Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





California Diesel Issue

124

Comments

  • carlisimocarlisimo Posts: 1,280
    If you didn't see any dirty air in Europe, there must not be any at all. How pleasant.

    Hope you had a good time. I've always gone to see family, so I've never had a chance to set myself free across the continent. I'd really like to, one of these days...
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 17,478
    So much for the concept that some folks tout here (USA) that higher fuel prices will lessen usage, etc, etc. Since gassers are fully half of the passenger vehicle fleet you are saying it is all diesels fault?

    Does it follow then that since LA is upwards of 97% gasser that it is all unleaded regulars fault?
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 30,564
    There is so much that goes on behind the scenes that we are just not privy to. CA politics are more than I can deal with at times. I went to Alaska to work in 1970. One of the reasons was the horrible legislature and governor. I came back and they have named a bridge after the loser Edmund Brown. This state has had a corrupt government run by a few strong arm politicians off and on for decades. We convinced a friend to run back in 1968. He won and within 3 years was as bad as the worst of them.

    CARB is just an outgrowth of the $$$$ politics. Turning around bad policy like the diesel car ban, could take years. And like you say it could be big oil paying officials to keep them off our roads. Makes sense. Diesel cuts consumption by 30%. A very sizable cut into the oil revenues.
  • boaz47boaz47 Posts: 2,751
    No more that someone that says CARB shouldn't share the blame for such educated men failing to realize the impact of their decisions. If CARB's efforts have improved anything shouldn't the air be better? Shouldn't LA have improved to the point that it was "Better Than" Dallas considering we have CARB and Texas doesn't? The Population in Dallas hasn't been stagnate either and yet we are no better off now against cities with similar population explosions as ours and they don't have CARB. CARB even requires some testing on diesels here in California, something called a snap back test, I have no clue what it is, and yet still our air hasn't placed us ahead of another city like Dallas that doesn't restrict diesels at all and has less stringent standards on gas cars than what CARB forces on us. You tell me how that is possible? It is almost like the perfect blind study when you use other relative dirty cities like Dallas or even Mexico city and compare it to LA. One with CARB restrictions for 40 years and the others without. Carb hasn't earned its money, political patronage or not. And we that live here are forced to buy used diesels or no diesels because of it.
  • alp8alp8 Posts: 656
    I just got back from Europe for the 6th time and we saw no dirty air like we see in LA.

    yikes - come on, guy - I'm sure you know better than that

    do I have to explain inversion layers AGAIN?

    ps I was in Paris this summer. The air quality was HORRIBLE. There was no reason to climb to the top of the Eifell Tower since you wouldn't see any farther from up there. But Europe doesn't have any bad air?

    Why do people mis-state FACTS. Facts are facts. Why lie about them?

    I guess it's possible that you could be in Europe and not notice any bad air days.

    Am not saying Europe is going to have air like LA. There aren't many places on earth that have the conditions that LA has. The freakin INDIANS couldn't see across the valley in 1850, and that was simply because of smoke from their fires and the layer cooking that gas over and over and over.
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,695
    I don't think it's valid to compare one metro area with its own set of topographic challenges to another with an entirely different set of challenges. There is absolutely no way to make that an apples to apples comparison.

    2013 Civic SI, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (stick)

  • boaz47boaz47 Posts: 2,751
    Sure there is. If Air quality in the LA basin was worse that Dallas when CARB was formed but only slightly worse and CARB came into effect then if Dallas doesn't have CARB and LA does then LA should be better than Dallas after 40 years. Because Dallas should have been getting worse as it got bigger and LA should have at least held its own. Unless CARB has had no effect and we are to give credit to some other forces. If that is the case once again CARB is worthless. Because one can't say things are better because of CARB if that are still worse than a competing city that doesn't have CARB. Texas is far less restrictive towards diesels than California and Still California has more bad air days. It seems if CARB worked at all then there should be some signs that other metro areas without CARB were getting worse and a large area with CARB was getting better. Otherwise what is the point of measuring air quality anyway?
  • alp8alp8 Posts: 656
    yes, absolutely true, if all other factors are equal

    but since they aren't.........
  • boaz47boaz47 Posts: 2,751
    Then what factors are helping Dallas without CARB? And why would a State with less restrictive smog standards and less restrictive diesels standards improve without CARB and LA and the Inland empire with CARB would not improve?
  • alp8alp8 Posts: 656
    well, first of all air quality almost EVERYWHERE is getting better, thanks to USEPA, not the state agencies

    secondly, air in LA can't improve as easily, due to local conditions

    Dallas, last time I checked, does not have inversion layers.

