Skip to comments.New emissions rules offer drivers bigger headachesProtection Agency is set to unleash on the country
Posted on 11/27/2001 1:09:29 PM PST by exposeEdited on 04/13/2004 1:38:39 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Starting next year, drivers of relatively new cars could see those little "check engine" lights illuminating the dashboard turn into an expensive nightmare, thanks to a new system of emissions-control mandates the Environmental Protection Agency is set to unleash on the country.
(Excerpt) Read more at usatoday.com ...
My wife's car is a 2001, so we can't escape it from her end.
Oh yeah, I have heard there is an "OBD I" and an "OBD II" system.
Presumably OBD II is newer - it's on my wife's car.
Apr. 24, 2001
By JOHN McELHENNY, Associated Press Writer
BOSTON (AP) _ Massachusetts will become the first state to limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants under clean-air rules set to go into effect in June.
The new standards unveiled Monday by acting Gov. Jane Swift also will limit mercury emissions and require deep cuts in emissions of sulfur dioxide, which causes acid rain, and smog-causing nitrogen oxide.
The regulations will apply to the state's six dirtiest power plants, which produce 40 percent of the electricity used in Massachusetts.
"This sets the bar for any other state that is doing power plant clean ups," said Conrad Schneider, a spokesman for Clean Air Task Force, a national environmental advocacy group that monitors power plant emissions. "And it sets the bar for the national debate for what the level of reduction should be in federal legislation."
Proposals to limit carbon dioxide emissions surged onto the national scene last month when Swift's fellow Republican, President Bush, reversed a campaign pledge to push for carbon dioxide power plant limits.
"He and I, in this case, came to a different conclusion," Swift said as she announced the new Massachusetts regulations.
The new regulations would require
Power plants would be required to cut average carbon dioxide emissions by 10 percent under the new regulations. Many scientists believe such emissions are causing the Earth to warm significantly.
Efforts to cut carbon dioxide emissions have often presented a political challenge for state officials because the reductions have little direct impact locally.
"I know that climate change is a global problem _ but that does not mean we should sit around and wait for global solutions," said state Environmental Affairs Secretary Bob Durand.
A spokesman for the Competitive Power Coalition of New England, an industry group, said the strict rules would lead to higher electric rates and increase the risk of outages. Swift dismissed that prediction, noting that several new power plants were planned for the region.
___ On the Net:
EPA global warming site: http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming
Critical, operative, and not-to-be-overlooked language from their site:
The agency is requesting comments from the public about this view, and about all the proposed standards.
To improve the final rule, the EPA will refine the cost benefit analysis it conducted in connection with this proposed rule. The agency will take into consideration the findings of this analysis as it makes final decisions on standards, phase in periods, and the scope of coverage.
If your state exempts older vehicles, I would take them up on that offer!
A really nice older car with 100,000 miles can be had for a song! One or two thousand dollars will buy a comfortable, well maintained, good running, large vehicle that will do everything you need it to do. Of course, you are on the higher-maintenance end of the life cycle, but that is not such a big deal.
Think of it this way, take that $250 ($350? $400?) a month car payment, and think how much routine maintenance you can do with that kind of money. I found a local guy to work on my 15-year-old wagon, and told him that I wanted him to keep it running forever, provided he could do it on a certain budget. Once every couple of months, the car goes in and he does about $400 worth of work. The car is beautiful, runs flawlessly, and never has been a lick of trouble. He even gives me a loaner on the days he has my car! He tells me that I can keep this car forever, if I want to. I just might.
OK, now pull out your car insurance bill. If you have a car payment, your loan holder will require you to have to have a fairly low deductible collision policy. Those are murderously expensive, and don't even cover you against what you really need to be insured against (i.e. large liability losses). In my state (NJ) most new car owners pay more for collision insurance coverage than I pay for my enhanced maintenance package. I don't have to bother with collision, because the book value of my car is so low, that I wouldn't get much for it anyway. I put some money into comprehensive insurance, because if I am in a car accident, I will be more concerned about losing my house than my car!
