Shane F. Ingate wrote:
(snip)
>
> These are the people on the Appropriations committee who
> will be voting on SB-42 next......
>
> Sorry about wasting bandwidth to non-Calif. residents.
>
> Shane Ingate in San Diego
Shane; (and other CA listers)
Please don't feel sorry about keeping us posted on this. In matters of
auto emissiions, CA is usualy the legislative model for the rest of the
country. In my state, Rhode Island, the EPA is trying to force the
current CA style emission checks down our throats. Don't get me wrong,
I'm all for clean air! But anyone with a familiarity with what's going
on here will realize the nature of our problem. "Smokestack" industry
has dissapeared from RI, the population (and the number of autos) has
declined. We're the smallest stae in the USA, so the average mileage per
year driven is very low. Why the increase in air polution? It's blowing
in from the midwest's coal fired power plants and from the mess that is
the New York City area.
Studies have shown that the cities in RI have very clean air. Guess
where the worst air quality is? In the rural coastline area!
All the dirty air from out of state drifts in, then hits the cold air
along the shore, dropping down into RI. And guess who the EPA wants to
stick the bill to for cleaning up this "imported" smog? You got it, the
RI driver!
Several local university studies have confirmed the sources of RI's air
problems, and have stated that tighter emmisions checks will do nothing
to improve air quality. About all they'll acheive is another layer of
expensive govt. requlators and lots of agrivation for the citizens that
are not the source of the problem. Of course, the EPA refused to believe
any of the studies, won't fund another indipendant one. The EPA keeps
threating to withhold federal highway money if we don't conform to what
they want, regardless of any scientific evidnece to the contrary! My
guess is that it's a hellava lot less effort to beat up on "little
roady" than fix the real problem!
|