Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 11:29:19 -0500
Reply-To: Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Subject: Re: Bostig, CARB EO,
the reasons why not WAS: [WetWesties] Washington state...changes
in vehicle licensing rules..
In-Reply-To: <4D74B993.3010603@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 5:55 AM, Jerome A Perkins <jeromeaperkins@aol.com>wrote:
> Now, is the enforced purchaes of newer more efficient vehicles good for
> the planet or vehicle manufacturers?
>
Good question, but I think the question is out of scope of the legislation,
just like it is in the other direction... planet is not considered
(abstractly it is) the state and Federal regs are being considered. But
great question, the only thing I'm certain of is it's a very complex answer,
and would say my opinion currently is both, just one, neither in that order
of probability. Additionally we are pushing outside the scope of the
vanagon list itself as well. But for the moderators, please consider that
this topic directly affects vanagon owners in particular as we suffer from a
special class of side effect from these mechanisms, and we are highly
relevant since we are the largest aftermarket niche with such a high
percentage of engine replacements. Without understanding the considerations
and workings of the mechanisms in place, we cannot possibly understand the
situation we find ourselves in. I want to stress effort in understanding
over looking for places that fit blame, as the former can foster additional
thought in the right context, while with the latter the concern fits into
the coffin of blame, dies of it's own wounds and never goes any further. We
can't kill concern or foster learned helplessness over these issues, or we
will lose the ability to have the vehicles we want, despite the fact that it
may, or may not, be for the greater good.
> 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.
>
I agree with this for sure, but I don't think it really has large enough
potential to be scoped into consideration, especially when considering the
rate of failure when it comes to repairs. Imagine average shops doing engine
swaps, in fact we don't have to, I know well that it's not viable and not
something that needs to be attempted on a broader scale.
> 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.
>
This is spot on, additionally it doesn't just move the emissions. It
transforms them from mobile sources to stationary, and instead of relying on
individuals and centralized network compliance programs, you can have
single programs for the single large stationary sources... far easier to
control, far easier to get data from... in the end a much faster way to
understand what works and what doesn't. Finding effective solutions fast is
extremely challenging, so simplification and colocation of problems is worth
it's weight in gold. I would argue that the models we have for wind and
atmospheric traversal of pollutants are better than what we have for driver
behavior alone, which was one of the points of failure in the MOBILE and
EMFAC models pointed out to congress in the late 90s. I'm not aware of an
improvement to it, legislation doesn't reflect progress there... and that's
more than a decade ago.
> 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.
>
Perhaps it is again that they have reason not to trust aftermarket
modification, as it is here.
> 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.
The program here was modeled off both German and Japanese programs, Canada,
and the state of California by itself have also done this.
Jim Akiba
| 
