Green Cars You Can't Buy

Geoffrey.landis writes "Auto industry blogger Lawrence Ulrich notes that Honda is now making a "Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle" (or PZEV for short) version of the 2008 Accord, an all-new vehicle that is redesigned to meet California emission standards. He notes "So, just how green is a PZEV machine? Well, if you just cut your lawn with a gas mower, congratulations, you just put out more pollution in one hour than these cars do in 2,000 miles of driving." But the irony is that it's actually illegal for automakers to sell these green cars outside of the special states they were designed for! Apparently, anybody selling one of these ultra-green vehicles out of the correctly-designated venue — which means either California, or seven northeast-states with similar pollution laws — "could be subject to civil fines of up to $27,500. Volvo sent its dealers a memo alerting them to this fact, noting that its greenest S40 and V50 models were only for the special states.""

Comments

Partially Zero?

[427_ci_505]

What the fuck does that even mean?

Re:Partially Zero?

[archen]

and more importantly, can you divide by partial zero?

Re:Partially Zero?

[Opportunist]

Well, it's a bit like fuzzy logic. When a zero is sufficiently large, it's almost as much as a little bit of one.

Re:Partially Zero?

[ePhil_One]

I suspect its invented Marketing for the next step beyond "Ultra Low Emmissions". Maybe emissions are below the point of measurement?

But the article is lame because it doesn't give any of the reasons why these cars may be illegal outside these few states; my understanding is that Californian laws are be definition stricter than US EPA regulations because no matter what, the US EPA regs apply too. Most makers gave up building a special "California Car" ages ago and just make 1 clean model to keep mass market efficiencies. It does hint that these cars cost a premium that is being absorbed by the makers, which is why they might want to restrict sales, but thast not the claim of the article. Keep in mind PZEV has nothing to do w/ economy or CO2, it has to do with byproducts like CO & NO2.

Re:Partially Zero?

[multipartmixed]

> can you divide by partial zero?

Of course you can. That's the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

Re:Partially Zero?

[Kohath]

Yes, but only a little bit.

Re:Partially Zero?

[Tribbin]

"Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle"

You have to take it into context.

It obviously means that part of the car has no emission.

With today's technology they can easily make a car have only emission from the exhaust.

Re:Partially Zero?

[hublan]

and more importantly, can you divide by partial zero? Yes, but you get a semi-infinite. Unless you divide zero by a partial zero, at which point the result is slightly undefined.

Re:Partially Zero?

[I Like Pudding]

Correct. The result of this calculation is either "small infinity", "mostly undefined", or "sort-of-not-a-number", depending on context.

Re:Partially Zero?

[karnal]

Rolls off the road much easier too.

Re:Partially Zero?

[ColdWetDog]

With today's technology they can easily make a car have only emission from the exhaust.

This certainly is an improvement from (especially British) vehicles of yesteryear which emitted oil, gas and water even in the garage.

Progress as promised!

Re:Partially Zero?

[Pseudonym]

The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is that the area under a function between two points is the difference of the antiderivative evaluated at those points.

That's a common misconception. There is no "the" antiderivative of an integrable function. In general, there are many. The Second Fundamental Theorem of Calculus only applies to the continuous antiderivatives.

To see why, consider the function f(x)=(x^4-3x^2+6)/(x^6-5x^4+5x^2+4), and try to compute the definite integral from x=1 to x=2.

g(x)=Arctan((x^3-3x)/(x^2-2)) is an indefinite antiderivative (try taking the derivative if you don't believe me), but it gives the wrong answer because it is discontinuous at x=sqrt(2).

On the other hand, g(x)=Arctan((x^5-3x^3+x)/2)+Arctan(x^3)+Arctan(x) is another indefinite antiderivative, which gives the correct answer.

Re:Partially Zero?

[i_b_don]

wow... i can't believe how fast my eyes glazed over when reading your post.

Thank you for the college lecture flash back... every once in a while I forget about all the negatives of being in college and I only remember positives.

d

Why are they illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

I RTFA and the author fails to tell why it's illegal in most states. Just dangles the fact that it is in front of us.

Folgers?

[MajinBlayze]

Ah, the smell of technology innovation being stifled by stupid legal action in the morning.

