I wrote over in Pit Stop about this and there is no testing involved under this. As I also mentioned Pennsylvania is one of those states seeking to adopt California standards, but if you go that state you will find that only about 50% of the counties there test (you can imagine which ones...Pittsburgh/Philly metro areas).

Crist was also asked about emissons inspections and he noted he preferred to have the auto industry do its part.

Where the horror story would come about is if some legislation got in and passed to start up the emissions testing...this is the ONLY WAY it would come about, as an executive order cannot fund something. Crist is only chaning environmental regulations (which requires no funding whatsover to be implemented in the case of saying to Ford, Toyota, etc...before you had to meet Federal Emissions Regulations of X to sell your new vehicles here, but now you have to meet X).

Given high property taxes, insurance, water shortages, I think this is a small way Crist is helping the environment without passing it on the consumers (in the form of emissions testing).

Keep in mind, a lot of cars, even in good condition won't pass California emissions regulations here in Florida. You'd have to be a dope to do this, especially when the real problem is diesel rigs and industrial pollution. In fact one of the regulations deals with diesel motor idling (not an emission test, but how much time a diesel engine say on a truck can stay at idle).

 

Harsh? No more like straight forward. Doesn't take a genius to read a news article and be able to interpret it. Even if I had a DSM still I wouldn't be worried. That's one of the first things I do is rip out the emissions out of them and what not. Not to mention the many I ran without a cat. To put it in a broad perspective... this is implying to 2009+ vehicles. We are in 2007... 2009 vehicles start being sold in 2008. The vehicles are suppose to be based on California's emissions standards. So at this point it doesn't concern any DSM owner. Let's say they want to implement it for older vehicles... you know how much trouble it would be just to get all vehicle's under California's emissions standards? Yet alone even if that's not the case but they want to do standard emissions testing how long it would take just to set a base and implement it. Were talking years here, not at the end of the year.

When I first read part of the article I jumped into the same conclusion as everyone else just because of the title of this thread. Which I find misleading if you actually take the time to re-read the article thoroughly like I did.

I think people just need to understand how long it takes just to implement emissions within a state. An article releases and look how many rumors and what not arised without taking the time to analyze it. That's where I'm coming from.

 

Great points.

I used an example of the first generation Toyota Solara (1MZFE version to be exact). There are differences in the precats between CA-spec and non CA-spec cars. Granted precats are like leg warmers, but still how do you apply CA standards to something that never was in the first place.

The point I see is do we even need to bring up emissions testing again, we had it once and we proved we have clean air. I think they may have gotten less than 1% that didn't pass under the old system, but you can imagine if they stick it to industrial smokestack pollution...which was the problem all along.

 

+1

 

^ yea but we got fcat, lol

 

An executive order can demand funding (if that’s what you meant) both directly and indirectly, particularly when the benchmarks set forth demand federal or state subsidization. But, I’m not sure that’s relevant, as the Executive Order 07-127 commands that Florida adopt California’s emission standards. Those standards do not have to be approved by the state legislature and don’t require the legislature to approve funding measures. And, depending on whether Florida intends to implement California’s standards whole hog or partially as well as the particular interests of the individual, this could cost the consumer directly as well. So, people who are averse to these standards have reason to be concerned.

Further, and as I stated in a previous post, the executive orders are ambiguous and written in broad terms. It is not clear whether Florida is seeking the

or only the recent proposal that is still awaiting

It is a mistake to rely solely on a newspaper article for information. Journalists and reporters alike are fallible, and this shortcoming can result in misinformation being accepted by large numbers of consumers. For example, less than a year ago, a scientific article concerning new discoveries about SNPs and their implication on human genetic variation was published and subsequently reported on by several news outlets and internet sources. Without exception, every source misinterpreted the publishing and reported erroneous information about its implications. I spent several days in the fall contacting these sources and voicing my concerns about their misinterpretations, and it took these sources over a month to correct their previous stories (save for the internet sources, which all corrected their previous story within days).
Another example would be several of the articles concerning the very executive orders we’re discussing. Many of these articles (although not the one we’ve linked to in this thread) mistakenly report that the executive orders call for Florida to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by the year 2050, when in fact the order calls for a reduction of 80% of 1990 levels (i.e. an output of 20% of 1990 levels) by 2050. While I think this mistake inconsequential, it does highlight my point.

Finally, because the order only adverts Title 13 of the CCR and does not limit its scope to the proposal for which the EPA has yet to provide a waiver, it is understandable that people might be concerned about the extent to which Florida seeks to mirror California’s system. Saying simply that Florida seeks to implement California’s emissions standards (which the order and most news articles do) does not provide the necessary information that allows citizens to distinguish between “California’s emissions standards” and “California’s greenhouse gas emissions standards.” Because I’ve read from three reputable sources that EO 07-127 is referring to the latter, I’m confident that this is the case. But, there are several sources that don’t make this distinction. Again, I agree with your conclusion, but I understand why others might be concerned.

So, I do think it’s harsh to call those with concerns stupid, which is what you’re doing. I don’t understand why you would want to be so condescending, particularly considering the way people have treated you historically in this forum. I recall several threads where you’ve been treated unnecessarily poorly, and I would think you would want to avoid doing the same to others. And, of course, there is an obvious difference between “harsh” and “straightforward.” Patronizing people, even if they are mistaken, is hardly the same as being clear and concise.

