From: koichi@unixg.ubc.ca (Koichi J Kishimoto)
Newsgroups: bc.general,ubc.general
Subject: Re: Air Care, emmissions testing
Date: 5 Nov 1992 17:47:39 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: bc
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca


jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)writes:

>Well what do people think about the emmisions testing?

A good concept but not implemented all that well. Ebco-Hamilton has
obtained a remarkable contract that obliges the province to move
1 million cars through the test programme every year. 

>(I drive a '91 car, so NYAH! no testing for me).

My 1981 car passed with very large margins. 97% less HC than the max. 
allowed. Absolutely no (0%) CO emissions, and over 50% less NOx than 
allowable.  

>It seems like a step in the right direction, but
>it seems a bit complicated, and inconsistent.

Yes, and the stories of blown engines shown on TV recently is worrying.

>The majority of economists believe that a pollution tax would cut pollution
>quickly and efficiently. Air care is sort of a tax, but not really:
>you either pass and get your insurance, or don't pass, and no insurance.

There is also the conditional pass, which you get if you fail the second
time, BUT paid $200 for repairs at an Air Care approved service station.
This is equivalent to a tax, but at least the car will be somewhat
cleaner.

>Instead of causing a scramble, and windfall profits for mechanics, the
>govt could raise money by charging a sliding scale tax based on the
>emmissions. Ie, a car with x% of NOx or CO or whatever, would have to
>pay $50 or $100 or whatever. More pollution, more tax.

Not more taxes!! Anyway, it wouldn't clean the car. The current test
system obliges the owner to maintain their car and repair it if it
fails to maintain required standards.

>A tax is probably
>a more efficient and fair way of letting people depreciate their investments
>(instead of paying big fees to mechanics). They would probably buy newer,
>more efficient cars sooner, than if they paid for repairs. And the govt.
>would get more money.

I don't think so, I can't afford a newer car. I can, however, ensure that
my car is running properly.

>Qualifying for insurance (spreading and managing risk
>among a large number of policy holders) has absolutely nothing to do with
>polluting (where you should pay for the use or damage of a publicly owned
>resource: air).

>I also think it's very inconsistent to be basing the tests on the year of
>the car. Either x% of pollution is bad, or it's not. I don't think a car
>should be allowed to pass just because it meets specs at the time the
>car was made.

I think it's fine. My car doesn't have a 3-way catalytic converter, but
the older CO-HC version. It doesn't have fuel injection, engine
management systems or other 90's gadgets. Fitting such units on older
cars would be impossible. 

As far as older cars meeting the latest specs is concerned, how would you 
like it if you were forced to trash a car (you couldn't sell it, who would 
buy it?) every few years because it didn't meet the latest emission 
requirements? Your car will pass the 1991 requirements. But will it pass
the 1992 requirements? Or 1993? Can you buy a new car every year? I can't.

One immediate solution which could reduce emissions in all cars is 
alternative fuels. MTBE and ethanol blends are claimed to reduce emissions 
by 20%. Both are available now.  

>Also, why are ordinary citizens forced into one pollution class, and yet
>(as far as I know) commercial trucks, busses, farm equipment are exempt??
>If you've
>ever seen a bus driving along, they must spew at least as much pollution
>and particulate emmissions as the equivalent number of passenger carrying
>cars, and probably more. Just look at the black filth pouring out
>of busses, dumptrucks,  etc. I've been told by a mechanical eng. (hi julie!)
>that diesel engines don't give off too much CO, NOx, but they DO give off
>a lot of solid particles (that's why the smoke is black). True, there
>are a lot more cars, but I'd bet that the smaller number of trucks contribute
>a substantial amount of pollution.

The government's stats suggested that cars were the greatest offenders.

>I think the Airport should be subject to a  pollution tax. Airplanes burn
>the kerosene extremely efficiently  (ie CnH(2n+2) + O2 ----> CO2 + H2O )
>but only at high speed. The planes at the airport spend a lot of time
>taxiing, idling, and flying holding patterns at low throttle. In Richmond,
>I can often smell oily exhaust that I'm sure is caused by the planes.
>It's a busy airport too, which compounds the problem. In the USA, airlines
>pay a fee for landing rights; I think in Canada it's different, but some
>kind of charge could be levied on airlines based on what they pay for
>airport access.

Most airports have landing fees. I don't think Vancouver is different.

>Does anyone know the gases they test for?
>I heard that CO2 is one component they test for. But CO2 is harmless.
>I'm sure they must do NOx testing. Do they also test for particulate emmisions?
>What about uncombusted hydrocarbons (heptanes, octanes, nonanes etc. benzene)

Do you mean Air Care? They test for HC, CO and NOx at idling and under
load. CO2 isn't measured. Diesels are tested for particulates. 

CO2 isn't considered harmless at the moment (global warming).

>Anyway, I think the reason for these iconsistencies is that ordinary
>citizens are too used to being lined up and subjected to yet another taxe
>regulation etc.

>Special interests like truckers, farmers, airports, busses etc seem to get
>off the hook, even though their contribution to the problem is significant.

How about gas lawn mowers (real polluters!) motorcycles, power boats, mills
etc. etc..