Let's Talk about the Calgary Police Service

[btimbit]

It can be both.

Emissions testing is an absolute farce but that doesn't mean blatant offenders should get away with it either

[Fuzz]

What is the farce with emissions testing?

[81MC]

Because it forces the hand of small number of people, and does very little at all for everyone else.

If an emissions test is reasonable enough to not be unduly prohibitive, the vast majority of vehicles on the road would pass - a notion supported by BC when they cancelled their AirCare program and Ontario when they stopped testing tailpipe emissions.

In Ontario for example, all they do now is scan for DTCs. That isn’t going to stop anyone ‘Rollin coal’. But it may push someone with a perfectly fine vehicle to send it to scrap and lease a new hunk of #### they can’t afford because they don’t have 3K to fox something that may or may not even be related to excessive emissions. There is a reason ‘cash for clunkers’ programs exist everywhere emissions testing is standard - those who fail are more likely to be in an economic position where $1000 cash and a 20% car loan is easy to accept than a few thousand dollar repair bill. The other group that would fail is the hobby/enthusiast crowd, which I believe has as much right to their activity as anyone else.

According to the EPA, personal transportation accounts for less than 20% of ghg emissions. If the 95% figure is accurate, that’s a remarkably low potential benefit at best. And that’s assuming the vehicle gets repaired, not disposed of.

If you want to improve air quality, look at things that are cheaper to implement, less burdensome on the economically marginalized, and that actually have a real impact.
Let’s start with wood fireplaces, stoves, and camp fires - it’s not even debatable that the emissions from a chimney are FAR worse than any modern vehicle. You’d get a much greater benefit at far less expense by simply banning wood burning within city limits, for example.

[Nufy]

Originally Posted by Locke

Time to refill my headlight fluid I guess.

Don't forget to grease your muffler bearings while you're in there...

[Fuzz]

81MC, while I understand some of your points, you get a little misguided at the end, discussing GHG emissions. I think emissions testing is more concerned with things like particulates and smog causing pollutants than it is CO2. So I still think it's valid to make sure the emissions systems are properly functioning in a vehicle, and all components are in place. I'm not sure that is involved in "rolling coal" but I can't see how that wouldn't be caught in a test.

Your argument is basically that poor people should be able to pollute more. I'm not sure that's a very supportable argument.

As to fires, stoves and camp fires, I can't imagine those make up more than a fraction of the emissions of road vehicles in cities.

[81MC]

The data on the fire vs transportation is extremely hard to qualify. But using what we can find, 39% of Montreal’s air pollution comes from wood burning, only 6% less than ALL transportation. 1/3 of the SF Bays wintertime particulate pollution is due to wood burning.

Now, there’s a solid argument that wood used for heat is more essential than a dope ride, but in the City you are required to have a heat source other than wood anyway.

I understand the idea that poor people shouldn’t have anymore right to pollute. But then the inverse is true. Let’s just say someone rarely drives, so they have an old beater that they put 5000km on a year, but pollutes are twice the rate of allowable. Then you have a family of 6 in a Yukon putting on 20 000km a year, that meets requirements. It’s clear who pollutes more, but who actually has the burden?

I’ll admit, particulate emissions is an insanely complex subject with an awful lot of incomplete data and I am no expert. I believe a societal, holistic approach is needed, and if that includes a well thought out and logical emissions test protocol, so be it. But if we’re looking at things as they are today, I don’t believe slapping emissions testing is an effective measure.

[btimbit]

I'm very against government money grabs

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So I should be OK with choking on smoke, because the person can't afford to keep their vehicle in good running order? Sounds fair.


Oh, right, I should just get off the road, or shut up and deal with it.

Yes. I have modified my vehicle to 'Roll Coal.' No I have not.

And its not even a Diesel. This took a lot of work.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by 81MC

Because it forces the hand of small number of people, and does very little at all for everyone else.

No it doesn't, every vehicle gets the same test and the results are compared against what is allowed by that particular vehicle.

In Ontario for example, all they do now is scan for DTCs.

That's not an emissions test.

According to the EPA, personal transportation accounts for less than 20% of ghg emissions.

Where did you get that number? The EPA here says 28% but doesn't break it down beyond "transportation". Even if it is 20% that's a big slice of the pie.

If you want to improve air quality, look at things that are cheaper to implement, less burdensome on the economically marginalized, and that actually have a real impact.

Word salad, pass the dressing.

Let’s start with wood fireplaces, stoves, and camp fires - it’s not even debatable that the emissions from a chimney are FAR worse than any modern vehicle. You’d get a much greater benefit at far less expense by simply banning wood burning within city limits, for example.

