Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 12:45:28 -0700
Reply-To: The Shaws <mindthegap01@COMCAST.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: The Shaws <mindthegap01@COMCAST.NET>
Subject: Re: emission ethics
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
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
>
| 