My biggest problem is the semi-annual emissions inspection. However, the car is well maintained, so I have had no problem so far. My current sticker is good for another 23 months, so I will have my old car for at least that long.
Plus, when you are rolling down the street, what really catches your eye, an immaculate twenty-five-year-old BMW 2001, or a three-year-old Pontiac Grand Prix, that is already beginning to rust?
This paragraph says it all.
I live in a county in GA where emissions testing is mandatory. I don't know how many times I've been behind "bug sprayers" from exempt counties driving here. These people claim to own property in the exempt counties in order to keep these old geezer polluters.
There'll always be a way to beat the new system, too. What a crock.
bump to .45man
That'd stop all the hot air their blowing up our *ss*s.
My wife has a 1994 Buick Park Avenue with the 3800 pushrod engine, the last test results from MARTA in Nashville reveal the levels of measured pollutants to be:
HC (% of unburned hydrocarbons) 3; CO (% Carbon Monoxide) 0.00; CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) 14.8.
The "Check Engine" light tests each time the engine is cranked and has never come on while driving. The car has 106,000 miles and has never had any engine repair beyond sparkplugs and a water pump.
In California, no car can pass emissions testing if any of the observable components are defeated, broken or missing, regardless of the tailpipe probe reading.
Idiots know no bounds.
That's been ten years ago already & since then I've lived in rural areas where these tests have yet to be mandated; with *yet* the operative word?
I'll enjoy my relative motoring freedom while I can; & hopefully by the time they get around to me?
I'll have assumed room temperature.
...nawwww; I suppose that'd be too merciful hoping for that.
The new standards unveiled Monday by acting Gov. Jane Swift
also will limit mercury emissions and require deep cuts in emissions
of sulfur dioxide, which causes acid rain, and smog-causing
Yeah, we're really plagued with heavy smog, here in Massachewshits.
They don't tell you why all the evergreens are turning brown
alongside the highways, in parking lots, or wherever gasoline
engine exhaust accumulates. Any suggestion that it might be
due to the anti-pollutant additives, or anti-pollutant devices that
cause the gas to burn hotter, are expelled as nonsense. The fact
that the trees withstood years and years, until the new legislation
took effect, fall to deafened ears.
Yup, what we need are more regulations. Oh, yes... and regulatory
fees, licensing and fines..
Hmm. I wonder where that money goes, huh Joey K?
Eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency and let States decide which of their archaic rules they want to continue enforcing, while eliminating the rest. Plain and simple...and the savings to the average taxpayer may just be enough to allow them the extra money required to buy a new, cleaner call...PROBLEM SOLVED!!
I paid less then 13,000 for four of these cars over the last four years.
I carry antique insurance on two of them. I dive them for half the year.
I can drive them where and when I want only small a mileage limit.(Which I never come near.)
The insurance costs me 192.00 a year with full coverage on collision. no deductible.
If I could afford a new car guess what? I wouldn't buy one. The property tax alone would be well over 1,000 a year.
By Julia Scheeres
2:00 a.m. Nov. 21, 2001 PST
When James Glave arrived at Oakland International Airport and went to retrieve the rental car he had reserved over the Internet, he was dismayed to learn that the agency not only required his driver's license and payment information, but also his thumbprint.
The New Mexico-based magazine editor said he found out about the requirement when he walked up to the Dollar Rent A Car counter and noticed a display featuring a drawing of a big thumb making the A-OK sign with the words "Thumbs Up!" printed on it.
The display explained that thumbprints were being collected from customers as part of an effort to reduce fraud and theft, Glave said.
When he refused to fork over his digit, the employee refused to rent him a car.
Glave, a former reporter and editor at Wired News, had unwittingly walked into Dollar's biometric experiment, which is being conducted at the agency's outposts in 13 airports across the country.
"It's all about asset control," Jim Senese, Dollar's vice president of quality assurance, said.
