The people: we need to enforce our existing laws and not pass new ones.
epa: say less
the people: no not like that.
The people: we need to enforce our existing laws and not pass new ones.
epa: say less
the people: no not like that.
You guys are right, I'm sure the government has all our best interests in mind. There's no governing-for-dollars going on here. Donors don't ever get special favors, and laws are ALWAYS enforced and crimes punished evenly, regardless of the current administrations opinion of a given company or person.
In reply to 4cylndrfury :
How do you propose we address the public health threat that is nox and particulate matter?
Fueled by Caffeine said:People forget that things like NOx kill people. It's proven time and time again.
example. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4661030/
An interesting study.
I wonder why they didn't do it in a US city and instead used a city in Brazil.
In reply to Toyman! :
Probably because the authors are from Brazil.
In reply to Toyman! :
Here's one from England which is a conglomeration on 17 studies in 9 countries.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(13)70279-1/abstract
alfadriver said:In reply to Toyman! :
Probably because the authors are from Brazil.
And publishing in a Brazilian journal
In reply to 4cylndrfury :
Why is it so hard to accept how things work? What donor gets a benefit for Cobb to be penalized? Mind you, the EPA is very, very, very legally not allowed to take donations. So whoever you are worried about are in congress, not the EPA. Not sure why you assume that the EPA would take donations....
Again, if you really, really think you are right, come up with the data showing it, get a good lawyer, and sue the EPA to stop enforcement. That's the process that forced this enforcement of the law- youc an do it, too. It just takes the data- can't hide behind feelings.
Fueled by Caffeine said:In reply to 4cylndrfury :
How do you propose we address the public health threat that is nox and particulate matter?
I'm not sure. Is there evidence that modded cars are the greatest contributor to that form of pollution? Or is it just that the driving population is the easiest target?
In reply to alfadriver :
The EPA may not be allowed to accept donations, but the administration they report to certainly can... especially when they're running for reelection. I wonder how often those kinds of relationships impact the actions taken (or not taken) by a federal agency? We all see how the personnel who make up any given administration suddenly find private sector jobs in the industries they once oversaw once that tenure is up...and vice versa.
Why is it so hard for you to accept how things work...and how wrong it can be?
In reply to 4cylndrfury :
Dude, you are accusing the EPA of taking money. You did that in an earlier post, and now you change your accusation? Serioulsy?
Again, explain how and what donor benefits by Cobb being prosecuted. You come up with all of these corruption ideas and pretend that they apply to everything that happens, even when it's as simple as the law being enforced. A law that has been on the books for 50 freaking years. Because someone back then was smart enough to understand that tampering with a car's emissions sytems is likely to make things worse. It doesn't require a donor to conclude that would happen.
It's funny how you can accuse others of how you think the government works, but you won't accept that you can come up with data, sue, and be done with it. Instead you just make things up to satisfy your "common sense". I'm telling you my experience with working with the EPA and how they work- that's factual experience, not pandering to some representative. Mind you, the EPA who regulates the auto industry are personally represented by the same people who are the auto industry here in Michigan.
You can do better than that.
alfadriver said:In reply to Opti :
You do realize that the EPA has an enforcement group, right? Which is different than the testing group, and is different than the modeling group, and is different than that law writing group.... Let alone they have groups for different industies, different source types, water vs air, etc.
They have multiple departments and are capable of doing multiple things, just like any company. Finding companies like Cobb isn't that hard.
Again this is a cop out terrible answer. They have a finite budget, so every dollar that's allocated somewhere cant go anywhere else. So when they waste time going after small fish that will make no material difference in actual pollution, its prevents them from allocating those resources to something that might actually be helpful. Im not saying they can only perform one task, only that this is a waste of money and they should allocate the resources to something that might actually have a MATERIAL affect on pollution or emissions. As admitted earlier in this thread, this was all started because people got upset about coal rollers. So do we think its wise to waste vast resources because someone got coal rolled, because that's what started this ball rolling? Its vindictive not productive or efficient.
