Steve,
Before I responded, I
needed some time to “cool off”. I know you
attended the Pasadena meet and appreciate that
you were able to bring your 300F. I was so busy
I didn’t get a chance to chat with you so that
we could get to know each other better as club
members, not just people on the list server. I
see in the roster that you have a C, F, H (2) an
L and a Hurst. Knowing that you have that many
Letter Cars, reassures me that you really are an
enthusiast, and do love vintage Chryslers and
probably other makes as well. I must admit for
a while I thought you could be an “operative”
from CARB, pretending to be passionate of our
cars while seeking to promote the CARB agenda
from within. After several days of
contemplative thought I don’t feel that way
anymore, even though it seems we have to agree
to disagree on the climate change issue.
Based on what I’ve
read, the “97%” of scientists that say there is
a “climate emergency” are a relatively small
group that have been funded to seek a certain
outcome. Recent excellent books like PHD writer
Steven Koonin’s “Unsettled:
What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't,
and Why It Matters” provides a reasonable,
rational opinion that, yes, there is climate
change, but no, it is not an existential
threat. From a review:
“Koonin also tackles
society's response to a changing climate,
using data-driven analysis to explain why many
proposed "solutions" would be ineffective, and
discussing how alternatives like adaptation
and, if necessary, geoengineering will ensure
humanity continues to prosper. Unsettled is a
reality check buoyed by hope, offering the
truth about climate science that you aren't
getting elsewhere - what we know, what we
don't, and what it all means for our future.”
I think it is very
telling how “climate change” has gotten to be a
political issue rather than a factual concern.
Just what “facts” are there really? The climate
has been changing for 4.5 billion years and will
continue to do so. It is largely controlled but
the sun and axial tilt of the planet. Carbon
dioxide is necessary for plants to grow, and
there is science that supports more carbon
dioxide will benefit food production by
increasing plant growth.
By now you’re thinking,
who does this guy think he is? He’s no climate
scientist, he has no degree in that field.
You’re right, I don’t, but I do read a lot, and
I am not taken with “doom and gloom” dogma that
is politically motivated to control our day to
day life and seeks to strip us of freedoms we
enjoy. I understand that you work for an
organization that is very political, and you
have to “talk the talk” and “walk the walk”.
That’s fine except when it becomes over done and
based on “science” that is unsettled and
probably never will be because there will always
be weather changes and varying global
temperatures that mankind will never be able to
control.
I am taking the time to
write this because you are a Club member and I
value your friendship as I do all members of our
fine club. I only ask that you respect my
opinions, and I will respect your opinions and
ask that you, as a vintage car enthusiast, do
what you can to seek out a reasonable compromise
that allows us to continue to enjoy and drive
our vintage vehicles. Keep in mind that our
hobby contributes a great deal to local
economies at car shows, raises funds for good
causes, preserves history, brings people from
all races and backgrounds together, provides
jobs, and for many of us, a hobby that gets us
through difficult times in our lives and
contributes to our fulfillment of life. Please
use your position at CARB to help us continue to
enjoy and drive our cars.
300ly,
Bob Jasinski
Danville, CA
300G convertible
owner since January 1978
Bob, in our
current society, there is a lot of hate going
around in this country in general towards
government - some folks seem to genuinely
"hate" Republicans and some "hate" Democrats
relative to their efforts going forward and
there is plenty of animosity to go around, the
extent of which I have never seen before in my
76 years on this planet. Some folks just seem
to detest (if you prefer) government
regulations in general and others try to
understand the intent of regulations such as
those being implemented to deal with what
scientists call global warming, which is the
heart of why California government is trying
to limit ever increasing amounts of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere that acts like a
warming blanket (a molecule of CO2 in the
upper atmosphere takes approximately 100 years
before it dissociates into oxygen and carbon)
. When setting smog limiting standards for
automobiles, the Air Resources Board embarked
on a program to limit emissions of
hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides that react in
sunlight to produce so-called "smog" in the
atmosphere. Many folks "hated" those
regulations as well because in the early
stages of implementation there were problems
with driveability and performance that were
serious but with continued development those
efforts succeeded and eliminated our serious
pollution events. So it is again with the
so-called "climate change" measures that are
being implemented to deal with excessive
temperatures both hot and cold going forward.
