Californian busybody telling Canada about cars

They are pushing for higher pollution control standards
and fuel efficiency big time. With the move toward bigger
engines wanted by consumers, and larger vehicles for the
most part, this is obviously difficult.
What I do not want is legislation forcing people in Canada
to drive tiny, fuel efficient death-traps OR huge gas guzzler
taxes on v8 equipped cars.
So, for the Californian legislator involving themselves in
Canada's business, GET LOST!

Trying to start a big long thread full of fighting?

-Mike

--
A happy kid behind the wheel of a 98 Mustang GT
Cold air intake
FRPP 3.73 gears
Steeda Tri-Ax Shifter
Full Boar turbo mufflers
Hi-speed fan switch
255/60R-15 rear tires
Subframe connectors


"RichA" > wrote in message
...
> They are pushing for higher pollution control standards
> and fuel efficiency big time. With the move toward bigger
> engines wanted by consumers, and larger vehicles for the
> most part, this is obviously difficult.
> What I do not want is legislation forcing people in Canada
> to drive tiny, fuel efficient death-traps OR huge gas guzzler
> taxes on v8 equipped cars.
> So, for the Californian legislator involving themselves in
> Canada's business, GET LOST!
>

> "RichA" > wrote in message
> ...
> wrote in message
. com...
> > They are pushing for higher pollution control standards
> > and fuel efficiency big time. With the move toward bigger
> > engines wanted by consumers, and larger vehicles for the
> > most part, this is obviously difficult.
> > What I do not want is legislation forcing people in Canada
> > to drive tiny, fuel efficient death-traps OR huge gas guzzler
> > taxes on v8 equipped cars.
> > So, for the Californian legislator involving themselves in
> > Canada's business, GET LOST!
> >
> Trying to start a big long thread full of fighting?
>
Yeah, gotta love those Kali legislators.
--
John C.
'03 Cobra Convt.

"RichA" > wrote in message
...
| They are pushing for higher pollution control standards
| and fuel efficiency big time.

Ok, now just stop and think about this for a minute.
What's wrong with your statement?
Do you think that less pollution from vehicles would do any harm to this
planet or it's inhabitants?
Better fuel economy is a bad thing Beeeecause????


With the move toward bigger
| engines wanted by consumers, and larger vehicles for the
| most part, this is obviously difficult.

No doubt it is, but they seem to be accomplishing this one step at a time.

| What I do not want is legislation forcing people in Canada
| to drive tiny, fuel efficient death-traps OR huge gas guzzler
| taxes on v8 equipped cars.

I can understand that, I wouldn't want it either.

| So, for the Californian legislator involving themselves in
| Canada's business, GET LOST!

There are lotsa cars for the states being built up there. This means jobs
and economical benefits. If Canada reaps the benefits then she may have to
take some of the pain too. Sorry that's what happens. You sleep with the
dogs, you get fleas.

The California Liberals do have some serious problems when it comes to
sticking their noses in everyone's business BUT sometimes their reasoning is
because they can see what is happening in their state without the controls.
The sky is grey, period. The price of fuel is an abverage of 50 cents a
gallon higher than anywhere else in the states and the highways are
overcrowded by soccer moms in SUVs and commuters thinking they are road
warriors (only a few years ago it was minivans - same mentality, different
cars)

Now, DO KEEP IN MIND that the auto manufacturers build specific vehicles for
California. More or less the "California Emissions System" So I would make a
guess, with no more information than you have provided in your post, that
you are pretty safe for now.

If they DO make the cars run cheaper and with less pollution then I say,
more power to em!
(of course without a loss of power) Then we will have cleaner air, and less
dependency on foreign oil. Our children and grandchildren will have an Earth
to inherit that's habitable and all that. You get my point, right?

Kate

RichA opined in :

> They are pushing for higher pollution control standards
> and fuel efficiency big time. With the move toward bigger
> engines wanted by consumers, and larger vehicles for the
> most part, this is obviously difficult.
> What I do not want is legislation forcing people in Canada
> to drive tiny, fuel efficient death-traps OR huge gas guzzler
> taxes on v8 equipped cars.
> So, for the Californian legislator involving themselves in
> Canada's business, GET LOST!
>

Welll Gee!!!!

Just a couple weeks ago....

Or are you in a red province?

