Californian busybody telling Canada about cars

They are pushing for higher pollution control standards and fuel efficiency big time. With the move toward bigger engines wanted by consumers, and larger vehicles for the most part, this is obviously difficult. What I do not want is legislation forcing people in Canada to drive tiny, fuel efficient death-traps OR huge gas guzzler taxes on v8 equipped cars. So, for the Californian legislator involving themselves in Canada's business, GET LOST!

Reply to
RichA
Loading thread data ...

Trying to start a big long thread full of fighting? :)

-Mike

-- A happy kid behind the wheel of a 98 Mustang GT Cold air intake FRPP 3.73 gears Steeda Tri-Ax Shifter Full Boar turbo mufflers Hi-speed fan switch

255/60R-15 rear tires Subframe connectors

Reply to
<memset

Yeah, gotta love those Kali legislators. :)

-- John C. '03 Cobra Convt.

Reply to
John C.

Ok, now just stop and think about this for a minute. What's wrong with your statement? Do you think that less pollution from vehicles would do any harm to this planet or it's inhabitants? Better fuel economy is a bad thing Beeeecause????

With the move toward bigger | engines wanted by consumers, and larger vehicles for the | most part, this is obviously difficult.

No doubt it is, but they seem to be accomplishing this one step at a time.

| What I do not want is legislation forcing people in Canada | to drive tiny, fuel efficient death-traps OR huge gas guzzler | taxes on v8 equipped cars.

I can understand that, I wouldn't want it either.

| So, for the Californian legislator involving themselves in | Canada's business, GET LOST!

There are lotsa cars for the states being built up there. This means jobs and economical benefits. If Canada reaps the benefits then she may have to take some of the pain too. Sorry that's what happens. You sleep with the dogs, you get fleas.

The California Liberals do have some serious problems when it comes to sticking their noses in everyone's business BUT sometimes their reasoning is because they can see what is happening in their state without the controls. The sky is grey, period. The price of fuel is an abverage of 50 cents a gallon higher than anywhere else in the states and the highways are overcrowded by soccer moms in SUVs and commuters thinking they are road warriors (only a few years ago it was minivans - same mentality, different cars)

Now, DO KEEP IN MIND that the auto manufacturers build specific vehicles for California. More or less the "California Emissions System" So I would make a guess, with no more information than you have provided in your post, that you are pretty safe for now.

If they DO make the cars run cheaper and with less pollution then I say, more power to em! (of course without a loss of power) Then we will have cleaner air, and less dependency on foreign oil. Our children and grandchildren will have an Earth to inherit that's habitable and all that. You get my point, right?

Kate

Reply to
SVTKate

RichA opined in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Welll Gee!!!!

Just a couple weeks ago....

Or are you in a red province? ;)

Reply to
Backyard Mechanic

I think what bothers me most is that this whole push to tighter pollution controls is based on a fraud, the Kyoto treaty. And even though your Federal government hasn't agreed to it, your state and local governments (run by some real wackos) are hell-bent to abide by it.

The mandate is for a 20% decrease in fuel consumption by car fleet over the next 8 years. That means radical changes to automobile fleets, the deletion of the truck exemptions, etc. Cars with better fuel economy are fine. I'm sure given the cost of gas, many want them. I don't. I want the option to pay the higher gas costs but I do NOT want to have to pay even more because I'm "bad" for liking a powerful car or SUV.

As consumers, we are ripped off constantly by government and manufacturers. They work together (despite the supposed animosity of the car makers to pollution controls). The automakers cry each time they make a consumer spend $900 to replace a catalytic converter. Really! Lastly, Toronto Canada is not LA. We do not have smog problems on that level and never will, because we won't reach LAs population levels and we don't have bad geography.

This all stems from the evil Kyoto treaty, (which Canada, like a good little toady country, signed) which mandates ever stricter pollution controls on the WEST while sparing the rapidly industrializing nations in Asia, who are now the largest polluters on the planet. The cost of all this is going to be trillions of dollars, it will (and has) shifted wealth from the West to the East in the form of jobs and the proceeds from those jobs. The number of cars in China is expected to increase by 20 million over the next 3-4 years. Guess what kind of pollution controls they have? NONE. Does India still have pollution-belching 2-stroke mini cars that pollute as much as 200 regular cars? Yes. Have you ever seen the pollution levels in cities in industrial China or India? You should, they make L.A. look as clean as Anchorage.

All to fight a problem "global warming" that,

-Has not been proven satisfactorily and is an example of poor science.

-If if IS true has not been proven to be a man-made phonomenon.

-Is politically-driven.

-If it is happening, studies have shown NO DOWNSIDE to the Northern Hemisphere. Unless millions of extra acres of habitable land and year-round growing seasons are bad.

-It is a political FRAUD unless ALL countries abide by it and that is not what it mandates.