Vehicles that consume gasoline and other
carbon based fuels will increase atmospheric
levels of carbon dioxide according to
scientists and if we do not do our best to
curb such pollution then the future looks
bleak for this planet according to those who
have spent their lives as atmospheric
scientists.
Thus
California via the Air Resources Board is
spearheading efforts to curb CO2 emissions
through use of renewable energy and once
again this State is moving ahead of most
other states in making this happen because
the effects of climate change show up in
this State more vividly than in other states
with more extremes in temperatures here.
Yes, at this point I believe by 2035 our
state will no longer permit the sale of NEW
vehicles that run on carbon based fuels -
vehicles that are already on the road can
still be used and they can still be
sold/traded as used vehicles (to address
John's concerns). New Vehicle manufacturers
already see what the future will bring and
nearly all of them have already decided that
before 2035 they will no longer produce such
vehicles anyway because EVs have a lot of
advantages over current gasoline/diesel
vehicles such as reduced maintenance, less
expensive to refuel,less expensive to build
and many more. Battery life and recharging
times are rapidly improving at this moment
and such advances as solid state batteries
will substantially reduce the cost and
improve the performance of vehicles going
forward and they will likely last the life
of the vehicle. These battery improvements
are happening rapidly based on claims by
such companies as Toyota, Tesla and most
others as well.
Above it was
suggested that Jay Leno is important to
older vehicle owners such as the Chrysler
300 owners in our club to allow our cars to
be operated going forward and a reduced need
to get them off the road. During the unveil
of the future Dodge Chargers and Challengers
that will also be going all-electric, he
made the comment that he embraced the future
battery electric vehicles that will likely
be the norm (some might be fuel cells, etc)
because with each new such vehicle being
introduced, their elimination of carbon
emissions reduces the need to get the older
classic vehicles off the road and that
should give classic vehicles owners a sigh
of relief going forward - and I share his
view.
I was not
implying that our Club members show "hate"
towards one another or folks in general or
anything like that (in fact, based on
attendance at a couple of our many car
shows/events around the country each year,
this group of individuals are among the
nicest people I have ever met) but many
folks in this country do seem to detest (if
you prefer) any new government regulations
being developed to make our older cars less
of a problem in society going forward.
Rather, I share the view of Jay Leno that
the introduction of advanced new cars
actually helps preserve our ability to keep
driving our older vehicles rather than them
becoming "garage queens".
In closing,
I will just add that I would estimate that
perhaps 20% of Air Resources Board employees
are old car enthusiasts and share our hobby
(I mentioned once before that their former
Executive Officer (recently retired) owns a
1969 Plymouth Road Runner, for example).
These "puff pieces" of "news" such as the
one here from the "Daily Caller" just serve
to enhance their readership and can be very
misleading but do generate a lot of emotion
that is unnecessary.
Steve,
With all
due respect, your use of the word
“hate” about members of this Club
sharing concerns of government
intrusion is misplaced and
inaccurate. The article I posted is
a warning to Club members that our
right to pursuit of happiness is
being seriously threatened. We are
all car people here. Yes, the
future holds promise for new
technologies, electric cars etc.,
but that is not the reason we are in
this club and on this forum. From
our Constitution:
“The Club
exists to collect and publish
information on these vehicles, to
encourage enjoyment of these
vehicles, and to hold meetings and
events to further benefit these
vehicles.”
I live in
California and I deal with the
challenges of one sided politics
here. Vicki and I have deep roots
that are not easily severed so as to
provide an easy exit from the
state. Where there is smoke, there
is fire. Like the canary in the
coalmine, or the frog in the hot
water feeling the heat before it
kills him, this forum provides a
means of sharing with fellow members
that our enjoyment of these vehicles
is being seriously threatened. What
happens in California has a way of
traveling eastward, good and bad.
I very much
appreciate your input and contacts
you have with CARB members. Sharing
information gleaned from your phone
conversations with CARB members is
appreciated, but I live by the adage
“trust but verify”. If you choose
to call that “hate speech” that is
your right. It does not however,
alleviate my concerns, or verify my
trust that the ability to use,
operate and enjoy the use of my 300G
as more than a static display is not
threatened.
300LY,
Bob
Jasinski
Danville,
CA
Bob
Jasinski
331 La
Questa Dr.
