That’s the problem. Statistically speaking, you (no one) knows anything definitive. We do not have enough data. For all we know, we could be making things worse by reducing emissions! We don’t have enough data.

Citations were provided in the form of CARB’s own documentation. You must not have read it...

Reading isn’t your strong suit, is it?

So, are you not going to answer???

You’re not considering COMMERCIAL applications. (And also, there are temporary, limited-mileage exemptions for non-commercial vehicles.)

You’re being satirical, but that is what you should be doing. You should not be overstating the certainty of the outcome one way or another. If you are, that would be highly unethical.

You didn’t actually read the links, did you?

You’re talking about passenger vehicles, bud... Go look at the commercial side. I linked to the freaking CARB standard that covers exactly what we’re talking about. You’re also talking about registration, which is a bit different.

Likely because that “talking point” is just that and nothing more?

Uh, literally everywhere you see one of these:

You’re being naive in your assessment; we don’t even know what the risks are. What if those emissions are actually benefiting us and reducing them is causing more problems?

Actually, YES, they are.

Are you trying to say something intelligent, or are you just rambling?

I’m not; statistics is.

First Gear:

You are a statistics denier. We have too little data to make any statistically relevant decisions. We are, literally, guessing.

Most people are still logical; some are driven by purely emotions and feelings.

Yeah, those numbers are WAY TOO LOW. It’s more like $7-10K more...

The questions are the statements. If you can’t sort it out on your own, you’re already doomed. I’m sorry...

Did you not understand the questions? Or do you not know the answers to them?