 

Harsh? See it as you want to see it but common sense relates to perspective. Rumors spread because of people who don't analyze the problem. It's like skipping a hypothesis and going straight to the conclusion. Honestly I don't care about what people think of me on this forum so I don't know why you were so fond of bringing that up. Yeah in the past I was treated poorly, even by you, but guess what I'm still here because online non-sense doesn't effect my real life situations. But I've seen the way you talk to people on here to and its not so vibrant. You need to learn to read what I write carefully instead of saying I'm coming on "harsh". Straightfoward is telling it how it is. I can sit here and fake everything but that won't make me an adult now would it. I tell it how it is, its been that way since I joined this forum back in 2003. Literally you took the time to go and agree and analzye the subject of this thread beyond perspective. Point is someone needed to read the subject and analyze it and correct the rumors that have begun spreading. Don't go and judge what I say and say that I'm calling anyone stupid. If you want me to act like 80% of the people on this board I would of just stated:

"You bunch of retards, its for 2009+ vehicles"

Instead I made it more revelant and had some proof to back it up. So now I'm wrong for doing so. Give me a break. I might as well sit back, take a bite out of a Kit Kat and see what else you will judge about me and what I said.

 

That's not being straightforward, that's being a dick.

Although you may use words awkwardly, I don't have trouble reading what you've written. I've opened this post with what you've written. You can try and redefine the term "straightforward" until you're blue in the face, but those lines were rude. I didn't realize you were comfortable with people being assholes. If I had known that, I wouldn't have questioned your behavior.

I didn't throw a fit about this, I just suggested that the first statement was a harsh one considering there was some reason to believe that Florida might be considering implementing California's emissions standards (what with the order stating that Florida seeks to implement "California's emissions standards"). Now you're patronizing me. That's great.

I'm not too concerned with this thread. I'm compelled to read the responses, but I'm not scowling at my montior while reading your posts (although I am somewhat concerned about your haphazard use of the language). I really am over it. You're comfortable with your mordant responses to others' concerns, and I'm comforable not giving a f*ck. So we're cool, right?

 

Again your seeing things in YOUR perspective. You see it as me being a dick... I see it as being straightfoward instead of lying out my ass. Instead of beating on the bush, go around it. You contradicting and now going after me is a bit childish don't you think? You and your patronizing ordeal. Seriously get over it.

You took a simple thing and broadened it. Really... go back a few pages and re-read and come back to me because now your being direct and I'll do the same. You have the nerve to say your not too concerned about this thread yet your writing novels and going against what I say then you analyze it. Obviously your more then concerned if you take the time to come back and analyze what I say. You see it like YOU see it. Plain as day your the only one who saw it that way. Another guy agreed with me so I don't see the problem. You want facts or you want bullshit? I can sit here and say non-sense which concerns nothing... would that make myself a well reknowned patron? Come on now, cut to the facts... that's what I did. Then I was ignored and pushed the subject farther ahead without calling anyone stupid or critizing them. So obviously you are so far ahead on this that you need to retract your steps.

Now with that said, yeah were cool. Just don't go and analyze so much into what I said. Because if I want to call people stupid... I will say it plain as day without being in hiding. But better yet, I'll do you a favor and leave Mitsu Tech since I know longer own a Mitsubishi.

 

If you’re saying that you're being straightforward about your feelings; that is, that you feel that you would have to be stupid not to be able to (or, in your words, "it doesn't take a genius to") read [and understand] a news article, then I agree. You are being straightforward in the sense that you are expressing your feelings candidly. That expression, though, is tactless and rude. That’s my point.

Of course I’m describing my point of view. I don’t need to tell you your own. I simply suggested that the way you worded your criticism was, perhaps a bit harsh. My exact words were:

I don’t understand why you cannot accept that deriding others for perhaps misunderstanding a news article is harsh. Again, I didn’t throw a fit about it, and I certainly didn’t intend to discuss it at this length, but it never occurred to me that one could disagree with that claim. It’s patently rude...it couldn’t be more clear...wtf?

You don’t have to be rude to be straightforward (and being rude, no matter how you slice it, is not the same as being straightforward). Being tactful is not equivalent to lying. It’s just decent social behavior. C’mon Jay.

How am I being childish? In what way I am being contradictory? I’m only defending my claim, and I’m attempting to be as diplomatic as possible.

And, I really am not too concerned. I’m concerned enough to read your response and reply, but that’s it. In other words, I will have forgotten this thread once I’ve left the website. And, I won’t remember this thread until I return to the website. That’s the level of my interest. That’s pretty standard stuff, I think.

I may be the only one who stated publicly that your remark was a little harsh, but that doesn’t mean I’m the only one who thinks that. It likely means that I’m the only one who thought anything of it. And I really only mentioned it in passing. I did not intend to discuss it over several pages online. It’s frivolous, really (that’s why I mentioned it in passing, and did not, for example, create a new thread to discuss the thoughtlessness of your remarks).

What is the simple thing that I’m broadening? The only claim I’ve made – and I’ve made it consistently – is that you may have been a bit harsh in your criticism, particularly considering the way the EO is worded. That’s it. And, as usual, you get heated and begin rambling until finally your incoherent clusterf*ck of a point crashes to a halt as all the over- and misused words and idioms relieve themselves of the responsibility of explicating your thoughts and wander aimlessly around the webpage, some praying that this might end soon so that someone more adept could acquire their services. You have a history of blowing sh*t out of proportion (I’m thinking of the many threads you spent defending the 420a engine like you were defending the honor of your girlfriend). I have no such history. You made a remark, and I simply stated that perhaps it was unnecessarily harsh, considering the wording of the EO. Then you got hot under the collar and patronized me (I need to learn to read, I don’t speak to people “vibrantly,” whatever that means, etc.). That’s how you get, though. You get angry and come off as a grumpy old man with dementia. Case in point:

I have no idea what this means. Would speaking nonsensically make you famous? I don’t know – maybe. I don’t get it.

If you want to continue with this discussion, I’ll oblige you, but I don’t know what more there is to say, or whether any of it would be worth saying.