What's new
By:
Ram Heavy Duty Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

EPA Endangerment Finding

LuckyK

LuckyK

New Member
Messages
9
Reaction score
4
Points
3
Please visit regulations.gov and access the rule by searching for Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0194. Leave a comment about what you think about the EPA's proposal. Comment period closes 15Sep25. There's over a decade's worth of pent up BS you can leave for them to consider. It worked with their 'kill switch' agenda. Together we can get this through as well - and quickly.
 
Not sure where your head is at, don’t really care. While I agree emissions crap is a PIA and there SHOULD be congressional oversight on any agency including the EPA ( rules that affect everyone should not be made by unelected / appointed bureaucrats ). Let’s be realistic, we’re floating around space in a fragile bubble called earth. Smog and pollution is real and as humans we are not helping our case with some of the things we do to our environment. I drive a diesel and personally don’t have a problem with doing my part to limit emissions even if it is a small percentage of a small percentage. I’d like for my children and grand children to not live in a deteriorating sh@t hole. Ok, rant over. Everyone has an opinion. Don’t beat on me too hard.;)

BTW, I did leave a comment. Thanks for the link.
 
Last edited:
Units said:
Not sure where your head is at, don’t really care. While I agree emissions crap is a PIA and there SHOULD be congressional oversight on any agency including the EPA ( rules that affect everyone should not be made by unelected / appointed bureaucrats ). Let’s be realistic, we’re floating around space in a fragile bubble called earth. Smog and pollution is real and as humans we are not helping our case with some of the things we do to our environment. I drive a diesel and personally don’t have a problem with doing my part to limit emissions even if it is a small percentage of a small percentage. I’d like for my children and grand children to not live in a deteriorating sh@t hole. Ok, rant over. Everyone has an opinion. Don’t beat on me too hard.;)

BTW, I did leave a comment. Thanks for the link.
Click to expand...
I struggle with this exact same thing. As an avid hunter and outdoorsman, I love to spend time in nature, and I want it as pristine as possible. I also grew up in southern california, and I saw the smog as a child, and saw it get better over the years. Today, if you look out towards LA from a mountain right next to where I lived, you can't see smog most days (when I have visited anyway), where as a child you could see it most days. So I realize the issue is real, and not made up for profit.

That said, our current system and ever increasing tightening isn't realistic. Let's set aside for a minute that emissions systems work, and that they work well in terms of cutting down pollutants, I think there are a number of obvious issues that don't appear to be considered at all when these laws were introduced.
  1. emissions systems are not a lifetime part, all, or the vast majority of parts have to be replaced. This means that not only do you have emissions from the facilities manufacturing these parts, or the macheniery digging up the raw materials to make them, but you also have emissions from transport. From digging the materials out of the ground, to shipping the raw materials for processing, to shipping the finished materials to the plant that assembles them, to shipping to the warehoused, to shipping to the dealership/end customer.

  2. def fluid also has emissions overhead, from the manufacture of the urea, to the shipping of the facility that makes def, to warehouses, then to the end consumer

  3. emissions systems lower MPG, especially during active regen. I didn't believe this till I saw it first hand, but same truck, same guy driving, and hes getting way better mpg after a delete than prior.

  4. emissions systems are insanely expensive to repair. it's not hard to get to a point in a modern emissions system where you have spent 10k in parts alone to replace common wear items, and unlike vehicle manufactures who can buy carbon credits to offset, the end consumer is left to bear the burden with no option but to deal or break the law

  5. a huge amount of the push for diesel emissions regulation has come from california, especially southern california, and rightfull so. I've seen pictures of life in that part of the us before emissions on even gas cars, and it was disgusting. That said, to pretend that soot or NOx affects all parts of the country the same is crazy. Southern cali is functionally a desert in a bowl, so emissions get trapped there. I live in the northern part of new england, we have a way higher density of trees than in the rest of the country (almost 90% coverage for the two states I spend the majority of my time). We do not have the same issues because of the forest. Trees help capture both soot and NOx emissions, so again it's far less of an issue here than it is in the great plains or desert.

  6. NOx emissions of all transportation don't even come close to touching how much NOx is put out by ag. And transportation emissions is crazy as well. The only time a plane is better than an auto is if the auto is single person, and only by a hair. If it's 2 people in an auto, the car is instantly better in terms of emissions, and if it's a full vehicle it's better still.
I'd love to see some hard data on total emissions for a truck with a full emissions system vs one without, at least then we would be comparing more apples to apples. My biggest issue is not that emissions systems are required, but that they still don't function as well as they should, and more than that, we don't have any data on the total emissions of like to like.