The vehicle rental industry is plagued by theft and credit card fraud, which often go hand in hand: Fake or stolen IDs and credit cards are used to rent vehicles, which are never returned.
U-Haul has been thumbprinting clients in areas with high theft rates since the early 90s, said company spokeswoman Jennifer Flachman, who added that the prints are destroyed at the customer's request when the equipment is returned.
At Dollar, the rental agreement forms -- and thumbprints -- are stored at the company's corporate headquarters in Tulsa, Oklahoma, for seven years before they are trashed.
Senese said the system would benefit customers by keeping rental prices down. The month-long pilot program, which concludes Dec. 1, has successfully reduced fraud and theft at the test locations, Senese said. He refused to divulge the particulars of the test, which had been scheduled for rollout this month before the Sept. 11 attacks.
Deterrence is a key feature of the system, he said.
"If someone has a bad intention, they're going to go somewhere else," Senese said. "It's kind of like being the one store in the mall that drug-tests new applicants -- people won't try to get work there if they have a drug problem."
He was surprised to learn of Glave's reaction to the program, saying that thousands of Dollar customers have been thumbprinted in past weeks and the company has received few complaints.
Privacy advocates say that the burgeoning use of biometric data -- including face and finger scans -- by government and corporations is poorly regulated and worry that information could be used to track and monitor citizens.
"It's important not to be blindsided by these things," said Lauren Weinstein, the moderator of the Privacy Forum.
In the climate of fear following the Sept. 11 attack, the public has been more willing to forfeit privacy for the promise of greater security, without considering the long-term consequences, Weinstein said.
"How would you feel if you went to the grocery store, and you went to sign a check and they demanded a thumbprint?" Weinstein said. "Ten years from now they'll be demanding your DNA."
The Dollar pilot program has been rolled out in the following airports: Philadelphia International, Ronald Reagan Washington National, Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport, Chicago Midway, Detroit Metro, Baltimore/Washington International, Dallas Love Field, William P. Hobby Airport in Houston, San Diego International, Los Angeles International, San Francisco International, Denver International and Oakland International.
"I don't think companies have any role collecting biometric data," Glave said. "It takes us into a surveillance society that is profoundly disturbing. What's next? Am I going to have to be fingerprinted when I check into a hotel in case I trash my room?"
"The only print of mine Dollar is going to get is the front side of my middle finger," Glave said.
These are just the stages for the mark of the beast to be further set in place. But it is done in phases first.
Heh heh heh...
What "check engine" light??? NO SUCH THING, in my 1968, SS-396 Camaro. BTW, they also can't say a damned thing, about the blower on the top of the engine...
Best thing, is that I can blow away brand-new Vettes (don't even mention Mustangs!), and don't have a car payment!!!
Seems like that gas mileage everybody pokes fun at, is cheaper than the outrageous sticker prices, insurance and now EPA rules.
The EPA can pucker up, and kiss my pasty white butt!
The cost of fuel is nothing compared with the cost of owning a new car.
Say your sweet ride gets a piddling 12.5 mpg. Say you drive a lot, 20,000 miles in a year. That means you will have to buy 1,600 gallons of gas a year. At $1.50 a gallon, that adds up to $2,400 a year fuel cost, about $200 a month.
If you wanted to get similar performance in a modern car, you would have to get the 5.0 HO Ford Mustang (shudder, sorry for even suggesting such a thing) or maybe a Vette. They will get about 20 miles per gallon, leading to an annual fuel cost of $1,500 a year, a fuel cost savings of $75 dollars a month. Compare that $75 to the carrying cost of buying a new car! That Vette will run you a thousand a month once you add up car payments, interest and insurance!
Even if you swore off any form of human pleasure and bought a hybrid-powered Toyota Prius, which gets 50 mpg, the $150 a month you save on fuel would not even pay half of your car payment.
The only reason to buy a new car is because you think it looks better or has more style. But how can a car possibly have more style than a cherry 1968 SS-396 Camaro with a blower on the hood?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.