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:39:11 GMT, "SVTKate"
> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>"RichA" > wrote in message
.. .
>| They are pushing for higher pollution control standards
>| and fuel efficiency big time.
>
>Ok, now just stop and think about this for a minute.
>What's wrong with your statement?
>Do you think that less pollution from vehicles would do any harm to this
>planet or it's inhabitants?
>Better fuel economy is a bad thing Beeeecause????

I think what bothers me most is that this whole push to
tighter pollution controls is based on a fraud, the Kyoto treaty.
And even though your Federal government hasn't agreed to it,
your state and local governments (run by some real wackos)
are hell-bent to abide by it.

The mandate is for a 20% decrease in fuel consumption by car fleet
over the next 8 years. That means radical changes to automobile
fleets, the deletion of the truck exemptions, etc.
Cars with better fuel economy are fine. I'm sure given the cost
of gas, many want them. I don't. I want the option to pay the higher
gas costs but I do NOT want to have to pay even more because I'm
"bad" for liking a powerful car or SUV.

As consumers, we are ripped off constantly by government and
manufacturers. They work together (despite the supposed animosity of
the car makers to pollution controls).
The automakers cry each time they make a consumer spend $900
to replace a catalytic converter. Really!

Lastly, Toronto Canada is not LA. We do not have smog problems on
that level and never will, because we won't reach LAs population
levels and we don't have bad geography.

This all stems from the evil Kyoto treaty, (which Canada, like a good
little toady country, signed) which mandates ever stricter
pollution controls on the WEST while sparing the rapidly
industrializing nations in Asia, who are now the largest polluters on
the planet. The cost of all this is going to be trillions of dollars,
it will (and has) shifted wealth from the West to the East in the form
of jobs and the proceeds from those jobs.
The number of cars in China is expected to increase by 20 million over
the next 3-4 years. Guess what kind of pollution controls they have?
NONE. Does India still have pollution-belching 2-stroke mini cars
that pollute as much as 200 regular cars? Yes.
Have you ever seen the pollution levels in cities in industrial China
or India? You should, they make L.A. look as clean as Anchorage.

All to fight a problem "global warming" that,
-Has not been proven satisfactorily and is an example of poor science.
-If if IS true has not been proven to be a man-made phonomenon.
-Is politically-driven.
-If it is happening, studies have shown NO DOWNSIDE to the Northern
Hemisphere. Unless millions of extra acres of habitable land and
year-round growing seasons are bad.
-It is a political FRAUD unless ALL countries abide by it and
that is not what it mandates.

It is absolutely true that pollution controls on cars and the much
more fuel efficient engines today (as opposed to 30 years ago)
have helped the pollution situation. But those controls and
improvements were made without resorting to radical downsizing
of cars and engines. My advice to the governments in charge
(and the U.S. government in particular) is to develop alternate
fuels like alcohol that will accomplish the task without the
need to turn cars into overpriced, pathetic little death traps.
If agricultural production geared to alcohol production were
radically increased, a substitute for gasoline could be made
nearly as economical. Since oil supplies are finite (though
nowhere NEAR exhausted as some environuts would have you
believe) and prices
continue to climb, at some point gasoline and alcohol costs
would reach a match. But, I would shy away from things like
hydrogen, only because of the inherent danger of the product
and the fact you have to close down a city block when a hydrogen
leak is found in a vehicle, as they've discovered in Europe over
the past few years.

RichA > wrote in message >. ..

> >| They are pushing for higher pollution control standards
> >| and fuel efficiency big time.

> >Ok, now just stop and think about this for a minute.
> >What's wrong with your statement?
> >Do you think that less pollution from vehicles would do any harm to this
> >planet or it's inhabitants?
> >Better fuel economy is a bad thing Beeeecause????

I'm with you Kate; however, I think there needs to be more focus on
the/unmaintained/aged/violated vehicles.

- Vehicles that you can tell their owners would rather drive them into
the ground and then replace it with a newer vehicle than change the
oil, keep the tires properly inflated, or tune up the engine.

- Vehicles that are near death and are spewing tons of black or blue
smoke.

Note: One of these vehicles emits more crap than probably 50-100 new
vehicles. There needs to be some sort of incentive to clean both of
these vehicles up and get them back in compliance.

- Vehicles that their owners removed all the pollution control devices
from.

