Justin wrote:
>
> 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.
I'll try to weigh in on this a bit further than I have previously, since
I have feet planted in both worlds--Triumph ownership and environmental
concerns.
First, the air pollution problem is real, and likely causes health
problems in a great many people, particularly the elderly (of which
group I anticipate becoming a member <smile>).
I remember, with regard to California air quality, that in the mid-`80s,
the industry said that gases coming out of the tailpipe were cleaner
than the air going into the air cleaner, because of improved emissions
controls. And yet, southern California is further away from attaining
air quality standards now than in the past, largely because of the
number of cars on the roads, and the fuel consumption of those cars.
Despite suggestions that the industry is fighting to make small gains by
large investments in emissions technology, there are indications this is
not true. The industry has aggressively marketed and vigorously promoted
the sale of very large and heavy SUVs, which, if one knows the laws of
physics, understands that the more weight there is to pull around, the
lower the gas mileage will be. That has an effect on both noxious
emissions and CO2 emissions, as Randall has suggested. The bottom line
counts, and SUVs, built cheaply on truck frames, make a lot of money,
and SUVs have accounted for a larger market share of sales than any
other model.
Our auto industry has said that they are too hard-pressed financially to
develop electric or hybrid commuter vehicles. And, yet, both Honda and
Toyota have marketed hybrids for sale in the U.S. (although Toyota is
said to have been selling the Prius at below cost to gain market share).
Odd, then, that GM is reportedly sitting on $8 billion in cash at the
moment, but can't manage to develop such vehicles for everyday use.
I had an opportunity to look at a Prius a few weeks ago, and it is,
frankly, a marvel. If everyone in this country had one in the garage,
we'd have no need to play political games in the middle East. We
wouldn't need their oil.
All that said, there's the Triumph side, and I must emphasize that
racing Triumphs are not, by the most rubber-bandish stretch of the
imagination, a principal cause of pollution in this country. As well,
Triumphs on the street today are few and far between. If southern
California, for example, has even five hundred Triumphs in daily use,
I'd be surprised. If their emissions output were even several times that
of a modern car, the total emissions would still be far, far less than
that of a few thousand more modern vehicles. Anyone looking at
California registration totals, for example, would be astounded at the
number of cars registered there compared with the total population.
That's the principal reason for expecting hobbyist provisions in any
car-crushing scheme, whether initiated by the states or by the Feds.
Yes, as Cary says, there will be some expectation that when the current
crop of Triumph racers retire, there will be less interest in the cars.
But racing Triumphs, and those driven on the street, are not the source
of the problem. It's the sheer number of vehicles. A decade or so ago, I
lived in a relatively small town in Massachusetts. At that time, there
were, men, women and children, 64,000 residents. In that town, however,
there were 68,000 vehicles registered, more than one vehicle for every
man, woman and child.
As for the pollution implicit in driving old vehicles vs. newly
manufactured ones, it's a case of apples and oranges, I fear. Disposing
of the remnants of old cars is not difficult. Most of them, including
Triumphs, are composed of iron and steel, and have very little plastic
in them. They are, in fact, easily recyclable. The greater concern, I
think, is in the materials used in modern cars, and the energy costs in
producing them. A large amount of plastic means a large amount of oil
used, since oil is the basic building block of plastics. And, a few
years ago, the energy costs for new vehicle manufacture were
approximately 25% of the total manufacturing cost. Figuring in the real
disposal cost for every new vehicle eventually ending up on the scrap
heap has to include the costs of recycling, including energy, and the
energy costs to build, and then compare those costs, real and
environmental, against the replacement benefits. Energy used in both
manufacture and recycling has its environmental costs, as well.
Could the racing fraternity do better in convincing the public that they
are not a large and primary source of air pollution? Yes, I believe so.
Most racing organizations have adopted rules which not only make public
relations worse, but also ensure their demise in a relatively short
time. Many organizations have rigid rules restricting participation to
cars built in 1967 or prior (I'm particularly miffed by some of those
rules, since the body style for a 1970 GT6, one of which I own, is
fundamentally unchanged from a 1967 GT6, and has the further advantage
of being safer than swing axle GT6s produced in `67), but many
organizations limit fuel system and induction changes, specifically
barring fuel injection, which might reduce fuel consumption, and limit
emissions for those cars participating in racing, on the wholly specious
reasoning that such changes were not factory authorized (a quick poll of
people on this list regarding the changes they've made to their Triumphs
which were not factory authorized would reveal a panoply of such
alterations). Talk about biting one's nose off to spite one's face....
I note, though, from previous posts, that one of the Federal bill's
sponsors is Jeff Bingamin, and since I am one of his constituents, I
will write him in the next few days and try to explain the deficiencies
in the proposed legislation, especially as regards the hobbyist's
interests in this legislation.
Cheers, all, and sorry for the usurpation of bandwidth.
--
Michael D. Porter
Roswell, NM (yes, _that_ Roswell)
[mailto:mporter@zianet.com]
The gulf between content and substance continues to widen....
|