EPA Crack down on poluters!!!

[TampaSi07]

Originally Posted by fairladyz_gt-r

By that same logic unless you drive the most fuel efficient car made you are just as "selfish" whatever that means in this context. I find it very telling when people that could do more (on whatever issue we are talking about at the moment) don't, yet they quickly condemn those that do less as if what they do is somehow the magic perfect balance. That's the height of hypocrisy.

[HondaScott]

Originally Posted by HondaScott

It is about time:

http://www.fquick.com/blog/Caspers_E...led_by_the_EPA

After some thought I retract my comment of "it is about time." I agree with getting people to put catolytic converters on there cars whole heartedly. It is a crying shame when somebody takes an ULTRA-LOW-EMISSIONS vehicle which they should take some sort of pride in driving, and rips out it's CAT, but I think the EPA is going about it all wrong.

Many comments in this thread state that the supplier of O2 sims is not to blame and I agree. The EPA should do emissions testing in more areas so that there is less MARKET for O2 simulators, not try to go after the supplier.

[HondaScott]

Originally Posted by TampaSi07

By that same logic unless you drive the most fuel efficient car made you are just as "selfish" whatever that means in this context. I find it very telling when people that could do more (on whatever issue we are talking about at the moment) don't, yet they quickly condemn those that do less as if what they do is somehow the magic perfect balance. That's the height of hypocrisy.

By YOUR logic the world is doomed and we should give up.

Nobody is perfect, but that should not discourage people from doing there part to make the world a better place. I do not do EVERYTHING in my power to make the world a better place, but that should not discourage me from doing anything, and encouraging others to take a stand.

[jmjohns9]

NJ hondascott, i love when people are willing to change their views in light of new information/opinions. Theres too many people on these forums and in the world that will never admit their wrong out of personal pride and ignorance.
Reading through this thread im suprised a staunch believer in global warming hasn't started arguing against you Tampa. I consider myself an environmentalist and do believe in global warming but this is not to say that im not willing to look at new opinions on the causes. This is how i see it. Of course theres going to be hundreds of different reasons that scientists will come up with for why global warming is happening and it is my job to desern which one is the most likely reason. Personally through looking at the evidence ive come to believe its caused by green house gases. Now this is not a dead set belief but im about 80% sure. I came to this belief b/c the vast majority of scientific communities hold this same belief. (Tampa please refute this part of my agrument b/c its the basis of my beliefs). Why do 30 of these communities believe its caused by emissions with the only one refuting emissions as the cause being sponsored by the oil company's? These are the best of the best when it comes to scientists.
Also on your point that even with climate change life will flourish. I agree in part b/c i don't believe global warming will end all life. But i do believe it will have durastic effects on the current populations of life on this planet. Just like when climate change through various reasons happened before, a great amount of life died off. It took millions of years for life to get back to the same levels. The effect on human populations would be simular. This is the reason we don't want it. We fight wars to save humans and keep our security. If we don't fight global warming we could loose a vast amount of both.
Tampa hope this doesn't come across as an attack if anything comes across like that let me know... Please send me some good (reputable.. ive seen biased ones on both sides) sites to refute the scientific findings, im willing to look at the facts and change my mind, are you?

[y2kedar]

Originally Posted by jmjohns9

NJ hondascott, i love when people are willing to change their views in light of new information/opinions. Theres too many people on these forums and in the world that will never admit their wrong out of personal pride and ignorance.
Reading through this thread im suprised a staunch believer in global warming hasn't started arguing against you Tampa. I consider myself an environmentalist and do believe in global warming but this is not to say that im not willing to look at new opinions on the causes. This is how i see it. Of course theres going to be hundreds of different reasons that scientists will come up with for why global warming is happening and it is my job to desern which one is the most likely reason. Personally through looking at the evidence ive come to believe its caused by green house gases. Now this is not a dead set belief but im about 80% sure. I came to this belief b/c the vast majority of scientific communities hold this same belief. (Tampa please refute this part of my agrument b/c its the basis of my beliefs). Why do 30 of these communities believe its caused by emissions with the only one refuting emissions as the cause being sponsored by the oil company's? These are the best of the best when it comes to scientists.
Also on your point that even with climate change life will flourish. I agree in part b/c i don't believe global warming will end all life. But i do believe it will have durastic effects on the current populations of life on this planet. Just like when climate change through various reasons happened before, a great amount of life died off. It took millions of years for life to get back to the same levels. The effect on human populations would be simular. This is the reason we don't want it. We fight wars to save humans and keep our security. If we don't fight global warming we could loose a vast amount of both.
Tampa hope this doesn't come across as an attack if anything comes across like that let me know... Please send me some good (reputable.. ive seen biased ones on both sides) sites to refute the scientific findings, im willing to look at the facts and change my mind, are you?

