|
|
Post by Zoltan on Jan 25, 2011 13:54:18 GMT -5
With Guv Moonbeam back onboard the Mothership, and a full debt crisis (bankruptcy) facing the world's 10th largest economy in KauliflowerniUhhh, is it a ripe time to utter the henceforth un-utterable?
Could CARB be on the chopping block?
How much would that save the state budget? How many employees does CARB have?
Seems that a major effort is underway at CARB this year to brag about itself and claim credit for lower pollution levels it did nothing to achieve. (Coincidence is not proof of causality.) In fact, a good case could be made that pollution would be lot lower if CARB had never existed, as it diverted huge manufacturing resources into patchjobs instead of strategic development at an earlier stage.
But anyway, what's the hub-bub out there?
|
|
|
|
Post by fredtransit on Jan 25, 2011 14:54:23 GMT -5
Educate me plz! What's CARB? Apart from that thing on top of me OHC pinto....
|
|
|
|
Post by scaryoldcortina on Jan 25, 2011 14:56:53 GMT -5
Thank god someone else asked... I was feeling really stupid! (I'm gonna guess California Air Resources Board though)
|
|
|
|
Post by Zoltan on Jan 25, 2011 15:05:14 GMT -5
^^Yessir, and Ma'am. ;D
CARB, even the acronym tells you they declared war on the I/C engine and automobile in general. Although their original brief was industrial also, they have inflicted their worst machinations on the individual motorist. Lately, they've had some pushback. Since their infectious tentacles get entangled with other state's do-gooder greenies who copycat what CARB does, this might be the best time to drive a wooden stake through the beast.
|
|
|
|
Post by fredtransit on Jan 25, 2011 15:27:18 GMT -5
Best not move to Cal then.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Zoltan on Jan 25, 2011 16:53:14 GMT -5
Doesn't matter is what I'm saying (and what Brian was saying in his intro thread). Even if you don't move to Cal, Cal is moving to you.  So much of this political sh^t goes viral with the politicians and (worse) the installed-for-life burrowcrats the instant they go to a convocation of greenies and hear "what's done" in so-and-so-ville. That's why congestion pricing and forced scrappage schemes and so-forth in Europe are every car-loving Yank's business. Same for people in the other 49 states when it comes to KaulflowerniUhhhhhhhh.. |
|
pdg
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by pdg on Jan 28, 2011 14:11:38 GMT -5
forced scrappage schemes and so-forth in Europe Forced? I don't think anyone was ever 'forced' into scrapping an old car and buying a new one... Correct me if I'm wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Zoltan on Jan 28, 2011 14:35:27 GMT -5
It's never force by direct confiscation, is it? It gets to the same jugular, but is usually by indirect means designed to achieve the same thing.
But forced by "incentives", like clunker laws that provide a government check or credit for some sort of new program (buying a gummit-consecrated eco-car, for example). Or by bars of entry to major metro areas to "gross polluters" like a 40-year-old sedan which will surely cause life to be snuffed out the instant it hits the City of London.
But, if that sedan is a poor fellow's sole means of transport, he'll be forced to tube it and fairly bludgeoned into having it crushed for a check.
And, yes, there are still those who would outright force scrappage. Espesh true of commercial vehicles. Here in the US, it is common practice to force cab companies and bus companies to sunset their fleets after a certain model year. And CARB has proposed effective scrappage by rescinding the pre-1975 exemption on universal biannual pollution controls inspections. Do you think they are making EGR valves for 1974 Capris any more? No, I can report no one is. Result: Forced scrappage.