> I think what bothers me most is that this whole push to
> tighter pollution controls is based on a fraud, the Kyoto treaty.
> And even though your Federal government hasn't agreed to it,
> your state and local governments (run by some real wackos)
> are hell-bent to abide by it.

This is a global initiative. More and more scientists are seeing the
handwriting on the wall. We need to either change our ways or face a
global catastrophy.

> The mandate is for a 20% decrease in fuel consumption by car fleet
> over the next 8 years. That means radical changes to automobile
> fleets, the deletion of the truck exemptions, etc.
> Cars with better fuel economy are fine. I'm sure given the cost
> of gas, many want them. I don't. I want the option to pay the higher
> gas costs but I do NOT want to have to pay even more because I'm
> "bad" for liking a powerful car or SUV.

The best way to fix this is to further jack up gas prices. Then the
market would shift toward more fuel effcient vehicles.

> As consumers, we are ripped off constantly by government and
> manufacturers. They work together (despite the supposed animosity of
> the car makers to pollution controls).
> The automakers cry each time they make a consumer spend $900
> to replace a catalytic converter. Really!

You need to live in a large city in a third world country for a while.
I'll guarantee that when you return you'll slide under your car and
kiss your catalytic convertors.

> Lastly, Toronto Canada is not LA. We do not have smog problems on
> that level and never will, because we won't reach LAs population
> levels and we don't have bad geography.

Think of the world as a big fish aquarium. Pollution in one corner
will, sooner or later, affect the whole tank.

> This all stems from the evil Kyoto treaty, (which Canada, like a good
> little toady country, signed)

And our short-sighted boneheads in Washington didn't.

> which mandates ever stricter
> pollution controls on the WEST while sparing the rapidly
> industrializing nations in Asia, who are now the largest polluters on
> the planet. The cost of all this is going to be trillions of dollars,
> it will (and has) shifted wealth from the West to the East in the form
> of jobs and the proceeds from those jobs.

Reducing emissions takes technology, and technology creates better,
higher-paying jobs.

> The number of cars in China is expected to increase by 20 million over
> the next 3-4 years. Guess what kind of pollution controls they have?
> NONE. Does India still have pollution-belching 2-stroke mini cars
> that pollute as much as 200 regular cars? Yes.
> Have you ever seen the pollution levels in cities in industrial China
> or India? You should, they make L.A. look as clean as Anchorage.

You're right. So what we need to do is <switching on heavy sarcasm
mode> is say **** it, do nothing to try to improve the environment,
not try to be a world leader, and let the whole planet go to ****.

> All to fight a problem "global warming" that,
> -Has not been proven satisfactorily and is an example of poor science.

Tell that to the increasing number of scientists who are finally
agreeing that our enviroment is starting to see some majors changes,
and drastic changes will likely been seen within the next 100 years.

> -If it IS true has not been proven to be a man-made phonomenon.

Look around. What other creature on this planet could be doing it?
And how couldn't billions and billions (trillions?) of cars, and
billions of humans and their consumption not negatively affect the
planet?

> -Is politically-driven.
> -If it is happening, studies have shown NO DOWNSIDE to the Northern
> Hemisphere. Unless millions of extra acres of habitable land and
> year-round growing seasons are bad.

What about all the methane gas that will be released as the polar ice
caps melt? And what'll happen to all those folks whose coastal city
will go under water?

> -It is a political FRAUD unless ALL countries abide by it and
> that is not what it mandates.

> It is absolutely true that pollution controls on cars and the much
> more fuel efficient engines today (as opposed to 30 years ago)
> have helped the pollution situation. But those controls and
> improvements were made without resorting to radical downsizing
> of cars and engines.

Were you alive in the 70s?

> My advice to the governments in charge
> (and the U.S. government in particular) is to develop alternate
> fuels like alcohol that will accomplish the task without the
> need to turn cars into overpriced, pathetic little death traps.
> If agricultural production geared to alcohol production were
> radically increased, a substitute for gasoline could be made
> nearly as economical. Since oil supplies are finite (though
> nowhere NEAR exhausted as some environuts would have you
> believe) and prices continue to climb, at some point gasoline and alcohol
> costs would reach a match. But, I would shy away from things like
> hydrogen, only because of the inherent danger of the product
> and the fact you have to close down a city block when a hydrogen
> leak is found in a vehicle, as they've discovered in Europe over
> the past few years.

The "fix" is the world's human population needs to decline, and
quickly.

