Much of Coastal U.S. May Follow California on Car Emissions

[CShine]

California's plan for sharp cuts in automotive emissions of global warming gases could eventually lead much of the coastal United States to turn to vehicles that are substantially cleaner, and by extension more fuel efficient, than those in the rest of the nation. This year, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Connecticut have said they intend to start following California's car rules instead of Washington's. New York, Massachusetts, Vermont and Maine already do so. Together, these seven states, along with California, account for nearly 26 percent of the nation's auto market, according to R. L. Polk, a company that tracks auto registrations. Other states are also considering joining. One reason is that many states are now out of compliance on federal ozone emission regulations and see car tailpipes as a solution. Canada is also considering a similar approach on global warming. Automakers from Detroit to Tokyo are concerned that these states, and potentially Canada, could form a potent bloc that has more demanding regulations than the rest of the country.

"It would be a logistical and engineering challenge, and a costly problem," said Dave Barthmuss, a spokesman for General Motors. "It's more cost effective for us to have one set of emissions everywhere."

Many steps remain before all this happens. But this week, the first details of California's plan, which is still in its early stages, were made public. The plan would require automakers to cut global warming emissions from their new vehicles by 29.2 percent over the next decade, phasing in from the 2009 to the 2015 model years. California regulators are adamant that the plan is not a fuel economy measure because the federal government has authority over that issue.

"This agency is required by law to address air pollution that affects public health," said Jerry Martin, a spokesman for the California Air Resources Board. "We only adopt emissions regulations," he said, adding that the plan "was never intended" to be a fuel economy regulation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/11/business/11auto.html

[struggle4progress]

1. "It's more cost effective for us to have one set of emissions everywhere."

This means that the auto industry wants to gut state emission standards by using federal pre-emption.

[ahimsa]

2. so why not make them all to California's standards?

Uhh..

:eyes:

[struggle4progress]

3. I agree 100%. But I doubt if that's what the industry has in mind.

[physioex]

4. The real problem...

Is to get rid of older cars that people are hanging on to. I am not talking about the hobbyist who restore cars, that would open up another whole can of worms. What I am refering to are cars from the seventies to late eighties. These cars typically were not fuel injected and aren't very clean. Today's modern OBD II cars run very clean regardless of what state they are from. The key is to make sure all systems are working properly without any trouble codes. Which they do in most state inspections..

Remeber gasoline is a hydrocarbon (HC) when you react it with oxygen O2 you get water (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), hydrocarbons (HC), Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx), and carbon monoxide (CO). Modern cars emit essentially water, CO2, and very little of the other waste as compared to older generation(not saying it's not there). The hard part regardless is to decrease CO2, no one know how to do that...

My point is let's give money to people who want to turn in their older cars the same way they did in California.

[saigon68]

5. POOR PEOPLE DRIVE " old beaters"

When you work at Wal Mart for $5.75 an hour you can't afford to buy a new Monte Carlo.

The underground cash ecoonomy does a marvelous job to keep this junk running---Just look at Cuba.

LOL

[happyslug]

6. Correct but are also a main source of Pollution

The simple reason is these old beaters tend to be at the end of their Service life and barely kept running. If something breaks that does not affect the operation of the car it rarely is fixed. For example Radios and Air Conditioners (Some people do but most do not).

The owners of these cars do the same limited repairs to the pollution control systems. Given that most of the pollution control will stop to work after about about Five years, cars older than that ALWAYS PRODUCE MORE POLLUTION THAN NEWER CARS. Tailpipe testing shows this to be true but if you are a tester and a person you know comes to your garage with a car that fails such a test do you just fake the paperwork (For example run the test equipment up another's car tailpipe and pass the car).

Furthermore random tests are rarely done in poor neighborhoods for the cars will fail.

The reason for the above is the poor can NOT afford to do the repairs AND can not afford to lose their cars. The US is an automotive society and if you do not have a car it is hard in most of the US to hold a job or commute between your home and your job.

The solution would be massive testing even in poor neighborhoods taking the polluting cars out of circulation AND THAN PROVIDING MASS TRANSIT for the people who lost their cars AND demanding that businesses be in areas where such mass transit operates on a frequent basis at time the businesses are open.

You will find out that Rather than pay for such transit AND impose such restrictions on businesses most politicians will prefer the pollution to continue. This has been the problem for over 50 years. No one wants to help the poor get to their work and this it leaves it up to the poor to use the best way they can given their income restrictions.

Thus until you address both mass transit and business locations you will continue to have these old polluting cars on the street.

[happynewyear]

11. that is what happened in San Francisco

they had to either bring them up to standards or else they were not allowed to register them. So, usually what happened is, they brought the car up to standards and then dumped it - took the $ and bought another car that they knew would always pass.

Ah what a fine gimmick that one was. lol!

[ahimsa]

8. I guess not but..

..if they are saying it would be more cost effective to follow one standard, then it should be more cost effective to voluntarily make all their cars meet California's.

If they are saying that it would be more cost effective to have NO emission controls on their cars, then well, they can dream on.

:nopity:

[Mountainman]

7. And while your at it why not follow our lead and vote for Dems

Except for Arnold we have mostly Dems who fight for clean air laws.

[Massacure]

9. This is great news

I hope us democrats retake congress in November and follow through with a fuel efficiency hike. Less pollution and less dependance on oil. ;)

[leesa]

10. Hey, good news! What's going on here!