[jmjohns9]

O i forgot to cover the original topic.
I don't think the government should be going after the manufacter for the simple reason that he can't control how the individual uses his product(aka gun manufacter)(could be some liability if they've been advertising it for street cars)

[I Vtec, do you?]

I'm not even going to read the replies because the vast majority of you are completely biased car enthusiasts.

I agree with the OP and the EPA 100%. Our environment is going to hell. I find it disgusting that when I visit my relatives back in NY and parts of NJ, my eyes water (contacts can't take all the shit in the air over there), and I'm afraid MN will be like that someday too.

People post about how much they like the raw smell of gas coming out of their car with a race header. Sorry, but that's just bullshit, and irresponsible at that. It's my air as well and I want it clean, and that means not having your car pumping pollutants in the air so you can gain a few more hp.

I was going to eventually make a post seeing what other people's views were on race headers and the like, but this is all I need.

People with this kinda crap piss me off. Why do you have to pollute the air just so your car can gain two tenths of a second on the quarter mile?

[TampaSi07]

Originally Posted by jmjohns9

NJ hondascott, i love when people are willing to change their views in light of new information/opinions. Theres too many people on these forums and in the world that will never admit their wrong out of personal pride and ignorance.
Reading through this thread im suprised a staunch believer in global warming hasn't started arguing against you Tampa. I consider myself an environmentalist and do believe in global warming but this is not to say that im not willing to look at new opinions on the causes. This is how i see it. Of course theres going to be hundreds of different reasons that scientists will come up with for why global warming is happening and it is my job to desern which one is the most likely reason. Personally through looking at the evidence ive come to believe its caused by green house gases. Now this is not a dead set belief but im about 80% sure.

What evidence have you personally viewed to come to the conclusion that greenhouse gases are responsible? Also, if you are only 80% sure that's the case, what evidence is leaving you with that 20% doubt? Also, anytime you read a global warming support article or see a tv show on the issue make sure they are talking about man-made global warming. Proving that the Earth is warming is not the same as proving that man is causing it. That's a VERY IMPORTANT point that I often see glossed over. One of the first things a young scientist is taught is to differentiate correlation from causation and yet that simply isn't happening here.

I came to this belief b/c the vast majority of scientific communities hold this same belief. (Tampa please refute this part of my agrument b/c its the basis of my beliefs).

First of all, consensus does not make a group right. Proper scientific method, testing, and repeatability are what make a theory scientifically valid and even then it can change. That's the thing so many people do not understand about science; science PROVES nothing. It can only predict based on the evidence at hand. If that evidence changes then the position can change.

In the end it's a giant distraction though because there really isn't the consensus that the "environmentalist" would have you believe there is. Do you really believe that the only scientists that doubt global warming are oil company shills? That's simply a flat out lie. There are 1000's of scientists in the United States alone that refute the consensus. These scientist generally work outside academia and so they don't rely on getting taxpayer money to keep them employed.

The reality is the government is handing out billions in taxpayer dollars. Universities compete for this money as do the scientists employed there. How can you trust anyone that has a vested self-interest in their own employment to come to a certain conclusion? This becomes especially evident if you understand the steps of the scientific method and you realize those steps simply aren't being followed. People that disagree are slandered and called "traitors" in ad hominem attacks, but that doesn't change the fact that good science involves questioning the theories and evidence and even attacking your own conclusions to make sure they can hold up all of which is not happening here. That's why I have compared global warming as the equivalent of religion for the left. The methods are identical and that should scare you.

Next, the green movement employs 50K lobbyist which is greater than what the oil companies employ by a factor of 10! Who pays these people? What I really find telling is the fact that the "leader" of the movement isn't even a scientist at all!! What are Al Gores qualifications again? How is it that he is now worth over $100,000,000 with most of that money being made in the last 4 years? Why is it that he lives in several mansions with one that I know of being at least 7K square feet in size along with his own jet which means he pollutes at a massive rate compared to your average American? I guess it's a case of do what I say, not what I do. Hmmmm, does that not remind you of a priest?

Why do 30 of these communities believe its caused by emissions with the only one refuting emissions as the cause being sponsored by the oil company's?

