If you do not beleive that the motor vehicle is having an impact on the on
the earth's well being I think you may be mistaken.
Not only must you take into account the tail pipe emmissions, but also the
complete manufacturing process!
I believe emmisssion standards are one small way of keeping this impact to a
minimum.
John.

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Brush" <jbrush@AROS.NET>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 01:30
Subject: Re: emission tests are a fraud

> >He isn't saying that polution is good, or that we shouldn't do anything
> >about it.  He isn't saying that polution isn't worse in other places than
> >Minn.  What he is saying is that a five year study showed that vehicle
> >testing did not help.
>
> In Minnesota.
>
> Its wrong, wrong, wrong, to condemn all emissions testing
> based on one place, one state, one lightly populated, and certainly not
> densely populated at that.
>
> > I haven't looked at the study, so I can't comment
> >on the science, but if it was done properly, more states should look into
> >it.
>
> The all powerful gods of the EPA do not mandate by states, but by
> locations, and if they think someplace in Minnesota needed emissions
> testing, it would be done, regardless of anyone's study.
>
> Where you live has a lot to do with whether or not emissions testing can
> be of value. If you live in a place like I do, Salt Lake City, then you
> could see that we live in a valley, surrounded on three sides by
> mountains. Smog doesn't blow away here, it tends to hang out and and when
> the weather is calm and high pressure exists, its kind of disgusting.
>
> However, if you live in most other places in the state, then you don't
> have the same problem because of the surrounding area basically allowing
> any 'smog' to blow off and end up in the atmosphere, and the population is
> less dense. I consider it rather stupid to say something like "Minnesota
> doesn't have a pollution problem" since its a pretty big state, and I bet
> some places are worse than others. Perhaps overall, its not bad, but its
> too broad a comment to make and have it taken seriously.
>
> We are all just spit marks on the planet earth. If you took every car on
> the planet, and I mean ones that are running and used often, you could fit
> them all, side by side, right here in the Salt Lake Valley. That's a
> pretty tiny spec on the surface of the earth. All together, they cannot
> hurt the environment, as the planet is much too large, but in concentrated
> areas, the problems arise and so we need to deal with them on an area by
> area basis.
>
> Automobile emmissions are not harming the earth, its the concentration in
> one place where the effects are most notable, and cause the biggest
> problem. My cars are well kept, and don't exceed the emissions standards
> of the county, but there are still a lot of cars that I see everyday with
> blue smoke pouring out the tailpipe and it pisses me off to think that
> anyone can be such a bastard as to drive around with oil and smoke pouring
> out of their car. Those folks are right up there with the morons that
> throw their cigarette butts out the window. This is where the real
> pollution problem lies, and if some state wants to go ahead and let those
> cars run around the roads all day long puking oil all over the place, then
> I guess they will one day reap what they sow.
>
> I don't like the emissions testing. Its big brother at his finest, but
> people are too stupid to police themselves, so I suppose someone has to
> intervene and try to preserve something for our children to enjoy, so I
> guess that as long as people are so small minded, we will be subjected to
> the tests in most major metropolitan areas.
>
>
> >  Which uses more energy
> >-- washing dishes in a sink or in a dishwasher?  If you think the
> >dishwasher uses more energy then you have chosen the obvious -- and wrong
> >-- answer.
>
> Here is another in a long line of broad statements made with no
> consideration for the facts. We would all do well to avoid making broad,
> sweeping commentary without any concern for the details. Just as the
> emissions commentary lacks any detail, this statement is made in much the
> same way. How many dishes? How much water? What temperature? Without such
> details, the comment is not worthy of notice.
>
> >  Now I know that I am new to the list and everything, so I don't want to
> >upset any tree huggers out there,
>
> I don't think there is any need to call a person a tree hugger simply
> because he or she might have a concern for the overall quality of the air
> they breath, and the land they live on.
>
> > but emission tests are a fraud.
>
> In Minnesota maybe, but here again we see the broad comment that is made
> based on nothing but the results of one study, done in one place.
>
> Its a REALLY big planet, and yet so many people think that they can see
> the whole picture, when in fact they do not even see past the end of their
> driveway.
>
> John
>