2 ms·
Perhaps you should explain further the distinction you are making between emissions and exhaust, and why it is correct, and why everyone else should adhere to i
by perl4ever 7y ago
Perhaps you should explain further the distinction you are making between emissions and exhaust, and why it is correct, and why everyone else should adhere to it.
But I stand by my previous comment - you can't treat a phrase or term as meaningless just because you refuse to acknowledge the context.
- klyrs 7y agoThe EPA[1] defines particulates produced by tires and brakes as emissions, and lists exhaust as one kind of emission. Exhaust[2] is a term used to describe the gas byproduct of a combustion engine. The "context" is a category error mistaking a part for the whole. [1] https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/sbai_pres.pdf https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaust_gas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaust_gas
- perl4ever 7y agoI'm not an expert in environmental regulations, but designations like ULEV and ZEV seem to come from California and not the Feds. So in my opinion, this is where the context is being misapplied - you want the CARB terminology to match the EPA. Neither one was handed down on stone tablets though.