When the Environment meets the Poor

The Poor lose.

I live in Chicago. Vehicle emissions testing is required. Sounds good, right? Well, maybe. The fundamental problem with vehicle emissions testing (as it exists here, anyway) is that it is biased against the poor. Environmentally friendly often means more expensive. Hybrids: more expensive. New vehicles: more expensive. Catalytic converters are one of the more expensive pieces of a car (in part because they require platinum and maybe rhodium, even though it's only a little). This is extended to most environmental protection tech. Solar cells are pricy. Fuel cells are too. Though there is hope that, at an unidentifyable point in the future, those will be affordable. Now they are expensive.

I don't want smog. I don't want to breathe pollutants and carcinogens when I'm in the city. I get enough of that in the lab. I also wouldn't want to tell someone with a $1000 1988 Pontiac POS that they need to clean up their emission--the cost of which could easily be greater than the value of the car--or get a car that is cleaner (i.e. newer). It is not fair, it is not right. People that draft the legislation that mandates that my 15 year old SHO with 154k miles on it must meet some set of emissions criteria, don't drive 15 year old vehicles with 150k miles on them. The legislation also doesn't--and, really, can't--take into account how much someone drives. Someone with a "clean" vehichle that commutes at least 30 min to work in rush hour, and goes out for dinner/entertainment/whatever (drives) often contributes far more pollution than I do (maybe 2 hr driving/month, biking to work, taking the el, walking), with the possible exception that they drive a hybrid.

The testing is also biased against vehicles without OBD (on-board diagnostics) because they actually measure by blowing air over the engine/undercarridge and collecting at the back (at the exhaust, but also other air that is blown back), and you know what gets measured by that testing that OBD won't pick up? Splatter. If I kick oil, grease, even mud up onto the underside of my car near a hot spot (muffler, catalytic converter, ...), if oil is spilled on the engine block, if old tubing is starting to breakdown, then some of that will burn off and be detected. That will increase hydrocarbon measurements. That is not checked for with OBD. The entire of the testing is biased against older cars and poorer citizens.

Protecting the environment is a noble goal, and one which I support, but any legislaiton drafted should protect those who cannot afford to comply--I like by taxing the rich, but hey, whatever. Cars are pretty much a necessity in all but a few cities in this nation (and even in those cities, they are still a necessity for many). I would love to drive a hybrid. I cannot afford one. In the end I am going to have to increase my debt, either by spending the money on repair, or by purchasing a new(er) car, because I cannot afford either. In the end, the way the law works is unjust and immoral. It'd be nice to think that it will do some good, but even that's not really likely.