From: aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Emissions Inspections, is new really better than old?
Date: 9 Jan 93 19:28:56 GMT
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.

In <1993Jan7.204347.23461@mercury.cair.du.edu> ptripp@diana.cair.du.edu (Phil Tripp) writes:

>(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.

What if an asteroid strikes your car?  What if your car suddenly turned
into grape jelly?

Yeah, ok, I'd let you have 60 minutes, but this bit about having an accident...
we're really stretching here, aren't we?  (Besides, you'd shut your car
off after it got hit, I hope, so it isn't polluting then :-)

Hey, that's it, let's all have more accidents, as that will reduce pollution!
:-)  Ahem.  I think there's something wrong with this whole thread.

>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?

Yes, some of this is valid, but -- two things --
	1)  Sometimes you have to "spend money to make money", so some
		small increase in pollution in the name of vastly decreasing
		overall pollution is a good investment.
	2)  You didn't start out saying "let's abandon pollution causing
		vehicles", so this isn't the same argument as you began.
		In the vein of your *original* argument, the answer to these
		charges is:  People do drive pollution causing cars, and
		will continue to do so; we thus need to find ways to reduce
		the pollution given the facts.

>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.

See #2 -- going on the assumption that people will drive what cars are
available to purchase, this is necessary.

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

This wasn't your original point, but it is a good one.  Of course, if we
have no pollution causing cars, we need no legislation about their
pollution levels.

No doubt about it, I don't want to pollute.  What choice do I have,
realistically?  I didn't hear a peep about my tirade against RTD, so I
presume nobody really cares about RTD, e.g., how it might be made viable.

I'd love a solar powered electric car -- but it needs to meet the same
requirements as current cars:  300+ mile range without re"fuel"ing,
refueling in 5min or so, at a cost not significantly higher than gasoline,
do 65mph+, provide similar protection in a crash, etc. etc.

It don't exist.

Thus, we need to work on making what we've got better.

>>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.  

Voluntary, yeah, right.  "heh heh, I know my car pollutes like a factory,
I'll just save my $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.

Yes, but, new "environmentally friend" DC administration... write your new
president and suggest he look into Stedman's device.  I have.

>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.

We need some hardware to use in order to change our habits.  Geez, even
a viable RTD would make me happier.

I also work at home as much as I can, and don't drive when I can avoid it.
(I also get complaints about not being around campus enough, even though
I'm logged in about 16 hours a day.  It's tough to telecommute.)

>>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!"

It's not a matter of tribute!  It's a matter of forcing people to pay a
fine, say, to encourage them not to do what you don't want them to do.
The hope would be that nobody ever has to pay!

>>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.

How does this relate?  People who aren't driving aren't causing the
problem.  It's the people who DO own the cars that pollute and AREN'T
fixing them that are the bulk of the problem.  If "no car" then "no problem".
If "have car" and "car not over-polluting" then "no problem."  That leaves
If "have car" and "car over-polluting" then "have problem".  Those folks
need to fix their cars!

>>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.

But you didn't start out by saying "let's get rid of all polluting cars".
You started with "get rid of testing".  This only makes sense *if* there
is no value to the test; it has value, given the reality of cars.

You'd have been more on target to start out saying "ban all cars!".  (But
give me a functionally equivalent thing first.)

But, I'll be much happier when we DO replace cars with a clean version.
I don't even know if that'll be in my lifetime though.
-- 

Andrew Burt 		   					  aburt@du.edu

"But if he was dying he wouldn't bother to carve "Aaaaargh", he'd just say it."
Newsgroups: co.general