From: bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles)
Subject: Re: Emissions Inspections, is new really better than old?
Organization: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Adminstration / Boulder Labs
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 01:50:22 GMT

In article <thomasd.57.726189717@tps.COM> thomasd@tps.COM (Thomas W. Day) writes:
>This is probably more a question for mechanics than politicians, but here 
>goes.  My newest ever vehicle, a 1986 Toyota Van, recently failed an 
>emissions test: CO was 4X allowed and HCs were 10X allowed.  This vehicle is 
>as loaded with antipollution stuff as it gets: fuel injection, sensors 
>everywhere, catalitic converter, etc.  It will cost me $270 to get this 
>unit back on the road.

My '87 MR-2 failed emissions (but only by 1.5x allowed HC, as I recall).
I drove it to a mechanic I trust (from Boulder to south Denver) and they
said it passed emissions with plenty of room to spare.

We concluded the standard emission test was misled since I now rarely drive
it more than a few miles.  (I walk to the grocery store and ride my bike to
work when it's warm).  So the first emission test picked up the results of
short, in-town trips.... and the second test passed since the 40-minute
high-speed run down to Sam's Automotive basically blew all of that junk out
of the engine.

The Moral of the Story:  trying to minimize the use of your car may
actually cause it to fail emissions!

>If 
>my old pickup gets better mileage, maintains low emissions (at least 
>relative to my newer van), and doesn't cost the resources it takes to build 
>a new vehicle every few years, what is the point in owning a newer car?  

_Statistically_, newer cars _are_ much cleaner than older cars.  However,
simply taking aim at older cars ignores the fact that they are generally
the only cars affordable by "financially-challenged" people who are
often unable to afford proper maintenance.

One solution (which I am _not_ proposing) is to jack up the gasoline tax
by a fairly hefty amount (say, 20c per gallon).  Individuals with modest
incomes could get a tax _credit_ corresponding to transportation needs
to/from work _and_ school (regardless of distance or use of alternate
transportation -- otherwise this provision is open to abuse) and routine
maintenance for safety or air quality reasons.

Done properly, this could encourage people to work and/or further their 
education (since it would reduce their state income tax, possibly to the
point of a _negative_ income tax), encourage use of alternate transportation
(since they would get the tax credit based on income and need, not simply
use of an automobile) and make the clunkers that are on the road much safer
and less poluting.

At the same time, everyone would be encouraged to reduce their driving
whenever possible since the gas tax would go up substantially.
(Handicapped individuals requiring the use of a car could be refunded the
increased gas taxes via their state tax return).

Since there are so many arguments for this approach, it naturally doesn't
stand a snowball's chance in Hell in a Republican controlled Statehouse.
(To be fair, there are undoubtably serious problems with this idea as it
stands right now.  On the other hand, if the bill to increase the gas tax
to cover automobile insurance for everyone in the state is introduced
again...)

-- 
Bear Giles
bear@fsl.noaa.gov/cs.colorado.edu