Not just that, but many Euro diesels with 80+ mpg

[WillAffleckUW]

One thing to remember is that much of Europe has various cars that have diesel (and bio-diesel) engines that are not licensed for sale in the US.

And even the so-called plug-in hybrids (which I love) that will be sold by GM and Ford etc will be in such short supply that production until 2012 will be so minimal it's unlikely you'll be able to get one.

Don't Get it?

[GoodOmens]

The article seems to contradict itself ... Not only can't you buy one, but the government says it's currently illegal for automakers to sell these green cars outside of the special states. Under terms of the Clean Air Act--in the kind of delicious irony only our government can pull off--anyone (dealer, consumer, automaker) involved in an out-of-bounds PZEV sale could be subject to civil fines of up to $27,500.

then ...

It's not all the fault of the car companies. The crazy quilt of environmental regulations is forcing carmakers to design and build two versions of the same cars. And it costs real money to make a car this green. So in states where there are no regulations to force their hand,automakers don't want to have to boost their prices for the green versions--or to simply eat the extra cost and make less profit.

It DOES sound like the fault of the automaker. If they don't have to sell a cleaner car in other states why should they?

These are hybrid vehicles

[benhocking]

Is it because the popularity of green vehicles is shifting crop production and making food prices go up (motivating the legal discouragement of green vehicles)?

No, the Accord has no impact on crop production as it runs on regular gasoline. It just emits less pollution. As an owner of a hybrid PZEV vehicle (Civic Hybrid) bought in the red state of Virginia, I'm going to call BS on this story. Either the author, Volvo, or both have gotten themselves confused.

Re:These are hybrid vehicles

[PJ1216]

Hybrids != PZEV

While the PZEVs are most likely hybrids, I don't believe all the hybrids on the market are the PZEVs. The Civic Hybrid gives out the roughly the same amount of pollution as a regular car does once it goes to running on gas.

Though, I could be mistaken. I can't remember where I was reading about it, so my head could be playing tricks on me. However, I'm fairly certain the hybrid models available on the market aren't PZEVs. I'm pretty sure some of the Volvo models for 2008 are however biodiesel hybrids (though, it might be regular diesel hybrids), which would make sense for the restriction in terms of shifting crop production.

Um...

[richdun]

So my 2004 Prius has a big sticker on the rear, driver's side window that says "PZEV," indicating that it is a Partial-Zero Emission Vehicle per the standards. Does this article imply that Toyota has been breaking the law selling the Prius around the nation, or are there different versions of the Prius that are "clean" and "cleaner"? It mentions Toyota and the Prius, but doesn't make the connection that the Prius is also a PZEV.

It would be unfair competition

[sheldon]

Just like the beef packer down in Kansas who wanted to test all of their cows for mad-cow disease, so they could be certified to ship beef to Japan. The USDA rightfully shut them down, because it would have been unfair competition, giving these guys a competitive edge over everybody else in the market.

If they let Honda sell near zero emissions automobiles in states where it's not mandated, that might put pressure on everybody else to also make near zero emissions cars, and that's just not fair!

So we should all thank our friends in the Government, for helping ot insure that competition in the marketplace does not create unfair competition.

Sometimes you can't tell spoof from reality. :-)

Re:It would be unfair competition

[pzs]

So you have to maintain a pure capitalist model for health-care even though it's really inefficient, but if you try to do that for cars you get punished? I know cognitive dissonance in government is common, but this is mental.

Does anybody else wonder whether the US government has been taken over by somebody (possibly giant alien lizards) who are deliberately trying to ruin the country? I honestly can't see how they could do a worse job if they tried. It's even more amazing how much congress and the senate sit back and watch them piss all over 50 years of dominating the world, pushing the nox button on the hand-basket heading towards hell.

As a Brit, I feel grateful that our Empire went out in a blaze of glory. Yours is just imploding. My sympathies.

Peter

Re:It would be unfair competition

[kindbud]

Does anybody else wonder whether the US government has been taken over by somebody (possibly giant alien lizards) who are deliberately trying to ruin the country?

The Republican party believes government is incompetent to provide many basic public services and therefore underfunds it and runs it incompetently in order to prove their point.

