jgkurz Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Hi Everyone, I just got this email about a piece of "absurd" legislation being considered for law here in Oregon. Although I agree in reducing pollution, this is the wrong approach in my opinion. If this subject is important to you please email your comments to House Speaker Dave Hunt referenced in the below link. ---------------------------- John, Yes, it's true. At the request of Governor Theodore Kulongoski, the Oregon Speaker of the House has introduced legislation (H.B. 2186) to prohibit the sale and distribution of aftermarket motor vehicle parts if alternatives are available that "decrease greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles." The bill is primarily focused on aftermarket tires and would authorize the Environmental Quality Commission to implement enforcement regulations, likely based on a rolling resistance calculation. If you want to be able to purchase aftermarket parts and tires from us or anywhere else in Oregon, I "highly" recommend clicking the link and emailing your opinion to the email addresses in the article. Often times, state representatives count the number of emails and calls for or against the bill to determine whether to support it or not. Here's the article with the people to call or send an email to.... http://www.semasan.com/main/main.aspx?id=62515 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsommer Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 That sux but....it's political and guess where this is headed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AK-Z Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Uh... Oregon is trying to pass this? IIRC Oregon is cold in winter and sometimes the roads ice over. That equaled to "less rolling resistance" (skinnier) tires would equal people spinning out, unable to accelerate from stop, and ditch divers everywhere Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgkurz Posted February 11, 2009 Author Share Posted February 11, 2009 That sux but....it's political and guess where this is headed? I don't disagree that this is a political thread but I thought it was a subject that needed visibility as it could affect the core of what HybridZ represents. If the proposed law is passed other states could follow. I hope the HBZ admins let this thread continue in a spirited but moderated manner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoov100 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 all oregon needs are flying cars if they want to reduce rolling resistance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZZZeee Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 This isn't political. It's about loss of aftermarket parts. Besides... is Oregon really a state anyway? C'mon... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montezuma Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 If passes in Oregon look for other states to follow with copy cat laws. This is not a good thing, this is all in the name of the biggest farce of all time: Man made global warming is the greatest lie of all time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eec564 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 I have the distinct feeling that the after market manufacturers will be against this in full force. The tire issue scares me. One of the first things I do when I buy a new car is put GOOD tires on it. That means tires with a tread wear rating in the low 300s for touring (sedans, stock coups) and something in the high 200s for spirited driving (modified sports cars, Zs, etc). I see around a 2mpg drop in economy, but I can stop that car a whole bunch faster without locking the wheels and I can turn quicker at speed to avoid debris in the road. My driving habits and the hills I live in play a FAR larger role in determining my fuel economy than any modifications to my cars. This law sounds too idealistic to be any use. Some after market cam shafts increase mileage because of decreased pumping loss, more power at cruising with less throttle. I know there are V8 Zs here that get better mileage than one of mine with a stock engine. What if the alternative after market parts help decrease emissions? Does that have to be proven before one can use them? Idealistic laws seldom pass, and are even more seldom enforced because they are impractical and their impacts are not well thought through. This bill also appears to be guilty of a number of logical fallacies. The blanket banning of after market parts under the premise of their increasing greenhouse emissions is an appeal to probability as well as both package deal and necessity fallacies. I knew being a philosophy major would pay off someday... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sven Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Just sent a small heartfelt novel to each Representative on the SEMA list. I urge anyone who disagrees with this bill to do the same. I'm looking to move to Oregon, but as Montezuma said above, the spill over to other states will happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sven Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Wow. Representative Bentz has already replied to me. If I lived there he would get my vote. Here's his email: Thank you for your message regarding House Bill 2186. This bill reflects a concept created in the Governor's office. It was then referred to the House Committee on Environment and Water (on which I serve as one of eight members). At the bill’s first hearing, held on Tuesday, February 3rd, I explained to the witnesses from the DEQ that I was not happy with the concepts contained in the bill. The delegation of power to the DEQ is far too great and the economic impact of the bill is too far reaching. The bill will, I am sure, require additional public hearings. I represent District 60 (Malheur, Baker, Harney, and part of Grant County ). I am certain that a majority of my constituents will oppose many of the ideas in the bill, particularly those which will negatively impact our economy. I would strongly suggest and recommend that you contact your state representative and share with him (or her) your thoughts regarding this bill. Very Truly Yours, Representative Cliff Bentz District 60 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eec564 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 I'll presume that's an automated message, but it's still good to hear a response like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.