All that said, I'm not saying I'm pro taking emissions systems off vehicles. I'm simply pro understanding the data so we can make an informed decision. I personally am willing to take the hit since I love the outdoors so much and want my children to have it around to enjoy as clean as possible. I also am not in denial about climate change, which appears to me to be obviously happening, not quite at the scale or speed that Gore predicted, but I get the challenge of predicting something that large and far out.

What I will say further though is that I'm bothered by the current political climate where these decisions are made seemingly without a care for the consequences, from both parties.
 
I am amazed at how clean the exhaust from my truck is and I’m OK with the system, AS LONG AS IT WORKS! When that system prevents me from driving the truck as I need to, I have a problem. I would never delete an effective, functional emissions system. I can see where DPFs, DOCs and SCRs on semi trucks could make a difference. I wonder if there are enough emissions from the few 3/4 and 1 ton diesel pickups (relative to gas cars and trucks) to make any difference.

Some of our problems arise from the bad actors in our group (diesel pickup drivers). At a busy stoplight, the jerk in front of me, with a deleted truck, pours on the power, spinning and smoking his tires, and pouring out a cloud of black smoke. I can see why most of the “voters” who witness this would support politicians who call for stricter diesel emissions. As usual, a few jerks can spoil it for everyone.
 
Last edited:
Units said:
Not sure where your head is at, don’t really care. While I agree emissions crap is a PIA and there SHOULD be congressional oversight on any agency including the EPA ( rules that affect everyone should not be made by unelected / appointed bureaucrats ). Let’s be realistic, we’re floating around space in a fragile bubble called earth. Smog and pollution is real and as humans we are not helping our case with some of the things we do to our environment. I drive a diesel and personally don’t have a problem with doing my part to limit emissions even if it is a small percentage of a small percentage. I’d like for my children and grand children to not live in a deteriorating sh@t hole. Ok, rant over. Everyone has an opinion. Don’t beat on me too hard.;)

BTW, I did leave a comment. Thanks for the link.
Click to expand...
The problem is, the emissions from pickups in the US pales in comparison to carbon emissions from countries that just don’t give a damn.

The EPA also loves stepping over dollars to pick up dimes in regards to just about everything.
 
Trash Panda said:
The problem is, the emissions from pickups in the US pales in comparison to carbon emissions from countries that just don’t give a damn.

The EPA also loves stepping over dollars to pick up dimes in regards to just about everything.
Click to expand...
I agree 100%, but it is completely silly to go backwards and undo the good. Kinda like not fixing stuff in your house just to spite your old lady, your house will fall apart around you but she is till gonna be there and you’re gonna have to deal with her and it’s gonna cost you money either way.
 
Units said:
I agree 100%, but it is completely silly to go backwards and undo the good. Kinda like not fixing stuff in your house just to spite your old lady, your house will fall apart around you but she is till gonna be there and you’re gonna have to deal with her and it’s gonna cost you money either way.
Click to expand...
I think it’s equally silly to bend over backwards fixing a home while your co-habitants are doing 2-3x the work in destroying it with no signs of slowing down.

At that point, it’s little more than virtue signaling.
 
Technology has come a long way, modern diesel engines without any of the add on emissions equipment burn much cleaner than the old mechanically injected versions. "Rolling Coal" & "Whistling Jet Engine" tunes are a total waste and quite annoying, I have no use for any of that. It makes no sense for us (the US) to cripple ourselves with all this junk while many other countries in the world produce manifold more pollution than we do...
 
The problem, just like with EVs is environmentalism became a religion. Turns out EVs are WORSE for the environment, if you include batteries, non repairable, tires, non recyclable and the like. Are recent diesel emissions controls worth;

1. All the def emissions
2. Significant repairs they have an environmental cost
3. Worse fuel mileage

I doubt it. If emissions rules hurt the environment, it makes no sense. I see this ALL the time with the Environmental movement.
 
Trash Panda said:
The problem is, the emissions from pickups in the US pales in comparison to carbon emissions from countries that just don’t give a damn.

The EPA also loves stepping over dollars to pick up dimes in regards to just about everything.
Click to expand...

