Hey everyone, I'm writing a argument essay for my college English class and I was wondering if you guys can fill in your input. I'm doing an essay with the thesis being "The U.S. Government should break off control over the restrictions on the emissions of vehicles."

3 categories/reasons why would be due to safety, quality, and affordability.

3 evidences for safety would be:
-the quietness of vehicles(makes it harder for pedestrians to hear oncoming traffic.
-Has to use lighter material to reach emissions law(use of less steel and more fiberglass,plastic on outer shell)
-(can't think of another one atm)

3 evidences for quality would be:
-use of weaker metals to cut weight in internal systems = more chance to break down
-
-

3 evidences for affordability would be:
-More economic = more expensive
-taking away stronger material = needs more safety features
-With more parts(sensors) = more parts to fail = more expensive to take care of.

If you can could take what I've put down and see if they make sense or have any more opinions on this it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

 

I think you need to try and be a little clearer as to exactly what points you're trying to make, and how they're linked together.

For starters, "more economic = more expensive" makes no sense to me. If something is more economic, it's typically less expensive, not more.

Also, are you sure "weaker metals" are required to reduce emissions? Or to say it in a different way... If the gov't no longer regulated emission standards, would auto manufacturers switch to "stronger" metals?

You'll also need to address any pollution issues that may arise if the gov't removed their regulations. Again, to say it another way... The regulations were put in place for a reason so what would happen if they were removed?

- NCSU

 

First off, you're thesis should be worded differently, IMO. Something like "Governmental control over the restrictions...."

Some counter points to what you've said:

Safety:
1.) Quietness? Since when can you hear a stock vehicle. The noise you hear from vehicles is the air rushing through the tires. If you did the research I'm sure vehicle v. pedestrian related accidents don't count for much of the total accident rate in the country.
2.) What's wrong with lighter materials? They're cheaper and going back to the pedestrian issue, safer than a steel hood or bumper.
3.) As for number three, how about lighting? HIDs and projectors are the new craze. Of course I would be favoring government in this department to get the damned ricers off the roads.

Quality:
1.) You're going to have to be more specific than "internal systems". Where's the evidence that newer vehicles are less reliable than older ones? Older ones didnt have PATS or curtain airbags, nor the 500 miles of wiring. While I like where you are getting at, you just have to show me some number first.
2.) off the top of my head- maybe outsourcing parts to china or something of that nature?
3.) can't think of another one, ill get back to it

Affordability:
1.) Are you trying to say more economic cars should be more expensive if the govn't was out of it? Not entirely sure here, explain some more for me.
2.) Not neccesarily true, the safety features are there to prevent an accident that has already happened once in the past due to a specific thing (ie: driver who lost control while braking led to requirement of ABS systems)
3.) While we all know sensors do fail, I think their short lifetime compared to how much they help is well worth it. a 2.0L I4 from 1990 will get about 20-30 mpg. A similar 2.0L I4 from 2011 with variable valve timing and all that stuff will get in excess of 40 mpg.

Just some thoughts.

 

you need to address the fact that without emissions engines will generate more power. Thus run more efficiently.

Heres a thought to look into: there is a direct correlation between emissions produced and gallons burned. So therefore if a vehicle w/o emissions burns less it produces less emissions. Are emissions systems worth it???

 

Something about that doesn't sound right to me..... For that to work, you'd have to assume that a system with emission reducing equipment creates nearly the same amount of pollution as a system without emission reducing equipment, which is wrong.

Simplified: Car 1 has emission reducing equipment but burns 1.5 times the fuel as Car 2 which doesn't have any emission reducing equipment.

Problem is, Car 2 produces twice as much pollution as Car 1. So even though Car 1 burns more fuel, it produces less pollution.

Car 1: 1.5 gallons of fuel, 1.5 pounds of pollution.
Car 2: 1.0 gallons of fuel, 2 pounds of pollution.

- NCSU

 

I think you need a much better understanding of the entire auto industry. It's close to being 100% political. There is NO energy shortage, there is no shortage of technology to make an engine that you can run in your living room without fear of gaseous poisoning. It's all there including engine technologies which allows you to make your own fuel from garbage. But you can't have it. Because the taxes on oil and gas products are so incredibly high, the Feds and your state taxing agency's would fold in the first week of availability. Gone would be any hiway improvements. Gone would be the absurd trips that our politicians take to foreign, exotic countries. Gone would be the bloated wages these professional politicians make. Gone would be pork barrel spending because there would be little money for them to spend. Gone would be the corner gas station that also sells you crap you don't need. Gone would be the foreign countries that hate our guts but love what our money does for them. Gone would be the idiots like Chavez that loves to take a stab at us at every turn. Gone would be the offshore drilling that occasionally blows up. Gone would be the drilling rigs on the tundra in sensitive areas of the north. Get the picture. It's all about the power and the need for control from a select few and the oil market provides just that. It also makes a profit center for the speculators that pay even more taxes into the gov't pocket which is why they don't take energy stocks and products off of the open market. Just think how quick gas would drop if it were not for the speculator.
Here's a long clip and you have to watch it in it's entirety to get the full effect. Unfortunately, the speaker is not the most dynamic. Make sure to watch the first few seconds closely as it is of the inner workings of the engine. The engine you see running in the vid is about the size of a large briefcase....making 900HP.
http://dreamer3000.wordpress.com/80-...istons-engine/

There is a prototype engine running at San Diego land fill that has three cylinders making 2800HP. It's making electricity and also is making it's own fuel from the biogarbage which makes for a lot less in the landfill. With an after cooler at the exhaust header, it yields breathable air with a water vapor. The fuel consumption on the single cylinder 900HP engine is about 5 gallons in 8 hours at peak load. The efficiency is right at 80% as compared to a modern engine of 30%. It's truly a green machine.....but you can't have it.

