Dang, I've been misled all these years?? I thought it had something to do with the smog conditions in the counties that have these laws? Dang, all those facts that show how much these stricter smog laws have cleaned up the air, humm, maybe not too bad for our future afterall, huh...

 

actually, federal law says anything over 8600+ lbs and '86 or older doesn't require CATs. thank god I have an '85!!!

 

actually emissions laws and other envirmental laws have very little to do with cleaning up the enviroment, take LA for example the name means city of angles it got that name because the first spanish explorers came over the mountains, and saw a smoke cloud hanging over the valley from the indians camp first thus you can have no emission producing vehicles, and still have smog, and they know it, it's all about money not the enviorment, next fact why was R-12 banned answer because it depletes ozone, now for the rest of the story R-12 is heavier than air thus it cannot possibly deplete the ozone layer but only ozone that is at ground level, and what is that called? SMOG, don't believe me on this check out the annual smog warning days in any major city they have doubled since the banning of R-12 thus is wasn't banned to protect the ozone layer only because duponts patent had run out ie MONEY

 

Next they want to change R134 to a CO2 system.

R12 also did a better job..too...

 

Your kidding, right? There have been many studies and measurements taken before and after these more stingent air quality and envirormental quality laws have taken effect and we continue to have incresingly better air quality with the newer, more stringent laws in effect, including the huge benefits assosiated with the newer R134 refrigerant. This is the primary reason they continue to toughen air quality standards as time goes on as these standards have worked, but yet there is still alot to be done and we are a growing nation. What do you think is a better idea, just trash out what we have and forget about any quality of life for ourselves and future generations? Do you not think that the steady increase in our life span and quality of life, decrease in dieseases has now for many years has had anything to do with air and environmental standards? California has led with way with smog and environmental laws with solid improvement in environmental quality, thus many other states have adopted our standards for one reason and one reason only, they work at improving our environment for me, you and all of our kids and the planet we share with all other living things.

 

yep seen those studies too, and then see the reports that say that the smog days have grown over the same time period so who is right, my point is simple these enviormental laws have nothing to do with cleaning up the enviroment example mtbe was supposed to help clean up the air, but even though it may help it destroys water quality but they insist on using it why the big oil companies make a fortune on it, this like almost all of calif laws are based on faulty or none existant research that is biased to the profit of whomever funded it, next example make it so a car doesn't produce CO emissions, and increase the NOx emission, or in the case of my last post outlaw R-12 (based on faulty and frankly false information) and increase ozone smog I have seen 4 studies proving that the hole in the ozone layer is flatly a lie but you don't see that in the papers. Next reduce the sulfar in diesel fuel, because this creates global warming, so without getting into whether it does or not, this has caused us to be dependent on foreign oil (oil in this country is too high in sulfar, and cost too much to refine it out), and they have reduced the allowable amount again, sounds like a good thing right? guess what it makes virtually no difference because the oil companies just sell the high sulfar fuel to other countries that don't have the super strigent laws which is then burned in vehicles that donot have the emissions controls to help control what comes out of them, and know we have even more of the same particulates that create global warming so not only no gain but infact a net loss on envio protection but the goverment, the oil companies, and the middle man get richer because they still dont have to do anything more and can still sell the bad oil for the same amount ie more money. all this did is sell our country out to foriegn powers, and keep the ruling class in power.
another example of this is both calif, and colorado have a law about static hydrocarbon emission, this is tested in a sealed building with the vehicle not running for 24hrs, sounds great right? wrong a pine tree cannot pass the test, and has been proven in CO. when a tester through a christmas tree into the room, and it failed misserably spl? but this law did allow the companies that produce paint come up with a new compound that doesn't produce hydrocarbons and have a new patent that protected thier profits.
lastly on this point the ford FE series engines in the 70s had to meet emissions for Calif. the engine could meet those emissions, but the state said it had to have certian emmisions equip installed, when this was done the engine failed thus it couldn't be continued, now if the law was about cleaning up the enviroment the state would have allowed an engine that met the emission requirment pass with or without certain equipment installed but they didn't care what came out the tail pipe only what was put on the vehicle, thus increasing the parts cost, and overall cost of the vehicle, thus once again MONEY is the top reason.

 

I guess you think it would be a better idea to try to do no improvements, cuz you dont believe any of these things as being beneficial, thats truely absurd. I dont believe any of the retoric that says that these laws and regs are only about money! There is plenty of proof out there as to the contrary and only a few far reaching thories that vainly try to say otherwise, sorry!

