On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, Spam Hater wrote:
> If the exhaust pollution were measured that 1940 Chrysler would put out
> as much pollution as several hundred recent cars in total. If you only
> use it to the occasional show OK, for regular use you have no
> consideration for the air we all breathe.
While it’s easy and convenient for you to point the finger at cars older
than whatever year or lacking whatever technology you arbitrarily pick,
facts do not back up your assertion. The US EPA (and many state EPAs) were
once very keen on what they called "accelerated retirement" of older
vehicles. No longer. Why? Because they’ve repeatedly and robustly found
that the bulk of vehicle-sourced air pollution comes from cars between 4
and 14 years old. This age group comprises the largest percentage of the
on-road fleet. High-polluting vehicles closer to the 4-year-old end of the
scale are beginning to experience emissions-related failures and
deterioration but are still, while high-polluting vehicles closer to the
14-year-old end of the scale are being driven by those who cannot or will
not pay to keep them in proper repair.
The percentage of the on-road fleet represented by vehicles older than 20
years is so trivial that if ALL of them were immediately removed from
service, there would be no measurable improvement in air quality.
So, in a sense, the many newer cars on the road "subsidize" the higher
emissions of the few older cars on the road. That may chap your personal
sense of fairness, but the refusal of even the strictest vehicle-in-use
emissions regulations to prohibit old cars in proper repair means your
view has been thoroughly rejected.
This isn’t from me, it’s from the findings of the Federal EPA. Synopses
are easily findable on the web, while whole reports can be purchased from
EPA directly if you’re inclined to educate yourself.
But, I’m guessing you’re not. You’d rather bitch and moan ignorantly and
melodramatically about *one* 1940 Chrysler or *one* 1968 Dodge or *one*
1977 Chevrolet.
DS
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> So, in a sense, the many newer cars on the road "subsidize" the higher
> emissions of the few older cars on the road. That may chap your personal
> sense of fairness, but the refusal of even the strictest vehicle-in-use
> emissions regulations to prohibit old cars in proper repair means your
> view has been thoroughly rejected.
While this is true, its not even the whole story. By continuing to drive
(and maintain) an older vehicle in top condition, we older-vehicle
drivers prevent a whole "logistics tail" of hidden environmental damage
that comes with the construction of a new car. Everything from the
mining of raw materials (and the emissions of the mining equipment) to
the blast furnaces (or recycling furnaces), to paint fumes, to refining
petroleum for plastics, to hazardous chemicals for the battery packs in
hybrids, to the emissions of the trains and trucks that haul a new car
to its final destination are eliminated, just by NOT buying a stinking
new car.
"Daniel J. Stern" <dast…@127.0.0.1> wrote in
news:Pine.GSO.4.63.0511170832440.19030@alumni.engin.umich.edu:
> But, I’m guessing you’re not. You’d rather bitch and moan ignorantly
> and melodramatically about *one* 1940 Chrysler or *one* 1968 Dodge or
> *one* 1977 Chevrolet.
> DS
I "bitch and moan" when I’m behind one of those "smokescreen" generators.
IMO,police should stop them,cite them,and require the vehicle be TOWED
away;off the road until corrected. A second offense should mean the vehicle
be impounded.
–
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
In article <Xns97117D1B4C7A1jyanikkua…@129.250.170.83>, Jim Yanik wrote:
> I "bitch and moan" when I’m behind one of those "smokescreen" generators.
> IMO,police should stop them,cite them,and require the vehicle be TOWED
> away;off the road until corrected. A second offense should mean the vehicle
> be impounded.
A vehicle putting out that much smoke is a self-correcting problem.
In other words, if it is not repaired, it will soon be non-functional.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Jim Yanik wrote:
> "Daniel J. Stern" <dast…@127.0.0.1> wrote in
> news:Pine.GSO.4.63.0511170832440.19030@alumni.engin.umich.edu:
> > But, I’m guessing you’re not. You’d rather bitch and moan ignorantly
> > and melodramatically about *one* 1940 Chrysler or *one* 1968 Dodge or
> > *one* 1977 Chevrolet.
> > DS
> I "bitch and moan" when I’m behind one of those "smokescreen" generators.
> IMO,police should stop them,cite them,and require the vehicle be TOWED
> away;off the road until corrected. A second offense should mean the vehicle
> be impounded.
You imply that any old car is a "smokescreen generator," which is a
false statement.
nate
tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in
news:lKGdnUf5pcegWuHeRVn-iw@comcast.com:
> In article <Xns97117D1B4C7A1jyanikkua…@129.250.170.83>, Jim Yanik
> wrote:
>> I "bitch and moan" when I’m behind one of those "smokescreen"
>> generators. IMO,police should stop them,cite them,and require the
>> vehicle be TOWED away;off the road until corrected. A second offense
>> should mean the vehicle be impounded.
