Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
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.
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.
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
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"
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.
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.
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.
that diesel emissions should be controlled as gasser emissions are?
I'm not trying to be obtuse
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.
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.
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.
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.
why is it so hard to get you guys to state what you want, rather than just pointing out problems?
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.
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)
The truth is the exhaust from a car burning gas is more likely to kill you than from even a smelly diesel truck. Breathing any exhaust is not wise. I would not ride a bike or motorcycle on the street for that very reason. I keep my bike riding to the park and beach.
the argument that "diesel kills, but gas kills more" is not likely to help the diesel cause
but that's just my take
:-)<
but you've convinced many of us that, yes, vehicles using red-dyed diesel should be regulated more than they are......
When I first bought my Kubota diesel tractor I ran Red Dye Diesel because it was about 40 cents a gallon cheaper. It also smoked a lot when I started the tractor. When I learned about ULSD and ARCO/BP stations started selling it, I switched. My tractor does not smoke at all and does not have that distinctive diesel odor. I think the perception of diesel vehicles is all a result of the fuel we are sold. Just as has been said before. When leaded fuel is what was offered we were killing ourselves with the stuff. I am not against regulation. I am against random regulation without a consistent theme.
If you are going to force one person to use a more expensive fuel for the environment, force everyone. CARB just picks and chooses the easy targets. Making them the joke that they are. They block the sale of new diesel cars and everyone treats them like they accomplished some great feat. Meanwhile Joe Six Pack buys a one ton dually with a fire breathing Cummins diesel that puts out more pollution than ten VW TDI cars. There are no smog checks so he tosses whatever smog control stuff it has and no one seems to care. CARB shows NO consistency in their regulations.
While you might come to that conclusion or ascribe that to "misguided diesel nuts", my take is the path that should be taken is up to 50% of the vehicle fleet be of "alternative" type fuels, such as diesel, bio diesel, nat gas, electrical, hydrogen, etc.
Actually there are huge segments of unmitigated gasoline engines also, motorcycles being an example.
Also there is no reason why red dyed diesel can not be USLD at 15 ppm to bio diesel (almost NO sulfur) . The operative principle here: ON ROAD taxation is not being paid: hence the physical and regulatory sign posts.
I happen to manage a small fleet of delivery trucks. Care to guess what fuel my most dependable and profitable trucks use? But I can't use the same technology for my personal vehicle because a small passenger diesel isn't allowed, even if other EPA compliant States can offer them.
I also should probably note that new diesel light truck sales have NEVER been banned in CA.
There is absolutely NO shortage of diesel fuel. In recent travels across 9 western states (CA,NV,OR,WA,CO, AZ,NM,UT,ID) and 6 southern states ,(TX,OK,MS,LA,FL,AL,) I have literally never had to wait to fuel.
If a turbo diesel can be tweaked so an suv type can get 25 to 35 mpg, I most certainly would be a buyer. Short list would include, TDI Toyota Landcruiser, Chevy Tahoe, GMC Yukon, etc.
It was actually one director that absolutely hated diesel. Instead of looking at the advantages and working to clean up the negatives, he just slashed the whole genre of automotive power. Then came out with the ZEV mandate. We all know what happened there.
I still believe there are TOO many overlapping agencies. If most every COUNTY has an air quality agency. The state has CARB and the Feds have EPA. We are being buried by regulations that do not work well together. One cleans up the air and pollutes the water. Each going in the direction requested by some lobbyist with a fat check book.
But in a striking change of heart that could alter the kinds of cars and trucks Americans drive, the chairman of the powerful California Air Resources Board is taking a new look at diesel vehicles. He thinks they're poised to emerge as part of the solution to a different environmental problem that's gaining more attention in the U.S.: global warming.
Coming from the head of California's famously pugnacious clean-air agency, that amounts to environmental apostasy.
Once a snow ball gets rolling it is hard to stop the avalanche.
quote-
But when we’re through with all the silliness, a real problem remains: For almost four decades California has earned the grudging respect of the global auto industry by using its status as the U.S.’ largest single vehicle market to force new emissions technology with the most stringent regulations technically possible.
California now is squandering that respect by furthering the notion in the auto industry that it no longer is interested in using science to set rigorous standards for clean air and is instead simply pursuing an extreme political agenda.
If the frivolous lawsuits continue, auto makers will give up trying to meet emissions with technical innovation and will respond solely through legal channels. They will argue California’s regulations no longer are rational, let alone achievable.
-end quote
I agree that CA is using CARB to pursue extreme political agenda i/o pursuing science based regulations.
Unfortunately, a rational discussion of extreme political agendas is not possible.
The science of emissions has been politicized and that's not going to change, but... it's better than everyone taking sides based on their feelings.
re - The science of emissions has been politicized and that's not going to change, but... it's better than everyone taking sides based on their feelings.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061005/BUSINESS01/610050324/10- 14
Rocky
:-P
The feds, of course, are just adopting previous Californian regs with this one, but it gives California more cred that the feds ALWAYS wind up adopting California emissions standards, usually within a few years.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Even when 50-state diesels become prolific in a couple of years, I don't think we will see too many in cars as small as Echos and Corollas. They will be in midsize cars and crossovers to start, I should think. And I have always felt that large trucks should have diesels once it is clean enough - why even have a gas option in a full-size truck or truck-based SUV?