It's a contradictory sounding term...

[Radon360]

Partial zero emission vehicle means that during some portion of time while the vehicle is operating, it does not produce any emissions. Example: The Toyota Prius is a PZEV because when the engine is off and it is operating on its electric motors, it is operating and not producing any emissions. Note that not all hybrids are PZEVs because with some the engine runs constantly.

PZEV is becoming one of those buzzwords that journalists like to latch onto. It's meant to simplify what is being talked about, but taking a literal interpretation without knowing the background makes it rather confusing and a little misleading, in my opinion.

Speaking of buzzwords, I still giggle a little every time I am behind one of those Honda CRV's with the little decal that says "Real-time 4WD". As if someone wants a 4WD vehicle in which they would have to wait 30 minutes for the front axle to start pulling. "Automatic" would be a more appropriate word, but it doesn't have the buzzword effect that "real-time" does.

Re:It's a contradictory sounding term...

[PJ1216]

PZEV doesn't actually imply at times it gives off zero emissions, it implies that it gives off zero evaporative emissions. So, while it doesn't give off zero emissions, it does give off zero emissions of a specific kind. SULEV is an equivalent term (Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZEV.

Re:It's a contradictory sounding term...

[Albanach]

Partial zero emission vehicle means that during some portion of time while the vehicle is operating, it does not produce any emissions.

I think you might be wrong here. I have a 2.3L Focus outside that has PZEV stickers on it, and I'd hazard a guess that the only time it doesn't produce any emissions is when the engine is turned off.

The PZEV actually means that for some of the many types of emissions normal combustion engines make, these cars have zero emissions. PZEV vehicles have zero evaporative emissions from the fuel system, but PZEV doesn't address things like CO2 emissions. Hence they are partially zero - zero in some areas, not zero in others.

A Prius is an AT-PZEV because it sometimes runs with a standard combustion engine and therefore faces all the normal emissions such an engine would produce. To further enhance its green credentials, Toyota made the combustion engine meet the Californian PZEV standards.

The article itself is a bit misleading. A PZEV vehicle can be sold outside the listed states, it just can't be marketed as such, as this would also mean it offers other things such as an enhanced emissions warranty for 150,000 miles. So my Focus would be a PZEV vehicle if I'd bought it in California. Having bought it elsewhere it has exactly the same engine but without the warranty advantages.

Re:It's a contradictory sounding term...

[rrkap]

Partial zero emission vehicle means that during some portion of time while the vehicle is operating, it does not produce any emissions. Example: The Toyota Prius is a PZEV because when the engine is off and it is operating on its electric motors, it is operating and not producing any emissions. Note that not all hybrids are PZEVs because with some the engine runs constantly.

No, it doesn't. PZEV is a California Air Resources Board designation that means that the vehicle has extra pollution control equipment that allows it to produce very low smog forming emissions and is counted as a partial vehicle toward meeting California's Zero emissions vehicle mandate.

The way that this odd name came about is that in the 1980's (If I remember correctly) California created a regulation that a certain percentage of all vehicles sold in the state would have no smog-forming emissions). Car makers responded by objecting, suing and by building electric vehicles (remember the EV1 of "Who Killed the Electric Car" fame). Unfortunately, because they couldn't come up with battery technology that was good enough to make a competitive car, automakers went to CARB (the Califoria Air Resources Board) and offered to produce conventional vehicles with MUCH better emissions control, which would reduce pollution more than the EV mandate would have at a drastically lower cost. CARB agreed and designated these vehicles PZEV's. Since California, alone among U.S. states has the authority to independantly set emissions standards, which then can be adopted by other states, California terminology spread to other states which follow California regulations, which led to PZEV's in other states.

Re:It's a contradictory sounding term...

[rrkap]

I hate to reply to myself, but I thought I'd also mention that the PZEV designation applies to smog forming emissions only and has nothing to do with greenhouse gas emissions.

Re:It's a contradictory sounding term...