Maybe, got any numbers to back this up?

[81MC]

Originally Posted by zamler

No it doesn't, every vehicle gets the same test and the results are compared against what is allowed by that particular vehicle.


That's not an emissions test.

Where did you get that number? The EPA here says 28% but doesn't break it down beyond "transportation". Even if it is 20% that's a big slice of the pie.

Word salad, pass the dressing.

Maybe, got any numbers to back this up?

1. Exactly? The places that were doing tailpipe emissions testing have stopped, even the Sierra club supports that it is unnecessary.

2. Literally scroll down on your link.

3. Pretty sure I provided some numbers for you, but think about it:
5% of vehicles out of order. Keep it simple and assume the vehicles are twice as bad as allowed and would be repaired to within normal range. That’s something around .8% total emissions increase? Given test results are usually a pass/fail, I don’t think we’d ever see the numbers from AirCare on the extent of failure.

According to the Globe and Mail “ Assume that these wood stove-car comparisons are accurate. Assume a wood-heating season of 150 days. In this case, using Environment Canada numbers, a conventional wood stove would emit as much particulate matter (PM10) in a year as car driven 7,200,000 kilometres (400 nine-hour units of time x 18,000).”

I’ll leave you break that out however you see fit.

[Fuzz]

Do people in cities burn wood to heat their homes for 150 days a year?


Maybe rural locations, but that's kind of irrelevant to the discussion.

[81MC]

Irrelevant?
My assertion was questioned, I provided examples, and it was questioned again. So there’s the actual numbers, the math is literally right there.

Particularly since you brought up the particulates, which is exactly whats measured regarding wood burning.

If you’ve sat around a fire for 9 hours, you’ve witnessed particulate pollution roughly equivalent to an average car for an entire year.

I’ve provided data which supports my position. If you wish to believe that emissions testing would meaningfully reduce air pollution, feel free to provide some sort of evidence to support it.

But given that the most environmentally restrictive part of the country has decided it not meaningful enough, Good luck.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by 81MC

Irrelevant?
My assertion was questioned, I provided examples, and it was questioned again. So there’s the actual numbers, the math is literally right there.

Particularly since you brought up the particulates, which is exactly whats measured regarding wood burning.

If you’ve sat around a fire for 9 hours, you’ve witnessed particulate pollution roughly equivalent to an average car for an entire year.

I’ve provided data which supports my position. If you wish to believe that emissions testing would meaningfully reduce air pollution, feel free to provide some sort of evidence to support it.

But given that the most environmentally restrictive part of the country has decided it not meaningful enough, Good luck.

It would probably have an impact on Nox emmissions. Somewhere around half of Nox emissions are car and trucks.

[Lumby Lager]

I could not find this posted on here yet.

Really disturbing.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...ideo-1.5777524

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Lumby Lager

I could not find this posted on here yet.

Really disturbing.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...ideo-1.5777524

It’s absolutely disgusting.

[the_only_turek_fan]

You can tell he knew he crossed the line as soon as he did it.

[Oling_Roachinen]

As disgusting as it is, and as a self-admitted hater of the CPS for the most part, let's also recognize and commend the bravery of Staff Sgt. Gordon Macdonald. It's not very often you have CPS members speaking out against their own.

It sucks that this happened, but it's nice to see the mythical good apple for once.

[activeStick]

Absolutely zero reason for the disgusting cop to do that to a restrained person. The poor girl. Don't like to see people lose their livelihoods but I hope he gets fired, charged and spends time in jail. Power tripping should have consequences.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

As disgusting as it is, and as a self-admitted hater of the CPS for the most part, let's also recognize and commend the bravery of Staff Sgt. Gordon Macdonald. It's not very often you have CPS members speaking out against their own.

It sucks that this happened, but it's nice to see the mythical good apple for once.

Why is it even seen this way? Speaking the truth should not be some egregious action, and it's not speaking out against all officers it is telling the truth about one.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by zamler

Why is it even seen this way? Speaking the truth should not be some egregious action, and it's not speaking out against all officers it is telling the truth about one.

Whenever talking about defunding the police is brought up, someone ultimately says "not all cops are bad", and what you've said is pretty much the defacto response to that: the rot within policing organizations is systemic and it's not just sh-tbags like Const. Dunn that are the problem, but the 'good cops' that cover for them. It would be less of a problem if officers were willing to call out their own, as Staff Sgt. Gordon Macdonald has.