Sema

Scott - they care only about the emission of the VOC, the law doesn't regulate where in the chain the emission occurs. The law regulates products which can be USED in California - it has nothing to do with the manufacture of the product. Simply stated, for a product to be sold in CA, or brought into the state for use, it may not emit more than "X" amount of VOC. The threshold varies by product type (paste wax, liquid wax, detailer, dressing, etc - each has a different limit).



Since manufacturers cannot control where a product is sold, in effect, it regulates products sold in the US.



For example, if I make a product in another state, and ship it to a warehouse in AZ, and they ship it to a customer in CA, I'm liable since I made the product.



FWIW, there are no major wax manufacturers making product in CA, yet we are all subject to the law.



Go figure.



As for cost, the slow release solvents are significantly more expensive than the quick release, since the technology is more advanced and there is (so far) less demand. This price difference MAY change once all the manufacturers are forced to use the slow release - maybe more demand/volume for the slow release will drive price down. But, we can't be sure, and won't know until if/when it happens.



Our preliminary cost difference right now shows a double digit increase in production cost. How this will translate to resale/retail prices depends on the market - will other manufacturers pass along this increase, or absorb it? Will the market accept price increases?



It all remains to be seen.
 
Okay, so the concern is the amount of VOCs released when the product is used and not in the manufacture.



Sounds like a real PITA for you guys and I wonder exactly how significantly the changes will actually effect the air we breath.
 
(sarcastic reply) You think CARB really cares about how it impacts us? These are the same folks who just decided catalytic converters are necessary for lawn mowers and weed eaters.



I'm not sure anyone will be able to measure the impact this has, given the percentage of the population that uses appearance chemicals on their vehicle.



I think they're simply trying to justify their continued existence by passing laws that sound good. It's irrelevant that the laws make little sense or make things better.



Rant over.
 
forrest said:
(sarcastic reply) You think CARB really cares about how it impacts us? These are the same folks who just decided catalytic converters are necessary for lawn mowers and weed eaters.



I'm not sure anyone will be able to measure the impact this has, given the percentage of the population that uses appearance chemicals on their vehicle.



I think they're simply trying to justify their continued existence by passing laws that sound good. It's irrelevant that the laws make little sense or make things better.



Rant over.
Click to expand...



I couldn't agree with you more! :xyxthumbs



The EPA couldn't wait to ram the MTBE blends of gasoline down our throats and now they find it is a serious hazard to the ground water tables.
 
I'll be the devil's advocate.



Although I agree with opinions and feelings posted here, I may not be seeing the big picture. Me waxing my car and you waxing your car, and all the Autopians waxing our cars might not be all that much; but all Americans waxing their cars, plus waxing furniture, and sealing driveways and decks, and painting, and using glue (it is actually a far-reaching piece of legislation), does add up to quite a bit of VOC emission. What you smell when you peel off a couple feet of duct tape is VOC emission. IMO, it adds up to a small amount compared to the amount of "clean air credits" purchased by antiquated power plants in Illinois and allowed by the (current) EPA under the Blue Skies Initiative, or whatever doublespeak is currently being used to describe the exact opposite of what is occuring, but nevertheless it is there.



The choice for us as consumers and Americans is, will we trade dollars to maintain our current standard of appearance and protection of our material goods, AND release less VOC into the atmosphere? Hey, you're asking a guy who spent $50 on a can of wax. I'd spend $15 instead of $13 for a can of Mother's Carnuba. I'd spend $15 for NXT. I think Joe Consumer would spend $4 instead of $3 for Turtle Wax (if he didn't just trust the clearcoat instead).



The choice is different for a professional, who is already getting squeezed by rising health care costs, competition for allocation of diminishing dollars among his customers, minimum wage standards, pricing pressures from competitors, and ever more stringent environmental and workplace safety regulations; the difference in cost of products CAN'T be absorbed, it HAS TO BE passed on to the customer, who will have difficulty understanding, or simply won't care, that it now COSTS $10 more to do his car.



The regulation needs to be sold to the American public. Frankly, I didn't know about it until I read this discussion. Is it worth the economic impact? I doubt it, but we won't ever really know the answer.





Tom
 
Mosca - in generalities, I agree. I have 2 children 10 and 12, and want them to have a nice, clean world to grow up in.



However, CARB has a history of enacting legislation mandating changes to where the technology doesn't even exist from a practical standpoint. Remember the percentage of new vehicles sold after 2004 (I think) must be alternative fuel powered (electric). All the electric vehicles out there aren't practical for everyday driving, but CARB says 10% of them must be powered in that manner in just a year or 2. And, the auto manufacturers lose money on every single one of them sold.



Where does the electricity come from? Why, coal fired powered plants that emit all sorts of pollutants. They're just moving the pollution source upstream so it's not visible to the uninformed consumer, and bragging that they're making the environment a better place.



Sleight of hand, I'd say.



Back to the stuff I know of, though: mandating a reduction in VOC's for our types of products is great, but, with current technology you'll get products that are more difficult to apply and remove and don't last as long. For some folks, they'll simply use the products more often, offsetting the reduction of VOC's through more frequent application.



The net result is zero change in discharged VOC's, so no one wins. As a consumer, you'll end up paying more for inferior products you'll have to use more often, putting the same total amount of VOC's into the atmosphere.



I don't see the benefit of the program.



But, there's no sense in crying about it. It's going to happen and as manufacturers, we can just play the cards we're dealt.
 
Oh, I absolutely agree with you, forrest. The contrary argument points to situations where regulation has forced manufacturers into making better safer products (today's engines), but it ignores situations that resulted in inferior safer products (r134a). My first thought was, "If there are the same amount of VOCs, but they get released slower, then with enough time they will still all eventually evaporate, and the sum total of VOCs in the air will remain the same."



Remember that automotive finishing products are a small part of the overall legislation. It is going to affect everything from deoderants to masking tape to bug spray to outdoor deck sealants to WD40-type lubricants.



My solution, quite frankly, is going to be buying my favorite products, of all types, by the gallon over the next year, and not looking back.





Tom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top