Date:         Mon, 7 Mar 2011 10:55:15 +0000
Reply-To:     Jerome A Perkins <jeromeaperkins@AOL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Jerome A Perkins <jeromeaperkins@AOL.COM>
Subject:      Re: Bostig, CARB EO,
              the reasons why not WAS: [WetWesties] Washington state...changes
              in vehicle licensing rules..
In-Reply-To:  <015501cbdc3f$a7ae27d0$f70a7770$@net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Now, is the enforced purchaes of newer more efficient vehicles good for
the planet or vehicle manufacturers?

It is argued that the dust to dust energy cost of a vehicle is a high
proportion of the energy that that vehicle will consume in it's lifetime
and, by continuing to use older, albeit less fuel efficient vehicles,
overall carbon emissions are reduced.  If  these vehicles are then
fitted with later, more efficient engines the overall energy cost will
be reduced even more.

Of course this applies to carbon footprints and not the other tailpipe
emissions, it seems that California is a unique case due to it's weather
and geography which leads to a build up in these pollutants.  Similar
arguments apply to big cities worldwide where there is a push to
encourage EVs, the only problem is that this will move the pollution
from the cities to where ever the powerstations are sited. Admittedly
powerstations are usually in areas where the pollutants disperse rather
than buildup so it could be argued that this is still an improvement.

Specific Vanagon Content: In London, England there is a Congestion
Charge which was originally intended to reduce congestion during the
week. However over the years it has also become a tool to reduce
polllution with low emitting vehicles being charged less or not at all.
However, you cannot claim a reduction if you modify your vehicle to
reduce it's emissions such as converting it to run on LPG (which in the
case of my '84 bus would be a win all round.) or installing a later,
more efficient engine.(it has a 1.9 carbed DG engine so there is room
for improvement.)  However, as my bus was originally a 11 seater, I
could put the original seats back in and go for free thereby doing
nothing for pollution. The annoying thing is that all LPG conversions in
the UK have to checked for safety and correct operation after
installation and a certificate of compliance sent to one's insurer so
there is no question that it has not been done properly or is not
working correctly.

Incedentally. a while ago we had a "Scrappage Scheme" similar to the
American one which was designed solely to sell new cars, we had an
unlikely alliance of car enthusiasts and Greens both decrying it as it
did nothing for th environment at all.



  On 06/03/2011 20:47, Kim Springer wrote:
> C'mon Volks,
>
> Actually, California is driving most of the effort to reduce emissions in
> the US and probably North America, and has been for a long time: Low Carbon
> Fuel Standard, Higher MPG Vehicle, even in electricity generation with its
> Renewable Portfolio Standard.
>
> A 2.2 Subaru is OK, so that must have had to go through some kind of
> "proving" with CARB.
>
> At the time that our T3's were being built, VW wasn't exactly a leader in
> either fuel efficiency or low emission vehicles. They have made a lot of
> headway since that time. Volvo and Honda were leading the pack in the late
> 80's, I'm pretty sure. CARB created new classifications for these two
> manufacturers low emissions vehicles (ultra low, super ultra low, etc.). I
> assure you VW was not driving that.
>
> CARB knows, as many of those on the list do, that tailpipe emissions aren't
> the only sources of emissions on vehicles. T3's tend to have a lot of fuels
> leaks, especially from the tank crossover.
>
> CARB would probably rather see these vehicles retired than modified, simply
> because that's part of what they are betting on to make progress on reducing
> vehicle emissions in the state.
>
> Face it, no matter what engine is in a T3, if you are using it for a daily
> driver and not as a work truck or to haul 4+ humans in, you can do a lot
> better in terms of mileage and therefore emissions generation. If you are
> really concerned about the planet, (not just about "freedom") then you have
> to do your part to be part of the solution.
>
> My two cents to those who blast CA and CARB.
>
> Kim, driving CA and Federal Legal Tristar #7 with solid fuel tank fittings
> and no grommets, approximately 1 day/week and walking and taking the train
> the rest of the time, or using the other family car on the weekend, a 97
> Honda Civic HX that get about 36 mpg, mostly with 2-3 people in the car.
>
> Love my Tristar, but it's joke to say that folks upgrade to a 2.5 Subie or a
> Ford VTec to reduce emissions. Face it, most do it because of HP and/or
> reliability. Spend $8000 to get two more MPG? I don't think so.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On Behalf Of
> Don Hanson
> Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2011 11:42 AM
> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> Subject: Re: Bostig, CARB EO, the reasons why not WAS: [WetWesties]
> Washington state...changes in vehicle licensing rules..
>
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Jake de Villiers<
> crescentbeachguitar@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> Great essay Jim, as usual!
>>
>> I'm happy to be living in BC where tailpipe emissions are what matter,
>> rather than the Republic of California where governmental (emphasis on
>> 'mental') decree holds sway.
>>
>> It absolutely amazes me that it is okay to drive an inefficient WBX but
> not
>> okay to replace it with a newer and much more efficient 2.5 Subaru or 2.0
>> Ford Zetec engine.
>>
>> Jake
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Jim Akiba<syncrolist@bostig.com>  wrote:
>>
>     Yes, the actual amount of emissions does seem like the most important
> thing for helping the air quality.  But it seems that California isn't
> really that concerned with simple stuff like that with many of their regs.
>
>     The amazing thing is that the citizens 'buy into it' and go along with
> really nutty rules and regulations without a question... but no politics on
> this list is the rule so ....shhhhh!
>
>    Don Hanson