|
|
pdg
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by pdg on Jan 28, 2011 15:26:35 GMT -5
But forced by "incentives", like clunker laws that provide a government check or credit for some sort of new program (buying a gummit-consecrated eco-car, for example). I know at least one example where someone got the 'scrappage discount' applied to a new Land Rover Discovery... Or by bars of entry to major metro areas to "gross polluters" like a 40-year-old sedan which will surely cause life to be snuffed out the instant it hits the City of London. But, if that sedan is a poor fellow's sole means of transport, he'll be forced to tube it and fairly bludgeoned into having it crushed for a check. And, yes, there are still those who would outright force scrappage. Espesh true of commercial vehicles. Here in the US, it is common practice to force cab companies and bus companies to sunset their fleets after a certain model year. And CARB has proposed effective scrappage by rescinding the pre-1975 exemption on universal biannual pollution controls inspections. Do you think they are making EGR valves for 1974 Capris any more? No, I can report no one is. Result: Forced scrappage. As far as I know, the age-related restriction of entry to London was never a real proposal - there were plans to introduce a 'stepped' charge based on emissions but this was never taken further. This would only affect cars since around 2001 or so, as anything before this doesn't have the stepped vehicle excise duty on which the congestion charge was going to be based, older than that there are two bands for small (under 1500cc) and large (over 1500cc) engines. Paris has suggested a ban on vehicles over a certain age, but I doubt it will go very far... (I may be wrong on this point) The Cali 'enviro' laws I've heard about have seemed a little extreme when it comes to retrospective application of emission levels... (I remove EGR valves as a matter of course anyway - if nothing else, it improves the efficiency of the engine) but there are usually ways to get around this - nobody makes a specific part? Use a different one then. Of course, that statement does rely on knowing how to adapt parts while retaining function AND being allowed to do so under current and future legislature. |
|
|
|
Post by Zoltan on Jan 28, 2011 15:34:14 GMT -5
The age laws are under current proposal at the EU, and already in force in some German cities. We were allowed to park up next to the FrauenKirchen in Dresden only because we were driving a non-German oldie. That loophole is being closed now.
The EU isn't finished with the age restrictions - at all. There are proposals for annual mileage limits of 1500km or whatever the proposal of the week is, which will essentially mean scrappage for commuters who use older cars to get to work. I read a letter today from a Brit Independent Party MEP that the only British solution is to pull out of the EU altogether. Bully for him!
And, no, altering a Calif pollution device from one kind of EGR to another gets you a hearing before a CARB referee to see if that would be legal. Yes, CARB has its own court system as well as polizei. Seig!
|
|
pdg
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by pdg on Jan 28, 2011 16:21:27 GMT -5
Annual mileage limit? I'll just unplug the speedo then... No speedo = no odo  Honestly, I haven't heard of any of this (apart from the city based limitations of course) and anything I heard from a UKIP member would be taken with a bucket of salt and a sideways glance. You'd be amazed at the crap they come out with supposedly 'direct from brussels'. If the letter you read was online at all I'd quite like a link to it... |
|
|
|
Post by scaryoldcortina on Jan 28, 2011 16:27:30 GMT -5
^^ I think you need to read retro-rides now and then, lol. linkThere is a huge to-do about a presentation by FIVA to a comittee of MEPs regarding the definition of a historic vehicle... they want all member states to only grant historic status to completely period original 30+ year old vehicles that do less than 1500km per year. What they want, and what actually happens however, are not the same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Zoltan on Jan 28, 2011 16:41:56 GMT -5
^^WHS, Paul. Like we warn up front, "This aint' no party. This ain't no disco." ;D
I'm not very good at shooting from the hip, so I don't do a whole lot of it.
It's all quite real, and speedo tampering is so old school. The EU knows about GPS transceivers, barcodes, RF signalling, blackboxes, retrofitting costs, and logging on to book "flight plans" before you're allowed to travel.
The enemy has been thinking these strategies through for decades. They didn't roll out of bed this morning and suddenly decide it's time to mess with individual mobility!
|
|
pdg
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by pdg on Jan 28, 2011 18:23:07 GMT -5
Having now read the proposal (with at least a modicum of understanding...)
I don't agree with the *interpretation of the* proposal as it stands and I'll be one of the few that does shoot off a letter about it.
It won't really affect me personally - anything I have of that age does less than that mileage anyway and is 'original' enough to qualify.
As someone who uses the 'net on at least a daily basis, does look at the 'car news' stuff etc. I can say this is the first I'd heard of it at all - I did see a little of the hoo-haa in 2008 when there was a similar yet different idea bandied around.
It's unfortunate but I think that even if we could get 'everyone' who drives a car of an affected age to write/sit-in/shout/complain then the gov will do whatever it likes (or parts of what it is told to do). Look at hunting/shooting etc.
|
|
pdg
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by pdg on Jan 28, 2011 18:24:51 GMT -5
*edit to above...
Just 'cos it'll probably happen anyway - it DOES NOT mean we should all wait and let it happen
|
|
|
|
Post by Zoltan on Jan 28, 2011 23:43:59 GMT -5
Good man!  |
|
pdg
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by pdg on Jan 30, 2011 13:16:03 GMT -5
Also, see my other reply in the UK board...
*Edit for clarification
My comment on speedo disconnection was a 'tongue in cheek' statement (I attempted humourous inflection with use of the smiley...)
If anyone can back up the claims of a proposed mileage restriction I would like details of this - all I can find in relation to a limit is speculation by forum posters.
|
|
