This is an interesting paper from the epa

In reply to Opti :

Given that the diesel deleters were an easy target, because they made it obvious onto themselves, there's no way that I can convince you that this was the correct thing to do.

You've never suggested an alternative that isn't already being done.  And it DOES take an act of congress to expand the EPA jurisdiction, and even so, you have already complained that writing new laws is of diminishing return.  

Not matter what is done, you will see it as a lose-lose.  

I'm done here- no point in further posting.

Opti said:

In reply to CrustyRedXpress :

We you have 285 millions cars on the road , and you are hunting the last 500k, you are absolutely shooting for 100 percent compliance.

This isn't the last 500k, its the worst 500k. 

In reply to alfadriver :

You mention I don't offer an alternative that isn't already being done. I do. Use these resources to go after something we can actually reduce, like industries that can emit as much as they want. You say it's already being done, that doesn't mean it wouldn't be more effective to shift resources to it.

It like saying one guy is building an all new engine from the ground up, so it's already being done. Yah but if I take these guys that are paid to not get results and put them on the engine I might actually see material results in less than a decade.

And I'm not talking about what currently being done for the most part, because these reports are used as a basis for new legislation and increased budget. So this report is probably going to be used to throw a bunch of money and resources at this.

What's been done in the past has led to only a tiny sliver of the population willing to break the law. That's great. We've had success, let's not throw a bunch more resources at it chasing the last diminishing returns.

I didn't say regulation as a whole is chasing dismissing returns. I said (or atleast meant) new regulation on new ICE engines and additional enforcement on emissions regulations is chasing diminishing returns

Opti said:

In reply to alfadriver :

You mention I don't offer an alternative that isn't already being done. I do. Use these resources to go after something we can actually reduce, like industries that can emit as much as they want. You say it's already being done, that doesn't mean it wouldn't be more effective to shift resources to it.

What's been done in the past has led to only a tiny sliver of the population willing to break the law. That's great. We've had success, let's not throw a bunch more resources at it chasing the last diminishing returns.

I didn't say regulation as a whole is chasing dismissing returns. I said (or atleast meant) new regulation on new ICE engines and additional enforcement on emissions regulations is chasing diminishing returns

If you go back to my post on page 3 of this thread, you'll see that the transportation sector is still the largest producer of smog forming emissions in the US (55% of NOx), as well as being the largest single producer of GHG emissions in the US (29%). How does it make any sense to ignore that for other areas?

The "tiny sliver" of the population that's illegally modifying vehicles has the same impact as a much larger sliver of the population. That's why it's a problem. 500k deleted diesels + nearly every "tuned" vehicle on the road, cam swapped vehicle, vehicle running "gutted" cats, or a Chinese turbo, etc. They all add up, and suddenly the "tiny sliver of the population" is a lot larger than you realize, and their outsized impact is many, many times their actual numbers.

It really seems like you just want ICE's to be left alone for selfish reasons at this point. Your other arguments all seem pretty inconsistent and fragmented, so that's all I can really figure. I think pretty much all car people are at least a little conflicted about this stuff, so that's fair if you feel that way. Maybe your point just isn't coming across very well. The bottom line, is that it's going to be harder to sell emissions defeat devices in the US moving forward. You may not see it "changing consumer behavior" yet, but it's already begun and will only become harder and more obvious moving forward. The writing is on the wall. It may never get to 100% compliance, and I don't really see them chasing it to that point. But it will likely make a pretty significant dent in the number of non-compliant vehicles used on public roads over the next few years.

Simultaneously, other industries that pollute are undergoing similar transitions. It's not like the EPA is entirely focused only on personal vehicles. Even entire countries are making large scale changes. China is probably the world's largest market for renewable energy production right now. They've got a long way to go, but they're very interested in reducing their dependence on foreign oil and coal. Most of SE Asia is investing heavily in hydrogen fuel cell technology as well.

In reply to STM317 :

You are conflating transportation emissions as a whole with 500,000 deleted diesels. Transportation includes HDV, aviation, passenger cars and trucks and trains. So your looking at a subset of a subset of a subset and saying that's contributing half of the NOx.

Did I say you don't work on emissions? no, but going after 500k deleted diesels isn't going to reduce the 50% of NOx any material amount.

The problem is bigger than half a million brodozers running around

In reply to Opti :

It's already been said that those 500K diesels with no emissions controls are generating the same environmental damage as millions more cars- to the point where each one generates as much NOx, soot and CO2 hundreds of modern vehicles.

Opti, not to be a jerk but you really aren't listening.

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

Yes I understand that they pollute more than every other car. I'm not disputing that. This is government stuff though so you have to think about impact on macro level, and where to spend resources to make the largest impact.

At the end of the day, the goal is to materially reduce OVERALL emissions, right?

 If you get 100 percent compliance on deleted diesels and get them all off the road, will that actually result in a big enough reduction in emissions to justify the cost (labor, dollars, opportunity costs)?