But the thing is, between constantly-advancing gas engine management technologies, and the burgeoning hybrids, small cars have other ways to get to superlative fuel economy, so I doubt the automakers will go to the trouble of certifying diesels for these smaller cars unless they have a diesel all ready to go in the EXACT SAME model somewhere else in the world (ie Europe, most likely).
And I will put in another plug here for lighter weight - the automakers should be focusing on lightening the fleet just as much as advancing engine technology, if not more. It is rare to find a crossover under two tons of curb weight these days, and that trend is extending to new midsize car models too. Unbelievable.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The new Civic (and even the new smaller model, Fit) fit more people than his CRX too. This is more a case of Honda changing its offerings than cars standing still for 20 years. But in one regard you are right on the money - fuel economy has stood still (actually regressed as a measure of the fleet as a whole) while we made cars needlessly heavy and fast (yes, fast is usually good, but what is it good for in a family or commute car that will spend all its time going to the store and the soccer game and sitting in rush hour traffic?).
I am curious to know from those of you who are very familiar with diesels: do today's diesels do much better than mid-80s diesels for fuel economy? Can an apples to apples comparison even be made vehicle-wise?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I think diesel technology pretty much parallels gas engine technology. They have added HP and emissions control and the mileage has not gone up. So I guess you can say it is better now. A lot of folks with diesel Rabbits got 50 MPG.
All the added emissions has dropped mileage. The truth is most of the improvement in air quality is a result of cleaner gas and diesel. I would like to see a valid study that shows the amount of pollution from 1970 cars and current vehicles. With a percentage blocked by emissions devices and how much was removed from the fuel to start with. I see old Mercedes diesels running around in CA and not blowing out black smoke. On a recent trip I noticed diesel PU trucks in AZ blowing black smoke. The difference is 15 PPM sulfur and 500 PPM in other states. I think perceptions will change when we get all the states selling clean diesel. CA mandated on road diesel have no more than 130 PPM in 1991 if memory serves me. Too bad they let the construction & ag business off the hook. Big bucks buy off politicians.
You are also correct in that diesels are less effected by weight. Because they get much of their torque at lower RPMs they are as dependant on weight to get their fuel mileage. At least to a point they aren't. If you had two cars like yours, one with a small diesel and one with your small gas engine their might not be a big difference in fuel mileage on a daily basis. The diesel owner would have to drive as carefully as you might to get their fuel mileage but they more than likely would only get a few more MPG better. However if you had a reason to place 4 people in your car and spent the day driving around town or up to the mountains to go skiing you would get a big difference in fuel mileage. The Diesel however would still deliver about what it did empty. That is how it works in trucks today. empty my 3/4 ton ford gets about 25 percent better fuel mileage than a 1/2 ton any other kind of Pickup empty. With a full load, and I can haul up to 12,000 pounds, I can get 50 percent better fuel mileage on a long trip to the river. We have tried it hauling the rock crawlers out to Johnson Valley. We have been pulling about the same weight as friends in a gas powered rig up and down hills to get to Johnson valley from Phoenix. The F-250 averaged 20 MPG and the Nissan Titan averaged 10 with a 7,000 pound load. empty we still go 20 to 22 and he got 15 to 17. I have no reason to expect less from commuter class diesels.
The real question is, how serious are we about fuel useage if we as a State are willing to sacrifice 25 to 30 percent fuel savings from the private fleet by restricting diesel and out of the same organization will allow the state and public fleet full diesel access? Does this honestly make sense to you? One of the largest users of diesels in California is the state itself? And if you think the lesson is lost on the people just look at what we are transporting our children to school in. If diesel is bad for us why are we putting our most precious resource, our children, into big yellow twinkies five days a week to get to school? And don't try telling me for a minute the kids aren't directly exposed to diesel fumes while riding in those twinkies.
Your quote is one of the reasons why I think this whole fuel savings issue is a "strawman" aka FAKE. BOGUS!!!!
Lets look at it from a fuel savings point of view. If you are truly interested in saving fuel why would you MANDATE and or chose the fuel that takes 37% MORE to do the same job!!??? Why would you mandate the majority of passenger vehicle fleet to use 37% more fuel when they can use diesel and use 37% LESS!!!??? Another way to look at is is why doesn't CA state convert ALL of their vehicles from diesel!!?? DAH they save 37% !!!!!!
This idea that diesel emissions can not and will not be mitigated "correctly" is another bogus illogical logic and almost knee-jerk reactionary attitude.
quote-
Toyota instead urges an over-50-cetane number minimum and aromatics levels more like those of California Air Resources Board (CARB) diesel (averaging around 21%, although the default limit is 10%).
"It is essential that diesel fuel cetane and aromatics must improve," Toyota powertrain general manager Tetsu Watanabe said here. "Fuel quality is a big problem--low average cetane number (44) and aromatics are high--35% average and 54% maximum in the U.S."
Ironically, Toyota showed that its "DPNR" test car fleet in Europe is meeting European emissions and performance goals even in countries with 300-ppm sulfur fuels.
-end
CA has some of the best diesel in North America, and only the highest diesel emissions vehicles are permitted to burn it. :sick:
Even with ULSD diesel, the cetane is still a problem in the US. :sick: