4wheeldog
2018 144" Tall Revel
Free will gives you the ability to break laws, but not the right.
Green Diesel Engineering - Compliance Form- California
- Thread starter vanski
- Start date
- Status
It is beyond a lot of work for a small / medium business. It is virtually impossible.
Even if your product passes the technical barriers, it won't get approved in CA because of political agendas that have nothing to do with what you are trying to accomplish.
That is called a "republic" and it assumes that the representatives of a district actually listen to the opinions of their constituents. Since they usually don't, but instead represent the entities, both foreign and domestic that funded their campaigns, it is closer to an Oligarchy system.
At least in my lifetime, there has never been a federal law that was voted in by the citizens. Of the ~ 2000 new laws passed in CA each year, I think we vote on perhaps 10?
If you would like our local congressman - feel free to have him.
The drinking age law is a very good example because it already happened in the US. Prior to the 1980s, an 18 year old was allowed to purchase and drink beer. Parents were allowed to legally allow their own children to drink alcoholic beverages under their own supervision. In other words - it was a family / culture decision.
Just one person (Pres Reagan) was responsible for the edict that changed the drinking age to 21, and the whole raft of laws making this relatively harmless drink into a villain of the people.
Now what do we have - a bunch of drug problems.
So - yes I do think that this is an appropriate comparison.
Further - the people who are righting these "rules" are not even elected. Their primary goal is long term job preservation. The emissions have already been reduced by > 99%. The only way they can still justify their jobs is to create a new rule that needs to be enforced.
Midwestdrifter
Engineer In Residence
Part of living in a society is the Social Contract. We give up some freedoms in exchange for state protection and benefits. My neighbor can't lite a tire fire in their backyard for example. I can't drive with my chains on tires year round. I can't dump toxic chemicals in the river. etc. In exchange for these restrictions I gain protection via due process, the right to participate in elections. Protections for my property and welfare, etc.
I may not like some of the restrictions, but where society has deemed my freedoms to infringe upon those of others, they have been restricted. For a more recent example look at immigration law. Many are frustrated that the government can't restrict visa applications by ethnicity. Society has decided that it infringes upon others rights for the government to differentiate by ethnicity. We all benefit from that protection, either now or in the future.
The authoritarian argument is that the government doesn't do what I want, so the government must be illegitimate. To make such an argument is a bit ridiculous. You need to prove the government is both violating your rights/freedoms in a way that produces a net negative greater than the benefit to society. There are a few freedoms which are very difficult to justify encroaching on. Life, property, general bodily autonomy, etc. The rest are open to restriction upon sufficient reason.
There are quite a few people who have this belief that the very idea of government is broken. They have nothing but disdain for career civil servants. They do not believe the government can be fixed, and are focused on the harm it has done them. They ignore the huge successes of government that support and enable their day to day lives. Electric power, safe water, roads, school systems, military, border control, housing, financial regulation, social services, the legal system, police forces, etc.
There is no solution to society outside these government services. The deconstructive "libertarian" approach is a dead end. The final result of this ad-absurdum approach is something akin to Somalia.
If there are specific claims of abuse, waste, or corruption in an agency. Direct them to the attorney or inspector general. Vote in the primaries for politicians who will take this issue to task. Email your local representative. A big problem today is that all news is national, so all politics is national. This results in local and state politics languishing with no news coverage to keep the pressure on politicians. It also reduces interest in local elections (both for voters and those who run for office). This results in fewer great civil servants in the pipeline to be leaders of tomorrow.
Claiming civil disobedience in this case is a bit absurd. It denies the harm in the behavior, and trivializes many of the great acts against unfair laws of the past. As an example, the government requires a shop to dispose of their waste in a responsible fashion. But its expensive, heavy metal contamination means it costs 10s of thousands a year! Its not the shops fault they bought machines that were expensive to maintain! They didn't know! Is it okay for them to dump the waste in the local waterway? Its not a large amount, and can't be detected down stream. What happens when a thousand shops start doing it?
I may not like some of the restrictions, but where society has deemed my freedoms to infringe upon those of others, they have been restricted. For a more recent example look at immigration law. Many are frustrated that the government can't restrict visa applications by ethnicity. Society has decided that it infringes upon others rights for the government to differentiate by ethnicity. We all benefit from that protection, either now or in the future.
The authoritarian argument is that the government doesn't do what I want, so the government must be illegitimate. To make such an argument is a bit ridiculous. You need to prove the government is both violating your rights/freedoms in a way that produces a net negative greater than the benefit to society. There are a few freedoms which are very difficult to justify encroaching on. Life, property, general bodily autonomy, etc. The rest are open to restriction upon sufficient reason.
