Date:         Sat, 13 Jul 1996 15:27:59 -0800
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@vanagon.com>
From:         tbf@pacifier.com (Todd Francis)
Subject:      Re:  My Volkswagens-an EPA Danger (a response)

At 12:46 PM 7/12/96 -0500, Ron Lussier wrote:
 
>Would you be willing to sacrifice your old VW's for the right of children to
>breathe easily?  How about for the right of your children to have a
>reasonably cool climate and polar ice caps?
>
>Your father fought to protect people, which is fine and good.  But there are
>many people in this world who are only interested in their short-term
>pleasure.  This is why we need government regulation.  People (in general)
>don't care about long-term dangers.  They don't worry about the collapse of
>the ecosystems if it occurs five generations in the future.  And many don't
>care at all as long as they're getting personal pleasure in the short term.
>
      In response I would say:  You are missing the point.  Vehicle Emission
Testing is not about "clean air" now or in the future.  It may have started
out that way with someone having an idea about how to get rid of smog.  But
it is now big-business, run by corporate America with the help of
over-zealous regulators at all stages of government.  Thinking to the
contrary is incredibly naive.  Here in Vancouver, where they tested 10,000
cars (4 years old and newer) and only 39 failed, we suggested that in doing
those tests, ecology was probably creating more pollution than they
eliminated.  The Dept. of Ecology was incensed.  They told us that they
didn't look at it that way--they only looked at the number caught, not the
percentage caught.  At first DOE (Dept. of Ecology) said they could not stop
testing the 10,000 newer cars, because they had promised Envirotest a
certain number of cars to be tested, and they could not go back on that
promise.  When we got a copy of the contract with Envirotest, which showed
that was a lie--there was no promised amount of tests; then DOE changed
their story saying those 39 cars if allowed to go on polluting, would cause
so much pollution (in a population of 300,000) as to make the difference
between having a pollution violation or not.  Never mind the fact (and even
the mechanics at Ecology agreed) that the newer cars probably run so badly
if they are polluting that they would have soon been taken in for repairs,
even without the test.  The newer cars are said to be in "limp" mode when
their emissions are messed up, because they hardly run at all.  And so they
will continue to test those cars 4 years and newer.

Now, as to your question about giving up my precision VW if it would allow
children to breath a little easier:  If that were the case, I probably
would.  However, you are forgetting a couple of things:

First of all, Vancouver has never had an ozone violation.

Also, here in Vancouver, and I believe it is the same throughout the
country, the purpose of polluting less with cars is so industry can be
allowed to expand in a given area; i.e., not "less" pollution, but pollution
from a different source--all with the blessings of EPA and DOE.  The
rhetoric about children, ice caps and a fragile ecosystem is just that.
When scientific data can be offered that proves these things, you will get
my attention.  But data collected by computer modeling is only as good as
the statistics that were put into the computer in the first place; and since
a large part of those statistics come from extrapolation and speculation of
facts unproven, this data is faulty and should not be relied upon too
heavily.  We need scientific evidence.

Another thing you should consider is the unfair burden this system of
vehicle emission testing places on low-income people.  The EPA acknowledges
that the new IM240 test for vehicles may be so stringent that only cars 4
years old and newer will be able to pass it.  And while you and I may be
able to afford a newer car, or to have our vehicle regularly maintained,
there are a great many people in the country who cannot.  And I think we
would all agree that cars are as important to low-income people as they are
to us--perhaps more so.  They must have a way to get to work, the store, and
the doctor.  And while smog may affect the lives of children, I think having
their means of transportation taken away or eliminated, or even made more
expensive through car testing definitely affects the lives of
children--especially those least able to afford it (talk about taking food
out of children's mouths).  I have taken our local city bus a few times, and
I feel sorry for anyone who has to rely on it as their sole means of
transportation.

Vehicle emission testing, at least here in Vancovuer, is nothing more than a
way to take money away from the citizens and give it to Envirotest, EPA and
our local Department of Ecology (who get a portion of every fee Envirotest
gets).

Please don't take the above to mean I don't like clean air.  I think all
people want clean air to breath.  But the way to get it is through new and
better technologies.  The fleet of cars is upgrading and getting cleaner
every day in this country, through natural attrition.  And if Ford or
someone else comes up with new ideas (such as the smog-eating radiator),
industry and citizens alike will clamor to institute their use.  We must
each do whatever we can to clean up our environment--I for one try to keep
all my VW's in good working order.  So far, none of my VW's has failed an
emission test.  But that doesn't mean we act like good sheep and have our
cars tested without question.  At least here in Washington, car testing is a
mindless bureaucratic solution to a clean-air non-problem which is grossly
inefficient and taxpayer abusive.

So for now I will continue to fight for the right to drive and keep my
precious VW's and stop the EPA's efforts to the contrary.

  


 
Todd Francis             tbf@pacifier.com
'86 Westy Syncro         Vancouver, Wa