NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/rec/autos/27311

Text File | 1992-11-19 | 3.5 KB | 75 lines

Newsgroups: rec.autos
Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!kronos.arc.nasa.gov!iscnvx!sharen
From: [e-mail] (Sharen A. Rund)
Subject: Re: Hot rods & clunkers  (Was: Eth Bl Gas ... )
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Lockheed Missiles and Space Co.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 21:06:10 GMT
Lines: 64

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan Harling) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Greg Moritz) writes:
>>Famous argument; 'Takes energy to make a new car - better to keep the old
>>one up.'  I have never seen a definitive comparison between the amount of
>>pollution and energy from building a new car and the amount of pollution
>>and energy saved by driving a cleaner, more fuel efficient newer car.
>
>Nor have I, but I suspect that the pollution created in scrapping an
>old car and manufacturing a new one would equal that generated by a
>well-maintained older car for a significant number of years.  Even
>apart from the pollution due to material usage, consider the amount of
>energy expended in manufacturing and machining.
>
>
>>...a new Crown Vic.  It's a gas-hog next to a Saturn, but it is
>>a fuel-misor next to a smoke-belching mid-seventies piece of V8 iron.
>                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>This is obviously a stereotype; at least, "smoke-belching mid-seventies
>piece of V8 iron" sounds more like a prejudice to me than a
>qualification.  Some folks aren't clever enough to realize all old cars
>do not necessarily belch smoke (or even that newer cars can and do if
>they are not maintained), mainly because of characterizations like this
>one.  At this very minute, someone out there is thinking, "is there
>*any other kind* of old car?"
>

hear, hear - I happen to have a number of pre-80 cars - all of them
are in _top_ running condition, the engines are so clean that you
could eat off them (but I wouldn't let you) - my husband invests a
nice amount of time into our cars so they are in good condition, we're
very proud of our cars, and, except for people like you, we get
great comments about them

>
 [ stuff deleted ]
>
>Nevertheless, I am completely in agreement with the strategy of
>providing incentives to get those old cars that *do* belch smoke either
>repaired or off the road, so that they no longer give a bad name to the
>older cars that the rest of us maintain in top condition.  Once the
>"belchers" are gone, pre-'80 cars will make up a smaller fraction of
>air pollution, and warrant less attention from "tree-huggers" (as I
>affectionately call them).
>

right on

>Once that fraction goes down, the extreme measures under consideration
>(and the naive yet conspiracy-laden lumping of *all* older cars into
>the same category, regardless of how much they pollute *individually*)
>will no longer be justifiable.  Let's hope we can accomplish this
>before the crusher laws go into the books!  Once they're there, we'll
>never get them out.

I certainly hope so ....

--
________________       __        ________________   "They that can give up
\_________      \     /_ \      /      _________/  essential liberty to
 \_________      \_____/  \____/      _________/  obtain temporary safety
  \___________________      __________________/  deserve neither liberty
                     /______\                   nor safety."
ALL disclaimers apply ....                           --Benjamin Franklin