That simply isn't true. Thousands of scientist that have absolutely no connection to any oil company refute man-made global warming. The greens have done and excellent job convincing people of the shill myth without ever providing a lick of evidence to back that up. Don't take my word for it. If you really care, google it and you will quickly see that the myth of consensus is exactly that, a myth. I guess I work for the oil companies too? (Hey, where's my paycheck you bastards?)

It comes down to using fear as a motivator to get people to reach into their wallets. Who reaches into their wallets when there is nothing to be scared of? Look at left wing fear movements (just like rightwing fear movements like *** marriage and scary foreigners) like "The Populating Explosion" in the '60's which was supposed to have us all starving by today, and "Global Cooling" which was the scientific consensus of the '70's. Both these movements directly parallel the global warming movement of today in both motive and method. It's funny how as time went on these movements were faded and forgotten, but not without eating up billions of dollars through both donations and taxpayer money. How convenient to predict a very scary event at some way off distance in the future. It reminds me of the guy walking the streets with his "The End Is Near" sign. You can't prove him wrong so he must be right? That about sums up global warming "science."

Let's look at the computer models that are offered up as PROOF (as soon as I see the word "proof" vs "evidence" I immediately know I am dealing with propaganda and not science). Isn't it funny how we can't even predict tomorrow's local weather with great accuracy yet you are being asked to believe that a computer model has been made that can accurately predict GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE? This is simply ridiculous because these models are based upon one assumption upon another and are designed to come to a certain conclusion.

These are the best of the best when it comes to scientists.

Really? They are the best of the best based on what? Why aren't they working in the private sector then producing products that can immediately improve our quality of living instead of hiding out in the liberal bastion of academia? Why aren't they then working on the methods that would actually help like reducing our dependency on foreign oil and making more efficient vehicles? Why aren't they trying to develop a way to put a muffler on the volcanoes of our planet? Why are they campaigning for money vs actually putting their "best of the best" talents to actual good use?

Also on your point that even with climate change life will flourish. I agree in part b/c i don't believe global warming will end all life. But i do believe it will have durastic effects on the current populations of life on this planet.

Regardless, life will constantly change on this planet. And like always life will adapt. I'll ask the same question I always ask; who is to say that our current climate is the "best" climate anyway? I mentioned it earlier but you should check out the Yellowstone disaster if you want to see the hell that can break loose when man tries to "preserve" nature through his tinkering.

Just like when climate change through various reasons happened before, a great amount of life died off. It took millions of years for life to get back to the same levels. The effect on human populations would be simular.

First off if a meteor puts us into nuclear winter there is little we can do about it. The earth has also cycled through hot or cold periods all on it's own many times before man ever existed. What caused those warming and cooling periods without man even being there? Do you know we are currently coming out of a little ice age and through deep core samples C02 levels have risen similarly to the current rises EVERY TIME this has happened in the past. Why is it now that man is somehow the cause of what has always been a natural phenomenon when it happened before man's existence? Water vapor is also the largest greenhouse gas by far, yet no one talks about that. It's also possible and likely from past evidence that a warmer climate CAUSES higher C02 levels and not the other way around. This is why understanding the difference between causation and correlation is very important, and yet that also isn't mentioned. Don't you have to question the motives of people that intentionally leave out so much information all the while getting rich themselves?

This is the reason we don't want it.

Maybe you don't want it because you might have to spend $5 more a month to run your A/C, but what about the people that live in arid climates that could become fertile farmland? Theoretically a warmer climate would help keep millions of people from starving just as genetically engineered food has. Do you know there is a man you have probably never heard of that has saved the lives of billions of people through genetically engineering crops yet you have left wing retards fighting this science in front of grocery stores in California all the while eating full meals everyday in the comfort of America? These "protestors" are the exact target demographic of the global warming fear machine. No one talks about the potential pros of a warmer climate, but that wouldn't breed fear and attract $$ now would it?

We fight wars to save humans and keep our security.

That's simply a bad analogy because the threat of someone immediately trying to harm you is not the same as trying to think what will happen 40 years from now.

If we don't fight global warming we could loose a vast amount of both.

We could also do a lot more harm than good in our "fight" against an enemy that may not even exist. That's an equally likely possibility and it's scary no one talks about it. I just shake my head and wonder why? It's no coincidence that the same universities that rely on this money and in fact compete for it have also started offering *** studies, Latino studies, African American Studies, Women's studies, etc. Any time one of these classes is taken it's one less math, science, logic, economics, government, class that's taken. The ability to reason is the core of education and this is being taught less and less by the very people that stand to gain the most by people not having these skills. If that doesn't make you go; hmmmm, nothing will.

