Last post on Oct 08, 2006 at 8:03 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views-Archives
What is this discussion about?
#129 of 168 Re: The thing is [gagrice]
Sep 27, 2006 (4:07 pm)
I don't disagree with you on that, nor with the point re unintended consequences (the out of state trucker, Mexico trucker issue)
#130 of 168 Re: The thing is [ruking1]
Sep 27, 2006 (4:30 pm)
Ruking, passenger diesels have no effect on our air because they're banned, not because they're clean. And those wildfires? They're (usually) far away, not causing smog in LA or SF and getting into our lungs.
Remember, CARB's focus is on maintaining air quality in our populated areas for human health purposes. Saving gas or curbing global warming are incidental goals, and not official priorities. From CARB's list of goals on their website, here are the first two (the others are just stuff about leadership and innovation):
-Provide Safe, Clean Air to All Californians
-Protect the Public from Exposure to Toxic Air Contaminants
CARB looks at what's entering our lungs. And basically... diesel exhaust is more carcinogenic than gasoline exhaust.
#131 of 168 Re: The thing is [carlisimo]
Sep 27, 2006 (4:40 pm)
diesel exhaust is more carcinogenic than gasoline exhaust
Are you sure of that? I thought diesel (NOx) was harder on our respiratory system. I think several of the chemicals in gasoline and gas exhaust are more carcinogenic. Carbon monoxide is still the biggest killer and gas cars put out more than equivelant. diesel engines. I think it is more what was seen in the air back in the 1980s following a diesel car that drives today's regulations. Not scientific studies or a balanced approach on the BIG picture.
As was pointed out CARB cares about air quality. If it gets in the water it ain't their problem.
#132 of 168 Re: The thing is [carlisimo]
Sep 27, 2006 (4:48 pm)
I understand what you are trying to say, but it is patently untrue. Passenger diesels in CA are indeed not BANNED. NEW diesel car sales have been so called "banned" since 2005? Again CA will fully and legally license diesels with 7500 miles and over. Again 2.9% of the passenger vehicle fleet IS DIESEL. Any diesel product (from other states) as a practical matter can be operated in CA as Gagrice has so indicated with interstate and international trucking.
You are not saying that wild fires have no emissions effect/affect are you? If so, who actually mitigates it? You might want to make this case, but indeed the weather and unmitigated emissions renders your case moot.
Further, fully 1/2 of the actual fuel consumed is NOT mitigated i.e., gasoline and diesel, etc. Some examples, airplanes, air craft, ships, military aircraft (CA is a haven for military operations), construction, manufacturing, farming, refining, etc. So not even CARB regulates the half of it.
#133 of 168 so...
Sep 27, 2006 (4:53 pm)
OK, so you are saying that since a lot of emissions aren't regulated, that we shouldn't regulate new diesels?
why is it so hard to get you guys to state what you want, rather than just pointing out problems?
#134 of 168 Toxic Plume
Sep 27, 2006 (5:34 pm)
As an avid bicyclist I would encourage all diesel lovers to ride a bike behind one. With even the newer ones it isn't a very pleasant experience. I am all for diesel if they make them cleaner. Until then I encourage diesel owners to stand in their toxic plume for a while and take some big deep breaths.
#135 of 168 gagrice, ruking
Sep 27, 2006 (6:07 pm)
Sorry about saying they were "banned." I know that's not a good term for it, but words were escaping me at the moment and I figured it was close enough.
And yes, of course wildfires pollute. Perhaps you'll be surprised to learn that it is illegal to start them in this state. But why we haven't paved over the forest for its own safety, I do not know. I do know that if you don't let small wildfires burn pretty frequently, plant material builds up and next fire will be a very big one - and CARB can't keep that from happening, because only YOU can prevent forest fires.
As for everything else CARB allows to run wild... well yeah, that's how government agencies work. The local police don't handle international affairs... and yet I'm still glad they're here!
You do have a point regarding construction (my field of work). I believe red diesel (which doesn't have road tax added, so it can only be used in off-road equipment) doesn't have to meet the same standards as clear (road-use) diesel. Apparently we have priorities that we put above clean air. (But one's right to buy a diesel car is not put above clean air; I suppose the benefits to society just don't seem to outweight the problems, whereas in all the other cases they do.)
Gagrice, about carcinogens, I think it's mostly due to diesel's soot - it's like smoking. I'm sure they both have their share of poisons, but I would guess they're not things that accumulate over time and kill you over several decades. But I'm no more an expert on it than most of us here... I'd be happy to be corrected by a real one.
#136 of 168 Not trying to bust your chops on the "banning" observation...
Sep 27, 2006 (6:30 pm)
..."I believe red diesel (which doesn't have road tax added, so it can only be used in off-road equipment) doesn't have to meet the same standards as clear (road-use) diesel. Apparently we have priorities that we put above clean air. (But one's right to buy a diesel car is not put above clean air; I suppose the benefits to society just don't seem to outweight the problems, whereas in all the other cases they do.) "...
In a real sense, I am not sure how to respond to the texture of what you have said in the above quote.
While it is true on the "red dyed" diesel you do not pay "on road" taxation, you either inadvertantly or advertantly left out the fact that "red dyed *2 diesel" can legally in CA be sold with 500 ppm, (higher in the other 49 states) vs low sulfur diesel of 140 ppm, (3.57 times more) to the current USLD, 15 ppm for the on road #2 diesel(33.33 times more sulfur) than or pretty close to zero ppm for bio diesel. Also "off road" diesel engines are not required to have emissions controls vs for example, the "on road" engines such as the VW Jetta TDI. So for all intents and purposes. off road diesel and engines are massively higher in sulfur AND it is unmitigated. Yet there is no study as to the increased statistically significant incidences of lung cancer for construction folks. (folks who are exposed to these unmitigated emissions) (both gasser and diesel)
#137 of 168 Re: Toxic Plume [jmess]
Sep 27, 2006 (6:49 pm)
I only would question why you believe inhaling gasser exhaust is NOT toxic.???!!!
#138 of 168 Re: Toxic Plume [jmess]
Sep 27, 2006 (8:04 pm)
I have had two diesels in the last year and a half. Both have less smell than our 3 gas vehicles. The one thing is they both have been fed ULSD from BP. It looks like you are from Oregon. I bought the Passat diesel in Portland. The diesel fuel I bought up there was very strong smelling compared to ECD-1 from BP. So it is mostly a fuel situation and not the diesel engines that are currently being sold. I think you will find it less obnoxious driving behind a diesel when the mandated ULSD is in place up there.
The truth is the exhaust from a car burning gas is more likely to kill you than from even a smelly diesel truck. Breathing any exhaust is not wise. I would not ride a bike or motorcycle on the street for that very reason. I keep my bike riding to the park and beach.