[geeks] Global Warming questions...

[Shannon Hendrix]

On Dec 4, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Sandwich Maker wrote:

> car crusher bills are an example of this.  every one i've heard of
> doesn't call for actually measuring the emitted pollution of the
> crushed car but is based on some gerrymandered estimate of what it
> might possibly emit, and further ignores the recycling pollution and
> landfill pollution of unrecyclable bits [as much as half the car] -
> not to mention the manufacturing pollution of the car that replaces
> the crushed one.

A car pollutes more when it is being built than it ever will when  
running.

> i've heard of studies - with names like the epa on them - that state
> that if you really want to be green, the lightest use of resources is
> to maintain your old car and keep it on the road.

...which is why cars should all last 20 years.  They should be  
upgradable and hackable, and last a long time.  Cheaper, easier on the  
planet, and more efficient that way.

> i'm beginning to suspect many green initiatives are unknowingly
> fronting very black hidden interests.

Of course it is.

A lot of things sold to us as being "green" actually make things worse.

Smog control and catalytic converters increase net emissions rather  
than reducing them. Modern engines pollute less due to better designs,  
not the smog controls.  Honda has repeatedly told the EPA that it  
could further reduce emissions if they could remove that stuff from  
their cars and replace it with better technology.

Reduction of pollution on a parts-per-unit-volume basis is stupid  
anyway, because it assumes all engines do equal work and put out equal  
volume of exhaust while doing it.

Ralf Nader attacked the VW Beetle in the 70s, saying it polluted more  
per unit volume than US cars.

That's true, but the Beetle also produced about 1/5 as much volume as  
most large US cars at the time, so it effectively polluted less than  
any of them, plus it was more efficient to run and maintain.  For the  
daily job of carrying a 200 pound man to work, it was far more  
efficient than almost anything else.

But, it was made illegal, while giant smog creators were legal and  
"green".

Even unleaded gas is a bit of a lie.  While it does reduce lead, the  
loss of lead had to be compensated for, and the result is an increase  
in other toxins.

Unleaded fuel doesn't get rid of anything, it just trades one for  
another.

A lot of EPA "green" initiatives are like that.

Electric cars are another example.  They are not zero emissions, they  
just change where the tailpipe is.

The best way to reduce pollution is to increase efficiency, often by  
simply turning them off when not needed... :)




-- 
"Where some they sell their dreams for small desires."