The second part is, do you think that they can actually get the trucks off the road?  Can the EPA suing parts manufacturers get consumers to change behavior and stop deleting diesels at a high enough rate to make a difference ?

If you answer to either of those questions is no. It's a waste of resources and they should be used elsewhere.

The whole "no alternative" argument is ridiculous. It's doesn't have to be a completely new idea as an alternative. Businesses, government and people prioritize things everyday for the highest impact, and its not always a new idea. 

Thinking deleted diesels are a major contributor ( I didn't say disproportionate, because they definitely are) to overall emissions is like getting excited when the government brags about cutting 40 million from a 4.79 Trillion budget

Opti said:

In reply to STM317 :

You are conflating transportation emissions as a whole with 500,000 deleted diesels. Transportation includes HDV, aviation, passenger cars and trucks and trains. So your looking at a subset of a subset of a subset and saying that's contributing half of the NOx.

Did I say you don't work on emissions? no, but going after 500k deleted diesels isn't going to reduce the 50% of NOx any material amount.

The problem is bigger than half a million brodozers running around

2019 US GHG emissions in the transportation sector break down as follows:

"Light Duty Vehicles" - 58%

"Medium and Heavy Duty Trucks"- 24%

"Aircraft" - 10%

"other"- 5%

"Boats/Ships"- 2%

"Trains"- 2%

Trust me when I say that the Heavy Duty sector, and trains, are also seeing their regulations tightened along with increased enforcement. NOx reduction across the board is a huge priority for regulators in the US. It's the primary reason that these deleted trucks have stuff to delete in the first place. Heavy duty diesel and natural gas engine emissions development pays the bills in my house. It's not just personal vehicles that are being focused on. It's not just shops that delete Billy Bob's 3/4 ton truck or tune Brody's STI that are being fined. There is larger and more widespread focus than what lots of regular people see on a day to day basis. Fining aftermarket companies and enforcing emissions regulations more strictly than they have in the past is very in line with other measures being seen in the rest of the transportation sector.

In reply to STM317 :

Yes but the EPA isnt enforcing emissions regulations at the consumer level, when we are talking about deleted diesels. They are just fining manufacturers. The states and to a higher degree the actual inspectors are the one enforcing it, and no one cares. Which results in no change in behavior. Which results in no additional change in emissions (remember weve already seen the emissions reduction from the 90 something percent of people who follow these rules). Somehow we think that more enforcement on things that are already illegal exercised as fining manufacturers, will someone change actual consumer behavior.

Thats one part to the argument.

The other part is they are looking at too small of a subset for it to matter in the grand scheme of things, assuming they can actually change behavior within a reasonable amount of time, which they cant.

A small subset of people will always break the law. 

Example as emissions tightened on semis, a small manufacturer started buying gliders (essentially rollers) and installing a series 60 detriot without emissions, to exploit a loophole in the law.

People will ALWAYS find a way to skirt the law.

Im not defending them but from a governance level its not the best use of resources to chase them

Opti said:

A small subset of people will always break the law.

People will ALWAYS find a way to skirt the law.

 

Im not defending them but from a governance level its not the best use of resources to chase them

They're not chasing this small subset of people. They're making it harder for them to break the law in the first place. They don't really go after kids that are under 18 who buy cigarettes on a wide scale. But they do go after the places that sell to minors because that's a more efficient use of resources, and the ones making money off of illegal activity bear more responsibility for it.

You keep saying that this is an inefficient way to reduce emissions because people will always break the law, but it's pretty clear that making it harder for people to break the law is actually pretty effective. If buying non-compliant parts is as easy as going to amazon and getting your new off road X pipe in 3 days, then lots of people are going to do that. But if there aren't any on Amazon to buy, and you have to go to some random, sketchy foreign website and cross your fingers that your money doesn't just get stolen and your product doesn't get impounded by customs, then only the truly dedicated are going to go to that length and level of risk. People are often pretty lazy with stuff like this.  80/20 rule more or less applies here. You get 80% of the effect with 20% of the effort. Having some simple hurdles can really reduce the number of people doing this stuff. Most of the people doing this stuff aren't ready to deal with import/export crimes and major fines. They've been doing it for so long because there was little drawback. That's changing now. Numbers will go down. They may not ever be zero, but they'll drop enough to make an impact. Especially in conjunction with everything else going on at the OEM level across pretty much all parts of the Transportation sector and other sectors as well.

In reply to Opti :

I gave a general outline of EPA's position* on this matter and a rough idea of the approach EPA uses to fulfill the legal obligations prescribed by the CAA.  I thought it was in this thread, but it's in one of the hundred others we've had on the subject.  The only thing I will add is just because something doesn't appear to be significant to a casual observer, doesn't mean it isn't.  Also, EPA doesn't make the law.  It is required to uphold the law, which involves enforcement on a federal level and also allowing states to develop plans to uphold federal law on a state level.  This implementation of law enforcement can take a number of forms as well.

Regulating manufacturers does, in fact, decrease emissions.

*unofficial