Money Better Spent

By Clayton Kern

Just about everyone drives a vehicle nowadays, and unfortunately most are powered by a polluting substance known as gasoline. The results of the combustion of gasoline are very dangerous pollutants mainly CO, hydrocarbons, and NO_X. Is it right to force us to pay to have the emissions coming from our vehicles to be tested and policed?

All vehicles release emissions, which again consist mainly of CO, Hydrocarbons, and NO_X. All of these chemicals are very bad for the environment. CO reacts with ozone, hydrocarbons are poisonous substances, and NO_X reacts with water to create Nitric acid, aka. Acid rain. To prevent all these nasties from polluting our earth, modern day automobile companies have installed various pollution preventative equipment in our vehicles. This consists mainly of the catalytic converter, and other equipment electronic equipment.

The catalytic converter is basically just a catalyst that speeds up the chemical reactions of the exhaust emissions resulting in much less dangerous chemicals, including H₂O, CO₂, and N₂. There are many other pollution preventative measures installed on a modern vehicle but they are all very complicated. The most important one is the catalytic converter.

The EPA issued a “suggestion” to all states requiring that they enact their own emissions inspection and maintenance (I/M) program as soon as possible or the feds will do it for them. So far 33 states and the District of Columbia have enacted some type of vehicle emissions program. This includes my state of Pennsylvania which began with the 2005 inspection cycle. I will focus primarily on the current laws of Pennsylvania.

The first thing I find confusing with the emissions testing is that the purpose of emissions testing in the first place is to check that a vehicles emission reduction equipment is in place and working properly, even when working properly vehicles still a emit a number of harmful pollutants, and still don’t fix the problem of using gasoline, an incredibly bad pollutant. Emission testing costs on average in my county about $40 a test. If they did away with emissions testing and collected $20 per vehicle to help set up a renewable resource fuel such as alcohol or hydrogen, this not only would make more sense, but also would invest in our future when we run out of oil eventually. Ethanol combustion yields only H₂O, and CO₂, is a renewable resource, and instead of funding terrorism, we are funding our own farmers, hence improving our economy. This makes so much more sense then to pay $40 to have someone look and see if my car has a catalytic converter.

There are many various ways of getting around emissions testing, and many reasons why someone would want to. Emission reduction equipment generally lowers fuel economy, horsepower, torque, and sound. When I put my Camaro together I did not put any of the standard emissions reducing equipment on because, firstly a new catalytic converter costs well over a $100, secondly it reduces my horsepower, and mileage drastically, and it reduces that nice deep rumble you expect from a muscle car. I can still get my Camaro inspected because I drive it less than 5000 miles a year. There are many other ways to get around inspection, they sell dummy (fake) catalytic converters for about $20,and many mechanics will take $10 under the table and pass you.

The only vehicles currently being tested in Pennsylvania are gasoline powered ones, the reason being because they know that all diesel powered vehicles would never pass any test administered. Diesel fuel is by far the most polluting of all vehicle fuels, and is probably used just as much or more, compared to gasoline. If you consider how many diesel “big rigs” you see on the highway, and how many miles they drive, they probably contribute to a large percentage of the airborne pollutants. One reason they don’t inspect diesel vehicles is because the majority of them are commercial and they don’t want to anger any businesses or they would be more likely to leave the state.

I believe that emissions inspections are just another shot in the dark from the government to control our lives and make us believe they are trying to improve the environment. Yes, in the short-term this might make a small difference in the airborne pollutants, but the truth of the matter is we need to stop being dependant on oil in general. I don’t think hydrogen is the answer either because currently the only viable source of hydrogen involves the burning of fossil fuels as well. I believe ethanol is the answer. Ethanol, is renewable, produces non-harmful emissions, and funds our countries farmers. It has been used in Brazil for several years now and has proven itself time and time again. A gasoline vehicle only has to undergo a few non-costly adjustments to become ethanol compatible. The biggest problem is getting ethanol available to the public; instead of emissions testing they should spend the money helping to make ethanol a more widely known, accepted and available fuel.