Patrck
'93 Cobra
'83 LTD

On 19 Nov 2004 17:19:30 -0800, (Patrick) wrote:

>RichA > wrote in message >. ..
>
>> >| They are pushing for higher pollution control standards
>> >| and fuel efficiency big time.
>
>> >Ok, now just stop and think about this for a minute.
>> >What's wrong with your statement?
>> >Do you think that less pollution from vehicles would do any harm to this
>> >planet or it's inhabitants?
>> >Better fuel economy is a bad thing Beeeecause????
>
>I'm with you Kate; however, I think there needs to be more focus on
>the/unmaintained/aged/violated vehicles.
>
>- Vehicles that you can tell their owners would rather drive them into
>the ground and then replace it with a newer vehicle than change the
>oil, keep the tires properly inflated, or tune up the engine.
>
>- Vehicles that are near death and are spewing tons of black or blue
>smoke.
>
>Note: One of these vehicles emits more crap than probably 50-100 new
>vehicles. There needs to be some sort of incentive to clean both of
>these vehicles up and get them back in compliance.
>
>- Vehicles that their owners removed all the pollution control devices
>from.
>
>> I think what bothers me most is that this whole push to
>> tighter pollution controls is based on a fraud, the Kyoto treaty.
>> And even though your Federal government hasn't agreed to it,
>> your state and local governments (run by some real wackos)
>> are hell-bent to abide by it.
>
>This is a global initiative. More and more scientists are seeing the
>handwriting on the wall. We need to either change our ways or face a
>global catastrophy.
>
>> The mandate is for a 20% decrease in fuel consumption by car fleet
>> over the next 8 years. That means radical changes to automobile
>> fleets, the deletion of the truck exemptions, etc.
>> Cars with better fuel economy are fine. I'm sure given the cost
>> of gas, many want them. I don't. I want the option to pay the higher
>> gas costs but I do NOT want to have to pay even more because I'm
>> "bad" for liking a powerful car or SUV.
>
>The best way to fix this is to further jack up gas prices. Then the
>market would shift toward more fuel effcient vehicles.
>
>> As consumers, we are ripped off constantly by government and
>> manufacturers. They work together (despite the supposed animosity of
>> the car makers to pollution controls).
>> The automakers cry each time they make a consumer spend $900
>> to replace a catalytic converter. Really!
>
>You need to live in a large city in a third world country for a while.
> I'll guarantee that when you return you'll slide under your car and
>kiss your catalytic convertors.

No kidding! I flew into one Lahore in India three years ago. You
couldn't ever SEE the city under the smog bank.
THESE are the countries Kyoto exempts because they are "developing."
>
>> Lastly, Toronto Canada is not LA. We do not have smog problems on
>> that level and never will, because we won't reach LAs population
>> levels and we don't have bad geography.
>
>Think of the world as a big fish aquarium. Pollution in one corner
>will, sooner or later, affect the whole tank.

That's true, but localized pollution was the spur for California
emission control stringency.
>
>> This all stems from the evil Kyoto treaty, (which Canada, like a good
>> little toady country, signed)
>
>And our short-sighted boneheads in Washington didn't.

Keep dreaming. Kyoto (predicated on the possibility that everything
said about global warming is true) will ONLY work if it applies to ALL
countries. Not like how the F------- Russians will get to pollute
more by "credit swapping."
>
>> which mandates ever stricter
>> pollution controls on the WEST while sparing the rapidly
>> industrializing nations in Asia, who are now the largest polluters on
>> the planet. The cost of all this is going to be trillions of dollars,
>> it will (and has) shifted wealth from the West to the East in the form
>> of jobs and the proceeds from those jobs.
>
>Reducing emissions takes technology, and technology creates better,
>higher-paying jobs.

No, service industry jobs stay in the country, the production jobs go
to the Far East. Engineering, prototyping, testing, production,
everything.

>> The number of cars in China is expected to increase by 20 million over
>> the next 3-4 years. Guess what kind of pollution controls they have?
>> NONE. Does India still have pollution-belching 2-stroke mini cars
>> that pollute as much as 200 regular cars? Yes.
>> Have you ever seen the pollution levels in cities in industrial China
>> or India? You should, they make L.A. look as clean as Anchorage.
>
>You're right. So what we need to do is <switching on heavy sarcasm
>mode> is say **** it, do nothing to try to improve the environment,
>not try to be a world leader, and let the whole planet go to ****.

