Smoky Thinking
Okay, sorry I get pretty passionate about this subject. We are both on a soap box and I meant MY Rant not yours. I am just tired of these Enviro wackos preaching about smoke and how we all need to make our trucks smokeless but the conveniently forget about how this kills fuel mileage. I am all for someone figuring out how to make the diesels clean, but without fuel economy to go along with it they are just being hipocrites. I don't believe that EPA is as concerned with the planet as much as they are concerned with having job. Just like politicians, what happens when we have enough laws and clean air? They are out of work.
Yes, it is easy to get "passionate" on this subject. So here I am with a counter-soapbox. But lets try to keep generating a little light with all the heat.
One way to start would be to refrain from intro-and-re-intro-ducing name-calling into the threads in this forum.
DL, not everyone with a slightly-or-greatly differing viewpoint from your own is an "Enviro wacko" (or a hypocrite).
My own little defensive contribution to name-calling is the acronym "DGAS-ers", which expands to "Don't Give A ****-ers".
Since I'm sure you welcome constructive critique, I'll offer a couple of thoughts about terms:
"The environment", as usually thought of by those interested in improving/protecting it, does not include "fuel economy",... although you seem to think that is an essential ingredient.
Without considering all the associated complexities;
Whether vehicles get 1 mpg or 100mpg has no effect on the environment, if those vehicles are smokeless, and if by smokeless you mean harmful-emissions-free (and if we ignore vehicle production enviro-costs).
Fuel economy is a measure of convenience to humans, ... not of environmental health. The fact that oil has been underground, undisturbed, for thousands of years has had no ill effects on the environment. And if we run out tomorrow, and your mpg goes to zero, the facts that there would then be no oil underground (or on top) and you would be greatly inconvienced, would also have no ill effects on the environment.
It is what we humans are doing with the oil that is effecting the environment negatively (among a thousand other for-our-convenience activities), and apparently there is at present no "convenient" way to continue to increase the use-rate, while lessening the harm-rate, if by "convenient" we mean cost-free.
One of the costs, at present levels of technology, seems to be somewhat less power efficiency in those engines which most-effectively reduce the harm-rate.
Now an easy "Us vs. Them" way to look at the "Enviro Wackos" vs. the DGAS-ers (to again use the ever-so-tempting name-calling technique) would be this:
EW's say - "We have been destroying the environment, ... and by 'We', we mean ALL-OF-US, and by 'The Environment', we mean OUR environment(and our children's, children's children's, etc. ). By "environment" we don't mean mpg, ... we mean clean air, pure water, abundant wildlife, flora, etc. , ... i. e. , a healty Earth.
We are willing to acknowledge that correcting this situation will require something of us, in convenience and in dollars. We are willing to pay our share of the cost. We will support new technologies (solar-electric, fuel-cell, wind/wave/tide-generation,) which offer relatively harm-free power. Meanwhile, if some of that payment must be made in fuel dollars, so be it!
Now to the DGAS-ers:
Many of them seem to say - "OTHERS claim the environment needs protection. IF that is really true, let THEM find a free-for-ME way to fix it. I certainly don't intend to give up any of MY "conveniences", to support THEIR cause. Why should I pay for something THEY want?
Oh, . . but I do believe in clean air, water, etc. "
Now a little thought should make clear which of these positions is the "hypocritical" one.
Another convience, for the conscience, is the attribution of ill-motive to the "do-gooder" OTHERS. As in - "EPA (EW's/anyone-who-disagrees-with-me) doesn't really care about the environment,... thay only care about their jobs!"
Right!
They'll be "out of work" when we have enough clean air?
Not a problem. At the rate the rats in this particular cage are reproducing, "enough clean air" (or enough anything) is unlikey to mean job-loss for anyone.
In any case;
Farmers will be out of work when we have enough food.
Drs. will be out of work when we have no illness.
Policemen will be out of work when there is no crime.
Firemen, ... when we have no fires/other emergencies.
Soldiers, ... when we have no wars.
Teachers, ... when we all know everything.
Etc. , etc. , etc.
All of these situations are desirable.
None of them are probable.
What is your point?
We can have discussions, even intense ones, and express differing opinions, as friends.
But it is difficult to feel friendly when someone is calling you names, ... either directly, or by simplistic association ("lumping").
I see the merit in being both a hunter-fisher and a conservationist.
I am a diesel owner-driver.
I am also an environmentalist.
I am amazed that any thinking person could not-be (or would be reluctant to so-state).
Attention: TDR Forum Junkies 
