David,
Excellent point about the beautification vs 'energy'. I wonder if
anyone considers how much energy it takes to make a new car vs the
energy differential of running a new vs old car. I'd guess you'd have
to put several hundred thousand miles on an LBC before it made
'energy' sense to crush and replace.
Does anyone know if such a study has been published?
If it were for beauty, compare an Aztek to any LBC. I think we're
crushing the wrong vehicles!
Jeff
At 8:20 AM -0500 1/2/02, DLancer7676@cs.com wrote:
>In a message dated 1/1/02 10:04:17 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>ptegler@cablespeed.com writes:
>
>
> > . These laws are designed
> > to 'unclutter' the countryside of the approx.
> > 2 million cars a year that are 'left on the side of the road'
> > or in the field etc etc.
> >
> >
>
>I have trouble believing this, Paul, as the Scrappage language is part of an
>"energy" bill and not a beautification bill. It seems to be a collusion
>between the government and the automobile industry, in view of the proposed
>credit provided for new car purchases, to eventually exterminate automobiles
>over 15 years of age. I have been given, for free, cars that have been
>utilized for parts. Under this Bill, the owners of these cars would not give
>them to enthusiasts like you or me--they would sell them to the government
>for MONEY and new car purchase credits. As to the disposition of the then
>"scrapped" car, that seems to be left to the discretion and interpretation of
>whoever is adminsitering the Bill. It COULD include crushing.
>
>--David C.
_____________________________________________________________
Jeffrey H. Boatright, PhD
Assistant Professor, Emory Eye Center, Atlanta, GA, USA
Senior Editor, Molecular Vision, http://www.molvis.org/molvis
mailto:jboatri@emory.edu
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/wilma/spridgets
|