    Dalls is not an air "basin" - air does not get "trapped" in Dallas and cook and cook and cook

    Dallas not have a port, a very significant source of virtually unregulated air emissions
  • boaz47boaz47 Posts: 2,751
    So you credit the improvement to the EPA? Perhaps, and then what use is CARB? If the EPA helps Dallas without CARBS restrictions What can CARB claim as their purpose for existing, other than costing the California tax payers money? Could we as easily use Air quality in Corpus Christy? How about CARB free New York City? The Thing is without CARB other cities haven't moved up against LA and with CARB LA hasn't moved lower than other Cities. So as to your question about population and Pomona's air quality with more Ozone days than in 1996. If CARB hasn't helped Pomona, and they have stricter diesel regulations even with the population increase, though I don't know how much Pomona could grow, then why say the air is better than it would be without CARB and Diesels? What standards are you measuring by?
  • alp8alp8 Posts: 656
    CARB does not have jurisdiction over every pollution source in LA.

    I'm not really all that interested in a debate over CARB's usefullness. I'll let a CARB employee or someone from the Cal AG's office entertain that, if they want.

    I only wanted to point out that your position isn't accurate.

    Are you a California taxpayer? Why do you care about CARB?

    Places like Pomona grow. Blocks of two-story apartments are torn down and replaced with blocks of 8-story apartments. Two-bedroom apartments that use to house two people taking the bus, now house three people all with cars. It happens.
  • carlisimocarlisimo Posts: 1,280
    CARB makes it hard for us to add certain turbos, headers, and exhausts to our cars. It's been a widespread excuse for police to pull people over. Many of you will be happy about those regulations.

    Our smog check requirements are the leading cause of death among old beaters. For Californian families like mine "drive it until the wheels fall off" doesn't apply. It's "drive it until it fails smog."

    That's what I know about CARB from day to day life. Oh and under certain conditions we have "Spare the Air" days in the SF Bay Area, and on days like that you can tell (through your eyes and nose) that our cars have an effect on our air. Few of us are willing to make big sacrifices to reduce that, but I'm glad there are some balancing powers keeping it from getting worse. I'm impressed that the air's as good as it is these days, given the incredible increase in traffic.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 17,478
    I think then truly the essential issues are either being missed or glossed over. Passenger diesel vehicle operations have statistically no effect/affect. So indeed (as you have pointed out) other environmental factors can have more sway over air quality than passenger vehicle diesels. So for example (this is absolutely HUGE) almost the whole North/South length of CA state has "wild fires" as a NATURAL condition. In truth STATE WIDE so called out of control wild fires are NATURAL environmental phenomenon every 5/8 years !!!!! This is almost literally a good definition of hell fire on earth. Indeed not letting nature take this course is UN natural!!??? I think it is not only short sighted but wishful magical thinking to have emissions abatement of already abated diesel passenger vehicles to compensate for the effects/affects of the (totally unabated) natural wild fire conditions!!! So to illustrate the concept. The south and southeast and east has its "hurricane" season. CA has its so called "wild fire"/ fire seasons.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 30,564
    then what use is CARB?

    My question from the start. Not only what have they done that was good. What have they done that has backfired. I can think of three things right off. MTBE, ZEV and the trucking industry. MTBE is well known. The EV1 and other electric vehicles that were mandated then dumped. The most costly may be what they are doing to the trucking industry in CA. By passing stricter laws on trucking companies in CA they promote trucking companies from outside CA. Now we get all these truckers buying cheaper diesel across our borders, making their PU & deliveries in CA then pop back across to fill up with cheap diesel in AZ. That I10 corridor has many stations selling diesel for a lot less than anyone in CA. CA truckers are also burdened with much more expensive particulate filters that out of state trucks are not required to have. If they are going to mandate something they need to do it for any truck that comes into the state. You would not believe some of the trucks coming in from Mexico. CARB has taxed and penalized our trucking industry to the point of collapse.

    Since 1993, strict emissions standards put in place by the California Air Resources Board have banned the sale of diesel made at refineries outside the state. Thus, the state has relied solely on so-called CARB diesel.

    Trucking news
  • alp8alp8 Posts: 656
    so your point is, there are natural sources of pollution so we shouldn't regulate man-made sources?

    I don't know that passenger vehicle emissions have no effect. I would guess that is a stretch.

