4 ms·

Unfortunately (in this case) the US seems to have a much greater sense of individual right rather than collective right. My right, and that of my family, frien

by knz 10y ago

Unfortunately (in this case) the US seems to have a much greater sense of individual right rather than collective right. My right, and that of my family, friends, and community, to clean and pollution free air seems to be less important than someone else's individual right to drive the vehicle of their choosing and maintain it as their means allow. I know some States have emissions testing etc but that is not universal across the US. I assume the assumption has always been that the market will slowly correct the issue and the fleet will change accordingly. But CAFE laws are of course a politicized issue.

Klathmon 10y ago
IIRC emissions testing is similar to building codes in that you are only tested against the year the car was manufactured in most cases. So a 1970 car will still pollute as much as a 1970 car.
- gozur88 10y ago
  >IIRC emissions testing is similar to building codes in that you are only tested against the year the car was manufactured in most cases. As I understand it older cars have higher allowable emissions, but the state has lowered those limits over the years. >So a 1970 car will still pollute as much as a 1970 car. In CA you are not required to get emissions testing for any car older than the 1975 model year. It used to be any car older than 30 years, but in 2005 they decided to leave it at 1975. To the larger point, yes, older cars can be registered with emissions levels consistant with a well-maintained car from that year. Though the net effect of the rules is to take more older cars off the road, since much of the time when you fail emissions testing it's cheaper to replace the car than to fix it.
mjevans 10y ago
Part of that has to do with systemic defects in (our) culture in the US. * We don't have /good/, /usable/, public transit that can replace vehicle use (outside of some high-density urban cores). * We don't encourage sufficient building of housing /near jobs/ to reduce the need for commuting long distances. * We don't encourage the building of family capacity housing in those same areas. (Again, to increase competition, decrease rent and increase more civilly minded communities in those areas.) * The tax code and civic involvement that exist favor NIMBY, instead of targeting the future potential of an area (a corrective tax would be based on the /potential value/ of given land and what could be built on it, rather than it's current use).

by knz 10y ago

Klathmon 10y ago

IIRC emissions testing is similar to building codes in that you are only tested against the year the car was manufactured in most cases. So a 1970 car will still pollute as much as a 1970 car.

gozur88 10y ago
>IIRC emissions testing is similar to building codes in that you are only tested against the year the car was manufactured in most cases. As I understand it older cars have higher allowable emissions, but the state has lowered those limits over the years. >So a 1970 car will still pollute as much as a 1970 car. In CA you are not required to get emissions testing for any car older than the 1975 model year. It used to be any car older than 30 years, but in 2005 they decided to leave it at 1975. To the larger point, yes, older cars can be registered with emissions levels consistant with a well-maintained car from that year. Though the net effect of the rules is to take more older cars off the road, since much of the time when you fail emissions testing it's cheaper to replace the car than to fix it.

mjevans 10y ago

Part of that has to do with systemic defects in (our) culture in the US. * We don't have /good/, /usable/, public transit that can replace vehicle use (outside of some high-density urban cores). * We don't encourage sufficient building of housing /near jobs/ to reduce the need for commuting long distances. * We don't encourage the building of family capacity housing in those same areas. (Again, to increase competition, decrease rent and increase more civilly minded communities in those areas.) * The tax code and civic involvement that exist favor NIMBY, instead of targeting the future potential of an area (a corrective tax would be based on the /potential value/ of given land and what could be built on it, rather than it's current use).