Talk:California Air Resources Board

message: :::Suggest someone go in and try to clean up this article. It appears weasels have gone in and made edits or changes without any citations or mention of factual documents where they received the data. Please see the "controversy" section. 24.251.84.221 08:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  October 2007 

message: Is it the CARB that declares "save the air day", or is that a county thing? If it is, some mention of STADs would be a nice addition here. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Spare the Air program. -- Beland (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Save the air day

message: Is the same the g/km (European Union) of g/mi (California) ? : (g/km= g/mi * 0,621371192). Is it a raw conversion ?. Perhaps, we would need common standards, to compare.--Altermike 13:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Same g/km (European Union) of g/mi (California) 

message: It's no coincidence that the acronym for this agency is "CARB" which is the mechanic's shorthand for carburetor, the very same simple and efficient device that it sadly doomed. Cars with computer-controlled carburetors are actually more energy efficient than fuel injected cars, because of their ability to employ a low-pressure pump that flows gasoline, instead of one that must maintain enormous back pressure against a valve that must be rapidly switched on and off. Why? Because of the lack of an intersection between those who were able to understand the internal engineering of this device, and those actually willing to perform work on them for a reasonable wage. Now, we have diagnostic codes that tell mechanics which doo-dad to replace first, second, third... until finally, the problem goes away. 
CARB just resulted in more disposable thinking from a throw-away society, and the only benefit is a reduction in "air pollution" that doesn't actually stay in the environment for longer than a few days after its emission (it photodegrades, eventually becoming harmless). Zaphraud (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sadly ironic acronym

message: "The California Air Resources Board has generated controversy as its regulations increasingly create hardships" -- that is certainly not NPOV. EdwinHJ | Talk 18:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I cleaned up the sentence a bit, but I think part of the issue is the source used for the section (www.killcarb.org).  Clearly, the source is very opinionated and should probably be balanced with a more encyclopaedic counter reference. --Xaliqen (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: How is it that "California Emissions Control" redirects here...yet the page fails to provide a link to the state laws governing vehicle emissions? --72.47.85.102 (talk) 07:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  References? 

message: I think it's fair to say that the Controversy section can be trimmed down a little. There are going to be people putting in 'citiation needed' for everything that's common sense. You don't need a citation to tell you that enacting tougher emission standards on an already bad economy only makes things worse. Especially when the information your using is fake or of people with papermill degrees.Woods01 (talk) 10:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument would be strongly bolstered if you could cite quantifiable evidence that the California economy was made worse (a definition of "worse" would also help) due to tighter emission standards.MrMontag (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I encourage anyone working on the Controversy section to check the sources that are already cited. Already, a couple of the sources I've looked at are more neutral than their representation in the Controversy section would make them seem. The citations give both sides while whoever wrote the Controversy section apparently only intended to give one.MrMontag (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added more sources to the Controversy section, giving it a more balanced treatment of more controversial measures. I have avoided removing the content that was already there.MrMontag (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, the "Controversy" section is very obviously biased against the California Air Resource Board. I fail to see how anyone can read that section and not see that bias. I think that the section should be deleted in its entirety. mbeychok (talk) 03:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Controversy" section was created by SandyB in April 2007 ... and he/she disappeared from WP about 5 years ago (very shortly after creating that section). He/she created that section based on a documentary movie circa 2006 that was entitled "Who killed the Electric Car?". This article was intended to discuss CARB as a governmental environmental agency  ... what it is, what it does and how it is organized. It is really no place to get involved in one's dislike of environmental agencies ... and that is exactly what the "Controversy" section has become. It is my intention to remove the entire section within the next week or so unless there is a considerable valid opposition to my doing that. mbeychok (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since there have been no comments, done as stated above. mbeychok (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on California Air Resources Board. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://nytimes.com/aponline/2009/04/24/us/AP-US-Low-Carbon-Fuel.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090426072816/http://world-wire.com/news/0904230003.html to http://world-wire.com/news/0904230003.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on California Air Resources Board. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060923013415/http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/org/orgptsd.htm to http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/org/orgptsd.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060923011218/http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/sarmap.htm to http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/sarmap.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified