Quote:
Originally Posted by askmrjesus
Dude, you live in So.Cal. Look at the fucking sky (if you can find it) and tell me emissions control isn't a necessary evil.
You're a crack up. You lift weights, eat 0 grams of whatever normal people eat, and drink a gallon of purified water everyday, but you're pissed at the EPA for trying to make the air you breath non-carcinogenic.
You're on track to be the healthiest cancer patient in history. 
Congratulations!
JC |
Maybe your reading me wrong because I do not hate the EPA nor the California Air Resources board. They have done far more good than evil and the relatively clean CA air is proof (compare against 1960s).
My gripe is this....there is no agency that looks at the impact of emissions/emission control devices and emission control diagnostics as a whole. It seems that these agencies just want more and more stingent emission regulation, but forget that it requires parts to be made and diagnostics to be run meaning parts will fail and be replaced at the expense of polluting the overall air quality. You see this in the ultra low NOx requirements in diesels (diesel exhaust fluid injection) and the soon to be C02 regulation. The EPA and CARB have gone too far.
There has to be a balance upon how stingent you want your tailpipe emission output because achieving very low levels does not come at a free price.
We need to revert back to the fueling days were it takes 13 seconds to get to 60, relax the N0x requirements so we achieve 60mpg instead of 30mpg. We also need to get people out of driving SUVs if they do not need them and quit charging vehicle taxes on the value of the vehicle. It is a huge disincentive to drive a new car in CA when the plates run you 500 bucks a year.
Eliminating some of these Mexicans is another good step. LOL