Less regulation = less pollution. Possible? (Brea, Marina: sale, homes, buying)

[drunk on kool aid]

Reading these boards, I often encounter posts complaining about California's smog, pollution and dirtiness while also bemoaning "tree-hugger" or "enviro-nazi" regulations. I can't see how the former can be addressed effectively without the latter.

There is no doubt that there are people and businesses which act voluntarily to decrease their environmental footprint, regulation or no. Education, including public service announcements (PSAs), also help to curb harmful practices such as dumping motor oil down storm drains.

However, the main driver for reducing pollution seems to be increasingly restrictive regulations which inevitably stimulates the adoption of, or innovation in, cleaner alternatives.

All of this adds cost and inconvenience (at least initially). No question about that. Nevertheless, I think it's worth it. I remember back in the L.A. of the 60's and 70's when a little bit of recess or PE would leave my lungs feeling like they had been napalmed. Hard to believe, but, despite the huge increase in population, the air is much cleaner now than in the past.

I'd like to ask the people who complain about pollution as well as regulation, how they reconcile the two? Thanks.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by drunk on kool aid

Reading these boards, I often encounter posts complaining about California's smog, pollution and dirtiness while also bemoaning "tree-hugger" or "enviro-nazi" regulations. I can't see how the former can be addressed effectively without the latter.

There is no doubt that there are people and businesses which act voluntarily to decrease their environmental footprint, regulation or no. Education, including public service announcements (PSAs), also help to curb harmful practices such as dumping motor oil down storm drains.

However, the main driver for reducing pollution seems to be increasingly restrictive regulations which inevitably stimulates the adoption of, or innovation in, cleaner alternatives.

All of this adds cost and inconvenience (at least initially). No question about that. Nevertheless, I think it's worth it. I remember back in the L.A. of the 60's and 70's when a little bit of recess or PE would leave my lungs feeling like they had been napalmed. Hard to believe, but, despite the huge increase in population, the air is much cleaner now than in the past.

I'd like to ask the people who complain about pollution as well as regulation, how they reconcile the two? Thanks.

I would like to see pollution regulations grounded by actual emissions and not theory or possible pollution.

Also, alternatives exist and are dismissed for regulatory and enforcement expediency...

Clearly the focus is not about pollution in many cases... instead it is about money and control...

I can cite a few examples...

CA Ban on Two Stroke Marine Engines in many waters to limit oil pollution would not be necessary if alternative Bio-Degradable substitute oil was used in place of petroleum based oil... Regulators said it would be impossible to know how was using the more expensive environmentally friendly oil and who was not.

Air Quality Management No Burn Days includes homes with permitted EPA catalyst equipped ultra-low emission stoves... again the reason cited is difficulty in determining which is which... so just ban them all.

Hospitals are facing mandatory emergency generator replacement on some very low hour, expertly maintained units because they don't meet the latest air standards even though the units might not even be 10 years old...

If I'm in the Hospital and the power goes out.. I want a reliable generator and frankly do not care if the generator is tier 1, 2 or 3. The Generator at one hospital runs less than 30 hours a year including maintenance... next door, diesel trucks and refrigerated trailers can run days on end keep perishable food stuffs fresh...

People would respect regulations to a greater degree if they focused on actual emissions and not ease of enforcement.

Here's one final example... a family friend owned a gas station in La Brea CA... He was constantly having issues because the soil at his station would test contaminated with hydro carbons... did anyone use even a little common sense... La Brea is know for it's naturally occurring Tar Pits... Oil Bubbles up from the ground... duh!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Brea_Tar_Pits

I could continue... but shouldn't

[drunk on kool aid]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

I would like to see pollution regulations grounded by actual emissions and not theory or possible pollution.

Also, alternatives exist and are dismissed for regulatory and enforcement expediency...

Clearly the focus is not about pollution in many cases... instead it is about money and control...

I can cite a few examples...

CA Ban on Two Stroke Marine Engines in many waters to limit oil pollution would not be necessary if alternative Bio-Degradable substitute oil was used in place of petroleum based oil... Regulators said it would be impossible to know how was using the more expensive environmentally friendly oil and who was not.


Air Quality Management No Burn Days includes homes with permitted EPA catalyst equipped ultra-low emission stoves... again the reason cited is difficulty in determining which is which... so just ban them all.

I can understand your frustration but how would you distinguish the good guys from the polluters? I can see how the catalyst equipped stove could get an exemption sticker but how can you tell whether a two stroke is running biodegradable vs. dino juice? I'm pretty sure two strokes pollute the air more than four strokes. Also, is the ban a total ban or just on the sale of new engines?

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

Hospitals are facing mandatory emergency generator replacement on some very low hour, expertly maintained units because they don't meet the latest air standards even though the units might not even be 10 years old...