No, you are to project out what the contribution of those countries is
now, and is going to be and stop KIDDING yourself that bankrupting the
West will help matters.
The latest projection for car numbers in China in 10 years is 600
MILLION. With maybe the same pollution standards cars here had in
1975? Think about it.
>
>> All to fight a problem "global warming" that,
>> -Has not been proven satisfactorily and is an example of poor science.
>
>Tell that to the increasing number of scientists who are finally
>agreeing that our enviroment is starting to see some majors changes,
>and drastic changes will likely been seen within the next 100 years.

Sure. They're making their careers on it. The fact is there is no
other scientific "fact" based on such unproven evidence. I'd soon
believe the wackos who say AIDS isn't caused by a virus.

>
>> -If it IS true has not been proven to be a man-made phonomenon.
>
>Look around. What other creature on this planet could be doing it?
>And how couldn't billions and billions (trillions?) of cars, and
>billions of humans and their consumption not negatively affect the
>planet?

Do you know what the contribution is by volcanism, undersea and on
land?
>
>> -Is politically-driven.
>> -If it is happening, studies have shown NO DOWNSIDE to the Northern
>> Hemisphere. Unless millions of extra acres of habitable land and
>> year-round growing seasons are bad.
>
>What about all the methane gas that will be released as the polar ice
>caps melt? And what'll happen to all those folks whose coastal city
>will go under water?

They'll have to move. Maybe to Greenland when it's green again.
The name was coined sometime before the year 1000, when they had
a long stretch of winterless years in Europe. Year round growing
seasons in England. Must have been all those cars and methane?
>
>> -It is a political FRAUD unless ALL countries abide by it and
>> that is not what it mandates.
>
>> It is absolutely true that pollution controls on cars and the much
>> more fuel efficient engines today (as opposed to 30 years ago)
>> have helped the pollution situation. But those controls and
>> improvements were made without resorting to radical downsizing
>> of cars and engines.
>
>Were you alive in the 70s?

Sure. A Mustang weighs 3540lbs.
A Ford LTD in 1974 weighed about 4300 lbs. But what
did a Mustang II weigh?
The biggest selling vehicles today are mid sized trucks.
Are they small?

>
>> My advice to the governments in charge
>> (and the U.S. government in particular) is to develop alternate
>> fuels like alcohol that will accomplish the task without the
>> need to turn cars into overpriced, pathetic little death traps.
>> If agricultural production geared to alcohol production were
>> radically increased, a substitute for gasoline could be made
>> nearly as economical. Since oil supplies are finite (though
>> nowhere NEAR exhausted as some environuts would have you
>> believe) and prices continue to climb, at some point gasoline and alcohol
>> costs would reach a match. But, I would shy away from things like
>> hydrogen, only because of the inherent danger of the product
>> and the fact you have to close down a city block when a hydrogen
>> leak is found in a vehicle, as they've discovered in Europe over
>> the past few years.
>
>The "fix" is the world's human population needs to decline, and
>quickly.
>
>Patrck
>'93 Cobra
>'83 LTD

Don't worry; The die off is coming.
-Rich

As I recall,according to a study, all it takes is the eruption of
three major volcanos, which is far from uncommon, to produce more
ozone depleting gases and pollutants, than the human race presently
produces.

Lord, then you add in the sheep, hogs, and cows, and cars are the
least of our worries (Don't strike a match in New Zealand... LOL.

We do need to do something. When I was a kid, the LA basin was bad,
but just over the hills, the skies were clear all the way to the
Atlantic Ocean. Today, there is a haze which covers the nation.

But the experts can't even agree. It wasn't that long ago that cars
were blamed for global "cooling" which was going to bring about an ice
age. Now it's global warming melting the polar caps. Is it possible
that both are just natural events in climate. The Sahara Desert was a
liush green zone, and the middle east was covered with forests of
Giant Sequoia... . Now it's wasteland. Yet when the green belt and the
forests disappeared,,, there were no cars.