    No single source is likely to be as significant as all the vehicles in a basin, though the LA basis does have a port (huge source) as well refineries

    I do think that your fundamental argument has merit - that we should not simply assume that all passenger vehicle emission controls are worthwhile

    nonetheless, the debate is not entirely a scientific one, and is, of course, a political one. Frankly, that is a good thing. The last thing I want is a world governed by scientists, alone. Sometimes you need to take a broader perspective than the scientific perspective, such as "yeah, this policy WILL clean the air up, a bit, but it will absolutely destroy the economy of the region"
  • alp8alp8 Posts: 656
    If they are going to mandate something they need to do it for any truck that comes into the state. You would not believe some of the trucks coming in from Mexico.

    well, you can't blame CARB for the inadequacies of the federal Clean Air Act - that problem lies at Congress's feet

    same with commerce coming up from Mexico. California can't regulate that, I don't think. Again, blame Congress.

    Are you seriously willing to let CARB regulate emissions on cars and trucks that aren't registered in California? I doubt it.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 17,478
    ..."so your point is, there are natural sources of pollution so we shouldn't regulate man-made sources? "...

    So for the purposes of discussion, on this thread CA diesels, the emissions (unabated) literally dwarf exponentially the diesel passenger vehicle fleets'. For that matter the gasser passenger vehicle fleets. Essentially the natural emissions sources are incalculable in comparison to the 2.9% of the diesel passenger vehicle fleet.

    Last I checked, passenger vehicles: both gasser and diesel ARE regulated. So truly your quote is NOT MY point. Since most folks are relatively unfamiliar with diesel, let me just say the 2003 VW Jetta TDI has the EGR emissions system. It also was designed to run on low sulfur diesel, which is only now coming to widespread use and availability. It also can run bio diesel products, i.e., the range of alternative (biodiesel)fuel.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 30,564
    such as "yeah, this policy WILL clean the air up, a bit, but it will absolutely destroy the economy of the region"

    On that we fully agree. When does emissions reach the point of diminishing returns? If the exhaust coming from the tailpipe of the Honda Civic GX is cleaner than the air going into the air filter. I think that may be overkill. I can tell you that the air in Los Angeles is cleaner today than it was in the 1960s & 70s. When I went to visit my Grandmother in South Pasadena in the 1970s I could not breathe. It was horrible. Cleaning up the shipping industry at Long Beach and San Pedro will go a long way toward cleaning the air in San Bernardino.
  • alp8alp8 Posts: 656
    so, what was your point? that natural sources of pollution outweigh diesel emissions, so diesel emissions should be uncontrolled?

    that diesel emissions should be controlled as gasser emissions are?

    I'm not trying to be obtuse
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 30,564
    California can't regulate that, I don't think

    I don't know either. The point being if I make you do something to clean up your truck before you drive it in CA that costs X amount of money. Then a trucker from AZ with a less expensive vehicle and cheaper fuel can beat my price for hauling goods. I believe one of the lawsuits between CARB and the EPA is over trucking jurisdiction. Even though it may not be overall as clean using the EPA standards, it would save us all a lot of money.

    I firmly believe that if CA allowed smaller diesel vehicles to be sold in the state, we would have clean small to midsize diesel PU trucks sold in the USA. Many contractors would opt for a 1/2 ton PU with a 30 MPG diesel engine instead of the 3/4 & 1 ton behemoths that are lucky to get 18 MPG. Why buy a gas truck that you are lucky to get 12 MPG with, when a bigger diesel truck gets 16-20 MPG? The overall benefit would be less fuel, less emissions and less green house gas.
  • alp8alp8 Posts: 656
    I don't disagree with you on that, nor with the point re unintended consequences (the out of state trucker, Mexico trucker issue)
  • carlisimocarlisimo Posts: 1,280
    Ruking, passenger diesels have no effect on our air because they're banned, not because they're clean. And those wildfires? They're (usually) far away, not causing smog in LA or SF and getting into our lungs.

    Remember, CARB's focus is on maintaining air quality in our populated areas for human health purposes. Saving gas or curbing global warming are incidental goals, and not official priorities. From CARB's list of goals on their website, here are the first two (the others are just stuff about leadership and innovation):

    -Provide Safe, Clean Air to All Californians
    -Protect the Public from Exposure to Toxic Air Contaminants

    CARB looks at what's entering our lungs. And basically... diesel exhaust is more carcinogenic than gasoline exhaust.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 30,564
    diesel exhaust is more carcinogenic than gasoline exhaust

    Are you sure of that? I thought diesel (NOx) was harder on our respiratory system. I think several of the chemicals in gasoline and gas exhaust are more carcinogenic. Carbon monoxide is still the biggest killer and gas cars put out more than equivelant. diesel engines. I think it is more what was seen in the air back in the 1980s following a diesel car that drives today's regulations. Not scientific studies or a balanced approach on the BIG picture.

