Seldom see "smoke belchers" anymore * Why not?

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

Jim Yanik wrote:

> "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in
> n.umich.edu:
>>
>> But, I'm guessing you're not. You'd rather bitch and moan ignorantly
>> and melodramatically about *one* 1940 Chrysler or *one* 1968 Dodge or
>> *one* 1977 Chevrolet.
>
> I "bitch and moan" when I'm behind one of those "smokescreen" generators.
> IMO,police should stop them,cite them,and require the vehicle be TOWED
> away;off the road until corrected. A second offense should mean the vehicle
> be impounded.

Unless it's a city-owned diesel garbage truck. Remember when they told us
that that heavy black diesel smoke was harmless because the particles were so
big and heavy?

One more chunk of smog-people credibility right down the drain.

--
Cheers, Bev
================================================== =
Red ship crashes into blue ship - sailors marooned.

The Real Bev wrote:
> Jim Yanik wrote:
>
> > "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in
> > n.umich.edu:
> >>
> >> But, I'm guessing you're not. You'd rather bitch and moan ignorantly
> >> and melodramatically about *one* 1940 Chrysler or *one* 1968 Dodge or
> >> *one* 1977 Chevrolet.
> >
> > I "bitch and moan" when I'm behind one of those "smokescreen" generators.
> > IMO,police should stop them,cite them,and require the vehicle be TOWED
> > away;off the road until corrected. A second offense should mean the vehicle
> > be impounded.
>
> Unless it's a city-owned diesel garbage truck. Remember when they told us
> that that heavy black diesel smoke was harmless because the particles were so
> big and heavy?
>
> One more chunk of smog-people credibility right down the drain.
>
> --
> Cheers, Bev
> ================================================== =
> Red ship crashes into blue ship - sailors marooned.

Attack Of the Smog People sounds like something that should be on IFC.

Dave