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 23:07:53 -0500, RichA > wrote:

>On 19 Nov 2004 17:19:30 -0800, (Patrick) wrote:
>
>>RichA > wrote in message >. ..
>>
>>> >| They are pushing for higher pollution control standards
>>> >| and fuel efficiency big time.
>>
>>> >Ok, now just stop and think about this for a minute.
>>> >What's wrong with your statement?
>>> >Do you think that less pollution from vehicles would do any harm to this
>>> >planet or it's inhabitants?
>>> >Better fuel economy is a bad thing Beeeecause????
>>
>>I'm with you Kate; however, I think there needs to be more focus on
>>the/unmaintained/aged/violated vehicles.
>>
>>- Vehicles that you can tell their owners would rather drive them into
>>the ground and then replace it with a newer vehicle than change the
>>oil, keep the tires properly inflated, or tune up the engine.
>>
>>- Vehicles that are near death and are spewing tons of black or blue
>>smoke.
>>
>>Note: One of these vehicles emits more crap than probably 50-100 new
>>vehicles. There needs to be some sort of incentive to clean both of
>>these vehicles up and get them back in compliance.
>>
>>- Vehicles that their owners removed all the pollution control devices
>>from.
>>
>>> I think what bothers me most is that this whole push to
>>> tighter pollution controls is based on a fraud, the Kyoto treaty.
>>> And even though your Federal government hasn't agreed to it,
>>> your state and local governments (run by some real wackos)
>>> are hell-bent to abide by it.
>>
>>This is a global initiative. More and more scientists are seeing the
>>handwriting on the wall. We need to either change our ways or face a
>>global catastrophy.
>>
>>> The mandate is for a 20% decrease in fuel consumption by car fleet
>>> over the next 8 years. That means radical changes to automobile
>>> fleets, the deletion of the truck exemptions, etc.
>>> Cars with better fuel economy are fine. I'm sure given the cost
>>> of gas, many want them. I don't. I want the option to pay the higher
>>> gas costs but I do NOT want to have to pay even more because I'm
>>> "bad" for liking a powerful car or SUV.
>>
>>The best way to fix this is to further jack up gas prices. Then the
>>market would shift toward more fuel effcient vehicles.
>>
>>> As consumers, we are ripped off constantly by government and
>>> manufacturers. They work together (despite the supposed animosity of
>>> the car makers to pollution controls).
>>> The automakers cry each time they make a consumer spend $900
>>> to replace a catalytic converter. Really!
>>
>>You need to live in a large city in a third world country for a while.
>> I'll guarantee that when you return you'll slide under your car and
>>kiss your catalytic convertors.
>
>No kidding! I flew into one Lahore in India three years ago. You
>couldn't ever SEE the city under the smog bank.
>THESE are the countries Kyoto exempts because they are "developing."
>>
>>> Lastly, Toronto Canada is not LA. We do not have smog problems on
>>> that level and never will, because we won't reach LAs population
>>> levels and we don't have bad geography.
>>
>>Think of the world as a big fish aquarium. Pollution in one corner
>>will, sooner or later, affect the whole tank.
>
>That's true, but localized pollution was the spur for California
>emission control stringency.
>>
>>> This all stems from the evil Kyoto treaty, (which Canada, like a good
>>> little toady country, signed)
>>
>>And our short-sighted boneheads in Washington didn't.
>
>Keep dreaming. Kyoto (predicated on the possibility that everything
>said about global warming is true) will ONLY work if it applies to ALL
>countries. Not like how the F------- Russians will get to pollute
>more by "credit swapping."
>>
>>> which mandates ever stricter
>>> pollution controls on the WEST while sparing the rapidly
>>> industrializing nations in Asia, who are now the largest polluters on
>>> the planet. The cost of all this is going to be trillions of dollars,
>>> it will (and has) shifted wealth from the West to the East in the form
>>> of jobs and the proceeds from those jobs.
>>
>>Reducing emissions takes technology, and technology creates better,
>>higher-paying jobs.
>
>No, service industry jobs stay in the country, the production jobs go
>to the Far East. Engineering, prototyping, testing, production,
>everything.
>
>>> The number of cars in China is expected to increase by 20 million over
>>> the next 3-4 years. Guess what kind of pollution controls they have?
>>> NONE. Does India still have pollution-belching 2-stroke mini cars
>>> that pollute as much as 200 regular cars? Yes.
>>> Have you ever seen the pollution levels in cities in industrial China
>>> or India? You should, they make L.A. look as clean as Anchorage.
>>
>>You're right. So what we need to do is <switching on heavy sarcasm