> A vehicle putting out that much smoke is a self-correcting problem.
> In other words, if it is not repaired, it will soon be non-functional.
Still no reason for police to not take action.
And;Their owners just keep putting in more oil.
(instead of repairing or junking the auto)
–
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
In article <Xns9711B8D71C4E8jyanikkua…@129.250.170.84>, Jim Yanik wrote:
> tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in
> news:lKGdnUf5pcegWuHeRVn-iw@comcast.com:
>> In article <Xns97117D1B4C7A1jyanikkua…@129.250.170.83>, Jim Yanik
>> wrote:
>>> I "bitch and moan" when I’m behind one of those "smokescreen"
>>> generators. IMO,police should stop them,cite them,and require the
>>> vehicle be TOWED away;off the road until corrected. A second offense
>>> should mean the vehicle be impounded.
>> A vehicle putting out that much smoke is a self-correcting problem.
>> In other words, if it is not repaired, it will soon be non-functional.
> Still no reason for police to not take action.
> And;Their owners just keep putting in more oil.
> (instead of repairing or junking the auto)
Having lived near the poorest neighborhood in chicago at the time (which
I think was also close to the poorest in the nation) I can say for a fact
that the cars simply died. Ocassionally I would see a car that would
leave a linging fog all over state street (at that time 2 lanes each way
plus a parking lane on each side plus a median) for blocks. It would
never be the same car twice.
Now the ones I would see repeatedly were the ones with various structural
and suspension issues. Which I don’t even know if that’s a violation in
IL.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Steve wrote:
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> > So, in a sense, the many newer cars on the road "subsidize" the higher
> > emissions of the few older cars on the road. That may chap your personal
> > sense of fairness, but the refusal of even the strictest vehicle-in-use
> > emissions regulations to prohibit old cars in proper repair means your
> > view has been thoroughly rejected.
> While this is true, its not even the whole story. By continuing to drive
> (and maintain) an older vehicle in top condition, we older-vehicle
> drivers prevent a whole "logistics tail" of hidden environmental damage
> that comes with the construction of a new car. Everything from the
> mining of raw materials (and the emissions of the mining equipment) to
> the blast furnaces (or recycling furnaces), to paint fumes, to refining
> petroleum for plastics, to hazardous chemicals for the battery packs in
> hybrids, to the emissions of the trains and trucks that haul a new car
> to its final destination are eliminated, just by NOT buying a stinking
> new car.
That argument, whilst having some validity becomes less persuasive as modern
vehicles become more fuel efficient and therefore cause the balance to swing
in their favour.
Graham
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Pooh Bear wrote:
> Steve wrote:
>>Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>>>So, in a sense, the many newer cars on the road "subsidize" the higher
>>>emissions of the few older cars on the road. That may chap your personal
>>>sense of fairness, but the refusal of even the strictest vehicle-in-use
>>>emissions regulations to prohibit old cars in proper repair means your
>>>view has been thoroughly rejected.
>>While this is true, its not even the whole story. By continuing to drive
>> (and maintain) an older vehicle in top condition, we older-vehicle
>>drivers prevent a whole "logistics tail" of hidden environmental damage
>>that comes with the construction of a new car. Everything from the
>>mining of raw materials (and the emissions of the mining equipment) to
>>the blast furnaces (or recycling furnaces), to paint fumes, to refining
>>petroleum for plastics, to hazardous chemicals for the battery packs in
>>hybrids, to the emissions of the trains and trucks that haul a new car
>>to its final destination are eliminated, just by NOT buying a stinking
>>new car.
> That argument, whilst having some validity becomes less persuasive as modern
> vehicles become more fuel efficient and therefore cause the balance to swing
> in their favour.
> Graham
Hi Graham…
With all due respect let me refute that… vehicles certainly aren’t
becoming more efficient, quite the opposite. Ever since the mid to
late 80′s efficiency has been dropping.
However, even if I could agree with you, how about the landfill
situation? If we’re trying to turn the entire continent into one
massive dump – we’re off to a pretty good start.
Conspicous consumption. Let’s use up all the world’s natural resources
today, and let future generations fend for themselves. If they can.
Course I’m from the waste not want not generation, so…
Take care.
Ken
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Pooh Bear wrote:
> Steve wrote:
>>Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>>>So, in a sense, the many newer cars on the road "subsidize" the higher
>>>emissions of the few older cars on the road. That may chap your personal
>>>sense of fairness, but the refusal of even the strictest vehicle-in-use
>>>emissions regulations to prohibit old cars in proper repair means your
>>>view has been thoroughly rejected.
