OK guys, take a deep breath (unless you're standing near a diesel exhaust pipe!
) and count to ten. Calling people names ("enviro-nazi"? c'mon... . ) and griping about an "environmental agenda" (like,
we don't have a "diesel agenda"?) accomplishes nothing except making us all look like wackos... and nobody cares what wackos think. Instead, here are some fairly
rational arguments to think about, so that you can (for example) write your congressman or your state legislator and give him some useful ammo with which to defend your interests against things like this:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the science behind all of this is pretty good. Diesel particulates
are harmful, and they
do contribute to 'excess deaths'. Now, whether its 20,000 deaths per year as the Clean Air Task Force report claims -- or 2,000 per year, or 200,000 per year -- is open to rational debate, because this kind of risk analysis is notorious for having huge uncertainties. But if you just say "They're wrong!" without offering a rational alternative argument, then you're speaking from ignorance, and nobody cares.
The old argument "yeah, well, french-fries kill people, too!" is worse than useless. Nobody drives down the street stuffing french-fries up old ladies' noses... at least not on the planet
the rest of us live on. I'm sure you get my point.
Here, I think, are some arguments in opposition to the Clean Air Task Force report that
do hold some water:
1. The idea of requiring mandatory retrofits to millions of private vehicles is contrary to the way we do things in this country. There are lots of old 'legacy' vehicles on the road today without air-bags, seat belts, third brakelights, ABS, catalytic converters, etc. , and surely people die every year because of that. But we as a society have judged that ordering mandatory retrofits everytime somebody gets a wild hair is undersirable. Instead, if the new technology is really important, we require it on
new vehicles, and we let the old vehicles die off, as they surely will. The same logic must apply here, too.
2. In those few cases where it is judged desirable to encourage the adoption of a retrofit technology, the way to go is to make it worth the owner's while to choose to do it. So if you want to encourage me to spend $1000 to retrofit a filter on my Dodge, then offer me a rebate on my fuel taxes or registration fees that would equal $1000 over the life of the vehicle (for instance); I might just think about that.
3. The Clean Air Task Force analysis is half-baked because it only looks at half the story. It estimates the economic cost of excess deaths due to diesel particulates, but it does not estimate the economic cost of the mandatory retrofits of millions of vehicles that it calls for. How many trucking firms, independent owner/operators, contractors, railroads, etc. would be tipped over the edge into bankruptcy by the cost of mandatory retrofits? Its a known fact that unemployment causes 'excess deaths', too, due to stress, domestic violence, alcoholism, etc. The Clean Air Task Force's analysis doesn't stop to consider whether the health and economic benefits of mandatory retrofits would exceed the health and economic costs.
Attention: TDR Forum Junkies 
