and I now are in college but we still are home offen enough that my dad wanted the SUV for room and again for it towing and cargo room (going to college quite offen). We towed seveal cars or trucks with that trailblazer. But it also the last SUV they are ever going to buy.
For long trips my dad will use it but that confort reasoning and I can understand it. But by 2010 my mom daily driver will go from the trail blazer to a car because they can afford it. We may still have it just because my dad wants to keep an SUV around but it would be reduced to when needed only. Rest of the time everyone drives a car.

As for trucks people again have those and ever even use them like they should be. They have a bed to haul stuff and load up. I have a nagging feeling that when I replace my Sentra after college I going to need to buy a truck because of the field of work I going to be in (constuction). I need the bed to thow tools and equiment in quite off that and I know I going ot have to drive off road from time to time. but I going to be using it like a truck. Yeah my family owns a 95 pickup truck that we keep around for when we need it. It now treated mostly as a work truck that is used because we need the bed. Other use is when one of our other cars are out of action it the spare one but it mostly used as a work truck.


Sum everything up. You do not need or shouldnt use a SUV or truck unless you use them like they should be a at least 10% of total number of miles on them (agurebly more but just going to the 10% would reduce most of them off the road). It just a waste of fuel to be moving those large vechicals around.

[cycocelica]

This is a big win for air quality in California and also for gas mileage standards across the nation. It's also a big win for states' rights.

And we need this more than anything. Everyone is always surprised to hear that Washington has the fourth dirtiest air. I hope sticter laws are passed soon.