NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/rec/autos/27081

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-17 | 10.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!fibercom!bliss!jca
From: [e-mail] (James Akers)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: Hot rods & clunkers  (Was: Eth Bl Gas ... )
Summary: commentary (long)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:11:23 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: FiberCom, Inc., Roanoke, Virginia
Lines: 187
Nntp-Posting-Host: bliss

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Greg Moritz) writes:
>[e-mail] (David Gunsul) in a flaming rant spews:
>[e-mail] (Greg Moritz) writes:
>...................................................
>[tons-o-stuff deleted from both posters]
>My facts are from the EPA.  If you want more details, the exact numbers
>are - 87% of all automotive pollution is caused by cars built before 1980
>the other 13% from cars built after.  So the 90% number is substantially
>correct.  Almost 90% of the total automotive pollution is from less
>than 10% of the vehicles on the road.  This makes sense since over 90% of
>the pollution has been wrung out of cars since pollution controls were
>begun in the 60's.  I have the statistics at hand, don't make me use 'em ...

OK, so what does the EPA say the percentage of total air pollution is
caused by the automobile in general?  How can we then put this number into
perspective?  People can say well x% of the pollution is caused by such and
such and it may sound terrible, but what does it really mean?  Some places
like Mexico City and [some cities in] California have some serious local
problems...  I am not a geologist and I can't give answers to the problems,
but the entire nation shouldn't be forced to follow measures to a local
problem.  OK. So now you are flaming me with "Oh, but it is a global
problem..."   Well, no one wants to live in a shithole, and I am sure
that Mr. Gonsul couldn't agree more, but there are fanatics on _both_ sides
of the issue at hand, and it just happens that the fanatics on the
environment side of the issue tend to be disproportionately on the movie
screens, making songs for the radio, lobbying Washington, and even
resting behind desks at government agencies like the EPA.  These people
tend to be "heard" while the performace enthusiast community is generally
disorganized and lets "the system" have it's way.  If hotrodders had
the automotive equivalent of the NRA, things would be very different.
[and no the auto manufacturers don't count...  they represent their wallet,
which is not necessarily in the best interest of the every day rodder]

>*Your* number (from the National Muscle Car Association) are severely
>skewed.  10% of all pollution means that cars make up 10% of all kinds
>of pollution including water, air, etc.  Cars make up a far larger
>percentage of *air* pollution.  When your Magazine can account for
>100% of the air pollution, then you will have a statistic to back you
>up.  For instance, what percent of the pollution comes from factories,
>cars, homes, offices, etc.  Some vague reference to 10% leaving the
>other 90% unaccounted for is *not* very convincing.

So, what are the figures?  I _might_ believe the EPA more than NMCA, but
I definitely believe that neither is totally objective!!!  What are the
_real_ facts and implications?  No one knows for sure!!!

>Now, David resorts to name calling:
[ping pong deleted]

Although I may have chosen a different approach, I commend David for
standing up for what he believes in.  Everyone has a passion in life
[at least I hope they do ;-)] so imagine a movement that was geared toward
taking this passion away from you...  wouldn't you fight like hell to
preserve it?  Whether David is right or wrong is anyone's guess, but
I am willing to bet that there would be much fewer problems in the world
if everyone was as spirited.  [No I don't know David and I'm not just
blowing smoke up his arse!]

[more back-n-forth deleted]
>I'm *not* equating smoke-belchers with hod-rods.  You should try to see
>the distinction too.

That is fine and dandy if you see a distinction.  The thing that scares
me (and Mr. Gonsul, I guess) is that _most_ environmentalists don't!  Not
to mention that the government screws up most of what it puts it's dick
into, so I refuse to believe that the governent will make a distinction.

>> Once again I will say (hopefully for the last time) I never have
>> said ANYTHING about keeping smoking "barely making it" cars on the
>> road.
>> What I'm trying to get across is, I don't want these programs that are
>> ridding the road of these "smokers" to suck in the hotrod/restorer cars
>> as well.

I think all parties agree that the occasional total piece of shit that
is billowing smoke, clacking down the road should be fined.  I have seen
just about an even number of pre-1980 and post-1980 cars in this category!
It's hard to define in "legalese" a run-down smoking rattle trap chunk of
shit.

>Then why are you acting so paranoid?  If older cars cause almost 90% of
>all automotive air pollution, then 'smokers' probably cause almost 90%
>of that.  As those cars disappear, then the pressure on hotrodders by
>*actual* eco-nazis will diminish.  Several hundred thousand hotrods driven
>for small quantities of miles (typically) does not add substantially to
>overall air pollution.

I couldn't agree more... I think.  What you are saying is that the well-
maintained cars will live and the shit wagons of the world will die of
natural causes?  Yes!  The only problem is that this isn't good enough
for the radicals who have influence!

