SCI/TECH: Calif. OKs World's Toughest Smog Rules

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) voted today to enact the most stringent auto emission requirements in the world. Citing their effect on global warming, the ruling would require a 25% reduction in car and light truck exhaust and 18% in SUV�s and larger trucks. The new guidelines would begin to phase in 2009 and are mandatory by 2016. The decision came despite heavy lobbing by car manufacturers. They have indicated that they will challenge the new regulations in court. The plan has the support of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who has pledged to fight any lawsuits against it.



The auto industry has warned that these regulations could increase the cost of cars and truck by as much as $3000 dollars. CARB disputed the figures and stated that the more likely case would be $1000 by 2016. The also stated that the overall reduction would be negligible on the global scale. However, regulations in California often have a ripple effect through the industry with most manufacturers adopt the new controls for all of their production line. New York, Canada, and several other states have indicated that they will adopt the new standards as well. California is unique among other states in regards to emission regulations. Because they started regulating vehicle emissions before the Federal Government, they can set their own standards. States have the choice of following California�s or the Federal requirements.

The auto industry has warned that these regulations could increase the cost of cars and truck by as much as $3000 dollars

thank god!

our air is turning more brown every single day.

there are so many cars on the road the air is thick with polution at times i cant even breath its so bad. when the sun is setting you can see the greenish brown glow illuminate the horizon. jack up those priced damn it people need to stop driving or we will all die!

This is more likely to encourage alternative fuels than better filtering of exhaust. I think that's awesome.

In Oklahoma the air standards are low because the population density is low. That allows manufacturers to release more carcinogens and soot into the air. I wish California's standards would spread.

Originally posted by shbaz
This is more likely to encourage alternative fuels than better filtering of exhaust. I think that's awesome.

In Oklahoma the air standards are low because the population density is low. That allows manufacturers to release more carcinogens and soot into the air. I wish California's standards would spread.

They can if your state choses to adopt them. Its really worth it IMHO. I am just old enough to rember what it was like in LA in the 70's. Night and day now. The car companies complained years ago when they enacted the previous tuff standards. The technology is there, they need a kick in the butt to get moving.

Clean air= Good, Its about time something like this was put in place, and when buying a car, would another $1,000 really matter if it ment you could breath?

Originally posted by Huria86
Clean air= Good, Its about time something like this was put in place, and when buying a car, would another $1,000 really matter if it ment you could breath?

Here is the other thing even if the industry is correct and its $3000 thats in 2016 dollars. More to the point. They cannot keep hybrids on the showroom despite the fact that it may take 10 years to make up the differnece. people like being able to pollute less and will pay more to do so.

The air in L.A. is a lot cleaner now than it was 30 years ago IMO considering the fact that there are a lot more cars on the road now and this is because the current auto standards are working. I'm all for restricting emmisions but I think the previous standard on autos is good enough. All this does is raise the price of cars higher so people will find it harder to afford a new car. They'll just keep driving their old high mileage oil burning car instead until it falls apart.

If the states want to reduce pollution I think they need to get rid of the grandfather clause that allows older chemical plants like half of them around me to poor tons more pollution into the air each year than plants that are not grandfathered.

They need to enforce the current EPA laws they have on the books as well by working closer with local law enforcement. Yesterday I was driving past a plant on SH225 coming from Pasadena and caught a wiff of a chemical that made my lungs burn. It stayed in my truck cab about 45 seconds or so and then the air returned to its' (normal) smell of rotton eggs. These plants are always releasing all sorts of chemicals into the air when the EPA has their back turned.

About a mile or so further down the road I passed a 73 Nova with about it seemed like ten people in it. It was billowing black smoke out the tail pipe that was so thick you couldn't see through it. A cop drove by as well and kept on going. Now I know this car was putting about two hundred times more pollution into the air than my old work truck but instead of the cop stopping the car and getting it off the road he goes and pulls a person over for speeding. Go figure.

They need to do something about countries like Mexico and the American companies that produce cars there to sell to Mexicans. Those countries and others like China, a country growing fast as far as GNP have no pollution control on their cars. I pity the people in Mexico City. Talk about smog.

When I was working as a mechanic back in 92 a man came into the shop with a new Ford F150 pick up that he got from a dealer in Mexico. I looked under the hood and it had a carb and a point type ignition like they phased out in this country in 74 thru 86. It had straigh exhast with no converter. This type of setup produces several times more pollution than a truck built in America according to EPA standards. I think the US Government should not allow American car makers to do this. If a car is made by an American company in this case Ford who BTW produces a lot of cars in Mexico, then ALL the cars produced by that company should meet EPA standards not just the ones sold in this country.

Let's not forget all that farm equipment accross the US that has been around for a while. They run off diesel and there is no pollution control to speak of on these tractors unless they are newer than most. Here in Texas they can even run high sulfur fuel that is not allowed to be used in other vehicles that are not considered farm equipment. This type of fuel burns very dirty. Look at all the diesel powered buses pooring out black smoke in your city. All the construction equipment doing the same. Those two cycle weed wackers...

Regulating things like this IMO would go a lot further to reduce pollution than having more restrictions on automobiles. Cars dont produce the majority of pollutants. They cost enough now. All this new restriction is really doing is drawing the focus away from the problems above which I think are more pressing concerns.