 

NCSU, I was just trying to give evidences, not really detailed. I need to put details inside the essay but my teacher wants evidences and details to be set differently when planning for the essay.

-Raptor quietness is the electric vehicles, sometimes I didn't even think it was running at one point. My vehicles that I've been around when stock I was able to hear them(stock) my mom's explorer, dad's f-250, my f-150, my sisters fusion. All can be heard very well without thought of if its on or not.
-
getting into a serious accident with a steel bumper is a lot more different than one that's fiberglass or plastic. steel won't give as much while fiberglass flies everywhere. Internal systems I meant like the guts of the vehicle. parts that use to be stronger using metal rather than plastic can be easily broken rather than when it use to be a steel part.

-Generally when you see Hybrids or electric vehicles off the showroom floor they are more expensive then if it were a gas only vehicle. And about the safety features most of the time they have to compensate for something they had to change due to meeting the needs of emissions. I know they create more safety features from previous accidents but as well as what I meantime above.

Labnerd I don't have time tonight to read that but I'll definitely take a glance at that when I get the time.
Thanks for your opinions. Even with what I just mentioned in this reply doesn't seem right to you make sure you tell me.

 

I don't understand where you are going at. Since when does sound have anything to do with safety? For a Prius, if its silent it means its on its electric motor. And if its using its electric motor isnt not going fast enough to cause you any harm. Besides short of it being capable of building enough momentum to jump a curb, why would you be walking on the road and not paying attention?

Yeah, if the point is to cause as little damage as possible. Cars are able to be replaced, people are not, therefore they are basically made to give up their "lives" to save us. That steel bumper is going to transfer motion to the rest of the car. Fiberglass and polycarbonates are designed to break with absorbed energy. Drive a 1960 Ford F-100 with two people in it into a 2011 Ford F-150 with two people in it, both doing 45 mph. At a combined impact speed of 90 mph, as a firefighter I can tell you the two in the "steel" F-100 will probably be dead. Look up "crumple zones"

Can you give specific examples of some of these parts?

Focusing on pure costs, a hybrid is a lot more expensive to build. The batteries acid is mined in China. Its shipped to Canada where it is made, and then sent to Japan to be installed into the car. Meanwhile the gas engine which is made in mexico is being overnighted by a 747. Then the car is shipped to the states. Meanwhile a basic Fusion is made in one plant, with a few imported things.

I find that very hard to believe. Where are the sources stating that?

While your topic is very interesting, I don't think you've done enough research to justify what you've come up with so far.

 

I think the path you are going with this essay is a bit dated. If we went back to the late 1970's and 1980's vehicles you probably had a point. Those engines were so bogged down with emissions stuff that they had no power.

A Mustang GT of early 1980's vintage had 125 hp.

Today's cars aren't all that restrictive even with emissions equipment. You wouldn't get that much more power out of it (possibly less due to lost back pressure) if you stripped everything out of the emissions controls.

Now where you might be able to make a good argument is the idea behind putting ethanol in fuel to improve emissions is flawed because it takes a lot of energy to produce it as well as transport it. It also doesn't produce as much power as gasoline so it is a double whammy. It can't be transferred by pipeline either so it must be transported by trucks which mean even more energy used and more pollution.

As far as lighter materials and such...the proof isn't in the pudding. You can find many cases where lighter metals are much more durable than heavy ones. The new materials absorb the energy so you don't get killed in the car where the old one didn't.

The only argument you could possibly win is that emission controls cost more money but I don't think that is going to get you too far.

 

I'll sub this for later reading.

 

Are you forced into doing that topic? I just had to write a paper, and I used the argument of whether or not further offshore drilling would be beneficial to the US economy. It was too easy, and my teached hated it! He is a treehugger type though.

 

I think your essay is a little misguided. I would attack the issue as if alternative fuels aren't as great as what they say. Now that would open a very broad range for you to choose. Remeber ethanol can actually be dangerous. Not only to vehicles but the enviroment as well. And it's expensive to make and raises food prices.

Electric cars would mean the need for more coal, or nuclear power. more power plants. smarter electrical grids and etc...

There is not a shortage of fossil fuels as they would want you to believe but IF there was, the other alternative energys would naturally produce less emmissions, eliminating the need for government controls.

Also check into how many "pollutants" are leaked into the air in a volcanic eruption.

Basically, arguing for safety sounds like your forcing the reasoning. Quality... well, the government doesn;t care how well your car is built. Affordability....standard product life cycle says new technologies will have higher front costs.

I would argue 1)Myths about fossil fuels, 2) Problems with alternative fuels 3) how emmision laws do nothing to fix the older vehicles on the road. (In NC I don't think you have to have an emmissions inspection if its older then 96)

 

If you sum those 3 catagories up would that still be under my thesis or would I have to switch the essay all around anyways. I'm debating weather or not I would want to keep this thesis or change it up. I'm just not very good at creating topics off the top of my head. And With this thread alone it seems to me I don't know much of what I'm talking about, or the details on it to prove my case. So it doesn't seem like it would be a good essay for me to write. I need to know what I'm backing up.

 

Your thesis is... why the government should lay off emission standards.

I would make it... "Alternative fuels and emissions; Fact vs. Fiction"

It's broad, you can come off without being politically one sided and there should be plenty of good information out there.

 

It needs to be argumentative... the thesis needs to have words such as "should, must, needs" Basically taking one side of something. I liked it better with high school research papers instead of all these different type of essays. Much easier...