[geeks] Global Warming questions...

[Sandwich Maker]

" From: Shannon Hendrix <shannon at widomaker.com>
" 
" 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'd heard 'equal', but that was some years ago and with tightening
emissions limits...

" > 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.

up until 2 years ago i drove a 35yo car.  if it'd been as rustproof as
cars are today i'd still be driving it.  chassis parts are still
available.

" 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.

this was grossly abused in the '70s, when detroit found they could
meet the standards not by reducing pollutants but by increasing
exhaust volume.  this had the side effect of killing gas mileage as
well.

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

he's a televangelist.  he was somewhat off center on the corvair too.

" 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.

another gerrymander.  the oil cos added aromatics - benzene, toluene,
etc. - to replace lead, knowing they burn poorly and would increase hc
emissions in addition to being carcinogenic, because they weren't
against the law.  then a few years ago they 'discover' reformulated
gas, which reduces hc by replacing the aromatics with things that burn
better...

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

rfg is finally an improvement of sorts.  replacing mtbe with ethanol
may not be.  mtbe -does- break down in soil, but on the scale of weeks
to months, it does have a detectable flavor at concentrations well
below the established toxic limit, and it doesn't carry trace btek
[benzene/toluene/ethylene/ketone, themselves tasteless] with it in the
ground.  ethanol does carry btek with it as it migrates through soil,
so it's arguably the more dangerous ground pollutant.
________________________________________________________________________
Andrew Hay                                  the genius nature
internet rambler                            is to see what all have seen
adh at an.bradford.ma.us                       and think what none thought