Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Firts California, Now the rest of us... (New US potential Smog laws)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Firts California, Now the rest of us... (New US potential Smog laws)

    We could all be in for it in not too long. One of my biggest issues with California was the rules imposed on modified cars, I moved somewhere where they don't even have Smog Machines, and now this...

    We will be smog checkin' tractors and farm implements in the next ten years, just watch.



    New smog rule could be a surprise to some counties

    NOAKI SCHWARTZ
    Published: Today

    FILE - In this April 28, 2009 file photo, smog covers downtown Los Angeles. The Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday proposed stricter health standards for smog, replacing a Bush-era limit that ran counter to scientific recommendations. (AP Photo/Nick Ut, File)
    LOS ANGELES (AP) - Parts of the country that haven't worried about air pollution may soon be in the fight California has faced for decades: cleaning up smog.

    Stricter rules proposed Thursday by the Obama administration could more than double the number of counties across the country that are in violation of clean air standards. That would likely have a big impact on other parts of the nation since California already sets stringent standards for cars, ships and trucks.

    "This kind of levels the playing field," said Leo Kay, spokesman for the California Air Resources Control Board. "In California we've set pretty tough air pollution standards for a long time now and this brings the rest of the country to the same level."

    More than 300 counties - mainly in southern California, the Northeast and Gulf Coast - already violate the current, looser requirements adopted two years ago by the Bush administration.

    For the first time, counties in Idaho(fuck), Nevada, Oregon, the Dakotas, Kansas, Minnesota and Iowa might be forced to find ways to clamp down on smog-forming emissions from industry and automobiles, or face government sanctions, most likely the loss of federal highway dollars.

    The tighter standards will be costly but will ultimately save billions in avoided emergency room visits, premature deaths, and missed work and school days, the EPA said.

    The proposal presents a range for the allowable concentration of ground-level ozone, the main ingredient in smog, from 60 parts per billion to 70 parts, as recommended by scientists during the Bush administration. That's equivalent to a single tennis ball in an Olympic-sized swimming pool full of tennis balls.

    EPA plans to select a specific figure within that range by August. Counties and states will then have up to 20 years to meet the new limits, depending on how severely they are out of compliance. They will have to submit plans for meeting the new limits by end of 2013 or early 2014.

    Former President George W. Bush personally intervened in the issue after hearing complaints from electric utilities and other affected industries. His EPA set a standard of 75 parts per billion, stricter than one adopted in 1997 but not as strict as what scientist said was needed to protect public health.

    Parts of the country that have already spent decades and millions of dollars fighting smog and are still struggling to meet existing thresholds questioned what more they could do.

    "This EPA decision provides the illusion of greater protectiveness, but with no regard for cost, in terms of dollars or in terms of the freedoms that Americans are accustomed to," said Bryan W. Shaw, chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Texas, with its heavy industry, is home to Houston, one of the smoggiest cities in the nation.

    Even in California, easily the country's smoggiest state, regions that have not had to worry about reducing air pollution could face penalties under tough new clean-air standards.

    Should the Environmental Protection Agency adopt the strictest measures, the new rules would go beyond California's own tough smog standards causing nearly three-quarters of the state's 58 counties to be in violation.

    This would include less-populated areas known for their natural beauty or crisp coastal air such as Santa Cruz, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo.

    The new rules would also push parts of the state already defined by smog - including Southern California, the smoggiest region of the U.S. - to find additional ozone emission reductions.

    "Here in Los Angeles it's not going to be a radical change, but we're going to have to look at adopting additional measures," said Sam Atwood, spokesman for the state's South Coast Air Quality Management District, which regulates Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange and San Bernardino counties. "We're going to have to go back to the well."

    EPA estimates meeting the new requirements will cost industry and motorists from $19 billion to as much as $90 billion a year by 2020. The Bush administration had put the cost of meeting its threshold at $7.6 billion to $8.5 billion a year.

    Some industries reiterated their opposition to a stronger smog standard.

    "We probably won't know for a couple of years just what utilities and other emissions sources will be required to do in response to a tighter ozone standard," said John Kinsman, a senior director at the Edison Electric Institute, an industry trade group. "Utilities already have made substantial reductions in ozone-related emissions."

    Smog is a respiratory irritant that has been linked to asthma attacks and other illnesses. Global warming is expected to make it worse, since smog is created when emissions from cars, power and chemical plants, refineries and other factories mix in sunlight and heat.

    Environmentalists endorsed the new plan.

    "The fact is every time a standard is set, it appears difficult," said Martin Schlageter, interim executive director for the Coalition for Clean Air. "Until you're on that path it just seems scary ... but then we get on the path and start doing it and pretty soon we're nearing our goal."

    ___

    Associated Press writers Dina Cappiello in Washington, John McFarland in Dallas, Mike Stark in Salt Lake City, Alicia Chang in Los Angeles, Judith Kohler in Denver, Garance Burke in Fresno, Calif., contributed to this report.

    ___

    On the Net:

    Environmental Protection Agency: www.epa.gov
    Last edited by Farbin Kaiber; 01-08-2010, 10:34 AM.

    #2
    yeah, i fucking hate clean air
    ______________________
    ex-Chief Operating Officer
    Blunt Tech Industries
    West Coast and Pacific Rim

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by hugh jass View Post
      yeah, i fucking hate clean air
      Obviously.

      You live in California.
      Need parts now? Need them cheap? steve@blunttech.com
      Chief Sales Officer, Midwest Division—Blunt Tech Industries

      www.gutenparts.com
      One stop shopping for NEW, USED and EURO PARTS!

      Comment


        #4
        firts
        1990 S50 goodness.

        Comment


          #5
          If all elts fails, join 'em.