>I want to make the problem smaller.  If the problem is smaller, then
>the eco-fanatics will not be able to get their crushing new anti-car
>laws passed (as easily).  Over 97% of the pollution will have been
>wrung out of the IC engine by the year 2000.  That's not good enough
>for them.  They want more.  HELL, if 97% is good, 99% must be twice
>as good - they spout.  (It doesn't matter to them that it adds hundreds

BASTARDS!  LET'S KILL 'EM ALL!!!  hehehe...  [grin grin: for the humor-
impaired]

[talk about crushing cars and economics deleted]

>> > I'm confident that it would be possible to get the older cars cleaned
>> > up rather than to confiscate them.
>
>> What about the restorers that want to keep their cars absolutely stock?
>
>I'm talking about bringing cars up to stock specs.  Modifying a car to
>make it cleaner than new doesn't make economic sense.  This is another
>example of paranoia at work.  Nowhere was cleaner-than-stock mentioned,
>yet you somehow latched on to that idea.

Greg, I think that you have a very reasonable, mainstream view on this
issue, but I do think you have to give David some credit here.  There
are _lots_ of people in influential positions who wouldn't be happier if
_all_ cars were destroyed forever.  There are even more people, namely
politicians, who:  1. Can afford to buy a new Town Car every year
                   2. Is too busy playing golf and sucking down crumpets
                      to give a shit what my hobby is
                   3. Follow the "movement"...  [yeah, bowel movement]
I don't know what the facts are.  Scientists working in the field don't
know what the "facts" are.  People are scared when someone tells them
we are going to burn in HELL for our wasteful lifestyles.  People tend
to believe the "doom and gloom destruction" sooner than they would believe
an equally relevant "smiles everyone"...  It's not an easy question and
making rash decisions is definitely not the answer!

[economics and factories discussion deleted... geez this is long enough
 already!]

>Famous argument; 'Takes energy to make a new car - better to keep the old
>one up.'  I have never seen a definitive comparison between the amount of
>pollution and energy from building a new car and the amount of pollution
>and energy saved by driving a cleaner, more fuel efficient newer car.  In
>the post that you tried (and failed) to take apart earlier, the poster
>referred to a new Crown Vic.  It's a gas-hog next to a Saturn, but it is
>a fuel-misor next to a smoke-belching mid-seventies piece of V8 iron.
>It also puts out less than 1/3 of the pollution that the above-mentioned
>car put out when new.  When you come up with numbers that show a scientific
>comparison, I'll listen.  I'd love to add them to my arsenel of facts.

Well, as far as economics goes, I don't think that humans have figured
that out yet either!  If we were so smart we would all be eating crumpets
and flapping our lips on rec.autos all day long!!!  Anyway, one thing I
would like to point out here that most environmentalists (and politicians)
fail to recognize is that:
    1. For _many_ people, cars are more than just an inefficient
           means of transportation...  some people hold it very dear.
           Sure, if a study came out that said ping pong balls cause the
           early spring snow to turn blue, I would be opposed to the
           production of any more ping pong balls.  I don't play ping
           pong, so why should I give a shit about some dolt who can't
           find a better hobby, right?  Think about it.
        2. Many people cannot _afford_ a newer car.  The only way I
           made it through college was driving my 1972 Chevelle...  and
       the cost of gasoling is a very small part of the overall
           cost of operating the car.  Yeah, I got 20MPG, but I only paid
           $300/yr for insurance and $2.50/yr property tax!  Cheap!!!!
           My '92 costs me $600/yr in property tax alone, and it's
           a freaking Chevrolet for crying out loud!  Don't even ask me
           about insurance...  :-(  [major frownies]  (of course it
           stays covered up for weeks at a time...  I drive the Chevelles)
       (the difference in insurance alone for having my '92 as a
           recreational par-time driver as opposed to a daily driver
       _more_ than pays for my other cars!!!)

[flexibility stuff deleted]
>> I am flexibleso I have to fight as hard as I can.
>
>Uhhh .... right.

What amazes me is that people who seem to have enough interest in cars
to read this far into the article [wow!] can make themselves out to be
on opposite spectrums of the argument.  At least you dudes have the balls
to speak your mind.  Can we agree on that?


willing to kill or die for what i believe in,
JC.

--
 ____________________________________________________________________________
|   James C. Akers   |  Hopalong bunny rabbits, car grilles and charcoal...  |
|  [e-mail]  |   ...lifetimes without food and entertainment  -VDH   |
|_uunet!fibercom!jca_|_FiberCom,_Inc.__Roanoke,_Virginia__(703)342-6700_x280_|