ATTN: SO-CAL residents. New smog proposal. Fight this!

[SuperRA]

Sorry for the dual post (also in sierra chapter), but I felt it was necessary.
I got this in an email from moss motors. Please respond appropriately to our politicians. I am sick of them using our cars as scapegoats.

Thanks

----------

In an effort to avoid public scrutiny, California Assemblyman Dave Jones ([email protected]) has amended a completely unrelated bill with language to require annual Smog check inspections for vehicles 15-years old and older. This represents an obvious attempt to sneak through legislation in the closing days of the legislative session that had been previously defeated (A.B. 616). The new bill is designated as A.B. 3053.

While pre-1976 motor vehicles would remain exempt under existing California law, this proposal ignores the fact that vehicles 15-years old and older still constitute a small portion of the overall vehicle population and are a poor source from which to look for emissions reduction. Furthermore, the bill would direct that the funds generated through annual inspection fees be used to scrap older cars. This represents another attempt by California legislators and regulators to scapegoat older cars.

This is the type of activity that fuels distrust in public officials. SEMA caught this lawmaker’s underhanded attempt to circumvent public process and is now calling on you to help defeat A.B 3053 before it’s too late.

Time is of the Essence! We Urge You to Call the California Senate Appropriations Committee (List Below) Immediately to Oppose A.B. 3053


California Senate Appropriations Committee

Senator Tom Torlakson – Chair
Phone: 916/651-4007
Email: [email protected]

Senator Dave Cox
Phone: 916/651-4001
Email: [email protected]

Senator Sam Aanestad
Phone: 916/651-4004
Email: [email protected]

Senator Roy Ashburn
Phone: 916/651-4018
Email: [email protected]

Senator Gilbert Cedillo
Phone: 916/651-4022
Email: [email protected]

Senator Ellen Corbett
Phone: 916/651-4010

Senator Robert Dutton
Phone: 916/651-4031
Email: [email protected]

Senator Dean Florez
Phone: 916/651-4016
Email: [email protected]

Senator Sheila Kuehl
Phone: 916/651-4023
Email: [email protected]

Senator Jenny Oropeza
Phone: 916/651-4028

Senator Mark Ridley-Thomas
Phone: 916/651-4026

Senator George Runner
Phone: 916/651-4017
Email: [email protected]

Senator Joe Simitian
Phone: 916/651-4011
Email: [email protected]

Senator Mark Wyland
Phone: 916/651-4038

Senator Leland Yee
Phone: 916/651-4008

 

[JohnX]

Not that I agree with the smog laws, politicians, or the tactic they employ to eliminate older cars....but its hard to say its "scapegoating". Blaming cars 15 years or older for smog is a harsh fact of life. A new vehicle (pick almost any) puts out a microscopic amount of pollution when compared with a 20 year old carbureted model. While the older vehicles comprise a very small percentage of total annual mileage travelled in CA, they actually do account for the majority of vehicle related emmisions. Sad, but true.

Like I said, I don't like the way to write the laws, etc, but it is how it is.

 

[Jump This]

Not that I agree with the smog laws, politicians, or the tactic they employ to eliminate older cars....but its hard to say its "scapegoating". Blaming cars 15 years or older for smog is a harsh fact of life. A new vehicle (pick almost any) puts out a microscopic amount of pollution when compared with a 20 year old carbureted model. While the older vehicles comprise a very small percentage of total annual mileage travelled in CA, they actually do account for the majority of vehicle related emmisions. Sad, but true.

Like I said, I don't like the way to write the laws, etc, but it is how it is.

Any back up there John?

:dunno:

 

[cracker]

Any back up there John?

:dunno:

Maybe we should register our rigs in Borrego :dunno:

John, I am with you. Don't like it but facts are facts. New rigs put out less emissions.

-Avery

 

[5-90]

Perhaps. But, as I've said elsewhere, there are better places to make the cuts:

Small two-cycle engines (particularly leafblowers and weedwhackers)
Motorcycles (aren't they finally getting smogged?)
Large Diesels (slight propane enrichment will work wonders there. I know - that's how I've gotten "high particulate" trucks off of the scale stations...)
Stationary Engines (they're generally not maintained very well, because they're not used very often.)

And, most older vehicles belong to enthusiasts like us, meaning they're going to be well-maintained - probably better maintenance than most new vehicles get, even though they're flogged a lot harder.

Plus, some of us just don't like anything that's come out in the last few years (guilty as charged...) and don't see a suitable replacement for what is probably an effective vehicle.

Also, keeping an older vehicle on the road longer reduces the aggregate 'carbon footprint' significantly, by not manufacturing a new one. I know that runs counter to what automakers want, but keeping the vehicles that aren't "classics" yet is better for emissions than constantly buying new vehicles (both financially and environmentally.)

Last time I got my 88 smogged (before I downchecked it myself - 300kmiles on original engine management sensors is asking a bit much...) the emissions were comparable to a vehicle that was fifteen years newer. Even when I was talking to CARB for a while a few years ago, they were able to pull up reports on my 88 - and I could hear the guy's eyebrows going up on the other end of the phone. Emissions are very nearly zero at idle, and just measurable at 2500rpm (I tell them it's AWD to go in for SCII - not because I'm worried it won't pass, but because the first time I had to do it, the tech managed to stall it and burn my clutch - on the dyno! That's not going to happen again... I handle it, or no-one does.)