[GreyPoopon]

Real time 4WD is called that because you used to have to stop the car and rotate something on the tires to get the car into 4WD

It's called "locking the hubs". The old versions of this had to be locked manually from outside the vehicle. However, automatic hub locking is widely available now (where you just flip a switch). However, this is probably why realtime 4WD is not called "automatic 4WD" -- they aren't the same thing. Most realtime 4WD systems employ a 4-wheel differential (usually limited slip) that transfers power to other wheels when one or more wheels is slipping). Because it doesn't have locking hubs, the realtime 4WD system avoids the inherent stress placed on tires and transmission that is caused by running 4WD on dry pavement. In other words, the car decides when you need 4WD instead of letting you make the decision. While this is probably a good thing for the mentally challenged drivers who feel "safer" driving around at normal speeds on dry pavement with the 4WD engaged, it doesn't always work out so well for people who need true 4WD. Realtime 4WD is not very good for off-road driving, and systems that employ an open differential will not always engage the 4WD when you would expect them to. I had an experience last year where my realtime 4WD car had trouble getting up a steep snow-covered driveway, and it was really clear from outside the car that the 4WD wasn't engaging.

Stop it.

[Oswald]

Just stop talking about this fucking article. There's a reason nobody can figure out what is going on here, and the reason is shitty reporting. If the idiot writer can't make any more sense than this, ignore him and wait for somebody with a clue to cover the story.

New MSN Autos columnist puts his foot in it

[Yath]

Right, "Green Cars Automakers Won't Sell You". Possibly the most misleading headline you'll see all week.

These vehicles are heavily subsidized by the states where you may sell them, and they're interested in getting their investment back. California lays out wads of cash for some cleaner vehicles, so California wants them driven in California (for example; there are several other states involved). The automakers are not allowed to sell them anywhere else. It's that simple.

If these vehicles were produced without subsidies, they'd be so expensive that no one would buy them. Lawrence Ulrich seems to think that automakers should make a highly expensive clean-burning vehicles on their own and sell them at a loss, perhaps so they can go out of business in two or three years.

At least Slashdot used a non-misleading headline instead. Kudos for that.

Re:New MSN Autos columnist puts his foot in it

[Overzeetop]

Lawrence Ulrich seems to think that automakers should make a highly expensive clean-burning vehicles on their own and sell them at a loss, perhaps so they can go out of business in two or three years. Actually, I believe the US automakers are trying something along those lines, just without the "clean-burning" bit.

Re:Not just that, but many Euro diesels with 80+ m

[Zelos]

Don't forget that diesel is denser, so you can't compare MPG with petrol really. A 50MPG diesel emits more CO2 than a 50MPG petrol car.

very simple reason for it

[netsavior]

California gives automakers huge grants for making CA only cars. The cars are subsidized by the state, so if you sell it in another state you are basically taking tax dollars away from California residents (both in the Car's sale, and in the state's funding of the car manufacturing/R&D).

I am not saying it's right, but it is not 100% rediculious.

Re:very simple reason for it

[Yuan-Lung]

The cars are subsidized by the state, so if you sell it in another state you are basically taking tax dollars away from California residents


Logics like this makes me wonder if the whole world has gone mad or just me.

The R&D is done. The money is gone. Whether the car is sold outside the state or not it wouldn't cost more tax dollars. Instead of setting such stupid prohibiting fines, they really should have just made an agreement to tax each and every out of state sale in a reasonable manner and recover some of that R&D cost back for the tax payers.

Re:very simple reason for it

[hey!]

This logic is very common in government contracting.

It starts from this innocent sounding premise: you can't charge the government more for something than you do the private sector.

Oddly enough, this is why the government pays more for things than the private sector. Private sector purchasers don't think this way. They don't care how much you charge other people, so long as they are paying as little as possible. This means they can buy from anybody, not just vendors who are willing to do the accounting to prove they are charging you the same as everybody else. The government, on the other hand, often finds itself dealing with vendors who specialize in providing things to the government, or provide special versions of products and services that they sell only to the government.

While this case is not exactly parallel, the logic is the same. On the surface, making the sale of these vehicle "fair" to CA consumers would seem to imply making them available at the lowest possible price. It just happens to turn out that "fair" and "as inexpensive as possible" are two somewhat different things. They can't both be the highest priority. So when government money is involved, you don't get the lowest possible price, you get the lowest possible price that is consistent with documentable "fairness".