It is absolutely true that pollution controls on cars and the much more fuel efficient engines today (as opposed to 30 years ago) have helped the pollution situation. But those controls and improvements were made without resorting to radical downsizing of cars and engines. My advice to the governments in charge (and the U.S. government in particular) is to develop alternate fuels like alcohol that will accomplish the task without the need to turn cars into overpriced, pathetic little death traps. If agricultural production geared to alcohol production were radically increased, a substitute for gasoline could be made nearly as economical. Since oil supplies are finite (though nowhere NEAR exhausted as some environuts would have you believe) and prices continue to climb, at some point gasoline and alcohol costs would reach a match. But, I would shy away from things like hydrogen, only because of the inherent danger of the product and the fact you have to close down a city block when a hydrogen leak is found in a vehicle, as they've discovered in Europe over the past few years.

Reply to
RichA

I'm with you Kate; however, I think there needs to be more focus on the/unmaintained/aged/violated vehicles.

- Vehicles that you can tell their owners would rather drive them into the ground and then replace it with a newer vehicle than change the oil, keep the tires properly inflated, or tune up the engine.

- Vehicles that are near death and are spewing tons of black or blue smoke.

Note: One of these vehicles emits more crap than probably 50-100 new vehicles. There needs to be some sort of incentive to clean both of these vehicles up and get them back in compliance.

- Vehicles that their owners removed all the pollution control devices from.

This is a global initiative. More and more scientists are seeing the handwriting on the wall. We need to either change our ways or face a global catastrophy.

The best way to fix this is to further jack up gas prices. Then the market would shift toward more fuel effcient vehicles.

You need to live in a large city in a third world country for a while. I'll guarantee that when you return you'll slide under your car and kiss your catalytic convertors.

Think of the world as a big fish aquarium. Pollution in one corner will, sooner or later, affect the whole tank.

And our short-sighted boneheads in Washington didn't.

Reducing emissions takes technology, and technology creates better, higher-paying jobs.

You're right. So what we need to do is is say f*ck it, do nothing to try to improve the environment, not try to be a world leader, and let the whole planet go to shit.

Tell that to the increasing number of scientists who are finally agreeing that our enviroment is starting to see some majors changes, and drastic changes will likely been seen within the next 100 years.

Look around. What other creature on this planet could be doing it? And how couldn't billions and billions (trillions?) of cars, and billions of humans and their consumption not negatively affect the planet?

What about all the methane gas that will be released as the polar ice caps melt? And what'll happen to all those folks whose coastal city will go under water?

Were you alive in the 70s?

The "fix" is the world's human population needs to decline, and quickly.

Patrck '93 Cobra '83 LTD

Reply to
Patrick

No kidding! I flew into one Lahore in India three years ago. You couldn't ever SEE the city under the smog bank. THESE are the countries Kyoto exempts because they are "developing."

That's true, but localized pollution was the spur for California emission control stringency.

Keep dreaming. Kyoto (predicated on the possibility that everything said about global warming is true) will ONLY work if it applies to ALL countries. Not like how the F------- Russians will get to pollute more by "credit swapping."

No, service industry jobs stay in the country, the production jobs go to the Far East. Engineering, prototyping, testing, production, everything.

No, you are to project out what the contribution of those countries is now, and is going to be and stop KIDDING yourself that bankrupting the West will help matters. The latest projection for car numbers in China in 10 years is 600 MILLION. With maybe the same pollution standards cars here had in

1975? Think about it.

Sure. They're making their careers on it. The fact is there is no other scientific "fact" based on such unproven evidence. I'd soon believe the wackos who say AIDS isn't caused by a virus.

Do you know what the contribution is by volcanism, undersea and on land?

They'll have to move. Maybe to Greenland when it's green again. The name was coined sometime before the year 1000, when they had a long stretch of winterless years in Europe. Year round growing seasons in England. Must have been all those cars and methane?

Sure. A Mustang weighs 3540lbs. A Ford LTD in 1974 weighed about 4300 lbs. But what did a Mustang II weigh? The biggest selling vehicles today are mid sized trucks. Are they small?

Don't worry; The die off is coming.

-Rich

Reply to
RichA

As I recall,according to a study, all it takes is the eruption of three major volcanos, which is far from uncommon, to produce more ozone depleting gases and pollutants, than the human race presently produces.

Lord, then you add in the sheep, hogs, and cows, and cars are the least of our worries (Don't strike a match in New Zealand... LOL.

We do need to do something. When I was a kid, the LA basin was bad, but just over the hills, the skies were clear all the way to the Atlantic Ocean. Today, there is a haze which covers the nation.

But the experts can't even agree. It wasn't that l>On 19 Nov 2004 17:19:30 -0800, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (Patrick) wrote: >

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!

