EPA Crack down on poluters!!!

[HondaScott]

Originally Posted by TampaSi07

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.

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.

By slightly more you mean pretty might two times as much pollution (see http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm).

Society in modern America is set up so it is very difficult to commute without a bike. I am not willing to make the sacrifice to living in the location that I work, and therefore I have to endure a 15 minute commute. The honda civic si is a vehicle I purchased with the environment in mind as well as many other factors.

Back to your hypocritical argument: Since I am not willing to do everything in my power and sacrifice all of my other wants from a vehicle, should I have bought a hummer? Since I am not completely willing to throw myself to the wolves for the environment, should I not consider it? This is NOT a black and white world, and there is no line you can cross to be considered an environmental activist. There will always be somebody doing more then you.

I have nothing wrong with vehicles being used for what they are designed. I could fill a page with ranting about SUV's being used by soccer moms but I'm sure that many of you are aware of the issue. My car was designed primarily to be an efficient people mover, and that is what it does. Although the performance of the car is good, it WAS NOT DESIGNED TO BE A RACE CAR. And of course, no race car should be driven on the street, because a race car does not make an efficient street car. Why should a STREET CAR have RACE HEADERS? Does it help you get to work better?

I don't want to start a war with all vehicle modifiers because I am one myself BUT running a race header is where I PERSONALLY draw the line. It gives you a power gain in sacrifice of the environment, and I am not morally able to make that sacrifice. Because I feel strongly on this issue, I have the right to express myself. The people reading this have the right to take my opinion of leave it, as hypocritical as it is.

Originally Posted by TampaSi07

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.

By the way, before a car is warmed up is the only time that a catalytic converter does nothing. It takes a certain temperature to begin the chemical reaction that helps reduce pollutants. This is why you should try to combine short trips into one long trip to avoid cold starts.

Yes cars are efficient and have relatively clean combustion compared to cars "back in the day" BUT try and pass a smog test with your cat pulled. Until ideal combustion is achieved in real world situations (which will not happen) the catalytic converter is a necessary tool in environmental protection.

[TampaSi07]

Originally Posted by HondaScott

By slightly more you mean pretty might two times as much pollution (see http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm).

Again, you are using logical fallacy to argue your position. I said it's only slightly more when relatively compared to what the guy on the bike puts out.

Society in modern America is set up so it is very difficult to commute without a bike. I am not willing to make the sacrifice to living in the location that I work, and therefore I have to endure a 15 minute commute.

So you have decided for everyone else that your convenience is worth more pollution. Isn't that by definition the exact same selfishness? You can't on one hand think that global warming is a global catastrophe in the making, then on the other justify your contribution for your own convenience while condemning others while you could be doing a lot more.

There simply is no way around that.

Of course there are ways around it. You just aren't willing to sacrifice as you have said. This is especially true if you believe the problem to be as great as you have argued. Isn't doing anything less than you can do by definition absolutely selfish if the fate of the world is at stake? That seems pretty selfish to me if those are really your beliefs. What good is your car if you are underwater (again, not my beliefs but yours)?

Everything else is just rationalization u The honda civic si is a vehicle I purchased with the environment in mind as well as many other factors.

Exactly, and you are still rationalizing your contribution even in the light of the the dire catastrophe you seem to believe is at hand. Your actions simply do not sync with your beliefs so to feel good about your own contribution to the very problem you argue exists you condemn anyone that does less than you without even acknowledging your own contribution. That's just self-delusion for the sake of feeling good.

Back to your hypocritical argument: Since I am not willing to do everything in my power and sacrifice all of my other wants from a vehicle, should I have bought a hummer?

If that vehicle was practical for you why not? Maybe you have a family and you want them safer (believe me, the Hummer wins in an accident vs any Si, you can't cheat physics and it's simply better to be the windshield than the fly. Certainly you have no right to condemn those that do make those purchases because on the scale from the guy that rides the bike there really isn't much difference.

Since I am not completely willing to throw myself to the wolves for the environment, should I not consider it? This is NOT a black and white world, and there is no line you can cross to be considered an environmental activist. There will always be somebody doing more then you.

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. In the end I have shown where the pollution from automobiles even according to the Sierra Club is far more dependent on where you live vs what people drive. I am just refuting your own logic and how you don't even practice what you preach. It reminds me of religious people that don't do everything in the bible, but then condemn those that do less. It's the same attitude and it's 100% arbitrary. You simply cannot justify your position while casting stones at others.