So, it is probable that in the long term that CA residents pay more for their cars by making sure other states' residents don't "freeload".

Slightly misleading summary

[rabtech]

This is slightly misleading, in that the law only says the vehicles manufactured for special markets must be limited to those special markets (for what byzantine reason I have no idea).

There is nothing preventing the car makers from releasing the same vehicles into all the other markets; they don't because the cars cost a little bit more ($150-$400 according to the article), but still get the same MPG even if the tailpipe emissions are almost nil. They don't believe consumers will pay the premium so they don't bother.

In other words, the manufacturers are free to produce the same exact car but instead of stamping "CALIFORNIA ONLY" on it and being unable to sell it outside that designated market, they can just sell it everywhere with no problem.

You are right!

[WED Fan]

Partially Zero?
What the fuck does that even mean?

You're right, lets not discuss the assinine laws that prevent green vehicles from being sold in all locales. Let's, instead, get picky over a term. That's more important, isn't it?

Re:Hybrids != PZEV

[benhocking]

While the PZEVs are most likely hybrids, I don't believe all the hybrids on the market are the PZEVs. The Civic Hybrid gives out the roughly the same amount of pollution as a regular car does once it goes to running on gas.

There are PZEVs that are not hybrids and hybrids that are not PZEVs. However, the Accord being discussed is a hybrid and PZEV, as is my 2005 Civic Hybrid (per its sticker).

Poorly-written article

[MobyDisk]

This article makes no sense. The writer describes these amazing new super-efficient cars but doesn't say anything about what makes them clean, other than saying that they don't get good gas mileage. Huh? Then he talks about the Toyota Camry Hybrid's 32 mpg as though that was amazing. Then he talks about how these cars can't be sold elsewhere, but doesn't cite the law that says so or give any reason why. There may be a story behind all this, but it isn't in this article.

No Less CO2

[kramer2718]

According to the article:

Well, if you just cut your lawn with a gas mower, congratulations, you just put out more pollution in one hour than these cars do in 2,000 miles of driving.

But also:

The PZEV cars don't get any better mileage than conventional versions.

This is quite telling. If the PZEV cars get the same fuel efficiency as conventional vehicles, then they are consuming the same amount of carbon and putting the same amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.

So how can they be less polluting than a lawn mower? The article must NOT be including CO2 as a pollutant (the same view the Bush administration took of the Clean Air Act). So these vehicles probably emit less sulfur and nitrogen compounds and particulates, but the same amount of CO2.

Re:Zero is absolute

[netsavior]

it is an important distinction because in california people sit in traffic, A LOT. A PZ vehicle that makes and average of X emissions while driving in "normal" conditions as compared to an ultra low emissions vehicle who makes X in normal driving conditions.

now take California's "normal" driving conditions of sitting on the freeway STOPPED for hours. An Ultra low is making it's small amount of emissions sitting there... A PZ is making NOTHING.

It makes perfect sense why california would be crazy about them. A prius makes as much pollution as a camry in Texas, but a prius makes much less than a camry(ulev) in california, because in california, pollution is a function of TIME, not MILES like most other places.

Re:Not just that, but many Euro diesels with 80+ m

[gnasher719]

>> Don't forget that diesel is denser, so you can't compare MPG with petrol really. A 50MPG diesel emits more CO2 than a 50MPG petrol car.

Could be true, but there are many more 50mpg diesels than 50mpg petrol cars. And a 125g/km diesel emits less CO2 than a 150g/km petrol car. And at the same time, the Diesel engine gives you much more power at lower speed (that is, everything up to the speed limit :-)

But waitaminute...

[maillemaker]

Look, if Californians want to state-subsidize cleaner automobiles, that's fine.

But how does letting other people buy the same kind of car in other states hurt their investment? The people of California would /still/ get to buy cleaner cars. And in fact, if other people could buy them, too, maybe the price would go down and California would not have to subsidize them so heavily.

Now I could see California saying they will only pay a subsidy for cars sold IN California, which would mean they would cost more in other states that don't subsidize. But I don't see why they would care.

Total SHENANIGANS on this article.

