Which rather enters into one of my pet peeves regarding pollution
measurements - WHY do they measure exhaust emissions in part-per-million
instead of parts-per-MILE????
Suppose you have an SUV (Stupid Utility Vehicle) running down the
interstate getting 12 mpg. It meets the emissions standards set by the
government. Next to him is an economy car getting 50 mpg. It meets those
same standards. Which is polluting more? The one that's huffing and puffing
4 times more air and fuel through it to travel the same distance! Four times
as much fuel used means four times as much exhaust!
Jon Arzt
>From: rgibbs@pacbell.net
>Reply-To: rgibbs@pacbell.net
>To: alpines@autox.team.net
>Subject: Re: oil
>Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 11:22:43 -0800
>
>This is another example of "unintended consequences". Congress passes laws
>mandidating a CAFE limit, which increases over the years. The intended
>consequence is lower fuel consumption. The unintended consequences
>includes the example that you state above. Also leads to some strange
>economic decisions. A friend of mine with connections in the industry told
>me that Ford (a few years ago) had a model of the Escort that was sold
>slighlty below their actual cost. They lost money and each car sold. The
>purpose was to allow these high fuel economy vehicles to balance the
>highest profitable models (with poor fuel economy) in order to allow the
>Corporation to meet the average mandated by law. Also leads to the
>situation where mini-vans and SUVs are listed as "trucks" and are not
>counted in the CAFE calculations. Another unintended consequence: mini-vans
>and SUVs were (are?)therefore exempt from passenger car safety
>requirements.
>
>Congress and local agencies pass laws or issue rulings intended to clean
>the air quality by encouraging the removal of old and polluting cars from
>use. They envision the 30 year old car which is buring a quart of oil
>every 100 miles and is running so rich that you can smell the unburned gas.
> The unintended consequence is that industries which emit pollutants are
>able to "buy pollution credits" by the disposal of old cars, whether they
>are running or not. This practice does very little at all to reduce air
>pollution, but it does act as a very effective incentive to locate old cars
>and destroy them. Looking for a rust free non-running Alpine project car
>or body? Better hope it is not sold for it's smog credit value and then
>crushed before you find it!
>
>-Roger
_____________________________________________________________________________________
|