

| Subject: | Re: emission ethics |
| From: | The Shaws |
| Date: | Tue, 31 Aug 2004 12:45:28 -0700 |
ouch! peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel L. Katz" <katzd54@YAHOO.COM> To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 12:21 PM Subject: Re: emission ethics > list: > > if iowa has relatively clean air, yet uses coal relatively extensively and > has relatively little auto emissions regulation, how can this be? > > answer: a relatively low population density. > > in other words, the most effective immediate way to cope with pollution > and the now permanently decreasing level of petroleum production is > reducing population. this will happen gracefully, or catastrophically, but > is going to happen as the petroleum age comes to an end within the next > 40 - 50 years. > > dan > > > > > >If i were still living in Atlanta, I'd probably have to give up the > >Vanagon--it's last test was on the verge of not passing. I'd never do > >anything to circumvent the testing though--Atlanta has filthy air and > >I don't think i'd be happy contributing to it. > > > >So I live now in Iowa, which has some of the cleanest air in the USA, > >and a state that makes most of its electricity using coal that makes > >pollution that heads straight to the Northeastern United States and > >Ontario and Quebec. It's a no-win situation that isn't helped by the > >current "New Source Review" policies of the Administration. No > >counties in Iowa currently test for vehicle emissions but I don't know > >how long that will continue to be the case. The fact is that driving > >it adds to the net effect of pollution even though I don't live in a > >place with dirty air. > > > >If there was a sure-fire way to make my Vanagon cleaner, though, I'd > >do it and cost wouldn't be much of a factor. I'm thinking engine > >conversion at some point. Seems like most of the ways to make it > >cleaner with the original engine make it practically undriveable. I > >drive with my timing advanced which probably makes it dirtier--it's > >the only way i can get a stable idle speed. This bothers me, but I > >also realize the effect of buying a new "clean" car means that it is > >only clean at the tailpipe. The manufacture of a new car creates > >immense waste, both air and solid, that from my understanding has more > >effect on the environment than driving my dirty Vanagon. Hell, mowing > >my grass probably creates more pollution in a single day than my > >Vanagon does in a year. > > > >There are no simple answers except to walk/bike when you can, take > >public transportation when you can, drive when you have to and combine > >those trips (which will have the residual effect of making your > >Vanagons last longer). > > > >Donald Baxter > > > >On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 08:15:49 -0700, gary hradek <hradek@yahoo.com> > >wrote: > >> Joy, > >> We need no ethical guidance on this list when it > >> comes to emission checks. If you really push this > >> issue you would not be on the vanagon list at all but > >> you would be on the low polluting eurovan list. > >> There are many reasons people choose to handle a > >> vanagon problem the way they do. We need to take > >> care not to judge them on this action. Two hundred > >> dollars may make the difference whether they get > >> enough to eat or not. > >> I for one would like to know if advancing the > >> engine or retarding the engine will decrease NOX? > >> I thought an engine runs hotter when it is retarded > >> and thus NOX would be higher? So what do you think? > >> regards, gary > >> Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 23:25:39 -0400 > >> From: Joy Hecht <jhecht@ALUM.MIT.EDU> > >> Subject: Re: Failed Emissions Check > > > > > > > >-- > >--------------------------------------------- > >Donald Baxter > >316 Ridgeview Avenue > >University Heights, Iowa 52246 > >http://www.mindspring.com/~onanov >
Have something to add on this topic today? Revive this thread in the forum »