healeys
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Senate AB2683 analysis - perspective

To: Len and/or Marge <thehartnetts@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Senate AB2683 analysis - perspective
From: bn1@pacbell.net
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 18:53:25 -0700
Thank you, Len, and this is my last comment on the subject.

Currently there is a lot of political pressure on our new "Govenator" to change
the Mexican truck limitation.  (I will not comment on the origin of that
pressure.)  Present law allows Mexican trucks to cross the border only within 5
miles where they have to be unloaded and transferred to a US registered vehicle.

"Some Powers That Be" wish to make that crossing unlimited.

I have no idea how many of you have ever been to Mexico and witnessed the
average condition of their cars and trucks.  Talk about gross polluters, and not
to mention the questionable safety violations such as brakes and tires!  This is
not something we want or that CA, from a smog standpoint alone, can endure!

Perhaps our legislators could spend their time more constructively!!!

Bill Barnett
Going back into Lurk Mode



Len and/or Marge wrote:

> I agree with Bill B.  Of course we don't think SMOG is good for the
> environment.  But taking away our LBCs wouldn't be good for our
> dispositions, either.  And I haven't heard anyone mention the economic
> consequences for those that support our passion if that should happen.
>
> California alone can not solve the globe's atmospheric problems.  And
> picking on older cars, especially special interest/collector/hobby cars
> won't make the tiniest dent in the problem.  There are too many other
> polluting sources and too many other polluting states and countries.  What
> are the chances that China's emerging vehicle market will use California's
> emission standards?
>
> California can try to set the example but the first example needs to come
> from our leadership.  There should be a requirement that they drive
> vehicles that get no less than 30 miles to the gallon.  Better yet, make
> them all drive hybrids.  Then California, and the rest of the world, needs
> to go after all other fossil fuel burning sources including stationary
> sources, watercraft, airplanes, lawn mowers, leaf blowers (speak up, I
> can't hear you), the ever more popular gasoline powered scooter, etc., etc.
> And why don't they?  I believe that it is politics and money!  From what I
> read and hear, there is some effort being made toward reducing emissions
> from large diesel trucks.  A little late in getting that started in my
> estimation.
>
> Our cars are not anywhere near the primary source of global pollution.
> Why, then, are we the only ones constantly picked on to 'solve' the
> problem?  Because we look like an easy target?  We don't have the lobby
> and/or the money to fight it?  There is no balance or fairness in that!  I
> know:  Nobody ever said life was fair.
>
> Meanwhile, back to repairing my tachometer and getting the Healey ready for
> a drive down the Feather River Canyon.
>
> (The Other) Len
> Vacaville, CA
> 1967 3000 MKIII HBJ8L39031





<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>