California Folks Hide Your Old Cars !!!!

usgrant7 wrote:

So if classic cars have to pass smog, what does that actually mean? My SUV has to be smogged in order to get registration, but it certainly pollutes more than a car.

Are there multiple definitions for "passing"? How difficult is it to comply? Is an old car allowed to pollute as much as an SUV? On the other side, do classic cars really cause that much pollution overall? Any numbers?

I remember the days when it hurt to breath in the San Fernando Valley when I was a kid. Then that liberal Nixon passed clean air legislation. We all had to give up our cars because the auto manufacturers were right, it cost too much to equip them with smog devices (NOT).

=balance=

-Chris

The point was this new bill is going to pass because there is no one in the state goverment that supports the car hobby. I live right here in Sacramento and believe me, I spend a lot of time at the capital talking to these haahoo's.

Secondary, the classic car intrest in this state are not the problem when it comes to smog. Califorina has not built any new high-ways or improved traffic in congested areas. Cars sitting in traffic burn more fuel and pollute more than those wizing along at 65 mph.

Last, I have no problem with making classic cars meets some air requirment. But here, these folks are more worried that you have the OEM air cleaner or some other hard-to-find OEM part to meet the euipment standard rather than if its clean buring and running well. If it were that simple...there would not be the rub!

James,



Bag on big oil if you wish but they would be alot smaller if the greenies, environmentalist and academic elites would let us build some clean modern and safe nuclear power plants and other alternative sources. These people don't even like power generating wind mills because they are ugly. They offer no solutions. Everyone likes to point fingers but no one wants it in thier backyard. Small nuclear plants of the same design as in our ships in our largest military bases fixes many issues. California has some of the toughest environmental laws in the world yet Mexico next door dumps it's crap in the oceans and in the air. What a joke.



P.S. You can't take a pair of scissors thru security on an airplane but you can carry a stinger missle or a dirty bomb across our border with Mexico- common sense? yeah right.



There, I feel better.

jamcoats wrote: »

Admin, it's not going to pass-- it has already passed. The Senate on 30 August and the Assembly on 31 August. Furthermore while it may be true that no one in the state government supports the car hobby, this bill does not directly relate to the car hobby. If it directly relates to anything, it's public utilities.


Sorry, yes passed....but not yet signed by the "Govenator". But, he will sign it. I agree this bill does not really effect the hobby directly as I stated eailier.

Nothing major will happen under our control until there is no more oil and no more clean air to breathe. Then companies and governments will wake up and try to do something about it. But for now, the powers that be are either too far in one direction or too far in the other, all they can do is blame the "liberals or the conservatives." In reality neither side has any common sense! In the mean time, I'm going to run my rod like there's no tomorrow!

I do my bit and vote every election, but I don't see that we have any control over anything substantial, you might get them to change some small provisions, but its the big dollars supporting politician's reelection campaigns that really run this country.

Some call me a cynic, I say I'm a realist! :-)

First of all, thanks to everyone who has commented on this topic, this has been a really pleasant discourse thus far.



And Aaron,



The data I'm looking at here suggests that about 14% of annual greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation fuels. By contrast, 21.3% comes from power stations. This is a valid point for discourse on the subject of electric cars: While an electric car has no tailpipe emissions, where does the power come from? At any rate, at 14% coming from transportation fuels, how much of that is antique cars? Perhaps there is some data out there which tells us how many vehicle miles per year old vehicles are driven on the average. Of total vehicle use in the United States, I am sure that old car use constitutes far less than 1%. As far as vehicle-miles, consider over-the-road trucks probably your highest greenhouse gas producer. I guess what I'm trying to say is, based on the statistics, don't feel too guilty.



Your comments on older vehicle emissions output raise an interesting question. Maybe we need to look into that. You know, not to say that every old car has a restored engine, but it would perhaps seem that a 50s model engine totally restored and running at optimum performance might emit less than an 80s model engine with 300,000 miles on it and poor maintenance. This example is at the extreme ends of the scale, but you can see my point.



I think it's great that California is trying to clean up the environment. CA has been a leader in this area for some years now, and I wish that more states (and countries) would follow their lead. But environmental reforms need to be instituted first and foremost in the areas that they are most needed, NOT in the areas which contribute least to political campaigns or are otherwise easy targets. Thankfully at least in this instance it does seem that is what's happening with the primary target appearing to be power production.



Government has increasingly become a game of balancing competing special interests. Some of these special interests are nothing more than profiteering rackets, however some have good legitimate purposes. It's up to your own special interests, and your personal view of morality, as to which is which.



Best Regards,