Tier 4 is comming... now is the time to get off the fence!

[CBW1999]

But, tier 4 is not being pushed by the CDC. Never said they were hiding anything.

But how did the EPA come to their conclusion that clearly, this effort will bring these results. I highly doubt that any certain scientific proof exists of this claim. Why do you say? Because they do not list specific causes of death and that emissions are the direct and only result. The same is applicable to hospitalizations and lost days at work.

The statistics I quoted were to point out that a significant amount of time and money have been spent on this program which address a very small to minute causation of these problems.

 

[Ductape]

Lacking all the above, I try to keep an open mind on these topics.

I thought your post was serious till I got to the bottom..........

 

[dave1949]

But, tier 4 is not being pushed by the CDC. Never said they were hiding anything.

But how did the EPA come to their conclusion that clearly, this effort will bring these results. I highly doubt that any certain scientific proof exists of this claim. Why do you say? Because they do not list specific causes of death and that emissions are the direct and only result. The same is applicable to hospitalizations and lost days at work.

The statistics I quoted were to point out that a significant amount of time and money have been spent on this program which address a very small to minute causation of these problems.

So, you don't know. You doubt. Therefore it is not a problem. That doesn't seem like an open mind :laughing:

The Tier 4 requirement, as I understand it, has already been applied to on-road engines. Now they are being applied to off-road. Collectively, those engines' emissions account for a very large portion of the health problems associated with particulates and nitrous oxides. You want small tractors excluded because they are not a major contributing factor- I guess that is what you are saying.

I could say one cigarette won't kill you, the thousands before it and after it might though. But statistically, that one cigarette could not be proven to do anything. Yet, we try to limit their use. One class of tractors is one in a sea of many millions of engines, like the one cigarette.

It just isn't practical to run around granting exceptions to this or that, you lose all control over the outcome. By the time the lobbyists got done with it, 500 hp "hobby" tractors would be in every AG operation. We do need to clean the air while adding millions of engines to the equation at the same time. There is nothing simple about the problem or the solution.

Politically, we have rejected high fuel costs as a method of reducing pollution. That doesn't leave much besides voluntarily reducing use (won't happen, my run to get milk is more important than others, can't live without my big vehicle), or making engines that have very low pollution.

It's hard to not come across poorly in these discussions. So, please don't think I am attacking you.

 

[CBW1999]

....What were you saying? My mind closed for business at 9pm-

It is a slippery slope. I do not automatically question authority but I don't always follow it blindly. "Because they say so" leads to sooooo many problems. Do I believe that emissions contribute to the problem- yes. But where is the clear data that supports them? The word "estimate" leaves lots of wiggle room Could be a lot more "saved" or a lot less. Otherwise, It is akin to "we think this effort might result in this result"

Again, subsidies for the smaller guy would be nice to offset the cost increase. Proportionally it increases the cost more than for the big guy. In addition since they have yet to provide hard data that supports it, it should be viewed as an unproven concept. If they are able to demonstrate their predictions as accurate great. BUT if we find out in 10 to 20 years that it hasn't made a difference are they going to refund the money they told me I had to spend?..... with interest?

Why shouldn't the government subsidize this? After all they dumped 80 BILLION into the failing auto industry. At 3000 each (CUT), the government would be able to pay for 1 MILLION tractors for less than 10 percent of that mentioned bailout.

 

[crazyal]

I assume everyone blaming the current administration for tier 4 noticed the regulation went into effect in 2004 when the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives were controlled by Republicans.

I had a 3 year European assignment and worried about fuel cost. Turned out it was a break even. My much better performing European diesel had so much better fuel economy than the American fuel hog I parted with my cost per mile was slightly better in Europe, and I am talking about 3 years of recording every liter and kilometer, comparing them with my history of gallons and miles and doing the conversion. Sure my 1970 Nova ran on leaded fuel, but it got 12. Mpg highway averaging slower speeds than my current car using unleaded that gets 30 mpg highway. Oil comes out of the same holes in the ground, the US uses less imported oil now than in 1970 when I bought my Nova. The Koch brothers are the ones who have ended up sitting fat and happy.