There are quite a few people who have this belief that the very idea of government is broken. They have nothing but disdain for career civil servants. They do not believe the government can be fixed, and are focused on the harm it has done them. They ignore the huge successes of government that support and enable their day to day lives. Electric power, safe water, roads, school systems, military, border control, housing, financial regulation, social services, the legal system, police forces, etc.
There is no solution to society outside these government services. The deconstructive "libertarian" approach is a dead end. The final result of this ad-absurdum approach is something akin to Somalia.
If there are specific claims of abuse, waste, or corruption in an agency. Direct them to the attorney or inspector general. Vote in the primaries for politicians who will take this issue to task. Email your local representative. A big problem today is that all news is national, so all politics is national. This results in local and state politics languishing with no news coverage to keep the pressure on politicians. It also reduces interest in local elections (both for voters and those who run for office). This results in fewer great civil servants in the pipeline to be leaders of tomorrow.
Claiming civil disobedience in this case is a bit absurd. It denies the harm in the behavior, and trivializes many of the great acts against unfair laws of the past. As an example, the government requires a shop to dispose of their waste in a responsible fashion. But its expensive, heavy metal contamination means it costs 10s of thousands a year! Its not the shops fault they bought machines that were expensive to maintain! They didn't know! Is it okay for them to dump the waste in the local waterway? Its not a large amount, and can't be detected down stream. What happens when a thousand shops start doing it?
Last edited:
OrioN
2008 2500 170" EXT
If the rights of freewill excludes breaking the law, then it is not freewill.
Diesels are today where gasoline fueled cars were in the 70s and toilets were in the 90s. The regulations have exceeded the current technology. For cars it took decades for the technology to catch up. Now we have amazing cars that are reliable, powerful, and clean, so the mandate worked – eventually. But in the 70s cars were none of those things and it was common to remove the idle mixture cap to adjust the idle mixture – despite the fact that this was illegal – in an attempt to get the cars to run better. On NCV3s I hear stories of $10K+ emission repairs, cars that refuse to drive, etc, and Graphite Dave who sold his diesel entirely because of diesel emissions complexities. I knew about none of these things when I bought my Sprinter and I feel for people for looking for ways to alleviate these real and documented issues.
When laws become onerous and the perceived benefits to society from following them are low, people break the law. I speed every day – as does everyone on the road during my commute. This country was founded by people who refused to house soldiers in their homes, to pay taxes on paper and tea and many other things, despite laws forcing them to do so. Their argument was that they did not have any say in the laws and refused to follow them without a way to change them. Administrate law – a 20th century invention, which is what the EPA and CARB create, are similar in that these independent agencies craft laws and regulations of their own accord with no recourse from voters.
I place no moral judgment on my fellow citizens who break laws they deem misguided. I do, however, expect them to accept the consequences if and when they are prosecuted, just like I pay my speeding fines.
When laws become onerous and the perceived benefits to society from following them are low, people break the law. I speed every day – as does everyone on the road during my commute. This country was founded by people who refused to house soldiers in their homes, to pay taxes on paper and tea and many other things, despite laws forcing them to do so. Their argument was that they did not have any say in the laws and refused to follow them without a way to change them. Administrate law – a 20th century invention, which is what the EPA and CARB create, are similar in that these independent agencies craft laws and regulations of their own accord with no recourse from voters.
I place no moral judgment on my fellow citizens who break laws they deem misguided. I do, however, expect them to accept the consequences if and when they are prosecuted, just like I pay my speeding fines.
HarryN's example is spot on. You may think emissions laws are sacrosanct, while I might think capital punishment or abortion rights are untouchable. The truth is that in a democracy all of these are valid discussion topics and should be discussed - and voted on in an open format. Dismissing emissions regulations or the drinking age (or prohibition) as not valid of public debate is elitist and inconsistent with democratic ideals. Your political side might currently be in control of the emissions debate, but as recent elections have shown, that may not be the case forever.
marklg
Well-known member
Go to this page:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/aftermkt/devices/amquery.php
and search for ECU / Proms /ECU Programmer. CA has approved modifications. Many are by the original manufacturer, but Gale Banks Engineering and others have Diesel engine modifications. They tested them to meet emissions and they have been approved. I'm sure it cost them, and I don't know CA regulators to know if you have to know somebody to get things done, but it is possible. GDE could have done it.
Regards,
Mark
I grew up in LA in the early 80s. I remember going outside as a child and it physically hurt my chest to take a deep breath. Thankfully I have not experienced that since the 80s. Every comment so far has agreed that the results CARB achieved are real.
However, I am sympathetic to my fellow Californian HarryN’s complaints about CARB. For some of us living in California, it seems CARB (and perhaps the same is true of some forum members) is on an evangelical crusade to change technology, and change public opinion. Recall that in 1990 CARB mandated that 10% of all vehicles be electric powered, but rescinded the requirement after GM spent billions, when they realized it was impossible to comply with the scale their law demanded. Some 30 years later we still don’t have 10% electric vehicles. However CARB is still compelling technology rather than clean air targets.