          Originally posted by whysimon
          WTF is hello Kitty (I'm 28 with no kids and I don't have cable)

          Comment


            #6
            2 things I wanna see all across our great nation:

            1. Safety inspections including shit like ball joints and suspension bushings.
            (some of the shitheaps I see make me wonder who is gonna die first)

            2. National smog laws. Leave us 20+ year old cars alone, AFTER we pass a safety inspection, but test everything else. Hell, I would be OK with even a tailpipe sniff on all vehicles...and I am about to move to a non-smog city.

            Closing SOON!
            "LAST CHANCE FOR G.A.S." DEAL IS ON NOW

            Luke AT germanaudiospecialties DOT com or text 425-761-6450, or for quickest answers, call me at the shop 360-669-0398

            Thanks for 10 years of fun!

            Comment


              #7
              i can understand having this in huge population areas, but why everywhere. we all know it's not cars causing global climate issues. What is the reason for doing this in bfe?

              Comment


                #8
                $
                Mtech1 v8 build thread - https://www.r3vlimited.com/board/sho...d.php?t=413205



                OEM v8 manual chip or dme - https://www.r3vlimited.com/board/sho....php?p=4938827

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by StereoInstaller1 View Post
                  I would be OK with even a tailpipe sniff on all vehicles..

                  Id be OK with this if they got rid of the visual part of the test, who cares WTF is on it as long as it burns clean.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    That makes too much sense.
                    Mtech1 v8 build thread - https://www.r3vlimited.com/board/sho...d.php?t=413205



                    OEM v8 manual chip or dme - https://www.r3vlimited.com/board/sho....php?p=4938827

                    Comment


                      #11
                      They already have mobile Smog conversion vans out in Boise. I can't imagine them out here. Maybe I should get my smog cert and get prepared to profit.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        I register in Kootenai county for lack of bullshit emission testing. If this happens, I'm packing up, selling everything and moving to Mexico to live like a king

                        Comment


                          #13
                          the largest harmful contributor of carbon monoxide is the burning of fossil fuels.
                          i am of the opinion that there should be special rules for cars such as ours that are older collectible cars. i drive a '74 2002 in california and i do not have to get it smog checked at all because it is a classic of a certain age. i believe the rule is anything '75 and older does not need to be smoged.
                          for a little info on co2 and related topics read this.

                          Ice cores show that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have remained between 180 and 300 parts per million for the past half-a-million years. In recent centuries, however, CO2 levels have risen sharply, to at least 380 ppm (see Greenhouse gases hit new high)

                          So what's going on? It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact that CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon "sinks".

                          The consumption of terrestrial vegetation by animals and by microbes (rotting, in other words) emits about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 every year, while respiration by vegetation emits another 220 Gt. These huge amounts are balanced by the 440 Gt of carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere each year as land plants photosynthesise.

                          Similarly, parts of the oceans release about 330 Gt of CO2 per year, depending on temperature and rates of photosynthesis by phytoplankton, but other parts usually soak up just as much - and are now soaking up slightly more.
                          Ocean sinks

                          Human emissions of CO2 are now estimated to be 26.4 Gt per year, up from 23.5 Gt in the 1990s, according to an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in February 2007 (pdf format). Disturbances to the land - through deforestation and agriculture, for instance - also contribute roughly 5.9 Gt per year.

                          About 40% of the extra CO2 entering the atmosphere due to human activity is being absorbed by natural carbon sinks, mostly by the oceans. The rest is boosting levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

                          How can we be sure that human emissions are responsible for the rising CO2 in the atmosphere? There are several lines of evidence. Fossil fuels were formed millions of years ago. They therefore contain virtually no carbon-14, because this unstable carbon isotope, formed when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, has a half-life of around 6000 years. So a dropping concentration of carbon-14 can be explained by the burning of fossil fuels. Studies of tree rings have shown that the proportion of carbon-14 in the atmosphere dropped by about 2% between 1850 and 1954. After this time, atmospheric nuclear bomb tests wrecked this method by releasing large amounts of carbon-14.
                          Volcanic misunderstanding

                          Fossil fuels also contain less carbon-13 than carbon-12, compared with the atmosphere, because the fuels derive from plants, which preferentially take up the more common carbon-12. The ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere and ocean surface waters is steadily falling, showing that more carbon-12 is entering the atmosphere.

                          Finally, claims that volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities are simply not true. In the very distant past, there have been volcanic eruptions so massive that they covered vast areas in lava more than a kilometre thick and appear to have released enough CO2 to warm the planet after the initial cooling caused by the dust (see Wipeout). But even with such gigantic eruptions, most of subsequent warming may have been due to methane released when lava heated coal deposits, rather than from CO2 from the volcanoes (see also Did the North Atlantic's 'birth' warm the world?).

                          Measurements of CO2 levels over the past 50 years do not show any significant rises after eruptions. Total emissions from volcanoes on land are estimated to average just 0.3 Gt of CO2 each year - about a hundredth of human emissions (pdf document).

                          While volcanic emissions are negligible in the short term, over tens of millions of years they do release massive quantities of CO2. But they are balanced by the loss of carbon in ocean sediments subducted under continents through tectonic plate movements. Ultimately, this carbon will be returned to the atmosphere by volcanoes.
                          It's true that natural sources are huge, but they are balanced by natural sinks - human contributions are tipping this balance
                          sigpic
                          "The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten."

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by Pinepig View Post
                            Id be OK with this if they got rid of the visual part of the test, who cares WTF is on it as long as it burns clean.
                            qft
                            [/url]

                            Team USA Wrestling 67KG
                            Team USA Wrestling Strength And Conditioning Coach

                            Comment


                              #15
                              I have mixed feelings about this...overall it's a good thing in my opinion, but only if cars older than 1975 remain exempt and other older cars have looser standards up to a certain production date.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X