Banning Old Cars

[Dreadnaught]

Yes, just driving around and around buying cars to drive in circles flouting emissions requirements.

I mentioned various years because the emissions requirements vary depending on years. That is the whole point of this thread. That is the whole controversy. That is the one thing you seem to be missing; that emissions requirements vary by year to the point that some cars have no requirements FFS.

[GGT]

Yes, just driving around and around buying cars to drive in circles flouting emissions requirements.

I mentioned various years because the emissions requirements vary depending on years.

That is the whole point of this thread. That is the whole controversy. That is the one thing you seem to be missing; that emissions requirements vary by year to the point that some cars have no requirements FFS.

Then stop driving around in circles.

We already know US states have different vehicular emissions standards, even though we share federal EPA Clean Air mandates. We already know that other nations don't have the same standards, mandates, or regulations.

So, what's the point of this thread again....besides you wondering about your 1966 VW Beetle?

[Dreadnaught]

The point of this thread was to discuss the merits of banning cars that weren't illegal when they were made, which has a lot of interesting elements of legal and environmental policy to it.

Then it got horribly sidetracked because you don't understand what happens when you go to the DMV to register your 1966 Volkswagen and couldn't read a simple PDF explaining the environmental requirements.

[Hazir]

Moving the goalposts. We're not talking about 1975 cars. We're talking about things like a 1966 car that is exempt from any emissions requirements. And we're only talking about it because you haven't been able to understand that it's exempt from emissions requirements.

The 1966 Ford*in PA is comparable to a 1996 Renault in Paris. The difference is the 1966 Ford is still legal to drive in PA without emissions requirements, while the 1996 Renault is being banned.

The Renault is only banned in Paris (though probably in other cities too) because it is poluting and Paris has problems reaching the required air quality. In areas where the air quality is less under pressure, you may still use your Renault 1996. And your Beetle 66 for that matter. The smoking analogy applies again; smoking is legal, but some places you are still not allowed to do it.

[Dreadnaught]

I would argue it's different than smoking -- smoking laws are more about inside vs. outside. And all our environmental laws treat cars vastly different than smokers. You don't have to register and get your lungs inspected every year before operating a cigarette.

I totally agree the goal of the law, but I think I have big problems with governments deciding to ban a major capital investment that is only a few years old. Or even one that is several years old, but was plainly legal at the time and isn't substantially different than another car on the road.

I'd rather they focus on broad-based auto congestion pricing to keep as many cars out of Paris, instead of focusing just on old ones. Unless pre-1996 cars are 200x worse than newer cars, it seems much fairer to keep tackling all car traffic on in even-handed way.

Or they could just have a VAT holiday on all car purchases for the next two years to incentivize replacement.

But, as we've said, the situation is different because the emissions control regime is so much newer in France. It's a completely different environment (pun intended) than what us Amerikans are used to, which changes the conversation.

[Ominous Gamer]

200x is substantial?

Just because a 17 year old car has 4 wheels and a way to go vroom vroom doesn't mean its not substantially different than cars currently be produced. I'd say a 90% reduction in emissions would be substantial.

[GGT]

The point of this thread was to discuss the merits of banning cars that weren't illegal when they were made, which has a lot of interesting elements of legal and environmental policy to it.

Dude, you've gone over the edge if you think the US will ever BAN older vehicles outright. Even if they're environmental polluters. The limits and restrictions placed on them is the heart of the discussion.

Then it got horribly sidetracked because you don't understand what happens when you go to the DMV to register your 1966 Volkswagen and couldn't read a simple PDF explaining the environmental requirements.

I used my state as an example of what's being done to reduce vehicular pollution, without BANNING older cars. Our mandates are higher, because we're a densely populated, post-industrial, manufacturing state that had very poor air quality. But we still have millions of cars on the road, including old clunkers, and driving remains our main transportation mode.

You've tried to segregate environmental policy by vehicle. But you haven't mentioned pick-ups, light trucks, vans, SUVs or cross-overs....that were also "legal" when made just ten years ago, but are now "violators" of Clean Air standards. You've also chosen to discuss personal vehicles, and ignored large trucks by weight or axel size, diesel engines, or commercial vehicles in general.