[Medievalist]

PZEV models are already available from Toyota, Ford, Honda, GM, Subaru, Volvo and VW. They're scrubbed-up versions of familiar models, from the VW Jetta to the Subaru Outback. But chances are, you've never heard of them. Oh, right, because we've never heard of Toyota's PZEV - which is called the "Prius". There's no way you ever heard of THAT car, huh?

The crazy quilt of environmental regulations is forcing carmakers to design and build two versions of the same cars. Look, there are federal laws (which are quite lax since the disembowling of CAFE long ago) and state laws. The state laws that are more strict than federal are generally based on California's laws; California has terrible air quality problems due to geography and population, and therefore has the toughest emissions laws. Car companies have been building "California models" for decades and the difference is typically a bolt-on component or two such as the typical "smog pump" system. There's no crazy quilt, and there's no more difficulty in design than for providing any other option, such as alloy wheels or a tonneau cover.

The PZEV cars don't get any better mileage than conventional versions. Total bull. My 2002 Prius gets around 47 mpg real-world. The same year non-hybrid car (the Toyota Echo - same chassis, conventional motor) gets significantly less mileage.

That last quote's the big bell-ringer. OK, a car that puts out less emissions by turning off the engine part of the time. And you expect me to believe that it gets the same gas mileage? How, by dribbling fuel out on the road through a hose?

Re:Not just that, but many Euro diesels with 80+ m

[QuantumRiff]

Yes, but a 50Mpg diesel is a Volkswagon Jetta, wheras a 50MPG gas car is a old Geo Metro. The diesel has a hell of a lot more power. A better comparison would be to compare the same car... Ie, a 17MPG Jeep liberty with its 3.9L engine, or a 30MPG Jeep liberty 2.4L Diesel (that they only produced for 2 years in limited quantity, when will they bring them back???) There is more CO2 in a gallon of diesel, but in the same car, the diesel will get you almost 2 times as far, so unless it has 2 times the CO2 per gallon (it doesn't) diesel is the better choice. Then you get into the fact that diesel uses much less "refining", so less energy and chemicals to create it. Or the fact that the engines last much longer, and are simpler, so less waste from the cars "wearing out" and getting replaced, etc...

Might be valid

[benhocking]

Or, that might just be a result of our incestuous news cycle. The fact that all stories (taking what you're saying at face value) have no more information than this one, I'm leaning towards "incestuous news cycle".

UK Gallons are larger too

[flyingfsck]

Also bear in mind that UK gallons are much larger than US gallons!

Bullshit

[nightsweat]

California receives back $0.79 for every $1.00 it sends to Washington, making one of the ten biggest net contributors to the federal budget.

Re:Not just that, but many Euro diesels with 80+ m

[Cadallin]

You forgot yet another one: Diesel engines are easier to run off of non-petroleum derived fuels. In fact, they were designed to! The 1900 World's Fair featured a diesel engine running on Peanut Oil! The sturdy construction and glow plugs of diesel engines even today are artifacts of the diesel engine being designed to run on virtually any properly filtered oil of the correct viscosity.

Gov'ts dont want fuel efficient cars

[BanjoBob]

State governments don't want fuel efficient cars. Even some cities and counties are having conniption fits over it. Alternative fuel vehicles and alcohol burners don't pay as much, if any, fuel tax. Governments want that money!! If you start buying less gas, governments get less money. So, while the politicians speak out one side of their face that they're for a greener environment through more fuel efficient cars, better look at those crossed fingers behind their backs. Governments have even gone after people who build their own 100% ethanol vehicles to pay gasoline taxes. In Oregon, for example, they want to start taxing by the mile because of dropping fuel tax revenues. Ah, what a game these pols play with our money.

