The banner above is an advertisment - if it asks you to download software, please ignore.
Site News - 3/26 M Car Covers (by State of Nine) | 12/12 Make Amazon Pay Saabnet!
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 02:48:44 GMT
From: Nutmegger<Nutmeggernopsamunkmail.com>
Subject: Re: UK Fuel Grade


Walt Kienzle says... > >Thank you, but I still feel discriminated against, since 90% of the rest of >Illinois, where I live, do not need to subject their vehicles to this >emissions test, or any other type of test. Why is that? >There is no equivalent to the MOT here. I'm not familiar with MOT, what is it. In our state every vehicle is subject to emissions testing unless it is over 20 years old and then it gets a waiver. >For pollution, the same pretty much holds true for the rest of >the US, because the test is only for something like 12 regions that are >considered "high pollution areas". That is just plain stupid. The state legislators should know better. >It doesn't matter that the air is >generally cleaner where I live than most "rainforests" (from a hydrocarbon >or CO2 standpoint) and that only one hot summer day where some measured >threshold is surpassed qualifies us for a high pollution area. Is is the same here, our air quality is really good. >If the >powers that be truly wanted to reduce pollution, NOx emissions would be >tested too. They are not. So apparently, acid rain is an acceptable >pollution. Well.... >As you say, everyone should do their part to reduce pollution, but most >people are exempted from these annoying tests that generally don't find >anything. That sounds like discrimination to me. They find things all the time here and it really annoys people because it generally means high repair bills are on the horizon. They also watch very closely for expired tickets, and they will pull you over. > >To answer your question: "If everyone thought the same way as you did, what >would the future hold?" >Most likely it would be exactly what we have now. I read somewhere that we can't really see the effects until years down the road, but I'm not sure how long. I do know there are more cars on the road than ever and either I'm getting less patient or there has been an invasion of clueless people driving around. >These tests have only >been around since 1986 and air pollution levels have been dropping since the >1970s, long before these tests were mandated. The ozone layer has not seen any benefit, the holes in it have increased too much too soon. Cars more than 20 years old >(the most polluting models) are exempt, cars less than 4 years old are >exempt, and 95% of the US is exempt by geography. What is with this geography thing? I never realized that before, they go by the amount of people per square mile or something? It should just be federal, instead of the screwed up system they have now. >Of all the cars in the >US, nearly everyone is exempt and are free to run their cars spewing any >level of pollution they want. What about semis? > >I also agree with your claim that there has to be a standard. But when the >standard they are using allows others to put out 30 times the amount of >hydrocarbons than what they measure from my car, I contend that is not much >of a standard. How do you know that? That does not seem right to me, neither does it to go by geography because cars & people move around. >The standard should be lowered you say? By law, this >standard can't be changed because it was set by the government for the model >year when the car was produced. I know the gov't puts the limits on and probably doles out the money for roads, tourism and highway projects due in part of enforcement of these standards. I do not think the standard should be lowered, I think the gov't needs to get more serious about this issue. > >My point is that tests (particularly the ones we have here) don't reduce >pollution and are the result of a feel-good, do-nothing philosophy of >policymaking. Don't tell me that!!! I'm sick of that stuff, seriously. Just like the issue I have with tires. Bureaucratics need to get their act together, and sometimes they need someone to shake them up a bit. Nader is always good for that. >More efficient traffic patterns and reduced use of vehicles >are more effective in reducing pollution. That makes sense. >And this once again assumes that >most of the pollution comes from vehicles, which isn't necessarily true. Yeah, I won't go into bovine flatulence. > >Walt Kienzle ~J~ Remove "Junk" to reply

Return to Main Index
StateOfNine.com
SaabClub.com
Jak Stoll Performance
M Car Covers
Ad Available

The content on this site may not be republished without permission. Copyright © 1988-2024 - The Saab Network - saabnet.com.
For usage guidelines, see the Mission & Privacy Notice.
[Contact | Site Map | Saabnet.com on Facebook | Saabnet.com on Twitter | Shop Amazon via TSN | Site Donations]