You speak of "vehicle-related" emissions, but not all emissions we need to regulate are "vehicle-related" - there are utility engines out there, there are unregulated vehicles out there, and while I'm all for trying to preserve the environs (to enjoy directly, mind...) I'm not in favour of picking on a particular segment of the population to get it done. Go after everyone with some variety of IC engine, or go after no-one.

Kinda like when I'm going on about motorcycles on the road - if we're all going to play in the same sandbox, we've all got to play by the same rules. No favourites.

 

[-96JeepSpeed-]

My 79' wagoneer will put down lower pollution numbers then my 96' cherokee will. I just think thats kinda funny.

 

[Jump This]

We are smog exempt out in Borrego Springs, but its not like I WANT to add any unnecessary crap to the air.

I would still like stats from, say, a 1990 Ford 2.3 to its modern cousin.
Or even a Chevy 350 from the early 90's to its modern replacement.

How 'significant' are the differences in carbon output?

 

[JohnX]

ww.bts.gov/publicationhttp://ws/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_39.html
http://www.cleancarcampaign.org/emissions.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_Low_Emission_Vehicle

Enjoy. Now I know you don't have any smog checks to compare. But I would challenge anyone out there to find a 2000 model year or newer light duty vehicle check report and post it. Also, try to find ANY carbureted vehicle that can match its standards. I don't own any Carbed vehicles (that require smog) So I will hope someone else has a check they can scan in and post.

Last carbed vehicle I owned (85 s-10) was in the Hundreds on HC's. My 97 saturn showed 1 HC at 1500 rpm, and 0 HC's at 2500 rpm. And a 97 saturn is nowhere near as efficient as some newer models.

 

[FordGuy]

There is no doubt that older cars are polluting the air. when one 15 year old vehicle can produce more emissions, 17 to 25 times more than a new vehicle, I unfortunately agree. What I don't agree with is watching truck after truck cross the border, pouring out black smoke from there piece of shit diesel trucks, and that's OK. The bill is hypocritical!

 

[Clean Racing]

There is no doubt that older cars are polluting the air. when one 15 year old vehicle can produce more emissions, 17 to 25 times more than a new vehicle, I unfortunately agree. What I don't agree with is watching truck after truck cross the border, pouring out black smoke from there piece of shit diesel trucks, and that's OK. The bill is hypocritical!

Yeah thanks Clinton and his F'ing NAFTA... causing more harm than good in many ways...Especially with his Hypocrite AL Gore..

I for one am trying to fight this due to the fact that I restore old cars from time to time for clients.. I completely update the car that is 30% cleaner than new, and still get hammered by the referee when trying to get them smogged. What really gets me going is all the cars lately with BC Mexico plates and blowing oil right out the tail pipe.. I feel we need to stop the government from punishing us for bad air and get them focused on other countries IE Mexico, India, China, ect ect.. Stop wasting US taxpayers dollars on making us the most restricted country in the World..

 

[SuperRA]

We are smog exempt out in Borrego Springs, but its not like I WANT to add any unnecessary crap to the air.

I would still like stats from, say, a 1990 Ford 2.3 to its modern cousin.
Or even a Chevy 350 from the early 90's to its modern replacement.

How 'significant' are the differences in carbon output?

When a vehicle is "cleaner" in emissions, it should put out MORE CO2. A cleaner vehicle will burn off the HC, CO thus reducing those numbers, but those turn into CO2 so if you think you are reducing "global warming", think again.

If we really wanted to clean up the air, we should move to nuclear power instead of burning coal and natural gas for electricity. Tons more radioactive material (not to mention co2) is spewed into the air by coal burning plants than a nuclear plant will ever emit... The problem is we don't have real environmentalists in our "environmental" government offices, they are just lawyers making easy money sitting back while they point the blame at us normal people.

 

[cracker]

If we really wanted to clean up the air, we should move to nuclear power instead of burning coal and natural gas for electricity. Tons more radioactive material (not to mention co2) is spewed into the air by coal burning plants than a nuclear plant will ever emit... The problem is we don't have real environmentalists in our "environmental" government offices, they are just lawyers making easy money sitting back while they point the blame at us normal people.

Agreed.

My father just retired from TVA. Has the same opinion.

So you are voting for McCain?

 

[JohnX]

When a vehicle is "cleaner" in emissions, it should put out MORE CO2. A cleaner vehicle will burn off the HC, CO thus reducing those numbers, but those turn into CO2 so if you think you are reducing "global warming", think again.

Co2 is produced by an efficient engine on the scale of 15-17% of exhaust gas output. The goal of a clean running car is not to limit Co2, but rather to reduce the real culprits, NOx, CO, and HC's. Co2 is the same gas you exhale with every breath and does not have a detrimental impact on the environment. Co2 is what all photosynthesizing plant life uses to convert the suns energy into new growth and energy, while doing this the plant "exhales" fresh Oxygen for us to breath. The quantity of Co2 in the air only becomes a problem when there are not enough plants to convert it back to oxygen. That is one of the biggest reasons people are fighting to save the rainforest.