1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8" w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16
Reply to
Spike

I believe that is more than man has EVER produced since his beginnings on this planet.

I believe that were I live was under about a mile of ice only 10/15,000 years ago. Hell, in the mere blink of an eye (last 2,000,000 years) there have be more than 20 glacial advances and retreats in North America.

formatting link
.

Reply to
Richard

Everything runs in cycles of "average" time period between like events. They can only predict based on the past, but they don't know what really causes it.

Supposedly, we are overdue for an ice age now. One report I read said that the melting of the ice caps it what triggers an ice age. So, this global warming thing could be just a precursor to that event.

So, where you are, I guess you better start thinking about relocating or opening a snowcone stand.

Heck, I'm gonna keep on driving as long as I can 'cause I heard a scientist say that a major asteroid hits the earth every so many thousand years.

What worries me is that tectonic plate movement is probably what powers the system which makes earth habitable. Could all that oil be the lube which makes it possible for the plates to move freely? What happens when you lose all the oil in your engine? Oops!

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!

1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8" w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16
Reply to
Spike

I'll answer just one of the many failures of logic and fact you state. The warming in Greenland you mention is not a function of climate. Think of it like the Dust Bowl of the 1930's. Further, Greenland was so named for commercial reasons.

Reply to
Jim S.

I'll point you to -

formatting link
Spike, I don't know where you are getting your information, but I think you should start looking elsewhere.

Reply to
Jim S.

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!

1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8" w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16
Reply to
Spike

Most emission of volcanic and methane gasses comes from under the ocean. In fact, they are talking about mining supercooled methane sources as a fuel under the oceans because they believe the quantities are enormous.

Reply to
RichA

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!

1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8" w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16
Reply to
Spike

I'd be more discriminating if I were you. There is no debate about climate change -- CO2 and other green house gases have increased greatly since the industrial revolution. The increase is without doubt anthropogenic. Climate change will occur. It's unfortunate that the media often frames "The Global Warming Debate" as a debate about if global warming is real. The only debate is about how much climate change will occur. The fossil industry guys have their good-for-you proposal about sunnier weather and less harsh winter. Some rather green folks see it as dooms-day. The going line is, 10% chance of each of the extremes. Climate change is real. There is no debate about the fact that humans are altering the atmosphere and the climate. It's only a debate about the degree (nice pun eh?) to which it will change.

Reply to
Jim S.

Which is precisely my point... As you just pointed out... there is no con census. I never said humans have no impact. Only that the impact humans have is far from determined. And as you also pointed out, those various organizations each have their own agendas which motivate their findings. Just as a large number of "studies" have been found to be tainted by a policy requiring so called experts to "publish or perish". Human are supposed to have such an impact, yet those self same "experts" make a prediction, such as the size of the hole in the ozone layer, and then the hole either gets way larger than projected, or unexpectedly shrinks.

I take it you have decided what the sole source for factual >I'd be more discriminating if I were you. There is no debate about climate

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!

1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8" w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16
Reply to
Spike

We are basically a bunch of monkeys poking and prodding a complex machine that we don't understand, taking out a piece here and there, wedging a stick into the works, and hoping for the best.

Reply to
rw

If you can't accept science, you are beyond logic. If you accept that we have any impact at all, which everyone does, it's only a matter of time. We are quickly moving to levels of CO2 in the atmosphere that haven't been observed for 100 million years. Further, everyone accepts that the reason behind the huge jump in levels of C02 is anthropogenic. There is excellent science that proves this is real. There is also excellent science, accepted by everyone, about what things were like in the past. If you can't accept the basic laws of physics, and see that the same things will happen in the future, you are beyond logic. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent studying this. This is not one little study by a graduate student. This is thousands of studies, peer reviewed, repeated. It is as science as science gets. Even companies who have a vested interest in denying climate change, now accept it as reality. If you can't accept this level of science as fact, you could never convict someone of a crime.

Here is a bit of an interview with Stephen Schneider, Biological Sciences dude at Stanford --

"Well, most scientists would argue that these very mild and very catastrophic outcomes are plausible, maybe even a 10 percent chance of each of them. But the bulk of the likelihood is somewhere between the end of the world and the "good for you" scenarios that you see all the time in the newspapers and in the Congressional debates. The bulk of scientists are pretty straight about saying this is a probability distribution. And right now our best guess is that we're expecting warming on the order of a few degrees in the next century. It's our best guess. We do not rule out the catastrophic 5 degrees or the mild half or one degree. And the special interests, ..... from deep ecology groups grabbing the 5 degrees as if it's the truth, or the coal industry grabbing the half degree and saying, 'Oh, we're going to end up with negligible change and CO2's a fertilizer,' and then spinning that as if that's the whole story--that's the difference between what goes on in the scientific community and what goes on in the public debate."

Reply to
Jim S.

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.