Rant about environment, and environmentalism

Image via Wikipedia

When it comes to global warming, I'm somewhat ambivalent. I believe that it does exist, but I don't believe it's as severe as some people seems to think it is. And legislating changes *would* kill some business.

Just take the bus charter business for a while... CA already have one of the most stringent smog and particular emission standards. Smog for cars, particulate for diesels. However, CARB is considering forcing all diesel trucks and buses to convert to "clean diesel" in a few years.

Do you know how much a conversion is? I've checked. A particulate filter, "ballpark figure", is $12000 plus maintenance fees. Those filters needs periodic "cleaning".

Or I can buy a bus already equipped with such an engine, except this technology only came out in 2006, and since then CAT has gotten out of motorcoach engine business. And a new coach is 350,000 dollars. Yes, 350000. They haven't been on the market that long for used coaches to be discounted much.

Which brings me to the complaint about environmentalists... They are very active... as long as it doesn't cost them personally. While I agree it's nice to save the environment, have they consider the cost to the people? Especially in THIS economy? Sure it doesn't cost the people directly, but if it cost businesses money, and businesses have to get the money from either employees or the public.

Take the bus charter business for example... do you have any idea what I have to do when "clean diesel" are required "by law"?

I'll have to sell at least two of my buses in order to retrofit the rest with the filters. That means at least three (more like 5, my buses are old and aren't worth much) of my drivers will be laid off, and my business will SHRINK, which means LESS taxes for the government. Right?

But you're saying "but we're saving the planet!" Sorry, I don't buy that. Not when the times are bad. Especially not when the times are bad. When times are bad, government should not tax. Government should SPEND, and hope the dollars spend goes into people's pockets, which then encourages further spending, thus creating demand and jobs.

Sure requiring something increases demand... But not when retrofits are required. Airbags are now required, but that stuff is BUILT INTO CARS, and there are no rules to require older cars to be retrofitted with airbags that don't have them.

No, the problem is the spending plan. Such spending should be done in GOOD TIMES, and there should be plenty of incentives to encourage people to go along. Something like the hybrid or clean air car rebates. Except in nice and BIG amounts to companies. Heck, you're giving $2K to $4K tax credits to hybrids. Why NOT $10K to $20K tax credit toward clean diesel retrofits or new clean diesel purchases? A new hybrid is like what? $25K to $35K? (The new Honda Insight is $20K base, about $25K in CA trim w/ options and add sales tax and reg) Perfectly reasonable when a new bus is 300K to 350K (about 10 times cost of a vehicle). And we carry a lot more people than those equivalent cars.

I'll gladly help the environment if the conversion is free or low cost. But asking me to spend $12000 on each of my six buses is simply out of the question. Environment be ****ed (sorry for the blasphemy). A few thousand (say, maybe THREE) can be discussed. But TWELVE? Gimme a break.

Personally, I'd say the budget office should determine if the year is a "good" year, or a "bad" year. In a "good" year, part of the tax income should be dumped to a reserve fund. When year is bad, you pull frm the reserve fund. When reserve fund exceeds a certain number, you pull the excess and use it on "bonus" programs like this sort of incentives.

Forcing people to spend is a good way to get them to do something else instead. You need to ENTICE them instead. Remember, carrot AND a stick.

Why are there no seatbelts in buses

So why aren't there seatbelts in US motorcoaches?

There are no seatbelts in US buses because it was not required by US Department of Transportation, for several reasons:

* USDOT, and its sister organization, FMCSA, have concluded that seatbelts do not significantly add safety for the cost they incur. Seatbelts are basically only useful to prevent ejections, which only occurs in overturn/rollovers. Statistics for past 10 years show that rollovers occur roughly 29% of motorcoach crashes that is tracked by FMCSA, and only 50 fatatalies in the past 10 years (as of 2006) due to ejection, and the potential cost of retrofitting seatbelts to buses is in the BILLIONS. The money is better spend elsewhere, such as reduce greenhouse gases and so on.

* Ejection can be prevented by designing better window latches and roof exit latches as well. Remember, there can be up to 61 seats (more if you're dealing with double-decks, articulated buses, and so on) and that's 122 more pieces that needs to be checked daily. For windows and exits, there are just a few on a bus. And no one has yet to design a seatbelt that fits a baby all the way up to a 300+ pound human.

* Buses, esp. motorcoaches with the luggage space under the seats, are high enough off the ground that only impact with a fixed object or vehicle of similar size (big rig, another bus, etc.) would affect the passenger cabin.

* Fire is more of a danger to buses, esp. when those onboard are seniors. In 2005, a bus carrying Katrina refugees caught fire when rear brakes locked. The ensuing fire generated thick black smoke that killed several evacuated seniors from a nursing home despite the best efforts of onlookers and the driver to fight the fire and evacuate the passengers. If there are seatbelts, one can only imagine even WORSE confusion.

While both Europe and Australia have seatbelt requirements, they differ somewhat, and so far USDOT shows no plan to adopt either standard. They believe better window glazing and locking mechanism is more likely to prevent ejection of passengers in case of rollover.

USDOT is also looking forward to recommend roll stability control computers in all larger vehicles, but that is still in study phases.

Drivers are supposed to remember that their vehicle does not turn on a dime, and hitting things doesn't always hurt the bus a lot, and preventing rollovers is more important than avoiding collisions.