From: arnett@unixg.ubc.ca (Bill Arnett)
Newsgroups: bc.general,ubc.general
Subject: Re: Air Care, emmissions testing
Date: 5 Nov 1992 21:59:47 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: bc
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <1992Nov5.090403.6194@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>Well what do people think about the emmisions testing?

I think it's a great idea.  It is presently flawed but those flaws can
(and should be) fixed.

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

I drive an '84 which passed easily.

>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.

Taxes do nothing constructive to cut polution.  The taxes on gasoline
prove this.  Cars that cause a great deal of polution would probably be
sold/scrapped before long, so the taxes would have to be *quite* high
to make repairing or scrapping the car cheaper. 

>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.

Air Care is an anti-pollution measure, not a profit making venture.  (at
least, not for the government.)

>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).

You are right but ICBC also administers the distribution of license plates
on behalf of the Dept of Motor Vehicles.  They cannot issue plates to
a car which does not pass the inspection.  So Air Care approval is not
technically a requirement for insuring your vehicle, it is a requirement
for licensing it...but in BC both are done simultaneously.

>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

I do, too.  For instance, your '91 should also be tested.  But *most*
of the cars causing the worst polution will be from older years, so
it makes sense to have a cut-off based on the model year.

>should be allowed to pass just because it meets specs at the time the
>car was made.

This is the *only* workable expection.  To insist that all cars must
adhere to the 1992 standards would be the equivalent of saying "We will
not licence *any* car more than 5 years old," because even a brand new
5 year old car would probably not pass current standards.  This in itself
would *cause* pollution as people were forced to scrap their old car
(causing pollution) and purchase a new one (whose producition would cause
pollution).  And 5 years from now they would have to do it all over
again because of the changing standards.

And actually, cars that were too old would be sold in Alberta and Washington
adding to pollution problems there.  It wouldn't produce a desirable effect.

>Also, why are ordinary citizens forced into one pollution class, and yet
>(as far as I know) commercial trucks, busses, farm equipment are exempt?? 

Studies show that cars produce the most pollution.  Commercial vehicles
are generally kept in better running condition.  The particulates produced
by diesel exhaust are more tangible (to the eyes and the nose) but less
harmful to the environment.

>I heard that CO2 is one component they test for. But CO2 is harmless.

CO2 is NOT harmless.  It is the most abundant "green-house" gas.  I don't
remember whether they test for it.  They do test for NOx, CO, and hydro-
carbons.

Bill.
-- 
Bill Arnett                            Internet: arnett@unixg.ubc.ca
Newsgroups: bc.general