Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 22:50:58 -0800
Reply-To: Todd Last <Rubatoguy@MINDSPRING.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Todd Last <Rubatoguy@MINDSPRING.COM>
Subject: Re: Old Car Scrappage Bullshit Alert
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Actually, while that may have been true in the past, automobiles are no longer
the primary
sources of pollution. In addition, studies have shown that removing all the cars
20 years and older from the roadways would result in a negligible reduction in
pollution. Simply because the number of cars, and their annual mileage is not
that significant.
Take a look at this old article from the environmental news service:
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/sep99/1999L-09-29-07.html
In addition, removing the cars may not result in any change in pollution levels.
In California, where a similar program has been in place, Large polluting
companies are allowed to get "pollution credits" by crushing old cars - which
means that they can run their polluting plants without having to clean them up.
So, a polluting company can take an old car that is sitting in someone's garage
which does not even run, and get a credit for a plant that emits excess
pollutants every day.
It may sound like a reasonable idea, but by the time the politicians and special
interests get ahold of things, you can bet that very little will end up
benefiting the average citizen.
Todd
'88 Westy
Mike Finkbiner wrote:
> I think that there would be a lot of value in taking some old junkers off
> the road. Car & Driver had an article on this a few months ago, and IIRC
> they found that this would be a lot cheaper method of cleaning up the air
> than any possible improvements to new cars, because of the huge amount of
> tailpipe pollutants which are produced by poorly maintained older cars.
>
> The problem is how to do it in a reasonable manner.
>
> Car & Driver's recommendation was to institute mobile sniffer units, to
> track down those vehicles which are producing a lot of pollution. The
> owners could be given the choice of bringing it up to the standard it had
> when new, or turning it in for a scrapping fee. They wouldn't be cruising
> the back roads in Idaho, but would be looking in the cities where the
> problem is concentrated.
>
> It sounds like the government is going to take a simpler approach, which is
> typical, but will make it a lot harder on hobbyists. If you are going to
> write your congress critter about this, I would recommend proposing an
> alternative, rather than just opposing the plan.
>
> Mike Finkbiner
> '87 Westy
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Rico Sapolich said -
>
> In a message dated 12/20/01 1:09:21 AM, goodolevolk@YAHOO.COM writes:
>
> << This section 803 scrappage funding is a misguided attempt to improve the
> overall fuel economy of the country1s vehicle fleet and represents a
> significant threat to our hobby and industry. >>
>
> What odd convolutions those who worship the "invisible guiding hand" of a
> free economy will use to validate government intervention into its workings.
> At least when such an invasion fattens the purses of those first in line at
> the feeding trough. Under the guise of saving the environment, they have
> found a way to help the progeny of Henry Ford and his fellow club members
> sell more cars.
>
> Is less energy, because that is what we are really talking about here,
> consumed to manufacture and use a new car or to restore and use an old car?
> <SNIP>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
| 