Tampa hope this doesn't come across as an attack if anything comes across like that let me know... Please send me some good (reputable.. ive seen biased ones on both sides) sites to refute the scientific findings, im willing to look at the facts and change my mind, are you?

It didn't seem like an attack at all. You seem like a person seeking knowledge which is more than I can say for the majority of people in America. I am of the; "teach a man to fish" school. I could do the internet searching for you, but invariably I will be accused of bias. Do your own fishing and you will quickly see the information is right there at your fingertips. This is a skill you can apply to all aspects of your life and not just global warming.

I will recommend one thing if you would like to learn a lot on the subject and be entertained at the same time. It's a book by Michael Chrichton (the scientist that wrote Jurrasic Park, not a politician). The unique thing about this book is it's massive reference section and bibliography at then end along with extensive footnoting on every page. Ultimately the book is entertainment, but it's a good starting point for anyone questioning global warming and it presents the information in a way that isn't so dry.

The book is called State of Fear. I think the writings of a Harvard educated scientist are a lot more relevant than the writings of a Harvard/Vandy educated lawyer who comes from a long line of politicians.

[jmjohns9]

Nice writeup tampa, theres alot of stuff in there that ive never thought of before. Im really busy right now and after work im heading on a trip so ill respond on monday... ive got to do some research :)

[TampaSi07]

Originally Posted by I Vtec, do you?

I'm not even going to read the replies because the vast majority of you are completely biased car enthusiasts.

I agree with the OP and the EPA 100%. Our environment is going to hell. I find it disgusting that when I visit my relatives back in NY and parts of NJ, my eyes water (contacts can't take all the shit in the air over there), and I'm afraid MN will be like that someday too.

People post about how much they like the raw smell of gas coming out of their car with a race header. Sorry, but that's just bullshit, and irresponsible at that. It's my air as well and I want it clean, and that means not having your car pumping pollutants in the air so you can gain a few more hp.

I was going to eventually make a post seeing what other people's views were on race headers and the like, but this is all I need.

People with this kinda crap piss me off. Why do you have to pollute the air just so your car can gain two tenths of a second on the quarter mile?

18 and you know it all (obviously you didn't read any of the thread because you already think you know it all). Good for you. Thanks for ironically proving my point about the prime demographic for the global warming fear machine.

See what I mean people?

(I love irony.)

[TampaSi07]

Just another quick note on the Prophet of Global warming that may at least make some of you ask some questions.

Al Gore is the same guy who illegally raised money from the Chinese government for Bill Clinton's campaign. Isn't it a bit ironic that china pollutes at 3x the rate/gdp that the U.S. does yet Mr. Gore took money from them in turn for political favors from our government (which China has fully taken advantage of BTW). When you also consider China is a terrible human rights violator and in the end stands for everything Mr. Gore is supposedly against I think it quickly becomes apparent when viewed along with Mr. Gore's lifestyle that Mr. Gore's only loyalty to principle is the principle of lining his own pockets. Smug indeed.

[RANGERSi07]

so I'm guessing I better go get my O2 sim soon before my RH get here

[TampaSi07]

Originally Posted by RANGERSi07

so I'm guessing I better go get my O2 sim soon before my RH get here

I'm thinking that's probably a great idea.

[HondaScott]

There is a lot of talk in this thread about global warming which is a good thing BUT it is quite irrelevant to O2 simulators. Catalytic converters do NOT get rid of CO2 which is generally the gas debated in the global warming issue.

What cats do (for the most part) get rid of are the fallowing (see how stuff works @ http://auto.howstuffworks.com/catalytic-converter1.htm).

* Carbon monoxide (CO) - a poisonous gas that is colorless and odorless
* Hydrocarbons or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) - produced mostly from unburned fuel that evaporates. Sunlight breaks these down to form oxidants, which react with oxides of nitrogen to cause ground level ozone (O3), a major component of smog.
* Nitrogen oxides (NO and NO2, together called NOx) - contributes to smog and acid rain, and also causes irritation to human mucus membranes

The results of these gases are a known scientific FACT. If you remove your car's cat, you are SELFISHLY POLLUTING!!!

[I Vtec, do you?]

