I agree with Bill B. Of course we don't think SMOG is good for the
environment. But taking away our LBCs wouldn't be good for our
dispositions, either. And I haven't heard anyone mention the economic
consequences for those that support our passion if that should happen.
California alone can not solve the globe's atmospheric problems. And
picking on older cars, especially special interest/collector/hobby cars
won't make the tiniest dent in the problem. There are too many other
polluting sources and too many other polluting states and countries. What
are the chances that China's emerging vehicle market will use California's
emission standards?
California can try to set the example but the first example needs to come
from our leadership. There should be a requirement that they drive
vehicles that get no less than 30 miles to the gallon. Better yet, make
them all drive hybrids. Then California, and the rest of the world, needs
to go after all other fossil fuel burning sources including stationary
sources, watercraft, airplanes, lawn mowers, leaf blowers (speak up, I
can't hear you), the ever more popular gasoline powered scooter, etc., etc.
And why don't they? I believe that it is politics and money! From what I
read and hear, there is some effort being made toward reducing emissions
from large diesel trucks. A little late in getting that started in my
estimation.
Our cars are not anywhere near the primary source of global pollution.
Why, then, are we the only ones constantly picked on to 'solve' the
problem? Because we look like an easy target? We don't have the lobby
and/or the money to fight it? There is no balance or fairness in that! I
know: Nobody ever said life was fair.
Meanwhile, back to repairing my tachometer and getting the Healey ready for
a drive down the Feather River Canyon.
(The Other) Len
Vacaville, CA
1967 3000 MKIII HBJ8L39031
> [Original Message]
> From: <bn1@pacbell.net>
> To: Eric (Rick) Wilkins <wilko2@cox.net>
> Cc: healeys <healeys@autox.team.net>
> Date: 6/30/2004 7:24:01 PM
> Subject: Re: Senate AB2683 analysis - perspective
>
> Rick,
>
> NOPE! Not at all. All I wish to do is be able to drive my Healey when
> ever I
> want. I also wish to be able to commute to my employment in my '72
> 240Z.
> That's all!
>
> To me, that doesn't seem like much.
>
> My Healey clocks less than 2M miles per year. My commuter Z does less
> 12M
> miles per year and gets over 23 MPG. Surely you're not calling me a
> gross
> polluter as compared to all the other "huge *'s" who totally love to cut
> my Z
> off because they know they'll "win". And they're right!
>
> At the moment, if you drive a little car on a SO CA freeway, be VERY
> defensive
> as your life may very well depend upon it! And, I'm not kidding!
>
> Bill Barnett
> 5th generation Californian
>
>
>
> (Rick) Wilkins" wrote:
>
> > Even though the true effects of man's contraptions on the earth can't
> > really be measured or predicted with absolute values, you can't be
> > saying car smog is GOOD for the environment?!
> >
> > Rick
> > San Diego
> >
> > On Jun 30, 2004, at 6:09 PM, bn1@pacbell.net wrote:
> >
> > > Asbestos is on, let the flames begin! And yes, it will be argued
> > > forever!
> > >
> > > Bill Barnett
> > > Santa Ana, CA
> > > '53 BN1 # 663
> > > & the exempt '72 240 Z
|