[Sam Cree]

"there is no other way to reduce CO while using gasoline. "

I didn't think there was any way to reduce it. Isn't CO2 a direct result of combustion?

If so, how can it be reduced, short of lessening the combustion, which implies, as you suggest, smaller motors, i.e. smaller explosions in smaller combustion chambers.

Pretty harsh measure, since it appears that mankind's effect on global warming is minimal, anyway.

Perhaps the automakers can comply w/ this by marketing only their smallest cars in CA. Am I right that most of the problems with pollution are centered in LA, with its frequent temperature inversions?

[bvw]

Hey I meant CO2 -- wrote CO. CO is the poison carbon monoxide and that can be reduced. CO2, carbon di-oxide, is non-poisonous and can not be reduced -- it is the final product of combustion.

You can eliminate CO2 only by using a non-carbon fuel, say hydrogen -- burning hydrogen leaves water (and no CO2 of course). But as long as we use gasoline or diesel fuel or propane or natural gas, etc, we can not reduce CO2 without also losing power.

[norton]

L.A. air has gotten reasonably clean over the past too many years.
At least it is not visibly solid as it once was.
Cannot say same for surrounding counties.
I was once told that the whole idea was to get particulate emissions of the proper weight/size so that they'd gain just enough altitude to blow into someone else's back yard.
Since the source of that quote was an air-current expert ('Scientist' by his own admission) I give it some credence.

[John Jorsett]

Perhaps the automakers can comply w/ this by marketing only their smallest cars in CA. Am I right that most of the problems with pollution are centered in LA, with its frequent temperature inversions?

This isn't even about pollution. It's about "greenhouse gases". These nuts want California to lead the world in reducing emissions that they claim leads to global warming.