>>mode> is say **** it, do nothing to try to improve the environment,
>>not try to be a world leader, and let the whole planet go to ****.
>
>No, you are to project out what the contribution of those countries is
>now, and is going to be and stop KIDDING yourself that bankrupting the
>West will help matters.
>The latest projection for car numbers in China in 10 years is 600
>MILLION. With maybe the same pollution standards cars here had in
>1975? Think about it.
>>
>>> All to fight a problem "global warming" that,
>>> -Has not been proven satisfactorily and is an example of poor science.
>>
>>Tell that to the increasing number of scientists who are finally
>>agreeing that our enviroment is starting to see some majors changes,
>>and drastic changes will likely been seen within the next 100 years.
>
>Sure. They're making their careers on it. The fact is there is no
>other scientific "fact" based on such unproven evidence. I'd soon
>believe the wackos who say AIDS isn't caused by a virus.
>
>>
>>> -If it IS true has not been proven to be a man-made phonomenon.
>>
>>Look around. What other creature on this planet could be doing it?
>>And how couldn't billions and billions (trillions?) of cars, and
>>billions of humans and their consumption not negatively affect the
>>planet?
>
>Do you know what the contribution is by volcanism, undersea and on
>land?
>>
>>> -Is politically-driven.
>>> -If it is happening, studies have shown NO DOWNSIDE to the Northern
>>> Hemisphere. Unless millions of extra acres of habitable land and
>>> year-round growing seasons are bad.
>>
>>What about all the methane gas that will be released as the polar ice
>>caps melt? And what'll happen to all those folks whose coastal city
>>will go under water?
>
>They'll have to move. Maybe to Greenland when it's green again.
>The name was coined sometime before the year 1000, when they had
>a long stretch of winterless years in Europe. Year round growing
>seasons in England. Must have been all those cars and methane?
>>
>>> -It is a political FRAUD unless ALL countries abide by it and
>>> that is not what it mandates.
>>
>>> It is absolutely true that pollution controls on cars and the much
>>> more fuel efficient engines today (as opposed to 30 years ago)
>>> have helped the pollution situation. But those controls and
>>> improvements were made without resorting to radical downsizing
>>> of cars and engines.
>>
>>Were you alive in the 70s?
>
>Sure. A Mustang weighs 3540lbs.
>A Ford LTD in 1974 weighed about 4300 lbs. But what
>did a Mustang II weigh?
>The biggest selling vehicles today are mid sized trucks.
>Are they small?
>
>>
>>> My advice to the governments in charge
>>> (and the U.S. government in particular) is to develop alternate
>>> fuels like alcohol that will accomplish the task without the
>>> need to turn cars into overpriced, pathetic little death traps.
>>> If agricultural production geared to alcohol production were
>>> radically increased, a substitute for gasoline could be made
>>> nearly as economical. Since oil supplies are finite (though
>>> nowhere NEAR exhausted as some environuts would have you
>>> believe) and prices continue to climb, at some point gasoline and alcohol
>>> costs would reach a match. But, I would shy away from things like
>>> hydrogen, only because of the inherent danger of the product
>>> and the fact you have to close down a city block when a hydrogen
>>> leak is found in a vehicle, as they've discovered in Europe over
>>> the past few years.
>>
>>The "fix" is the world's human population needs to decline, and
>>quickly.
>>
>>Patrck
>>'93 Cobra
>>'83 LTD
>
>Don't worry; The die off is coming.
>-Rich

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

"Spike" > wrote in message
...
> As I recall,according to a study, all it takes is the eruption of
> three major volcanos, which is far from uncommon, to produce more
> ozone depleting gases and pollutants, than the human race presently
> produces.

I believe that is more than man has EVER produced since his beginnings on
this planet.

>
> But the experts can't even agree. It wasn't that long ago that cars
> were blamed for global "cooling" which was going to bring about an ice
> age. Now it's global warming melting the polar caps. Is it possible
> that both are just natural events in climate.

I believe that were I live was under about a mile of ice only 10/15,000
years ago. Hell, in the mere blink of an eye (last 2,000,000 years) there
have be more than 20 glacial advances and retreats in North America.
http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/ .

--
Richard

'94 GT 'vert
Under Drive Pulleys
Transgo HD2 Reprogramming Kit
High Stall Torque Converter
4:10 Gears
Gripp Sub Frame Connectors (welded)
FRPP Aluminum Drive shaft
FRPP M5400-A Suspension
Laser Red