>>While this is true, its not even the whole story. By continuing to drive
>> (and maintain) an older vehicle in top condition, we older-vehicle
>>drivers prevent a whole "logistics tail" of hidden environmental damage
>>that comes with the construction of a new car. Everything from the
>>mining of raw materials (and the emissions of the mining equipment) to
>>the blast furnaces (or recycling furnaces), to paint fumes, to refining
>>petroleum for plastics, to hazardous chemicals for the battery packs in
>>hybrids, to the emissions of the trains and trucks that haul a new car
>>to its final destination are eliminated, just by NOT buying a stinking
>>new car.
> That argument, whilst having some validity becomes less persuasive as modern
> vehicles become more fuel efficient and therefore cause the balance to swing
> in their favour.
> Graham
Even if that were to be absolutely true, it doesn’t account for the fact
that 90% of new cars suck. They’re soulless identity-less jellybeans
with no "character" and with built-in obsolescence, or else they cost
$40k or more. And a lot are all of the above.
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Pooh Bear wrote:
>> By continuing to drive (and maintain) an older vehicle in top
>> condition, we older-vehicle drivers prevent a whole "logistics tail" of
>> hidden environmental damage that comes with the construction of a new
>> car. Everything from the mining of raw materials (and the emissions of
>> the mining equipment) to the blast furnaces (or recycling furnaces), to
>> paint fumes, to refining petroleum for plastics, to hazardous chemicals
>> for the battery packs in hybrids, to the emissions of the trains and
>> trucks that haul a new car to its final destination are eliminated,
>> just by NOT buying a stinking new car.
> That argument, whilst having some validity becomes less persuasive as
> modern vehicles become more fuel efficient and therefore cause the
> balance to swing in their favour.
You are guessing and assuming — incorrectly. Your first error is in
assuming that there’s a fine, delicate balance between the resource
consumption and emissions caused by the manufacture of a vehicle on the
one hand, and the resource consumption and emissions caused by the
operation of that vehicle on the other. If that were the case, then the
fuel economy of the manufactured vehicle could possibly swing the balance.
However, in fact, there is no such fine balance. The manufacture of the
vehicle from raw materials is very much more energy-intensive and
polluting than the operation of that vehicle over its lifetime. Such is
the difference that the fuel economy and emissions characteristics of the
vehicle are trivial in the calculation.
Your second error is in assuming that fuel economy has been increasing
lately. Remember, in the US, the overall on-road fleet fuel economy has
been *decreasing* over the last two decades.
DS
Jim Yanik wrote:
> "Daniel J. Stern" <dast…@127.0.0.1> wrote in
> news:Pine.GSO.4.63.0511170832440.19030@alumni.engin.umich.edu:
>> But, I’m guessing you’re not. You’d rather bitch and moan ignorantly
>> and melodramatically about *one* 1940 Chrysler or *one* 1968 Dodge or
>> *one* 1977 Chevrolet.
> I "bitch and moan" when I’m behind one of those "smokescreen" generators.
> IMO,police should stop them,cite them,and require the vehicle be TOWED
> away;off the road until corrected. A second offense should mean the vehicle
> be impounded.
Unless it’s a city-owned diesel garbage truck. Remember when they told us
that that heavy black diesel smoke was harmless because the particles were so
big and heavy?
One more chunk of smog-people credibility right down the drain.
–
Cheers, Bev
===================================================
Red ship crashes into blue ship – sailors marooned.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
The Real Bev wrote:
> Jim Yanik wrote:
> > "Daniel J. Stern" <dast…@127.0.0.1> wrote in
> > news:Pine.GSO.4.63.0511170832440.19030@alumni.engin.umich.edu:
> >> But, I’m guessing you’re not. You’d rather bitch and moan ignorantly
> >> and melodramatically about *one* 1940 Chrysler or *one* 1968 Dodge or
> >> *one* 1977 Chevrolet.
> > I "bitch and moan" when I’m behind one of those "smokescreen" generators.
> > IMO,police should stop them,cite them,and require the vehicle be TOWED
> > away;off the road until corrected. A second offense should mean the vehicle
> > be impounded.
> Unless it’s a city-owned diesel garbage truck. Remember when they told us
> that that heavy black diesel smoke was harmless because the particles were so
> big and heavy?
> One more chunk of smog-people credibility right down the drain.
> —
> Cheers, Bev
> ===================================================
> Red ship crashes into blue ship – sailors marooned.
Attack Of the Smog People sounds like something that should be on IFC.
Dave