Jump to content

Talk:California Air Resources Board

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 2007

[edit]

:::Suggest someone go in and try to clean up this article. It appears weasels have gone in and made edits or changes without any citations or mention of factual documents where they received the data. Please see the "controversy" section. 24.251.84.221 08:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about Which other states have adopted these standards?

[edit]

It would appear that the CARB are monitoring this article and continually removing the "controversy" section. 11 May 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.8.36 (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which other states have adopted these standards? For great justice. 17:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the contributor of the above question, For great justice. has been indefinitely blocked from participating in Wikipedia. - mbeychok 18:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ANSWER: No other state has. Nor does any other state have "regional" air districts (independently in charge of issuing Federal Title V pollution permits, the regulation and enforcement thereof; the adoption, alteration and deletion of rules and regulations.) Oversight by CARB and/or CalEPA is nonexistent. This is a very uncommon design for important pollution prevention controls and should be analyzed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coiltesla3 (talk • contribs)
It should be noted that the contributor of the above ANSWER failed to provide a signature. - mbeychok 18:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, is there anything incorrect about the statement? BMan1113VR 06:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not judging the statement nor judging whether or not it violates Wikipedia's NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) policy. I simply pointed out the fact that the responder failed to sign his/her name. You are free to read whatever you wish into that fact. - mbeychok
Arizona has a region that is smog controlled: Maricopa county. The rest of the state isn't. However, this doesn't change the fact that its the federal EPA that sets all the rules - what's unique about California is that the state is allowed to make its own rules, including in the past, allowing some vehicles to pollute more rather than less - diesel trucks, in the 1990s, for example were not smog checked at all in California, while in Maricopa county all vehicles that moved were checked to make sure they were in working order. Zaphraud (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Save the air day

[edit]

Is it the CARB that declares "save the air day", or is that a county thing? If it is, some mention of STADs would be a nice addition here. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Spare the Air program. -- Beland (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same g/km (European Union) of g/mi (California)

[edit]

Is the same the g/km (European Union) of g/mi (California) ? : (g/km= g/mi * 0,621371192). Is it a raw conversion ?. Perhaps, we would need common standards, to compare.--Altermike 13:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly ironic acronym

[edit]

It's no coincidence that the acronym for this agency is "CARB" which is the mechanic's shorthand for carburetor, the very same simple and efficient device that it sadly doomed. Cars with computer-controlled carburetors are actually more energy efficient than fuel injected cars, because of their ability to employ a low-pressure pump that flows gasoline, instead of one that must maintain enormous back pressure against a valve that must be rapidly switched on and off. Why? Because of the lack of an intersection between those who were able to understand the internal engineering of this device, and those actually willing to perform work on them for a reasonable wage. Now, we have diagnostic codes that tell mechanics which doo-dad to replace first, second, third... until finally, the problem goes away.

CARB just resulted in more disposable thinking from a throw-away society, and the only benefit is a reduction in "air pollution" that doesn't actually stay in the environment for longer than a few days after its emission (it photodegrades, eventually becoming harmless). Zaphraud (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[dubious – discuss]

[edit]

http://www.killcarb.org/ Is not a reliable source.

POV

[edit]

"The California Air Resources Board has generated controversy as its regulations increasingly create hardships" -- that is certainly not NPOV. EdwinHJ | Talk 18:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I cleaned up the sentence a bit, but I think part of the issue is the source used for the section (www.killcarb.org). Clearly, the source is very opinionated and should probably be balanced with a more encyclopaedic counter reference. --Xaliqen (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References?

[edit]

How is it that "California Emissions Control" redirects here...yet the page fails to provide a link to the state laws governing vehicle emissions? --72.47.85.102 (talk) 07:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

[edit]

I think it's fair to say that the Controversy section can be trimmed down a little. There are going to be people putting in 'citiation needed' for everything that's common sense. You don't need a citation to tell you that enacting tougher emission standards on an already bad economy only makes things worse. Especially when the information your using is fake or of people with papermill degrees.Woods01 (talk) 10:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument would be strongly bolstered if you could cite quantifiable evidence that the California economy was made worse (a definition of "worse" would also help) due to tighter emission standards.MrMontag (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I encourage anyone working on the Controversy section to check the sources that are already cited. Already, a couple of the sources I've looked at are more neutral than their representation in the Controversy section would make them seem. The citations give both sides while whoever wrote the Controversy section apparently only intended to give one.MrMontag (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more sources to the Controversy section, giving it a more balanced treatment of more controversial measures. I have avoided removing the content that was already there.MrMontag (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the "Controversy" section is very obviously biased against the California Air Resource Board. I fail to see how anyone can read that section and not see that bias. I think that the section should be deleted in its entirety. mbeychok (talk) 03:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "Controversy" section was created by SandyB in April 2007 ... and he/she disappeared from WP about 5 years ago (very shortly after creating that section). He/she created that section based on a documentary movie circa 2006 that was entitled "Who killed the Electric Car?". This article was intended to discuss CARB as a governmental environmental agency ... what it is, what it does and how it is organized. It is really no place to get involved in one's dislike of environmental agencies ... and that is exactly what the "Controversy" section has become. It is my intention to remove the entire section within the next week or so unless there is a considerable valid opposition to my doing that. mbeychok (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since there have been no comments, done as stated above. mbeychok (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on California Air Resources Board. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on California Air Resources Board. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:California_Air_Resources_Board&oldid=1206511684"