Yes, sort of. But, using the example above, people living in Nevada weren’t choking on LA’s smog. You can pollute a small area. You can also undo that as in LA. So you can make a local difference.

Same as a lot of folks Im an avid outdoorsman and do think it’s a tricky issue. A clean environment is desirable for countless reasons, but accommodations have to be made for the impacts of our ways of living. Minimizing those impacts is also desirable, but the approach to date by those in power has been heavy handed and not well thought out.
 
Theres not a single one among us who would have any issue at all with diesel emissions devices and systems if they didn't cause problems, reduce functional engine life, cause poor fuel economy, negatively affect performance, and weren't just a general thorn in our sides (and our wallets). If they worked properly and didn't cause any reliability or performance issues, we'd ALL be perfectly ok with it. In fact, I'd venture a guess that if that were the case, the vast majority of us would actually prefer emissions controls. So lets not get these concerns confused with some imaginary resistance to cleaner air-- we all want cleaner air. But, we want cleaner air AND the ability to drive and enjoy our $75,000+ machines without having to endure the stressful, frustrating, and expensive problems these systems inevitably cause.
 
Yes we want pure water to drink and clean air to breathe. But the environmental nutjob regulations of the blue party cause more damage than good. How many trillions of plastic DEF jugs do you suppose are in landfills now (or illegally thrown into waterways, fields, etc.)? What about all the excess fossil fuels burned due to lower MPGs since emissions equipment? What about all the rare earth metals being mined to build emissions control equipment? What about all the extra auto parts being thrown into landfills or junking up the landscape because trucks don't last as long anymore without problems?

The fact is there is no perfect answer. You can regulate the hell out of the environment and it's just going to create NEW problems AND cost the middle class trillions in taxes over our lifetimes to enact and enforce. Or, you can ease up on the regulation and put the money to better use somewhere and allow people freedom to do what they feel best serves their lives. I lean toward the latter.

Also, mankind didn't create the earth and therefore we cannot destroy it. That's a simple law of science.
 
We are not in 1971 anymore with smog belching machines called cars and trucks. The emissions standards that keep getting more stringent are splitting hairs with diminishing returns. But they do cost a lot of money. With the left, it is not about clean air. Yhey just use that terminology to get people on board. It is about control and reducing freedom - just look at Europe. And BTW, CO2 is NOT a pollutant. Just ask your local tree friend.
 
We went from Acid rain, Global freezing, global warming, and now climate change.

The younger generation has a hard time understanding my skeptism every time they come up with a new trigger word...
 
Back in 1542 the yet to be Los Angeles area was already having a smog problem..."Still, the voyage -- commanded by a onetime conquistador named Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo -- produced the first written observations of the Los Angeles area. They also bestowed on it one of the region's first European names: Baya de los Fumos, or Bay of the Smoke."

I grew up in the San Fernando Valley (Burbank) and left it all behind in 1981 for cleaner skies. My first job was working at a Dodge Truck Dealership there back in 1975 as a teenager. Catalytic converters just came out and some of the new Dodge trucks that I delivered put out a really potent rotten eggs smell. So other drivers at stop lights would yell out that the new Dodge truck stunk.

My father purchased a brand new 1964 Chevrolet Impala and complained about his high performance 327 V8 having a PCV valve. His previous 1955 Dodge had a 315 V8 Hemi. Mom though still like driving the Chevrolet at 120 MPH with her kids outside of Las Vegas, Nevada when my Dad was busy in Vegas for business. The new 1975 Dodge truck V8's were totally gutless in comparison due to much tighter emissions.

The worst smog I remember being in was in Fontana, California in the summer of 1971 and in Pueblo, Colorado in the winter 1984 due to the steel mills. So it wasn't just vehicles. It was thick black smoke in the air.
 
ollicat said:
We are not in 1971 anymore with smog belching machines called cars and trucks. The emissions standards that keep getting more stringent are splitting hairs with diminishing returns. But they do cost a lot of money. With the left, it is not about clean air. Yhey just use that terminology to get people on board. It is about control and reducing freedom - just look at Europe. And BTW, CO2 is NOT a pollutant. Just ask your local tree friend.
Click to expand...
I saw a great cartoon the other day - One guy asks “How come China doesn’t worry about climate change?”. The other guy responds, “Because they already have a communist government”.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top