"Biz" > wrote in message
...
>And hence you validate my post, I was responding to a guy who said cats
>dont matter, without that chemical reaction taking place in teh cat, much
>higher emisson figures.

Yes...I agree w/you there. All other things equall they *do* have a
function.

In article >,
says...

>I dunno about that. Even the biggest, thirstiest SUV made today is
>much, much cleaner than just about any car from the '70s or '80s. The
>problem isn't all the *new* cars, it's all the *old* ones.

If only that was true. The number of older cars is very tiny compared with
the number of newer cars on the road. So the problem is not old cars. They
contribute only a tiny bit to all the pollution in the air.
-------------
Alex

Alex Rodriguez wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
>
>>I dunno about that. Even the biggest, thirstiest SUV made today is
>>much, much cleaner than just about any car from the '70s or '80s. The
>>problem isn't all the *new* cars, it's all the *old* ones.
>
>
> If only that was true. The number of older cars is very tiny compared with
> the number of newer cars on the road. So the problem is not old cars. They
> contribute only a tiny bit to all the pollution in the air.

So what *is* the problem?
A: Trucks. All those diesel trucks without smog controls on them.

We have major air quality issues here affecting Los Angeles and the Central
Valley, due to the high mountains that traps air particulents. It affects
issues as simple as buying charcoal lighter fluid in stores and the use of
gasoline lawn mowers and edgers. Diesel fuel is running about the same
price as gasoline, BTW, so both types of fuel are overpriced. :)
Even non fuel related activities, such as ag activities that put dust in the
air are subject to upcoming regulations by the EPA.


> wrote in message
...
>I don't know what the big deal is about diesel cars in these four
> states.I guess they just want you to spend more money on overpriced
> gasoline,and how many people buy diesel cars to actually claim it's a
> hazard to the environment as they say.
>

Alex Rodriguez wrote:
>
> In article >,
> says...
>
> >I dunno about that. Even the biggest, thirstiest SUV made today is
> >much, much cleaner than just about any car from the '70s or '80s. The
> >problem isn't all the *new* cars, it's all the *old* ones.
>
> If only that was true. The number of older cars is very tiny compared with
> the number of newer cars on the road. So the problem is not old cars. They
> contribute only a tiny bit to all the pollution in the air.
> -------------
> Alex

I believe it. In the southern coastal area of California in 1998, light
duty vehicles 15 years or older accounted for 11% of miles driven, but
39% of NOx and ROG (reactive organic gases) emitted from light duty
vehicles.

Source: http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/...MR1256.ch1.pdf.

Alex Rodriguez wrote:
>
> In article >,
> says...
>
> >I dunno about that. Even the biggest, thirstiest SUV made today is
> >much, much cleaner than just about any car from the '70s or '80s. The
> >problem isn't all the *new* cars, it's all the *old* ones.
>
> If only that was true. The number of older cars is very tiny compared with
> the number of newer cars on the road. So the problem is not old cars. They
> contribute only a tiny bit to all the pollution in the air.
> -------------
> Alex

I believe it. In the southern coastal area of California in 1998, light
duty vehicles 15 years or older accounted for 11% of miles driven, but
39% of NOx and ROG (reactive organic gases) emitted from light duty
vehicles.

Source: http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/...MR1256.ch1.pdf.