Originally Posted by TampaSi07

18 and you know it all (obviously you didn't read any of the thread because you already think you know it all). Good for you. Thanks for ironically proving my point about the prime demographic for the global warming fear machine.

Gee.. what do I have to know? Hmm.. who puts on an O2 sim? Ahh.. maybe someone who yanked out their cat for a RH and doesn't want the CEL on? Odd.. Race header.. no cat.. the smell of raw gas coming out the exhaust. But yeah.. I bet that's good for the air quality eh?

[TampaSi07]

Originally Posted by I Vtec, do you?

Gee.. what do I have to know? Hmm.. who puts on an O2 sim? Ahh.. maybe someone who yanked out their cat for a RH and doesn't want the CEL on? Odd.. Race header.. no cat.. the smell of raw gas coming out the exhaust. But yeah.. I bet that's good for the air quality eh?

You are a hypocrite and let me tell you why. You think your level of pollution is somehow morally justifiable. However, anyone that does less is "selfish." What was it you said;

I find it disgusting that when I visit my relatives back in NY and parts of NJ, my eyes water

(Hmmm, been to NYC twice in the past 18 months and didn't have a problem at all.)

Now, what about the guy who lives near his work, rides a bike and doesn't even own a car? To him it's YOU that's the selfish asshole. He will make the same exact arguments about you. So get off your high horse because if you are a 9 and the guy who runs without a cat is a 10 in terms of contributing to the supposed "pollution" then the guy that rides the bike is a 1 so who's the selfish asshole now?

You only make these childish arguments because you don't know any better. Make no mistake; you are very low on the moral scale here so for you to criticize anyone at all is simply the pot calling the kettle black.

The fact that you didn't even realize this tells me you simply haven't developed the ability to objectively reason. You are simply being manipulated by emotion and you want to somehow feel morally superior when you really aren't. So sorry to burst your bubble.

By the way, once a car warms up a cat does little if the car is tuned properly. I would be willing to bet more raw fuel evaporates into the atmosphere every time you fuel your car than running without a cat for a full tank on a Civc Si. You can't even smell raw fuel upon cold start-up in a closed garage on an Si. It really sounds like you like to exaggerate about a lot of things you simply are too young and uneducated to understand.

[TampaSi07]

Originally Posted by HondaScott

There is a lot of talk in this thread about global warming which is a good thing BUT it is quite irrelevant to O2 simulators. Catalytic converters do NOT get rid of CO2 which is generally the gas debated in the global warming issue.

What cats do (for the most part) get rid of are the fallowing (see how stuff works @ http://auto.howstuffworks.com/catalytic-converter1.htm).

* Carbon monoxide (CO) - a poisonous gas that is colorless and odorless
* Hydrocarbons or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) - produced mostly from unburned fuel that evaporates. Sunlight breaks these down to form oxidants, which react with oxides of nitrogen to cause ground level ozone (O3), a major component of smog.
* Nitrogen oxides (NO and NO2, together called NOx) - contributes to smog and acid rain, and also causes irritation to human mucus membranes.

The results of these gases are a known scientific FACT.

So, what percentage of gases do passenger vehicles contribute to people experiencing the effects of the above gases outside a lab and in the real world. Keep in mind there was a smog basin in SoCals San Fernando Valley and Los Angeles before the automobile was ever invented.

From the Sierra Club (a well known oil company shill!!! <-Sarcasm)

The overall smog in these cities depends on many factors-sunlight, temperatures, winds and "basin" effects (see sidebar on Los Angeles, below).

When smog was shown to have perilous health consequences, Congress gave California the right to require tighter auto-emissions standards than the rest of the country. L.A.'s cars and trucks, and its industry, are now among the cleanest in the nation; yet its pollution remains among the worst. However, other cities in the Sunbelt, while lacking L.A.'s basin and stagnant air, seem intent on challenging its smog-king title.

http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/rep...sandtrucks.asp

What was that, the cleanest cars and tightest auto emissions laws in America and yet the smog is the worst in the nation? I now live in Florida where they don't even do emissions testing and yet we extremely clean air:

http://www.weather.com/outlook/healt...lity/?state=FL

So, the reality is that for the millions and millions of taxpayer $$ California has poured into the problem, they haven't done a damn thing. Geography, solar exposure, and wind patterns are the real determining factor. The added costs to the automakers means higher priced cars and fewer cars sold. This causes people jobs and the ability to support their families and all the while the problem isn't made any better! Now the people that don't have these jobs no longer have money to spend and it costs other industries jobs ad infinitum. Look at how CARB constantly tightens it's standards or else why else would the people at CARB need a job? LOL, who's going to vote themselves out of a job? It's amazing how following the money when it comes to politics and policy making nearly always leads to the truth and that truth is often far different than what is being sold to the public.

