I really have to wonder about such conclusions... If one replaces a Triumph
"Daily Commuter" with a new modern lower emission car... How much pollution
was
created to produce this newer car? If they choose to scrap their old car, how
much pollution is created to "recycle" the steal? How much of the scrapped car
ends up in a landfill? I can not believe, for one minute, that the amount of
pollution created to turn what primarily consists of iron ore and crude oil into
a complete and operational automobile... and ship it to your local dealer... can
possibly equal or be any worse than just driving and maintaining that Triumph as
a daily driver.
Environmentalist extremists really drive me nuts sometimes... There's always
this talk about "recycling" things and not being wasteful, but these same groups
would be happy to see our cars scrapped. It seems to me, that as long as one
maintains the motor, and isn't smoking the neighborhood with a blown motor, that
the best thing for the environment is keep 'em on the road!
The Triumph owner that only drives a Triumph should be commended. If he does
buy
a modern low emission car, he still should not be demonized for keeping the
Triumph on the road. The amount of mileage placed on the car will undoubtedly
be
minimalized by the use of the newer car and one day, that Triumph may yet become
a daily driver for the next generation... once again, making it unnecessary to
produce yet another car for years.
Some future generation of environmentalists may very well applaud us for keeping
these cars on the road, especially if some new fuel or inexpensive bolt-on
device
of the future renders our cars harmless, yet relatively unchanged... and they
can
marvel at their simplicity and lack of technology!
(....now don't accuse me of suggesting that catalytic converters be retrofitted!
I'm thinking 10-times more advanced than that!)
---Justin Wagner
While Cary's comments here seems to side with us keeping our cars, it
EISANDIEGO@aol.com wrote:
> As someone who has spent his entire career in the environmental feild,
> it is necessary for me to make a comment. I think that it is important that
> all of you do voice your opinions to your senators and congressman. However,
> please do so after you have taken the time to inform yourselves about why
> this effort is being undertaken. Perhaps it is not as bad as others would
> like you to think because it adversely impacts their businesses.
>
> Used on a daily basis, these older cars are substantially higher
> sources of air pollution than their modern replacements for daily commuting.
> To further improve air quality, it is simply more cost-effective to remove
> these older daily polluters than to try to improve new vehicle emissions.
>
> Improving the emission performance of new vehicle is becoming
> increasing costly. One struggles to make a very very small difference at a
> high price - just as one struggles to get more hp out of an already finely
> developed race engine. It is much more effective to remove cars from daily
> use that are already polluting hundreds to thousands of times higher levels
> than the new car.
>
> If we are honest with ourselves, we probably already each have more
> Triumph parts than we need. We have probably accummulated those parts by
> salvaging other cars ourselves. The fact that Triumphs are being scrapped is
> just a reflection of what a low value society places on a Triumphs. It costs
> much more to restore these cars than they are valued at by the general public
> and even other racers. This legislation will not change that society's
> perception of the marque.
>
> A bigger concern of mine is very honestly if anyone will be interested
> in the Triumph marque as we pass out of the racing picture. There are alot of
> wonderful new cars that are capturing the current generation's imagination.
>
> Cary
|