From: ptripp@diana.cair.du.edu (Phil Tripp)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Emissions Inspections, is new really better than old?
Date: 7 Jan 93 20:43:47 GMT
Organization: University of Denver, Denver, Colorado

(Andrew, your intelligent and thoughtful comments and ideas are well
taken and respected.  Now, on with the discussion!)

In article <1993Jan6.220220.647@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt) writes:
>
>I would dispute that it makes the problem worse, in sum.  Yes, there is
>a miniscule amount of pollution being done because of the test itself.
>Call it 30 minutes per car per year (15 min warm up + 5 test + 10 drive home).

No, let's call it whatever it is.  We're both just guessing, but my 
guess is closer to 60 minutes, since, as someone suggested, the warm
up time is 30 minutes minimum.  And that's only if everything goes
fine.  What if you have an accident?  What if the car doesn't pass due
to some malfunction (human or mechanical) and the car has to be retested
even if nothing is "wrong" with it.  But never mind, the real issue is the
pollution caused is not necessary, at least not for the ones that pass.
And maybe not even needed for the cars that fail.  The standards are
just an arbitary level; engines still pollute, whether they pass or not.
If I drive a car that emits X amount of pollutants/per mile for 1,000
miles, and you drive a car that emits 2X amount of pollutants for 100
miles, who has polluted less?

The testing creates pollution in the name of not-creating pollution,
right?  But still that's not the crux of the problem.  How much pollution
is created designing and manufacturing new cars with all the so-called
anti-pollution devices as opposed to refining and simplifying the basic
internal combustion engine?  And then replacement parts must be manu-
factured, and so on.  What about used catalytic converters?  Where do
we hide those so no one will notice how toxic they are?
  
I don't have a problem with very effecient, low-polluting engines.  The
real problem is the approach, the attitude, the philosiphy, the "logic"
that leads us to this point where energy is expended to pass laws, to
enforce laws, to print emission stickers, to print test results, to design
and manufacture emission test equipment, to transport the equipment, and
so on, and so it goes.

Why not head in the other direction toward a simpler engine design, to
simpler or no legislation, to less, less doing, less pollution?

>But the *advantage* is that it gets the dirty cars to get fixed, which is
>by FAR a win.  If you're aware of Don Stedman's research (from our very
>own DU chem. dept.), he's found that 20% of the cars account for 80% of
>the pollution (I think he said 80/20, if not, very close).  If we can get
>those 20% fixed because of the test...

Well, maybe the "dirty" cars get fixed... I'm not so sure.  And, yes, I
know about Stedman's research.  Although I think his method of testing
is vastly better than the current method, I disagree with the photographing
of license plates, etc.  I would go for some method where, say on my
way to some other destination, I could zip through a lane and find out
the pollution level of my car's exhaust, provided as a service to people, not
because of a law, for a small fee, say $5.  

As Stedman's method is not currently popular among the powers that be, it
will not be implemented for sometime if ever.  But still, it isn't the
ultimate answer to efficient transportation balanced with freedom.  That
answer will only be found through a change in basic philosophy and logic,
i.e. what can we NOT do to solve the pollution problem, like NOT make
engines more complicated, NOT create more complicated legislation and rules,
NOT put "high"-tech  band-aids on the problem.  It is our doing that
creates pollution.  Not doing will result in less pollution.

>It detects dirty cars as they drive by, can photograph your license plate,
>then you get a note saying "please come take an emissions test" (at a place

Ha, ha, that's very funny: "please come take an emissions test."  What
a hoot!  More like "get your trivial, powerless little behind down here
and pay the bureaucracy a non-trivial tribute or ELSE!"

>I agree that the current testing scheme is far from optimal, but it is 
>much better than none!

I disagree.

>Right.  Reality is, people drive, they drive a lot, they want to drive a lot,
>they don't want to get their cars fixed.

Not everyone has the luxury of having the money to take their Lexus 
into the shop on the way to meet with their stock broker.  Reality being
what it is, some people would love to have an old clunker to bomb to
work in when they can only afford bus fare and, ironically, are "doing"
more for the pollution problem (maybe, those buses are pretty smokey)
than someone who can afford a car and the maintenance costs thereof.

>But to say "get rid of testing, it will help the environment" is completely
>false when taken in context.

Wrong.  In the context of the whole shebang (all the doing and polluting
related to testing), getting rid of emissions testing makes perfect
sense to me.  The bigger the picture (context) the more sense it makes.
Don't just narrow in on the 30 or 60 minutes per year per car per
millions of cars.  That's only the tip of the iceberg.

-- 
Phil Tripp, Computing and Information Resources, U of Denver, Denver, CO, USA
ptripp@diana.cair.du.edu
Newsgroups: co.general,misc.forsale.computers