tbf@pacifier.com (Todd Francis) wrote:
>
>Also, here in Vancouver, and I believe it is the same throughout the
>country, the purpose of polluting less with cars is so industry can be
>allowed to expand in a given area; i.e., not "less" pollution, but pollution
>from a different source--all with the blessings of EPA and DOE.

I have to second this sentiment.  In NJ last year, the newspapers
announced one day that the NJ legislature had quietly passed a bill
mandating the new IM-240 test.  Many people were outraged when they
found out the cost of installing the equipment, myself included, and I
called for a copy of the legislation.

In one of the introductory paragraphs, the bill reads (my paraphrase),
"We [the legislators] recognize that this legislation will present a
large inconvenience and monetary burden to the citizens of the state.
However, the alternatives are loss of federal highway funds and
imposition of stricter emissions guidelines on industry."

They don't even try to hide their ulterior motives!  They wouldn't
want to make themselves look bad by loosing federal grant money (even
though it would probably be cheaper to replace it through taxation
than install new testing equipment statewide), or crack down on
industries, so they just pick on the comman man.

-Rodney