Re:Not just that, but many Euro diesels with 80+ m

[tcoop25]

The reason why car companies can't sell diesels in the US is because our emissions regulations are a lot more strict. This is why your Jeep Wrangler diesel is no longer produced. I deal mostly with industrial diesel engines, which have a seperate emissions guideline, but diesels will soon be FAR cleaner than gas. In 2011 the air coming out of a diesel engine exhaust pipe will be cleaner than the air outside. This is done with many systems (at serious cost increases to the OEM/customer). There are particulate traps, urea systems, charged air coolers, and more efficient fuel injection that help clean up the exhaust. Currently only one or two of these systems are used to meet emissions standards, but by 2011 (2008 for on-highway?) all of these systems will probably be used. Add low emissions on top of good fuel economy and bio-diesel, and "clean diesels" will be on American roads far sooner than your electric car. -TC

Re:Probably because it's not

[Intron]

http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/title2.html Clean Air Act provides the mentioned penalties for vehicles sold without "a certificate of conformity". So I assume that these vehicles are only legal under California's experimental "pilot test program" and have not been certified. Seeing the actual Volvo memo might answer this, of course.

Re:Imploding? Hardly..

[Jimithing DMB]

If those sites are what you've been reading then it's no wonder you're worried about the U.S. declining. If find the anti-Bush site particularly interesting. There's a lot of good sound bites in there and there's a grain of truth in every one of them but the author is insinuating a number of cause-effect relationships where there is only correlation. Please, let's not forget about reason. Correlation does not prove causation. It's not just something you use when doing science, it's a foundation of any sound reasoning.

I'm not going to go through everything you posted and rebut each one but I can at least cherry pick a few as examples. For instance, "I set an economic record for the most personal bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period." Or how about, "I set all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the stock market. " The government does not control the stock market last I checked although they do regulate it. Let's also not forget that when Bush took office we had a highly inflated stock market due to several investors speculating on companies with no serious business plan. But I'm not going to turn around and blame Clinton for that even though that occurred on his watch. Anyone who puts his money into a company with no sound plan is taking a huge risk. Sometimes it pays off. I find it odd that anyone would hold the government responsible for this at all.

Sayers discussed this quite a bit in her excellent book The Mind of the Maker. Why is it that people look to politicians to solve their problems? That is simply not their job. Their job is to keep the government running as in protect the country from invasion and to allow the people in the country to live their lives with as little interference as possible. That's it. If you haven't read The Mind of the Maker you should. It unfortunately gets shoehorned into the theology category so you may find it over in that section of your local bookstore. You can also find various copies of it online since the copyright has long expired. The online copies all have varied levels of transcription errors.

Anyway, getting back to the point, some of the criticisms of Bush are valid. For instance, "I have created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States, called the "Bureau of Homeland Security " Yeah, he did do that, and I'm not particularly happy about it although I'm not sure that what existed before with various government agencies fulfilling overlapping niches was necessarily better.

Then there's the Olbermann piece. Frankly, I find Olbermann to be as much of a journalist as Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. He's an opinion maker and there's not necessarily anything wrong with that except for that he tries to pass off his opinion pieces as hard news which in my book makes him a hack.

NBC regularly puts Olbermann on the Nightly News identifying him as a reporter. Every segment he does is absolutely loaded with opinion. Again, there's nothing wrong with being an opinionated journalist but please don't pass it off as hard news reporting. It would be like FNC putting O'Reilly or Hannity on the Fox Report. Not that the Fox Report is unbiased but it is intended to be a hard news pure reporting program, not an opinion/entertainment program. I'm very wary of anyone claiming to do a hard news program. It's impossible for any normal human not to have some level of bias. Better to disclose your bias than to try to keep it in the closet. Sooner or later anyone with half a brain can clearly see what's going on.

CA Clean Auto classes (Cleanest to Least Clean)

[jcurran]

From driveclean.ca.gov:

ZEV
Zero Emission Vehicles have zero tailpipe emissions and are 98% cleaner than the average new model year vehicle.

AT PZEV
Advanced Technology PZEVs meet SULEV tailpipe emission standards, have a 15 year / 150,000 mile warranty, have zero evaporative emissions and include advanced technology components. For example, a plug-in hybrid or a compressed natural gas vehicle would qualify in this category.

PZEV
Partial Zero Emission Vehicles meet SULEV tailpipe emission standards, have a 15 year / 150,000 mile warranty and have zero evaporative emissions.

SULEV
Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicles are 90% cleaner than the average new model year vehicle.

ULEV
Ultra Low Emission Vehicles are 50% cleaner than the average new model year vehicle.

LEV
Low Emission Vehicles are the least stringent emission standard for all new cars sold in California in 2004 and beyond.