BTW...I still think the smog laws suck.

 

[besthaticouldo]

We are smog exempt out in Borrego Springs, but its not like I WANT to add any unnecessary crap to the air.

I would still like stats from, say, a 1990 Ford 2.3 to its modern cousin.
Or even a Chevy 350 from the early 90's to its modern replacement.

How 'significant' are the differences in carbon output?

fords new 2.3 is a PZEV motor...so absolutely nothing pretty much. (PZEV = Partial zero emissions vehicle)

smog laws suck...badly.

 

[markw]

ww.bts.gov/publicationhttp://ws/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_39.html
http://www.cleancarcampaign.org/emissions.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_Low_Emission_Vehicle

Enjoy. Now I know you don't have any smog checks to compare. But I would challenge anyone out there to find a 2000 model year or newer light duty vehicle check report and post it. Also, try to find ANY carbureted vehicle that can match its standards. I don't own any Carbed vehicles (that require smog) So I will hope someone else has a check they can scan in and post.

Last carbed vehicle I owned (85 s-10) was in the Hundreds on HC's. My 97 saturn showed 1 HC at 1500 rpm, and 0 HC's at 2500 rpm. And a 97 saturn is nowhere near as efficient as some newer models.

No doubt carburated cars don't burn as clean. But the bill is 15 years and older. Both my Civic Si and XJ fall into that category and both have stupid low emissions, and both are fuel injected. PRK needs a part time legislature.
These guys have too much time on their hands to legislate my lifestyle. I already have to smog every other year, now they're going to make me pay more to smog every year? Everything I own passes with flying colors. This is just an unfunded mandate since CA isn't going to pay for it and they're not going to let me deduct it from my tax liability.

With that said, I'm all about breathing clean air, and if your junk is spewing crap out the tailpipe get it fixed.

Speaking of CO2, a 10lb bottle is great to have in the rig....

 

[markw]

Yeah thanks Clinton and his F'ing NAFTA... causing more harm than good in many ways...Especially with his Hypocrite AL Gore..

I for one am trying to fight this due to the fact that I restore old cars from time to time for clients.. I completely update the car that is 30% cleaner than new, and still get hammered by the referee when trying to get them smogged. What really gets me going is all the cars lately with BC Mexico plates and blowing oil right out the tail pipe.. I feel we need to stop the government from punishing us for bad air and get them focused on other countries IE Mexico, India, China, ect ect.. Stop wasting US taxpayers dollars on making us the most restricted country in the World..

That's the biggest thing that chaffs me, if you convert an older car over to fuel injection, you reduce it's emissions, yet it's darn near impossible to smog the damn thing even though it's running cleaner than it ever did. That and the stupid visual inspection, my CRX with a ZC engine passed the tailpipe, but wouldn't pass the visual as it was the "wrong engine". The tailpipe emissions is where the rubber meets the road, and I thought I had a done deal until he looked at the engine code. Long story short, that car ran out of state plates the remainder of the time I had it.

 

[FordGuy]

Everyone has a good point. I work just north of the Border check in San Clemente, and it is unreal how many Mexican plated vehicles are in line puking crap out the exhaust. Even if they left the privately owned vehicles alone, every Bus and truck from B.C looks worse than a locomotive going by.

 

[SuperRA]

Co2 is produced by an efficient engine on the scale of 15-17% of exhaust gas output. The goal of a clean running car is not to limit Co2, but rather to reduce the real culprits, NOx, CO, and HC's. Co2 is the same gas you exhale with every breath and does not have a detrimental impact on the environment. Co2 is what all photosynthesizing plant life uses to convert the suns energy into new growth and energy, while doing this the plant "exhales" fresh Oxygen for us to breath. The quantity of Co2 in the air only becomes a problem when there are not enough plants to convert it back to oxygen. That is one of the biggest reasons people are fighting to save the rainforest.

BTW...I still think the smog laws suck.

I agree with you.
CO2 is one of the biggest culprits of "global warming" (should you believe in it) and plant life reduces excess CO2 turning it into O2.
"Cleaner" in terms of auto emissions does not mean that it make less CO2. The only way to do that is to get more MPGs i.e. a smaller car or hybrids etc.

 

[5-90]

I finally sat down to dig into this. When I tried to look up the bill to see what language I'd be working against, here's what I found...

http://www.statesurge.com/bills/50633-ab3053-california (read as amended 04/16.)

Unless I'm missing something, there's not one word about smogging vehicles in that text (the text that stands, or the parts struck.) Do you have text of the bill as current with the language we're most interested in?

I'm fully against selective penalties against people (which is what the bill amounts to,) but I want to make sure I'm heading in the right direction before I charge, y'know?

Gimme the bill with the language we're worried about, and I'll see if I can't come up with something. But, I don't have anything to work with at the moment.

 

[xL8 APEKSx]

File for financial aid with passing smog.

If they are going to suck more money out of our wallets, may as well make them work for it. Better yet...make them PAY for it.