Mike -
There are two types of polution - visible (unburnt
hydrocarbons) and invisible (CO2 - green house
gasses).
The proportion between the two varies depending on how
"clean" you car is, but at the end of the day the
total wieght of carbon your car puts in the atmosphere
is directly correspondent to your gas mileage.
California laws and regulation are totally focused on
the "visible" pollution... but totally ignores
invisible pollution (CO2 - greenhouse gas). So all it
means are the greens are erroneously focused on
visible pollution... when in the long run its the
invisible pollution that matters.
The only way to fix this is to drive cars that get
better mileage... if you drive an SUV that gets 10
MPG, for example, eventhough the car may be "clean" in
terms of visible pollution... it will still pump more
than twice as much carbon into the atmosphere than my
BN1 that gets 25 MPG. Nothing complicated here...
what goes in must come out.
Just because a car is complient with environmental
regulation doesn't make it any better or worse for the
environment... the mileage it gets is the only thing
that matters.
Regards,
Alan
'53 BN1 '64 BJ8
--- Mike <mikebn2@win.net> wrote:
> Alan ,
> You say your BN1 pumps less carbon and carbon
> dioxide into the atmosphere
> than over 50% of the current US new cars. What is
> exactly
> the value that your BN1 puts out? How much carbon
> and how much carbon dioxide?
>
> Mike Schneider
> Bluegrass AHCA
>
>
> At 10:37 AM 6/29/2004, Blue One Hundred wrote:
>
> >Ken -
> >
> >I'm pretty amazed that Moss Motors isn't registered
> as
> >an opponent to this bill. Moss has to be the
> world's
> >largest supplier of parts and supplies for pre '75
> >British cars... and it's based in California.
> >
> >I know this won't agree with everyone here, but I
> >think a better solution would be to double or
> triple
> >registration rates for pre-'85 cars.. that would
> >ensure that the junkers would be taken off the road
> >(remember the ford granada?) and still allow
> collector
> >car owners to drive their cars more than 3,500
> miles a
> >year as stipulated in the bill. Sure it costs
> more,
> >but heck the state is broke and it'd reduce
> >pollution/emisions in the process.
> >
> >By the way, my BN1 pumps less carbon & CO2 into the
> >atmosphere than over 50% of the current US new car
> >fleet. The US average EPA rated fleet mileage is
> 24
> >MPG, so reality is probably 22 MPG... and I get
> about
> >25 MPG in the BN1. Taking a few '04 SUVs off the
> road
> >will do more for stopping global warming than
> sending
> >our healeys to the local auto jumble.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Alan, CA absentee voter
> >
> >'53 BN1 '64 BJ8
> >
> >--- "Freese, Ken" <Ken.Freese@Aerojet.com> wrote:
> > > I think the senate sponsored anaysis or this
> smog
> > > bill makes for some
> > > interesting reading. It seems like all the bases
> are
> > > covered. Hope it flunks
> > > the Senate.
> > >
> > > Ken Freese
|