From: greg@cherokee.b23b.ingr.com (Greg Moritz)
Subject: Hot rods & clunkers  (Was: Eth Bl Gas ... )
Reply-To: greg@cherokee.b23b.ingr.com (Greg Moritz)
Organization: Dazix, An Intergraph Company
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:03:02 GMT

dcg@mogun.UUCP (David Gunsul) in a flaming rant spews:

greg@cherokee.b23b.ingr.com (Greg Moritz) writes:
> >   
> > DG> That's a far cry from the eco-nazis BS that's been used to scare
> > DG> everyone into believing that cars are evil.
> > 
> > If your figures were true, yes.
> 
> My figures are from the National Muscle Car Association's Muscle
> Monthly publication under our "Save the Animals" section.
> 
> Where are YOUR facts from?
> AS A matter of fact where are your facts PERIOD?

You conveniently deleted from context the following:
...................................................
LS> Because they are responsible for 90% of the automobile pollution, ...

dcg@mogun.UUCP (David Gunsul)  of Hotrods `R' Us writes :

DG> This is complete and total BULL-SHIT cars and I mean all cars
DG> only make up 10% of the worlds pollution.

Perhaps, but they make up a far larger % of the USA's air pollution
...................................................
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 ...

*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.
----------------------------------
Now, David resorts to name calling:

> >  People who like cars need to be able to admit to the damage they do...
  
> Excuse me but, why in the hell would a car nut want to look like
> one of YOU eco-nazis? ...

> ... Oh let me guess, we "car people" are pissing you eco-nazis because ... 

> I hate to break it to all of you eco-nazis but THE SKY IS NOT FALLING!!!!!
> So go out and join the rest of the world and GET A LIFE! ...

> DG> That's a really nice way to say: that's a nice hotrod you've got there
> DG> to bad you can't have it anymore but don't worry here's $500.00 for 
> DG> your pride and joy.
> 
> > Hotrodders should fight efforts to remove well-maintained older vehicles 
> > from the road.

> That's what I'm trying to do.

No, you are being a fanatic and hurting the cause of hot-rodders.  I
cannot be confused with an eco-nazi.  You are trying take the focus off
of your weak arguments by using insults.

I don't care if someone wants to drive a smoke-belcher.  I can't imagine
why they would want to, but if they want to - fine - let 'em.  I can
hardly be called an eco-nazi with that kind of attitude.

I'm *not* equating smoke-belchers with hod-rods.  You should try to see
the distinction too.

> 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.

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 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 
more to the cost of new cars.)
----------------------------------
> > If the older vehicles are scrapped, but not crushed and melted, 
> > they could provide a supply of important parts to people looking 
> > to keep up an older vehicle.
  
> AHH, now we're talking, only problem is, the people that are enacting
> these programs are NOT taking the cars apart and selling there individual
> parts they ARE making these cars into BLOCKS.

Well, then fight to keep them whole - but not on the roads.
I would think that wrecking yards would like this plan.  The purchased
cars could be free inventory.  They wouldn't have to buy them until sold.
This is called a consignment sale.  Everybody wins.

> The point of this is: when people start crushing all these old cars
> there won't be anywhere for restorers/Hotrodders to get parts for their
> pride and joy except for aftermarket businesses, who will jack up the
> prices a lot because there won't be anywhere for car owners to turn to.

Sounds like something worth fighting for.  Crushing sucks.
--------------------------------------
> > 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.
--------------------------------------
> > So you would rather let the factories close (or downsize) and lay off all 
> > (or some) of their workers rather than put any restrictions on older cars?

> They don't have to lay off anyone all they have to do is install those
> "scrubbers" in their smoke stacks.

Oh, is that all?  So you would rather have a factory have to lay out, say,
$10 million rather than tens of thousands?  When faced with that decision
many factories will have to close.  Scrubbers are great, but not cheap.

> > DG> Now would someone please tell me how this is helping the environment?
> > 
> >     (2) Reduce pollution from another source.  ....

> NO no no, you don't seem to understand. ...

NO NO NO - I understand *perfectly* well.  

> When the factories turn in these cars they are allowed to pollute more
> than they were BEFORE.

So what?  

If there is a *net* reduction of pollution, then the community 
(and jobholders) benefit.  Stick with relevant arguments.

> BZZZZT!!! Factories pollute more than the cars 

BZZZZT!!! your condescending self.  You still have not demonstrated this.  
All you have above is some small little 10% number that is not related to 
anything.

> ... and junk yards have a lot of little squares sitting around waiting to 
> be melted down (which makes more pollution by the way) to  make new cars.

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.
---------------------------------------------
> >  ... said fixing/removing - this implies that he is flexible.  
> >            ^^^^^^
> > You don't appear to have any flexibility in this matter.
> 
> I am flexibleso I have to fight as hard as I can.

Uhhh .... right.