Danville,
CA 94526
925-831-9727
home
925-366-0035
cell
"I
strongly doubt that any specific
vehicle technology will be banned
in the market,....."
To
my knowledge John, the
performance vehicles you have
highlighted have not been
outlawed. Yes, the California
ARB is promoting a movement to
more climate friendly vehicles
through the use of renewable
fuels such as electric vehicles
with a goal of electricity
production from wide scale use
of mostly renewable energy in
the future. Renewable
energy mostly means reliance on
increased solar and windmill
based technologies with other
such means being available in
the more distant future more
than likely such as fuel cells
powered by hydrogen that many
manufacturers are pursuing for
the more distant future.
Gasoline vehicles didn't replace
the horse and buggy all at once
either - it took time.
Also
the performance vehicles you
highlight will be eclipsed in
the not too distant future
because incredible performance
is much more easily achieved
by EVs with one or more
electric motors that deliver
performance that is
unbelievable if you have ever
experienced it such as in the
Tesla model S Plaids. New
battery technologies are being
worked on at present such as
solid state ones that will be
much cheaper, durable and more
quickly charged as technology
improves. I strongly doubt
that any specific vehicle
technology will be banned in
the market, rather improvement
in propulsion sources will
over time obsolete them
instead as happened at the
last turn of the century.
Thanks Nick for your balanced reply - I
did just get off the
phone with my contacts
at the Air Resources
Board and the purpose
of the study remains
the same - to get a
better idea of the
contribution of older
cars to the overall
air quality in this
state and to possibly
take more of the older
vehicles out of our
Smog Check program as
the State has done in
the past. Many Smog
Check stations in the
state are also
getting out of the
dynamometer emission
testing business and
will now only test
cars with OBD II
systems that are model
year 2000 and later
and are all equipped
with OBD II. All cars
built before 2000
model year with or
without OBDII still
have to pass a
dynamometer test, and
those owners are now
having a harder time
to even find a station
that will do the
testing. Those
stations don't want
the hassle of keeping
their dynamometers
well maintained and
the emission
measurement equipment
also maintained which
means using
calibration gasses
that are up to
date and their
emission analyzers
also well maintained.
They make much more
money on 2000 and
newer vehicles where
all they need is to
check the OBD II
system for faults and
if there are none,
they pass and make a
$50 or higher profit
in just a couple of
minutes with no
dynamometer emission
related use at all in
their shops anymore.
The other input I received from the
person I talked
with that is
higher up in the
organization is
that decisions to
implement "No
Drive" zones are
typically made by
cities themselves,
not the Air
Resources Board
and that many
times even those
decisions might
well be targeted
at reducing
traffic congestion
in those zones -
for example, the
city of Santa
Monica was
considering such a
restriction to
reduce the traffic
congestion there
when beach goers
and diners at
restaurants on the
ocean piers are
big draws to that
city but such a
restriction was
never
implemented.
Yes, the ARB was the leader in
implementing ever
increasing improvements in tailpipe emissions from new cars and was able
to take that lead
because under
President Reagan,
there was a carve
out in vehicle
emissions for
newer vehicles in
California to
adopt stricter
emission standards
than the other
states because of
their much more
polluted cities
than the rest of
the nation -
usually the
Federal EPA
adopted California
tailpipe emissions
standards about 4
years after
California led the
way. The air in
California has
been very clean
such that
complaints about
smog are virtually
non-existent
for years now.
The ARB technical
staff was
comprised of top
notch engineers
that came from the
top colleges in
the nation and
also with ex-auto
industry engineers
as well. The
technology present
on today's most
modern vehicles
has their
fingerprints all
over them.
What is it about the Dodge Charger and
Challenger
Hellcats, for
example, that you
find so terrible
wherein the
precise fuel
control, good
efficiency (in
terms of miles per
gallon) for the
power they put out
don't you like???
And given these
relatively
sophisticated
technologies now
in use that
perform so well
also are very
clean in terms of
tailpipe emissions
and relatively
easy to diagnose
with the help of
OBDII and
standardized
vehicle connectors
that help
technicians to
diagnose any
problems within
those vehicles.