Originally posted by FredT
They can if your state choses to adopt them. Its really worth it IMHO. I am just old enough to rember what it was like in LA in the 70's. Night and day now. The car companies complained years ago when they enacted the previous tuff standards. The technology is there, they need a kick in the butt to get moving.

It's not just the car companies that would complain here, Phillips Petroleum is headquartered here and other oil companies at least have large offices. Oklahoma once had the biggest oil wells in the world. The last thing they're going to let by is a bill that pushes hybrids.

Originally posted by shbaz
It's not just the car companies that would complain here, Phillips Petroleum is headquartered here and other oil companies at least have large offices. Oklahoma once had the biggest oil wells in the world. The last thing they're going to let by is a bill that pushes hybrids.

I have relatives that lived a a little town outside of Tulsa called Cleveland. Its Kerr McGee country too If I recall. However, the standards do not push hybrids, but they are the logical choice to meet the standards.

Originally posted by TexasConspiracyNut
"All this does is raise the price of cars higher so people will find it harder to afford a new car. They'll just keep driving their old high mileage oil burning car instead until it falls apart."

Very true. In the realm of passenger vehicles on the road today, the vast majority are driven by low to middle income drivers who often buy used cars. When buying a new car, a $21K (MSRP) Toyota Prius or $19K for a Honda Civic Hybrid may be out of reach compared to a $10K Chevy Cavalier. Tack an extra $3K onto the Cavalier and it becomes more out of reach.

For those concerned about "greenhouse gases", consider that an older vehicle that starts to burn oil can be a worse emitter than some newer SUV's. Initially, much of the burned oil can overwhelm the vehicle's catalytic converter, so some of it's carbon monoxide (CO) content doesn't convert to carbon dioxide (CO2). Eventually, the amount of oil burned increases and it's soot components further reducing the catalyst's ability to function until it reaches a point where it fails altogether. While CO2 may hang around in the atmosphere 100 to 300 years or more, the CO takes about 10 additional years before it breaks down into CO2. And while the vehicle's catalyst is failing, more nitrous compounds are released in the process.

In large urban areas where state EPA programs exist to check emissions, many low income drivers who's vehicles eventually fail an emissions test end up passing the vehicle to someone else and buying yet another used car. It takes the EPA programs several months to catch up to the failed vehicle after it has changed hands. Often, it has changed hands again by that time. Rather than paying upwards of $3000 for a valve job to reduce oil emissions and another $1000+ to replace a catalyst for a car that isn't even worth $1000, buying another used car ends up being a better deal. This starts the process over again for many people who can't afford a hybrid, let alone a new car with an extra $3K added to the price tag.

In my personal observations in and around the Chicago area, many cars on the road are noticeably burning oil.

The California law is no magic bullet. For the most part, the extra reduction in emissions will have to come through higher fuel efficiency (less fuel burned; less emissions). This means smaller cars, less performance and more plastic used to reduce overall vehicle weight at a time when auto makes are being forced to include more safety features. The "better air conditioners, more efficient transmissions" mentioned in the article will not add up to much improvement alone.

As more and more people and cars hit the roads each year, no legislation ever seems to be introduced to limit the number of drivers on the roads. By the time that the reduced exhaust standards must take effect (2016), the increased number of cars on the road will more than offset the reduction in overall emissions. And where is legislation to increase public transit to curb auto use? The realization to the above is that owning and driving a car is a major source of revenue for local, state and federal governments. The more people driving; the more of our money they can waste.

It's not likely that those who can afford to buy "pocket rocket" cars like Subaru's WRX STi or the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution will be interested in "less emissions". Even a low emission vehicle can spew a hefty amount of emissions into the air when you frequently drive fast or take off from a red lights with the pedal to the floor.

Originally posted by shbaz
"It's not just the car companies that would complain here.... The last thing they're going to let by is a bill that pushes hybrids."

The auto industry isn't worried about hybrid or alternatives such as hydrogen. Check the website for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. They're pushing hybrid and hydrogen technology. The simple economic fact is that the auto makers will only produce products that their customers will want to buy and can afford to buy. Hybrids aren't cheap to build and hydrogen isn't ready for prime time yet.

California's other plan, "Hydrogen Highway", is already in the process of planning a hydrogen fuelling infrastructure and support of hydrogen powered vehicles. While this effort is part of battling pollution part of this flies in the face of those concerned about "greenhouse gases". Most of the hydrogen that will be available for use as a fuel will come from processed hydrocarbon fuels including natural gas. The CalEPA website admits this, but leaves out mentioning anything about the main waste product from this process... CO2. The increased use of natural gas for this purpose will undoubtedly increase natural gas prices which will mean bad news for many regions already paying high prices for natural gas used in heating and cooking. For the driver of a hydrogen powered vehicle, they should expect to pay four times what they would for gasoline or diesel to get them the same distance. This isn't only due to a higher cost for the hydrogen, but also for the fact that hydrogen won't get you as far, as fast then fossil fuels currently do.

There are no simple or cheap solutions or alternatives for the current pollution/energy problems.