Keep in mind all the time we are strangling ourselves, countries like China become stronger and stronger.

If you remove your car's cat, you are SELFISHLY POLLUTING!!!

See my previous post.

[I Vtec, do you?]

Originally Posted by TampaSi07

You are a hypocrite and let me tell you why. You think your level of pollution is somehow morally justifiable. However, anyone that does less is "selfish." What was it you said;



(Hmmm, been to NYC twice in the past 18 months and didn't have a problem at all.)

Now, what about the guy who lives near his work, rides a bike and doesn't even own a car? To him it's YOU that's the selfish asshole. He will make the same exact arguments about you. So get off your high horse because if you are a 9 and the guy who runs without a cat is a 10 in terms of contributing to the supposed "pollution" then the guy that rides the bike is a 1 so who's the selfish asshole now?

You only make these childish arguments because you don't know any better. Make no mistake; you are very low on the moral scale here so for you to criticize anyone at all is simply the pot calling the kettle black.

The fact that you didn't even realize this tells me you simply haven't developed the ability to objectively reason. You are simply being manipulated by emotion and you want to somehow feel morally superior when you really aren't. So sorry to burst your bubble.

By the way, once a car warms up a cat does little if the car is tuned properly. I would be willing to bet more raw fuel evaporates into the atmosphere every time you fuel your car than running without a cat for a full tank on a Civc Si. You can't even smell raw fuel upon cold start-up in a closed garage on an Si. It really sounds like you like to exaggerate about a lot of things you simply are too young and uneducated to understand.

THAT, sir, is a fallacy. What you posted is such a 'faulty analogy' that I can't even take what you said as serious.

There is quite the difference between driving a car, modding your car to make it even MORE environmentally unfriendly.. and riding a bike.

For some people.. a bike isn't an option. So you know what they do? They buy a ULEV or a LEV.. like I did. Did I go out and buy a hummer? A '70s muscle car? No, I bought a honda civic.

Now when you take that car.. and RIP off the ONE peice that is designed to help us all breather clean(er) air so that you can gain a small amount of power.. how can you honestly compare that to someone riding a bike?

If we're going to play that ridiculous game.. well then the guy riding a bike is contributing to pollution.. he could WALK. Then we wouldn't need to pollute the air with the factories that make the bike, right? And the guy whose walking can't wear shoes either... and his clothes must be made of leaves so that he need not disturb the environment with any factories.

There is quite a difference choosing to drive, and drive a car where the CAT is ripped out for personal gain.

If you bring up my age one more time.. I'm going to consider you a moron from here on out because only someone with a faulty argument would need to bring up age as a reason to why they're right.

[TampaSi07]

Originally Posted by I Vtec, do you?

THAT, sir, is a fallacy. What you posted is such a 'faulty analogy' that I can't even take what you said as serious.

There is quite the difference between driving a car, modding your car to make it even MORE environmentally unfriendly.. and riding a bike.

For some people.. a bike isn't an option.

It's only not an option because you are selfish. You don't want to do what it takes to not have to have a car so you believe everyone else must suffer dirty air for your convenience. You are simply trying to rationalize a non-supportable point of view.

So you know what they do? They buy a ULEV or a LEV.. like I did. Did I go out and buy a hummer? A '70s muscle car? No, I bought a honda civic.

That's all a red herring. The fact is you could be doing more but you have decided completely arbitrarily that you are somehow righteous (which is exactly what you are being conned into thinking) while the guy that buys a Hummer is not.

Now when you take that car.. and RIP off the ONE peice that is designed to help us all breather clean(er) air so that you can gain a small amount of power.. how can you honestly compare that to someone riding a bike?

It's easy, because compared to the guy riding the bike you put out 1000's of times the pollution in your ULEV while the guy in the Hummer relative to the bike only puts out slightly more that you do. You are a hypocrite and you know it.

If we're going to play that ridiculous game.. well then the guy riding a bike is contributing to pollution.. he could WALK. Then we wouldn't need to pollute the air with the factories that make the bike, right? And the guy whose walking can't wear shoes either... and his clothes must be made of leaves so that he need not disturb the environment with any factories.

Yes it is ridiculous, that's becaus