Date:         Wed, 4 Jul 2012 12:56:31 -0700
Reply-To:     David M <covrambles@YAHOO.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         David M <covrambles@YAHOO.COM>
Subject:      Re: EPA and Vanagon Emissions
In-Reply-To:  <CAFeNKKFOTfjQtb1m4HKqQ+Q7LB5=nyHHsFx3HFAR7EKeNvq-wQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

What we really need is less people.

--- On Sat, 6/30/12, Joy Hecht <jhecht@ALUM.MIT.EDU> wrote:

From: Joy Hecht <jhecht@ALUM.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: EPA and Vanagon Emissions
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
Date: Saturday, June 30, 2012, 6:00 AM

A liter of water weighs a kilo - that's how a kilo is defined.  Gasoline
weighs less than water.  But in any case, the point was that burning one
liter of gas (weighing less than one kilo) emits more than 2 kg of carbon,
which is what seemed odd to me.

Diesel may well emit less per distance - the point was that (irrespective
of your gas mileage) you have to burn less to emit less.  Depending on your
fuel and your fuel efficiency, that might mean you drive more or less
miles.  The ultimate goal here is not less emissions per mile, it's less
emissions.  If you have to reduce miles to accomplish that, so be it.

From what I've read, when people get more fuel-efficient vehicles, they
tend to drive more since the cost of driving has gone down.  So their
emissions stay the same.  From an environmental perspective, the goal is to
get emissions down.  Whereas the personal goal might be to be able to drive
more (i.e. go to more fun places) at the same cost (usually in money, not
emissions).  The personal goal does not help achieve the environmental goal.