OBD II was
invented by the
ARB alone with no
input from EPA and
that was not an
easy job since the
auto industry
fought like Hell
to not allow it to
be implemented but
ultimately lost.
The auto industry
hated that
regulation because
in order to keep
the check engine
lights off and not
turn customers
away, they had to
make more durable
cars and that cost
them some money.
But now we have
many vehicles that
can go 200K miles
before being
retired and not
100K as was the
norm. What is so
evil about that?
I find all this hate misplaced towards
that agency since
their leadership
and grasp of
engineering
technology and
staff that used
the same modeling
sources that the
auto industry
sources used
themselves to
develop precise
models of
engineering
improvements
before developing
and implementing
them and setting
new vehicle
requirements for
both emissions and
powertrain
efficiency and
performance.that
owners would
appreciate as
well.
Personally, it seems folks these days
find it easy to
hate rather than
rationalize and
study the real
facts before
making their minds
up about matters
based on
misleading or
false information
that seems to be
thrown at us non
stop these days.
Don't panic!
CARB does these studies from time to time
and each time
they find that
collector cars
contribute so
little to
pollution in the
state that no
action is
necessary. This
is totally
separate from
having emission
free zones in
cities.
They are actually planning to roll back
the biennial
emissions
testing for
older vehicles.
Currently
vehicles that
are 1975 and
older are not
subject to the
smog testing.
That will change
to a newer year.
At one point it
was supposed to
automatically
change each
year.
The difference this year with the CARB
study is that
social media has
turned this into
a freak out
session through
the classic car
community,
encouraging
owners not to
respond to the
study. They know
how many classic
cars are
registered in
the state, if
you don't tell
them how many
miles you drive
them, they can,
and will, assume
that you are
driving them
more than you
are.
--
For archives go to
http://www.forwardlook.net/300-archive/search.htm#querylang
---
You received this
message because you
are subscribed to
the Google Groups
"Chrysler 300 Club
International"
group.
To unsubscribe from
this group and stop
receiving emails
from it, send an
email to
chrysler-300-club-international+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To view this
discussion on the
web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/chrysler-300-club-international/CA%2BjApFNG2G6sjnpzohhhtFezkcpKt3wKwe0z_mTH53Q8sKU9Nw%40mail.gmail.com.
--
For archives go to
http://www.forwardlook.net/300-archive/search.htm#querylang
---
You received this
message because you are
subscribed to the Google
Groups "Chrysler 300
Club International"
group.
To unsubscribe from this
group and stop receiving
emails from it, send an
email to
chrysler-300-club-international+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To view this discussion
on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/chrysler-300-club-international/CAMrBHo%2Bt3DOzR1x%3DjDMjfvuBYw7e9r11PTwybTNffyBbf9qEFw%40mail.gmail.com.
--
While
I agree with
all the great
things you
said about
OBDII and the
technology in
the modern Gen
III Hemi
equipped
modern cars
that make
clean power
with good
mileage
and little
polution, it
still didn't
stop the
bureaucrats
from outlawing
these
wonderful ICE
products.
--
For archives go to
http://www.forwardlook.net/300-archive/search.htm#querylang
---
You received this message because
you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Chrysler 300 Club
International" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and
stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to
chrysler-300-club-international+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To view this discussion on the web
visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/chrysler-300-club-international/CAMrBHoJ9A81N5LBEzFoaU-RQKxmKN7z4PxyoSyxiO0Surc2BoA%40mail.gmail.com.
--
For archives go to
http://www.forwardlook.net/300-archive/search.htm#querylang
---
You received this message because you
are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Chrysler 300 Club International"
group.
To unsubscribe from this group and
stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to
chrysler-300-club-international+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To view this discussion on the web
visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/chrysler-300-club-international/CAGQfsuHFA3eBx-0RjryTtKzFAnByimGhT_0t46mzaeV-hvZVCA%40mail.gmail.com.
--
For archives go to
http://www.forwardlook.net/300-archive/search.htm#querylang
---
You received this message because you are
subscribed to the Google Groups "Chrysler 300
Club International" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop
receiving emails from it, send an email to
chrysler-300-club-international+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/chrysler-300-club-international/CAMrBHoLrqcjQOkidGXXX%2Bnc2hSNukbhOY%3D3YMvOUv3ZFUDAHvw%40mail.gmail.com.
