OK guys, hears the deal: I have to write a persuasive essay for my english class and it is going to be about why cars(or any vehicles for that matter) should NOT have emission controls or have to meet emission standards. I need some info.(facts,figures) such as how much all these new standars raise new car prices and how much they accually reduce emissions. If anyone can give me help(ideas,thoughts etc.) I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks, JJ

 

Yikes, did you choose that topic?

Waxy

 

I hate to admit it,

but I think that you'll have a very tough time on this, especially when it has been proven that emission controls actually help mpg and the enviroment.

May be you should try to a essay on why they are important...
just a thought.

 

JJ, I guess you like to tackle the tough ones . I'd probably start with the EPA, get some info on why the whole emissions program came to be, how the emissions standards are developed, what purpose and goals they are supposed to achieve, etc. Then try and find the information you need to show how the standards and program in general have not met those goals. Maybe get some statistics on how pollution and greenhouse gases are getting worse, that kind of thing. Also, point out how much more beaucracy the emissions program has created (i.e., state emissions stations and associated costs of running them).

 

I'm sorry JJAC, but I don't think that's an argument you can win.

This I'm afraid will also be impossible to find.

Good luck, post your essay on the board when you're done.

Waxy

 

I remember doing a a paper on the very same thing. My main point was that more emission controls causes more fuel consumption. This would cause more use of our natural rescources and creating even more emisions to filter out. Also I added that car manufacturers then have to deal with govt fuel mileage regulations causing them to make the car lighter interfering with the stregnth of its structural components. I did manage to sway a few people with it.
One problem would be if you had a liberal teacher they tend to be for that emission crap.
Dan 69 F-100 302, C4

 

...kinda sorta pertainent...no facts or figures just personal experience to redirect the line of thought maybe...

Arizona requires mandatory emission inspections in some counties...#1 My girlfriends father took his newer model ford explorer through AZ inspection and failed...after passing with flying colors the Orange county CA inspection 3 weeks prior...Hmmm
.....#2 My 94 harley davidson 1200 sportster (not oem) failed the first inspection here in AZ miserably...we get one freebie...I took it to a shop with a gas anlyiser, retested and failed again...took it back to the shop, checked and readjusted...back to the inspection...failed again...Bummer
Well after hearing rumors about different test stations getting different readings I decided to try another facility....immediatly after failing the third time, I rode cross-town approx 20 miles in 120 degree heat and tried at a different station...and passed...No changes in adjustments same approximate waiting time etc etc..
In my mind its just a scam...of course if ya call someone about the discrepency, they claim that all the facilities are recalibrated at specific times and there is no acknowledgment of the variations...Hmmmm

Possibly, a different angle for your school project....

 

I'm GUESSING the exercise is a writing assignment (persuasive argument) as opposed to a technical assignment (validity of argument). If that is the case, focus on everything you can think of that is a negative and paint the issue in the worst possible light. Think like a professional politician and you are discrediting your opponent.
Some thoughts:

Added engineering/design/manufacturing costs, means more expensive car costs, means harder for poor people to purchase.

manufacturer's diversion of resources necessary to meet emmission standards diverts resources from working on safety improvements and alternative fuel autos.

Huge resources consumed manufacturing Cat Converters, etc. This includes both raw materials and electricity. More electricity means more fossil fuel powered / nuc powered / hydro powered generating plants.

Disposal of old (no good) hardware. Landfill space is diminishing. Remember, it wasn't long ago disposable DIAPERS were under attack!

Efficiency of emmission control devices lessens the demand for cleaner alternatives, thereby furthering our demand on "foreign oil".

My guess is the technical (factual) accuracy of your points is secondary to the quality of your persuasive argument.

Good luck, and do post your paper when done. I'd like to see what you come up with.

 

Wow, not sure why you chose that topic. A secondary benefit of emmissions control may be longer engine life due to less fuel dilution of the motor oil. Good luck.

 

I have always been dubious about the ever popular Air Injection Reaction system, as it blows additional air into:

1) The exhaust header.
2) The inlet to the catalytic converter.

Although theory has it that the extra air added to the exhaust at the manifold ports of the heads causes unburnt fuel to complete the combustion process in the exhaust system - I have never been convinced of it because of the fact that the mixture prior to the air burst is the cleanest most efficient burning mixture deliverable to the engine - which is why it produces the best power.

Pumping in air at this point will however slightly thin out the gas concentration before the test port in the exhaust system, as will dumping air into the cat converters.

One thing is absolutely certain; and that is driving the pump itself consumes horsepower, making it unavailable to move the vehicle itself, and thus results in a net increase in fuel consumption, to my thinking absolutely DECREASING the overall efficiency of the mechanical system and resulting in lessr fuel mileage per unit volume...

But in any case - assuming we did not use gasoline at all for motor transportation, common lubricants or other products; it seems to me it would be still in the form of crude oil and in fact IN THE GROUND (as in- WATER TABLE), except where it escaped to the surface, occasionally igniting and burning up due to natural causes, or flooding into water ways.

One questions whether or not it would have been labelled "Pollution" at all if it were the result of a natural cause or process. Doubtless there would be legislation set in place to prevent anyone interfering with the free-burning of these compounds under such circumstances.

And yet it is highly illegal to be caught returning oil (used or not) back to where it CAME FROM IN THE FIRST PLACE...

Indeed - if we ran everything off of electricity, fusion, solar, or what have you such that petroleum and all of it's byproducts were no longer necessary or at all useful -
It would be against the law to put it back.

The actual, literal, reality here is that so long as we utilise petroleum in the manner that we have, so that the majority of it is accounted for and used for some practical purpose - the cleaner and better our planet earth will be than it would have had nature run it's eventual course and dispersed all of the petroleum there once was throughout the planetary ecosphere.

-By driving our vehicles, we are in fact saving the planet...

- So I really am not enthusiastic about any polution control devices in the first place. It strikes me that the best pollution control of all is to simply strive for the maximum efficiency of the engines and mechanical systems we already have, rather than place additional burdens on them which are not necessarily even effective - and thereby driving up the over all consumption of these fuels in the first place.

The more fuel we burn, the more by-products are released into the air. The more "Contraptions" we add on to the engine and require it to power as it runs itself, the more power we must liberate, and therefore it follows the more fuel we must Burn in order to accomplish this additional tasking.

As I see it, it is a diminishing return, and the mathematics are very simple.


~Wolf

 

Rather than try and tell you all the reasons why you shouldn't choose this assignment I'll assume you don't have a choice and the assignment is still due. I would go down the road of newer cars with all their emissions controls are designed to be replaced in 6 to 9 years. This costs lots of money and pollution in other areas of society to afford these cars and to produce them. Steel mills make more pollution, power companies, assembly lines, and all the component manufacturers. Don't forget that with lower emissions came less powerful engines which required bigger more expensive engines to do the same job. Lots of plastics, synthetics and other non biodegradable products to reduce the price and weight of the vehicle. If these don't sound very good you could always go with my argument of I'm just doing my part to get rid of all that nasy crude oil just as fast as I can!

 

BrianA, your post was a thing of beauty.

Why didn't I think of that, just treat it like any politician does.

Don't bother with facts, heck, just make them up. Make sure you get some catch phrases in there like "wasting resources", "more safety" and "high taxes". Be sure not to quote any actual data, and if anyone asks questions, go on the offensive and label them as "anti-safety" or "pro-taxes", then quickly change the subject.

You should have no problem convincing your classmates. Heck, Jean Poutine (chretien) does it every day.

Waxy

 

BINGO!

(Further proponent/pundit saith not...)


>=op