It's not who started it. I welcome anyone trying to make something better, or in this case, cleaner. I can accept growing pains that come with change. It's the person who will stubbornly not admit mistake and reverse course. This decision is keeping the small diesel car market on the sidelines. Who's going to pay $4k extra for a diesel VW that only gets 10 mpg more? Diesel fuel costs more as well as the added costs of operating a diesel engine negate any savings. So, yes, I blame the person in charge of the EPA for blindly pushing forward.

 

[crazyal]

So, you don't know. You doubt. Therefore it is not a problem. That doesn't seem like an open mind :laughing:

The Tier 4 requirement, as I understand it, has already been applied to on-road engines. Now they are being applied to off-road. Collectively, those engines' emissions account for a very large portion of the health problems associated with particulates and nitrous oxides. You want small tractors excluded because they are not a major contributing factor- I guess that is what you are saying.

I could say one cigarette won't kill you, the thousands before it and after it might though. But statistically, that one cigarette could not be proven to do anything. Yet, we try to limit their use. One class of tractors is one in a sea of many millions of engines, like the one cigarette.

It just isn't practical to run around granting exceptions to this or that, you lose all control over the outcome. By the time the lobbyists got done with it, 500 hp "hobby" tractors would be in every AG operation. We do need to clean the air while adding millions of engines to the equation at the same time. There is nothing simple about the problem or the solution.

Politically, we have rejected high fuel costs as a method of reducing pollution. That doesn't leave much besides voluntarily reducing use (won't happen, my run to get milk is more important than others, can't live without my big vehicle), or making engines that have very low pollution.

It's hard to not come across poorly in these discussions. So, please don't think I am attacking you.

You're not up to speed. CO2 is the new biggest threat to our planet. If so why would you want to push technology that actually puts more CO2 into the atmosphere per mile driven or hours of use?

 

[SSdoxie]

If you wish to read the study that was done in 1991 that is basis for these standards here is the link to all 141 pages.
http://www.epa.gov/nonroad/nrstudy.pdf
There is also another 415 pages of Appenixes to it. This was found on EPA webiste here:
http://www.epa.gov/nonroad/nrstudy.pdf

This affects any diesel engine over 25 HP (generators, compressors, portable welders, etc) not just a tractor.

 

[dave1949]

Have a little faith in science. Do you think there has been no improvement since Nixon signed the Clean Air Act Dec. 31, 1970? But all along the way there have always been people saying I doubt this or that, or that is someone else's fault and problem.

Negatives cannot be proven, but it is quite possible that without government mandates for cleaner air, many of our cities would be something like Beijing where they had to suspend industrial output to hold the Olympics.

Those mandates aren't some sort of conspiracy. They came about because citizens democratically elected people to office who promised to confront pollution, or were convinced by the evidence that action was needed.

I think the taxpayers are still on the hook for around $30B on the auto bailout. But again, you are mixing logical apples and oranges. What does bailing out an industry sector have to do with small tractor Tier 4 costs? If you want a small guy subsidy, install a solar or geothermal energy system.

The problem small tractor owners have is, we don't have a lobby group or PAC to look out for our interests in Washington DC What we need is the TBN SuperPac, and then the subsidies would roll in our direction.

 

[dave1949]

You're not up to speed. CO2 is the new biggest threat to our planet. If so why would you want to push technology that actually puts more CO2 into the atmosphere per mile driven or hours of use?

Well, speed me up. By how much more? Using which Tier 4 technology? Trade-offs? Links?

 

[aczlan]

Can a car be made to get 50 MPG, likely but I doubt the middle class will be able to afford one.

Its called a Jetta TDI. 48-50 MPG highway, mid 40s around town.
I have a 2003 example for sale if anyone is looking for one.

Aaron Z