If I'm in the Hospital and the power goes out.. I want a reliable generator and frankly do not care if the generator is tier 1, 2 or 3. The Generator at one hospital runs less than 30 hours a year including maintenance... next door, diesel trucks and refrigerated trailers can run days on end keep perishable food stuffs fresh...

I don't know much about this issue. I don't know if emergency generators (not just in hospitals but in many buildings) are actually a little recognized but significant source of pollution (e.g. the bunker fuel burning freighters at the Port of L.A.) or just a nit-picky target with small environmental benefit at a really high cost.

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

People would respect regulations to a greater degree if they focused on actual emissions and not ease of enforcement.

Perhaps but the ease of enforcement has to be part of the equation. For instance, since cars are sniffer tested anyway, I don't have a problem with modifications which don't increase emissions. Failing a car just because it isn't stock may be unnecessary. But having to individually test what's in the tank of every two-stroke isn't cost effective.

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

Here's one final example... a family friend owned a gas station in La Brea CA... He was constantly having issues because the soil at his station would test contaminated with hydro carbons... did anyone use even a little common sense... La Brea is know for it's naturally occurring Tar Pits... Oil Bubbles up from the ground... duh!!!

This seems resolvable by testing the soil sample on a gas chromatograph. I'm pretty sure the profile of a leaking tank would be different than seepage.

I'm not saying that there aren't some head-scratchers or spleen-busters in the list of regulations. Those should be amended or eliminated.

I'm still interested in hearing from those who decry pollution *and* regulations.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by drunk on kool aid

I can understand your frustration but how would you distinguish the good guys from the polluters? I can see how the catalyst equipped stove could get an exemption sticker but how can you tell whether a two stroke is running biodegradable vs. dino juice? I'm pretty sure two strokes pollute the air more than four strokes. Also, is the ban a total ban or just on the sale of new engines?

Stoves are all lumped together... I went to a hearing and it was totally an enforcement issue when it came to catalyst stoves... it wasn't all that long ago that we were encouraged by President Carter to use renewable energy where possible to heat our homes...

The issue with Two-Strokes Marine Engines is petroleum discharged into the waters... there are still a couple of the latest generation approved for now... so far the ban is to inland lakes... such as massive Lake Tahoe with only a short boating season as it is...

I don't know much about this issue. I don't know if emergency generators (not just in hospitals but in many buildings) are actually a little recognized but significant source of pollution (e.g. the bunker fuel burning freighters at the Port of L.A.) or just a nit-picky target with small environmental benefit at a really high cost.

Small Hospital Back-Up units often run the same Cummins or Caterpillar turbo Diesels as over the road trucks and buses... very reliable and should last 30+ years easily... most run less than 30 hours a year and that is the equivalent of running a city bus for 2 days... Healthcare has lots of issues... in this case forced retirement of good equipment to Nevada, Oregon and over seas makes no sense on so many levels... the same thing is happening right now to Bulldozers and Backhoes... forced CA retirement or costly retrofits... were literally being forced to give equipment away and other countries are eager to buy.

Perhaps but the ease of enforcement has to be part of the equation. For instance, since cars are sniffer tested anyway, I don't have a problem with modifications which don't increase emissions. Failing a car just because it isn't stock may be unnecessary. But having to individually test what's in the tank of every two-stroke isn't cost effective.

One way that was used when the fuel additive MTBE to reduce air pollution was found to pollute underground aquifers was for boaters to fuel and show proof of purchase at an approved Lakeside Marina... that sold MTBE free fuel.

This seems resolvable by testing the soil sample on a gas chromatograph. I'm pretty sure the profile of a leaking tank would be different than seepage.

I'm not saying that there aren't some head-scratchers or spleen-busters in the list of regulations. Those should be amended or eliminated.

I'm still interested in hearing from those who decry pollution *and* regulations.

Going by the regs at the time... the entire Hancock Area of LA would fail because oil is naturally occurring in the environment... as opposed to a spill.

We already have laws going back 30 or 40 years to cite vehicles that belch smoke... in high school a friend had to junk his car because it had a worn out motor and that is the way it should be...

Taking equipment that was state of the art 10 years ago and regulating it to the point where it can't be used makes no sense on so many levels...

At one time laws were phased in and grandfather protections written... now it seems subject to chance when and how individuals and business will be subject to pending regulations... often forcing small business out of business like a small family excavation contractor I know... he said it's not worth buying new equipment at his age and regulation has dictated he must sell out of state for a chance to recoup even a little of his investment.

Another point is that the State of CA often exempts itself from the very environmental laws is forces upon those that live here...

Vehicles sold from the State fleet have been a tremendous source of grief for those looking for a bargain... State Vehicles are exempt from Smog Laws when under state ownership... many police cars and fire trucks were found to have missing air pollution equipment which in itself is a violation if the tampering had not been done by the State...