    As was pointed out CARB cares about air quality. If it gets in the water it ain't their problem.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 17,478
    I understand what you are trying to say, but it is patently untrue. Passenger diesels in CA are indeed not BANNED. NEW diesel car sales have been so called "banned" since 2005? Again CA will fully and legally license diesels with 7500 miles and over. Again 2.9% of the passenger vehicle fleet IS DIESEL. Any diesel product (from other states) as a practical matter can be operated in CA as Gagrice has so indicated with interstate and international trucking.

    You are not saying that wild fires have no emissions effect/affect are you? If so, who actually mitigates it? You might want to make this case, but indeed the weather and unmitigated emissions renders your case moot.

    Further, fully 1/2 of the actual fuel consumed is NOT mitigated i.e., gasoline and diesel, etc. Some examples, airplanes, air craft, ships, military aircraft (CA is a haven for military operations), construction, manufacturing, farming, refining, etc. So not even CARB regulates the half of it.
  • alp8alp8 Posts: 656
    OK, so you are saying that since a lot of emissions aren't regulated, that we shouldn't regulate new diesels?

    why is it so hard to get you guys to state what you want, rather than just pointing out problems?
  • jmessjmess Posts: 677
    As an avid bicyclist I would encourage all diesel lovers to ride a bike behind one. With even the newer ones it isn't a very pleasant experience. I am all for diesel if they make them cleaner. Until then I encourage diesel owners to stand in their toxic plume for a while and take some big deep breaths.
  • carlisimocarlisimo Posts: 1,280
    Sorry about saying they were "banned." I know that's not a good term for it, but words were escaping me at the moment and I figured it was close enough.

    And yes, of course wildfires pollute. Perhaps you'll be surprised to learn that it is illegal to start them in this state. But why we haven't paved over the forest for its own safety, I do not know. I do know that if you don't let small wildfires burn pretty frequently, plant material builds up and next fire will be a very big one - and CARB can't keep that from happening, because only YOU can prevent forest fires.

    As for everything else CARB allows to run wild... well yeah, that's how government agencies work. The local police don't handle international affairs... and yet I'm still glad they're here!

    You do have a point regarding construction (my field of work). I believe red diesel (which doesn't have road tax added, so it can only be used in off-road equipment) doesn't have to meet the same standards as clear (road-use) diesel. Apparently we have priorities that we put above clean air. (But one's right to buy a diesel car is not put above clean air; I suppose the benefits to society just don't seem to outweight the problems, whereas in all the other cases they do.)

    ==

    Gagrice, about carcinogens, I think it's mostly due to diesel's soot - it's like smoking. I'm sure they both have their share of poisons, but I would guess they're not things that accumulate over time and kill you over several decades. But I'm no more an expert on it than most of us here... I'd be happy to be corrected by a real one.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 17,478
    ..."I believe red diesel (which doesn't have road tax added, so it can only be used in off-road equipment) doesn't have to meet the same standards as clear (road-use) diesel. Apparently we have priorities that we put above clean air. (But one's right to buy a diesel car is not put above clean air; I suppose the benefits to society just don't seem to outweight the problems, whereas in all the other cases they do.) "...

    In a real sense, I am not sure how to respond to the texture of what you have said in the above quote.

    While it is true on the "red dyed" diesel you do not pay "on road" taxation, you either inadvertantly or advertantly left out the fact that "red dyed *2 diesel" can legally in CA be sold with 500 ppm, (higher in the other 49 states) vs low sulfur diesel of 140 ppm, (3.57 times more) to the current USLD, 15 ppm for the on road #2 diesel(33.33 times more sulfur) than or pretty close to zero ppm for bio diesel. Also "off road" diesel engines are not required to have emissions controls vs for example, the "on road" engines such as the VW Jetta TDI. So for all intents and purposes. off road diesel and engines are massively higher in sulfur AND it is unmitigated. Yet there is no study as to the increased statistically significant incidences of lung cancer for construction folks. (folks who are exposed to these unmitigated emissions) (both gasser and diesel)
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 17,478
    I only would question why you believe inhaling gasser exhaust is NOT toxic.???!!!
Sign In or Register to comment.
California Diesel Issue - Page 4 — Car Forums at Edmunds.com