In reply to 4cylndrfury :
What if we rephrased it this way. The data says that polluting above a certain level increases cancer risk. This is why pollution standards for cars keep getting tighter to reduce their output to reduce risk. Cars that pollute above our existing levels are a risk for you and I wether they are modded or not.
now it's important to note that "cars" are not being singled out here. If you'd like to understand all the current and past enforcement actions from the epa. You can search this database.
https://echo.epa.gov/facilities/facility-search?mediaSelected=caa
we just have a bias to react based upon our hobbies. Surfers had tbe same reaction when foam manufacturers in LA we're being shut down due to emissions.
tldr: were not special.
Nevermind that all the US Government diesels are deleted, the president and his cronies ride around in deleted vehicles. Rules for thee and not for me.
something something gun laws something something. And now we are off the rails.
Fueled by Caffeine said:In reply to 4cylndrfury :
How do you propose we address the public health threat that is nox and particulate matter?
You're just waiting to reply. You totally missed what he said there.
In reply to Opti :
It's much easier for them to go after people who can't afford to spend $500k to fight a $250k fine.
In reply to 93gsxturbo :
Military vehicles have always been devoid of emissions controls. This is nothing new.
In reply to racerfink :
Nope. I didn't. It was the standard "small government" talking points. Not really interesting
Fueled by Caffeine said:In reply to 4cylndrfury :
How do you propose we address the public health threat that is nox and particulate matter?
Well tires and brake dust are a large contributor to particulate pollution from cars, I say we ban those. Or at least make it illegal to change them from OE, because performance tires and brake pads create the equivalent of 10x more normal tires and cars on the road.
The one tenth of 1 percent of cars on the road that have them are a major source of emissions and we should allocate large sums of tax payer dollars to go after the companies that sell performance brake pads and tires.
Do you see how stupid this sounds?
alfadriver said:Technically, there NEVER has been a legal way to make a road car into a race car. Ever. Read the rules. The law does not give wiggle room to pick and choose who to go after and who to not- if they are breaking the law, they are breaking the law.
Yah, hard disagree there. If its not prohibited, its allowed. It was undefined, therefore allowed and the EPA chose to define it in 2016. Even if you think it ambiguous- https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/rule_of_lenity
In reply to Opti :
You defined how laws work
law says: murder is illegal so we arrest you and prosecute you.
you're saying: well it's rare so it's not worth the effort. So silly.
4cylndrfury said:In reply to alfadriver :
The EPA may not be allowed to accept donations, but the administration they report to certainly can... especially when they're running for reelection. I wonder how often those kinds of relationships impact the actions taken (or not taken) by a federal agency? We all see how the personnel who make up any given administration suddenly find private sector jobs in the industries they once oversaw once that tenure is up...and vice versa.
Why is it so hard for you to accept how things work...and how wrong it can be?
Man. This take is... something.
In today's political climate, if this was going on and it was any sort of open secret then we would be hearing about it constantly. It would be on half of the news networks on repeat
Its not a thing. It isn't happening.
So, to summarize:
COBB gets fined for violating the Clean Air Act which has been in place since 1970. A couple people on the internet get cranky because it violates some kind of right that they feel they have. Other people on the internet cite studies, facts, and figures to refute argument. I'm not sure why this is still a discussion. Can we lock the thread now please?
Its not that people feel they have a right to do xyz even though its illegal, its that the enforcement is missing a few things:
My opinions, you are welcome to your own of course.
Fueled by Caffeine said:In reply to Opti :
You defined how laws work
law says: murder is illegal so we arrest you and prosecute you.
you're saying: well it's rare so it's not worth the effort. So silly.
Thats a pretty elementary understanding of how laws work, and its not completely correct.
The EPAs goal is not to enforce every single law, in fact their mission is to "protect human health and the environment." Which means they should be using their resources to make the largest impact in those areas. If you believe the EPA should go after every single person that breaks an environmental regulation/law regardless of the impact enforcement would have, you have a second grader's level of understanding of the situation. The police don't even enforce the law like that.
You'll need to log in to post.