Also, you're the one with a 1966 vintage VW, not me.

[RandBlade]

200x is substantial?

Just because a 17 year old car has 4 wheels and a way to go vroom vroom doesn't mean its not substantially different than cars currently be produced. I'd say a 90% reduction in emissions would be substantial.

You got any evidence that all 2001 cars emit 90% less emissions than the most efficient 1996 cars with a modern exhaust installed?

[Dreadnaught]

Nothing in GGTs post makes sense or conforms with reality. I am at a loss.

[Aimless]

You got any evidence that all 2001 cars emit 90% less emissions than the most efficient 1996 cars with a modern exhaust installed?

There's like 11 years between 2001 and now, relax. But you're right, and I'd personally call an 80% reduction in emissions substantial

[Aimless]

No, it doesn't just cost $150 to get your 1966 car to pass an emissions inspection. The car almost certainly has no chance of passing the inspection because there were zero auto emissions controls in the US in 1966

If I understand GGT correctly she was trying to say that, as long as the ancient car is comparable to other ancient cars from the same year, it's okay, even if it doesn't comply with later standards for emissions.

[Dreadnaught]

That's actually what I was (sort of) saying; that's the status-quo in many ways. The catch is that, in most parts of the US, there were no standards among ancient cars so the actual restrictions are nil if you're still going to drive around in a really old car (~40 years or older). No one knows if you've adjusted the engine to certain specs or if you're driving with a stock configuration.

She's arguing that ancient cars are being held to specific standards, but she is incorrect.

Though if there has been an 80% per-car emissions reduction over the past decade, we run into Jevons Paradox. IE, reductions have been achieved but there are now more people who are driving even more, so the net emissions continue to increase. Which is sort of a depressing thought.

[GGT]

If I understand GGT correctly she was trying to say that, as long as the ancient car is comparable to other ancient cars from the same year, it's okay, even if it doesn't comply with later standards for emissions.

Yes. Since you understood, I'm not speaking Greek (as Dread infers).

That's actually what I was (sort of) saying; that's the status-quo in many ways. The catch is that, in most parts of the US, there were no standards among ancient cars so the actual restrictions are nil if you're still going to drive around in a really old car (~40 years or older). No one knows if you've adjusted the engine to certain specs or if you're driving with a stock configuration.

She's arguing that ancient cars are being held to specific standards, but she is incorrect.

The "catch" is that many states don't mandate annual inspections or emissions testing for personal vehicles, particularly states that didn't have post-industrial or urban pollution that exceeded modern EPA Clean Air mandates. States that DO have those inspection mandates would know if an engine or exhaust system has been modified beyond original manufacturer guidelines regardless of the age of the vehicle!

North Dakota doesn't have the same vehicular guidelines as New Jersey. Their Air Quality is vastly different. The numbers and ages of vehicles on the roadways is different. Their industrial pollution is especially different.

Though if there has been an 80% per-car emissions reduction over the past decade, we run into Jevons Paradox. IE, reductions have been achieved but there are now more people who are driving even more, so the net emissions continue to increase. Which is sort of a depressing thought.

That's only true for urban-dominant or industrial-dominant states with high populations, poor air quality, and limited public transportation. "Big Sky" states with low populations and low pollution levels don't generally give a shit if you're driving a 1966 VW bug or a 1940 Chevy pick-up truck, or if you're using those vehicles to drive 10,000 miles/year on public roads or private ranches/farms.

Dread, I have a hard time believing that you're really interested in decreasing carbon emissions or pollution by vehicle, when you refuse to admit the differences between states in air quality, or their vehicular registration/testing policies.

[Dreadnaught]

It must be fun for you to create these ideas of what you think I believe, and then respond to them with incredibly incorrect information. It's like watching someone wrestle with a strawman.

[GGT]

It must be fun for you to create these ideas of what you think I believe, and then respond to them with incredibly incorrect information. It's like watching someone wrestle with a strawman.

Not to thread-meld too much, but you seem to be the one "wrestling" with any government-related rules, regulations, mandates, and laws of all sorts. Whether it's registering old cars, pollution control, taxation, or marriage equality....

[Veldan Rath]

Well, at least he is wrestling with something real.