Seldom see "smoke belchers" anymore * Why not?

Pooh Bear wrote:
>
> Steve wrote:
>
>
>>Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So, in a sense, the many newer cars on the road "subsidize" the higher
>>>emissions of the few older cars on the road. That may chap your personal
>>>sense of fairness, but the refusal of even the strictest vehicle-in-use
>>>emissions regulations to prohibit old cars in proper repair means your
>>>view has been thoroughly rejected.
>>
>>While this is true, its not even the whole story. By continuing to drive
>> (and maintain) an older vehicle in top condition, we older-vehicle
>>drivers prevent a whole "logistics tail" of hidden environmental damage
>>that comes with the construction of a new car. Everything from the
>>mining of raw materials (and the emissions of the mining equipment) to
>>the blast furnaces (or recycling furnaces), to paint fumes, to refining
>>petroleum for plastics, to hazardous chemicals for the battery packs in
>>hybrids, to the emissions of the trains and trucks that haul a new car
>>to its final destination are eliminated, just by NOT buying a stinking
>>new car.
>
>
> That argument, whilst having some validity becomes less persuasive as modern
> vehicles become more fuel efficient and therefore cause the balance to swing
> in their favour.
>
> Graham

Hi Graham...

With all due respect let me refute that... vehicles certainly aren't
becoming more efficient, quite the opposite. Ever since the mid to
late 80's efficiency has been dropping.

However, even if I could agree with you, how about the landfill
situation? If we're trying to turn the entire continent into one
massive dump - we're off to a pretty good start.

Conspicous consumption. Let's use up all the world's natural resources
today, and let future generations fend for themselves. If they can.

Course I'm from the waste not want not generation, so...

Take care.

Ken

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 03:16:29 +0000, Pooh Bear
> wrote:

>
>
>Steve wrote:
>
>> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>>
>> > So, in a sense, the many newer cars on the road "subsidize" the higher
>> > emissions of the few older cars on the road. That may chap your personal
>> > sense of fairness, but the refusal of even the strictest vehicle-in-use
>> > emissions regulations to prohibit old cars in proper repair means your
>> > view has been thoroughly rejected.
>>
>> While this is true, its not even the whole story. By continuing to drive
>> (and maintain) an older vehicle in top condition, we older-vehicle
>> drivers prevent a whole "logistics tail" of hidden environmental damage
>> that comes with the construction of a new car. Everything from the
>> mining of raw materials (and the emissions of the mining equipment) to
>> the blast furnaces (or recycling furnaces), to paint fumes, to refining
>> petroleum for plastics, to hazardous chemicals for the battery packs in
>> hybrids, to the emissions of the trains and trucks that haul a new car
>> to its final destination are eliminated, just by NOT buying a stinking
>> new car.
>
>That argument, whilst having some validity becomes less persuasive as modern
>vehicles become more fuel efficient and therefore cause the balance to swing
>in their favour.
>
>Graham
>
And a 1953? Hudson Hornet TwinH (7X?)with the road draft tube
replaced with a PCV was reportedly able to pass proposed 1978
emmission regulations in 1974 when all the manufacturers were crying
it could not be done. 170 HP 308 cubic inch flathead six (7.2:1 CR?)
with dual intake manifolds in a high state of tune.

Pooh Bear wrote:

>
> Steve wrote:
>
>
>>Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So, in a sense, the many newer cars on the road "subsidize" the higher
>>>emissions of the few older cars on the road. That may chap your personal
>>>sense of fairness, but the refusal of even the strictest vehicle-in-use
>>>emissions regulations to prohibit old cars in proper repair means your
>>>view has been thoroughly rejected.
>>
>>While this is true, its not even the whole story. By continuing to drive
>> (and maintain) an older vehicle in top condition, we older-vehicle
>>drivers prevent a whole "logistics tail" of hidden environmental damage
>>that comes with the construction of a new car. Everything from the
>>mining of raw materials (and the emissions of the mining equipment) to
>>the blast furnaces (or recycling furnaces), to paint fumes, to refining
>>petroleum for plastics, to hazardous chemicals for the battery packs in
>>hybrids, to the emissions of the trains and trucks that haul a new car
>>to its final destination are eliminated, just by NOT buying a stinking
>>new car.
>
>
> That argument, whilst having some validity becomes less persuasive as modern
> vehicles become more fuel efficient and therefore cause the balance to swing
> in their favour.
>
> Graham

Even if that were to be absolutely true, it doesn't account for the fact
that 90% of new cars suck. They're soulless identity-less jellybeans
with no "character" and with built-in obsolescence, or else they cost
$40k or more. And a lot are all of the above.

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Pooh Bear wrote:

>> By continuing to drive (and maintain) an older vehicle in top
>> condition, we older-vehicle drivers prevent a whole "logistics tail" of
>> hidden environmental damage that comes with the construction of a new
>> car. Everything from the mining of raw materials (and the emissions of
>> the mining equipment) to the blast furnaces (or recycling furnaces), to
>> paint fumes, to refining petroleum for plastics, to hazardous chemicals
>> for the battery packs in hybrids, to the emissions of the trains and
>> trucks that haul a new car to its final destination are eliminated,
>> just by NOT buying a stinking new car.

> That argument, whilst having some validity becomes less persuasive as
> modern vehicles become more fuel efficient and therefore cause the
> balance to swing in their favour.

You are guessing and assuming -- incorrectly. Your first error is in
assuming that there's a fine, delicate balance between the resource
consumption and emissions caused by the manufacture of a vehicle on the
one hand, and the resource consumption and emissions caused by the
operation of that vehicle on the other. If that were the case, then the
fuel economy of the manufactured vehicle could possibly swing the balance.
However, in fact, there is no such fine balance. The manufacture of the
vehicle from raw materials is very much more energy-intensive and
polluting than the operation of that vehicle over its lifetime. Such is
the difference that the fuel economy and emissions characteristics of the
vehicle are trivial in the calculation.

Your second error is in assuming that fuel economy has been increasing
lately. Remember, in the US, the overall on-road fleet fuel economy has
been *decreasing* over the last two decades.

DS