Some have claimed CARB passes emissions goals and lets the free market decide. I claim they have a technology agenda, which they justify with emissions targets, which may or may not be tied to any real benefit to the citizenry. Perhaps the air is clean enough as is? What is the ultimate target? One hopes that science backs up their agenda, but it is too complex for any individual citizen to understand. We are simply expected to accept the mandates as “right.” Because these administrative laws are written by nonpartisan bureaucrats, we have no recourse to vote them out of office.
It is interesting to note that there is harsh criticism from those outside of California who can use MEK for their Monstaliner prep, while it is banned in California. Other items we either can’t get or cost more:
Milk costs twice as much because it has to meet special California regulations (I suspect this was prompted by the California dairy lobby. An example of our politicians working against us. I am not aware of milk-related deaths in other states)
12 volt battery charger. I found many Amazon would not ship to me due to efficiency requirements
MEK, tolulene, xylene. All banned outright
Rat poison
Weed killer
Battery powered electric lawn mower (I don’t know if this was due to the efficiency of the battery charger or Amazon’s error)
2X transportation fuel prices – the reasons are myriad and I won’t attempt to summarize them
In many ways it feels like we live in a different country than the rest of you. Several of my friends have left the state in the last few years.
However, I am sympathetic to my fellow Californian HarryN’s complaints about CARB. For some of us living in California, it seems CARB (and perhaps the same is true of some forum members) is on an evangelical crusade to change technology, and change public opinion. Recall that in 1990 CARB mandated that 10% of all vehicles be electric powered, but rescinded the requirement after GM spent billions, when they realized it was impossible to comply with the scale their law demanded. Some 30 years later we still don’t have 10% electric vehicles. However CARB is still compelling technology rather than clean air targets.
Some have claimed CARB passes emissions goals and lets the free market decide. I claim they have a technology agenda, which they justify with emissions targets, which may or may not be tied to any real benefit to the citizenry. Perhaps the air is clean enough as is? What is the ultimate target? One hopes that science backs up their agenda, but it is too complex for any individual citizen to understand. We are simply expected to accept the mandates as “right.” Because these administrative laws are written by nonpartisan bureaucrats, we have no recourse to vote them out of office. It is interesting to note that there is harsh criticism from those outside of California who can use MEK for their Monstaliner prep, while it is banned in California. Other items we either can’t get or cost more:
Milk costs twice as much because it has to meet special California regulations (I suspect this was prompted by the California dairy lobby. An example of our politicians working against us. I am not aware of milk-related deaths in other states)
12 volt battery charger. I found many Amazon would not ship to me due to efficiency requirements
MEK, tolulene, xylene. All banned outright
Rat poison
Weed killer
Battery powered electric lawn mower (I don’t know if this was due to the efficiency of the battery charger or Amazon’s error)
2X transportation fuel prices – the reasons are myriad and I won’t attempt to summarize them
In many ways it feels like we live in a different country than the rest of you. Several of my friends have left the state in the last few years.
Riptide
Active member
I look forward to seeing your Sprinter in the classifieds tomorrow; perhaps trolling for a bicycle instead.
It will be really gratifying, for both of us.
Point conceded. Looks like I should have done my homework.
My point was that CARB did not tell manufacturers: your fleet needs to meet emissions target X, go use the free market to get there. Instead CARB set up a two tiered mandate: your regular fleet needs to meet emissions target X, while 2% increasing to 10% of your fleet need to meet the target of 0. The same emissions results would have been achieved had the full fleet emissions target been 0.9X. This was a defacto electric car mandate as that was the only technology at the time and GM spent loads of money on it. The same emissions reduction could have been far more easily achieved by having a lower single tiered emissions target and letting manufacturers decide how to get there.
The goal WAS electric cars, or perhaps we can compromise and say the goal was creating zero emissions vehicles. The goal was NOT reducing emissions of the fleet by free market means, as that would have resulted in NO electric cars (ZEVs).
This thread is closed.
There isn't any particular post which has prompted the action. The discussion has been quite acceptable. The thread should remain in Sprinter Talk.
The Green Diesel Engineering - Compliance Form- California pertinent information was revealed in the first few pages. That should remain available for Sprinter owners to access.
A new thread can be created for further discussion about emissions laws, air quality, regulatory agencies, politics, etc. if anyone is so inclined to do so.
vic
There isn't any particular post which has prompted the action. The discussion has been quite acceptable. The thread should remain in Sprinter Talk.
The Green Diesel Engineering - Compliance Form- California pertinent information was revealed in the first few pages. That should remain available for Sprinter owners to access.
A new thread can be created for further discussion about emissions laws, air quality, regulatory agencies, politics, etc. if anyone is so inclined to do so.
vic
Last edited:
- Status