Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 22:01:16 -0500
Reply-To: Chris <chris@MCCLURKEN.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Chris <chris@MCCLURKEN.COM>
Subject: Re: emission ethics
In-Reply-To: <vanagon%2004082810462992@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
I really don't care to get into the rest of this argument but.....While
your assumption about most vanagon/westy owners is probably true, there
are some of us in different financial situations. My van IS my daily
transportation. I purchased it while I had a job providing me with a
company vehicle. I made the deal then promptly lost my job and having
made a deal, I kept my word. I probably would've made a different
choice if I knew I'd be driving in rush hour traffic everyday. And if I
was short of cash and needed to pass emissions to keep putting food on
the table then I would do whatever I had to do...it can be properly
fixed later.
I've never met a soul who woke up every morning intent on polluting as
much as possible. Situations vary as wildly as opinions.
BTW, my van just passed and is cleaner than my former newer car! (thank
the Higher Power of your choice here)
Chris
85 GL
On Aug 28, 2004, at 09:39, Scott Norville wrote:
> Similarly, we should offer no guidance if someone on the list were
> posting
> queries or instructions for shooting cops while stealth camping in a
> Walmart
> parking lot.
> This is an issue that has more ramifications than just flauting unfair
> laws.
> On an legal level you are beraking laws if you make "temporary"
> changes to
> pass emissions; on an ethical level you are not being honest with
> yourself
> or your fellow humans; on a moral level you are contributing to the
> more
> rapid decline in the habitability of this planet; and on a practical
> level
> you are contributing to the more rapid decline of your beloved van.
> As others have said, not passing emissions (or any part of the safety
> inspection) is usually a sign that something is wrong with the van (or
> the
> testing equipment), not a sign of intrusive government. Yes, the
> things that
> go wrong without you knowing it are often expensive, annoying and
> aggravating to fix, but better now than when you drop a valve from the
> lean
> mix or get stranded in the mountains with a clogged cat.
> If you want to live where there is less "intrusion" by government you
> have a
> wide sheaf of choices. Look at some of the places Joy works: the lovely
> clear air of Cairo, for instance. Or you could just move to the less
> urban
> areas of the US. Oh, you like living in the congested areas with lots
> of
> other people? Then you have to learn and play by the rules that have
> been
> developed to allow humans to live close together.
> Everything a rational human does is a compromise. Some of us choose to
> drive
> our buses from a preference for its utilitarian Teutonic style,
> capacity and
> endurance, but I doubt if many on this list drive theirs because it is
> the
> only vehicle they can afford--there are many cheaper vehicles to
> acquire and
> maintain, even many other VWs, within legal limits. Like Joy, I drive
> mine
> when I need two portable bedrooms with a kitchen and use something more
> efficient for other running around.
>
> So, I'll stop my rant here with a summation: we are members of a
> civilization, with the privileges and responsibilities that entail, or
> we
> are barbarians.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 08:15:49 -0700, gary hradek <hradek@YAHOO.COM>
> wrote:
>
>> Joy,
>> We need no ethical guidance on this list when it
>> comes to emission checks. If you really push this
>> issue you would not be on the vanagon list at all but
>> you would be on the low polluting eurovan list.
>> There are many reasons people choose to handle a
>> vanagon problem the way they do. We need to take
>> care not to judge them on this action. Two hundred
>> dollars may make the difference whether they get
>> enough to eat or not.
>> I for one would like to know if advancing the
>> engine or retarding the engine will decrease NOX?
>> I thought an engine runs hotter when it is retarded
>> and thus NOX would be higher? So what do you think?
>> regards, gary
>> Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 23:25:39 -0400
>> From: Joy Hecht <jhecht@ALUM.MIT.EDU>
>> Subject: Re: Failed Emissions Check
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I know it's nice to pass your emissions test without
>> any expense, but
>> you
>> know, those emissions tests are there for a reason,
>> and it's not simply
>> to
>> hassle us. NOX emissions are harmful to all of us,
>> and to the natural
>> environment of which we are one small part - those
>> controls are there
>> to
>> protect people and animals and plants, not to make the
>> government feel
>> powerful.
>>
>> I think we all enjoy the opportunity that our vans
>> give us to travel
>> and
>> experience the environment. Is it really acceptable to
>> cheat on your
>> emissions tests to save yourself a couple of hundred
>> bucks, but pass on
>> the
>> harm you cause to the environment to hurt other
>> people?
>>
>> I'd be disappointed if most of the people in this
>> community felt it
>> was.
>>
>>
>>
>> Joy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> __________________________________
>> Do you Yahoo!?
>> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
>> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>
| 