 

no I think that some laws have accidently had the effect of cleaning up the enviorment with accidently bieng the operative word. I am also saying that if a law has no or a detrimental effect then it shouldn't be on the booksk, basicaly some of these laws are a cure worse than the desiese, such as MTBE, it's been proven time, and again that ethanol is cleaner does a better job, is a renewable resource, and doesn't pollute the water, yet calif still insist on fighting it's use. Another example is R134 you mentioned that it has enviormental benifits, no it is a poison but R12 isn't the benifit came from forcing the shops to have better recovery equipment thus it isn't leaking out all the time, R12 depletes ground level ozone which is called smog, and it can not reach the ozone layer thus the research going into that law is faulty or actually in this case a lie, if it was released at altitude then yes it would help to deplete the layer but not in cars, so the answer is to spray a ozone dpleting compound around the cities, did this help the enviorment not even a little , and the sulfar issue I mentioned if they really cared about the sulfar causing global warming (emphasis on global here) then the law would have been written to ban us oil companies from selling that oil or fuel anywhere in the world but it doesn't just from selling it to US customers, another example is heavy class 8 trucks new engines that where required to meet the standards for the last 2 yrs these engines produce slightly less emissions, and yes this is good but they burn more fuel thus depleting our natural resources faster, and these laws where stepped up because one of hte manufactures had been caught cheating on the tests, thus forcing them to put engines out onto the market that weren't tested properly but that is the law.
Do I think we should scrape the enviormental gains? NO. but my point is simple once again the LAWS have very little to do with the enviroment, only money, please note the emphasis on the word laws, yes there has been gains but 99% wasn't because of these laws, and after 30+yrs CA still has some of the worst pollution problems in the world so much for thier great laws, if they were actually working then it would be the cleanest place on the planet. These laws are implemented for the purpose of someone gaining money and are frankly financed by the people making the products that are sold because of them, not because they help unless you have the money to buy your politician.
I can continue to state example after example of laws that have done more to hurt the enviroment more than they help because the studies are funded by the people that will profit from them, and half of these laws while slowing downone type of pollution will create 2 more

 

Your take on R12 not depleting the ozone is a good example of believing a myth regarding environmental gain vs monatary gain. CFCs are heavier than air, yes. But is the atmosphere still? Absolutly not! Numerous measurements have confirmed that these molecules are mixed nearly uniformly worldwide. Ozone delpeting substances and air are thoroughly stirred together by winds. Thousands of measurements over several decades have firmly proven the existance of these heavier than air molcules in the ozone layer. R12 has very high Ozone Depletion Potential, a high global warming potential along with a 100 year atmospheric lifetime vs. R134 with a -0-, yes zero Ozone Depletion Potential, very low global warming potential and a 13 year atmospheric lifetime, thats truly no comparasion in those two products. The efforts of the US along with 150 other countries have proven to make a difference.

I myself live in northern California and the # of Bad air days has dropped, so I dont know where you get your statistics at. The difference in the areas where smog is trapped (basins) has drastically improved, despite the incredible rise in population. The change has been significant enough to even visably see the improvements! The only people that are getting bought out are the ones that live out of the area and believe the minority reports that try to convice the gullible as to the lack of improvements we have made.

 

Innocent until proven guilty?
Can he prove you are illegal, and by which laws did he say you were illegal?
Make him prove you are illegel.
Good luck if you are.

 

R-12.....

R-12 was developed by DuPont. They had the patent on it. It worked very well as a refrigerant. Since it was patented, no one else could produce or copy a similar refrigerant. DuPont's patent on the R-12 expired in 1994 so the masterminds behind DuPont made the claim that R-12 was bad for ozone. Thus, money was to be made by developing R134A. DuPont wins, people who want a really good A/C system suffer.

R-12 hurts NOTHING

 

R12= 100 years of Atmospheric lifetime with a very high ozone depletion level and global warming potential. R134 13 years atmospheric lifetime and -0-, yes zero ozone depletion potential, not much of a comparasion in the environmental department, sorry.

 

it's too bad you believe the retoric R-12 breaks down almost instantly when it hits any kind of O3 compound, R134a may only have a 13yr life span but it is toxic, if they were really concerned with the enviroment they would have used a none toxic compound such as CO2, which will work as a refirigerant or nitrogen etc, etc but once again it has nothing to do with the enviorment just money, they can't patent natural compounds so they will not use them even though they would be the safer. The ONLY reason that R134a is helping is because the shops are required to use refrigerant recouvery systems, they could have had the same benifit with R12 if that had been a requirement but then Dupont wouldn't have made alot of money. Another way to look at this is if R134a is so great why is it such a strict requirement to be recovered, mainly because it is even more dangerous than any other refrigerant ever developed, and when its patent runs out it's dangers will be brought out, and it will also be banned, so they can develop yet another one, and make some more money

 

Sorry, monster these figures arent from Dupont, theyre figures that are based on scientific facts pertaining to the chemical makeup of these refrigerants. These facts clearly show that R12 lasts 100 years and the toxicity level is significantly higher than R134. The big issue with the R12 is the refrigerant used or the CFC's break down from high uv exposure into chlorine, which destroys the ozone, R134 does not break down into chlorine, these are scientific facts based on the compounds being used in these refrigerants R12 being Dichlorodifluoromethane and R134 being Tetrafluoroethane, check into the scientific facts based on the make up of these two compounds and get back to us on the retoric?

 

ok I am not going to aurgue this any more read the following text, and you will see how bad R134a is this is a deadly compound that is bieng touted as great for the enviroment, it is about money, and money only, and one last thing do you realize that the ozone layer has been tracked since 1954, and when you look at the maps from then they are identical to the ones know so it hasn't changed in 50yrs, and as soon as I cna find the latest research paper that shows that it is physical impossible to deplete the ozone layer I will post that also, but in the mean time please have a read
http://yarchive.net/ac/r134a_lethal.html