Why is it that this common sense approach is so easily understood by us but
seems so mis understood by the masses?
Texas, don't feel so bad, Arizona just made it a FELONY to have chickens
fighting on your property! In a "feel good" initiative, they passed a law
that is so ill conceived that it can prosecute a Dominoes Pizza deliverer
who brings a pizza to a cockfighting event! Besides that, Chickens fight.
That is where we get the term pecking order. Why does it have to be a
felony? So a guy cockfighting is in the same class with an armed robber? Or
a more severe penalty than a man who beats his wife?
In the haste to create the illusion that they are doing you a favor, laws
are often made that are ridiculous. They did the buyback thing in Ca as
well. Since that "buying credits" loophole even exists, kind of makes you
wonder if the industries didn't insure it was there in the first place
because it certainly is cheaper for them than cleaning up!
> 1.The regulation will allow "smokestack" industries to avoid reducing
their own emissions by buying credits generated through destroying older
> cars. Byavoiding cleanup, these industries expose nearby low-income
neighborhoods to higher levels of dangerous pollutants. Stationary source
polluters
> should not be allowed to continue polluting merely because they are buying
and scrapping vehicles.
>
> 2.The regulation fails to take into account that scrapped cars typically
are second or third vehicles that are rarely driven in the first place.
> How can the State claim a pollution benefit by crushing cars that
arerarely driven?
>
> 3.The regulation ignores the fact that older cars are infrequently used,
generally well maintained and not a good source of emissions
> reductions. The regulation is based on the false perception that old cars
are dirty cars. Even the U.S. EPA has acknowledged that many old cars are
> quite clean.
>
> 4.The regulation will not necessarily allow for the capture of gross
polluters. The gross polluter is an improperly maintained vehicle
> of any model year which puts out dramatically more emissions due to poor
maintenance.
>
> 5.The regulation relies partially on flawed modeled averages provided by
the U.S. EPA to calculate emission reductions per vehicle crushed.
>
> 6.The regulation ignores the fact that lower income car owners cannot
afford to purchase a new vehicle with the money provided by scrappage
> programs. The same people could lose a source of inexpensive repair parts
resulting in the inability to drive their vehicles.
>
> 7.All scrappage programs hold the potential for enthusiasts to lose a
valuable source of rare parts for vehicle restoration projects, etc. The
> loss of even a single irreplaceable component or vehicle is intolerable
due to the need to meet rigid authentication/judging standards at various
car
> shows and events.
>
> 8. The regulation is not even required by law. There is no requirement
that the TNRCC have a scrappage regulation.
>
> 9.The regulation ignores the fact that scrapping vehicles is not the most
cost-effective method to reduce emissions. In fact, data has shown
> that voluntarily upgrading older vehicles with newer technologies can be
roughly twice as cost-effective as scrapping vehicles.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Sep 05 2000 - 08:46:57 CDT