I have nothing wrong with vehicles being used for what they are designed. I could fill a page with ranting about SUV's being used by soccer moms but I'm sure that many of you are aware of the issue. My car was designed primarily to be an efficient people mover, and that is what it does. Although the performance of the car is good, it WAS NOT DESIGNED TO BE A RACE CAR. And of course, no race car should be driven on the street, because a race car does not make an efficient street car. Why should a STREET CAR have RACE HEADERS? Does it help you get to work better?

Why buy anything but the most basic transportation then. A Fit would certainly got you to work just as well (using your logic) as your Si and would have had even less impact on the environment. So why choose a higher performance vehicle that's less fuel efficient, pollutes more, and costs more? You bought it because you like it and you like the performance and whether it pollute more who cares. Yet you want to condemn those that prefer even more performance and it's simply a 100% arbitrary position.

Are you telling me that if you won $20,000,000 in the lottery tomorrow you would still be driving your Si? You may say so, but I highly doubt it. So it really also seems like an argument of social class. You have only chosen the car you have because a higher end higher performance vehicle is out of your price range (please correct me if I am wrong and you could afford a $100K car). So conveniently all those that can afford more are somehow morally wrong.

By the way, before a car is warmed up is the only time that a catalytic converter does nothing.

That's not true at all. Cats can light off in as little as 30 seconds. That's why they have continually move the cats closer to the exhaust manifold over the years. I had a Toyota MR2 Spyder that ingested the cat because the car was literally bolted right to the exhaust ports!!

It takes a certain temperature to begin the chemical reaction that helps reduce pollutants. This is why you should try to combine short trips into one long trip to avoid cold starts.

You might want to read through this 10 year old Honda press release to realize how outdated your understanding of how a cat works is:

http://world.honda.com/news/1997/4970217a.html

Yes cars are efficient and have relatively clean combustion compared to cars "back in the day" BUT try and pass a smog test with your cat pulled. Until ideal combustion is achieved in real world situations (which will not happen) the catalytic converter is a necessary tool in environmental protection.

In the end there are two different arguments here. One is where I am simply accepting your position and then using your own logic against you. The other is the argument of whether all the regulation has achieved anything more than huge expenses to taxpayers, bigger government bureaucracy, loss of jobs, more expensive products for the consumers etc. Those are facts. Yet the evidence shows that even the strictest regulation (California) has had no effect on the smog levels at all yet states that do nothing but have more favorable geographic and wind conditions simply don't have smog.

I just find it funny that people argue for things while piling up unsupportable opinion upon unsupportable opinion as if it were fact. I like to go back to the roots and look at the issue from the ground up. But that's just me and my logical mind.

[TampaSi07]

Originally Posted by AvengedFG2

every politician is a lying ***hole!!

I only know of one that isn't; Ron Paul. He's the only candidate that understand freedom and Constitution (although I still am not 100% sold on the guy). It's scary when I read a quote from GWB that says; "stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamn piece of paper."

The people are the checks and balances against politicians that will always try to grab more and more power. This was how our libertarian founding fathers designed the system. Ron Paul doesn't even participate in the lucrative pension plan that takes money from hardworking taxpayers and feeds it to people for life (standard illegal wealth redistribution scheme). While principled doesn't necessarily make you right, it sure is a better starting point than any of these other puppets is coming from.

[ErichPryde]

I read State of Fear. and I really liked it.

Unfortunately, this whole thread somehow got mangled on global warming and bashing one another. I will not buy a race header for myself for two reasons:

1) It will add to the 5 legged frog community
2) Removing the catalytic converter seems to make the car sound like ricer-ass.

[HondaScott]

Originally Posted by TampaSi07

In the end there are two different arguments here. One is where I am simply accepting your position and then using your own logic against you. The other is the argument of whether all the regulation has achieved anything more than huge expenses to taxpayers, bigger government bureaucracy, loss of jobs, more expensive products for the consumers etc. Those are facts. Yet the evidence shows that even the strictest regulation (California) has had no effect on the smog levels at all yet states that do nothing but have more favorable geographic and wind conditions simply don't have smog.

I just find it funny that people argue for things while piling up unsupportable opinion upon unsupportable opinion as if it were fact. I like to go back to the roots and look at the issue from the ground up. But that's just me and my logical mind.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog...ducingsmog.pdf

This article clearly states the results of California's clean air efforts. I don't know where you get your information, but it looks like you are absolutely wrong.