Actually, a very interesting question!
Yet on the old-car pollution question, my TR-6 ('74 1/2) never had a
problem passing the Northern Va pollution reqs. I now live in
Charlottesville, and we don't need to pass these, so I don't know about
now, but it met the standards when it had 105,000 miles! As I said rather
nastily, a bit earlier (apologies if I offended,) the real culprits are
the SUV's, and "light trucks". They represent over 1/2 of all new vehicle
sales, and got a "by" on meeting pollution standards years ago. In
addition, the Japanese makers of their versions these, which are
essentially cars, got to bring theirs in as "light trucks" so they do not
need to meet EPA standards. In general, these vehicles produce from six
to ten times the overall pollution of cars (check the data) that are
required to meet the standards. I would suspect that in California the
SUVs and their brethern that are sold each day produce more pollution than
all our British cars (even the "dirtier" ones) plus all the other
antique/collector cars put together, even if they were all being driven on
one day! If Cal (and not Gore) wants to reduce pollution, I would suggest
that the light-truck based vehicles, since they all are essentially
personal passenger vehicles, NOT work vehicles, be made to meet fuel
economy/pollution standards. (A friend of mine just HAD to have a GMC
Yukon. Swears that even if he lived in NYC he would have one. He does
agricultural work, while his wife uses the Yukon to drive to her office
job, and he uses a small pickup for his farm work. I don't think the
Yukon, with its 4X4, has ever been off hard pavement.) This would go a
LONG way to reducing our use of foreign oil resources.
Cheers...
On Mon, 16 Oct
2000, Steven Newell wrote:
>
> Anyone know how much pollution is created making a new car?
> Actually, I was going to ask the list, but I found some stuff online.
>
> *My apologies for more of this peripheral topic, even w/o politics.
> I don't care who invented the Internet, without it I wouldn't have the
> job that paid for my Triumph. ;-) Thanks, Mr. Cerf et al.*
>
> Anyway, I've wanted to be able to say that driving my Triumph
> pollutes less than driving a Miata. I figured once you add up all
> the pollution created from manufacturing and distribution, it
> far outweighs the extra gas and lots of oil I burn. Plus no A/C,
> no CFCs. And my leather seats are biodegradable -- and
> clearly biodegrading. <g> Anyway, I'm thinking the
> environmental cost of my Triumph should be 1/8th the cost of
> driving a new car every 5 years for 40 years, right? Now you
> can tell your friends *and* critics: "I'm driving my TR for you
> and the health of the planet!"
>
>
> Here's what I've found. *Disclaimer: I haven't checked sources.*
> "A car causes more pollution before it's ever driven than in it's entire
> lifetime of driving." (Cradle to the Grave, Umweltund Prognose-Institut
> Heidelberg) and http://www.carbusters.ecn.cz/WCFD%20Stats.htm
>
> The Environmental Cost of One Car
>
> Extracting Raw Materials:
> 26.5 tonnes of waste
> 922 cubic metres of polluted air
>
> Transporting Raw Materials:
> 12 litres of crude oil in the ocean
> 425 million cubic litres of polluted air
>
> Producing the Car:
> 1.5 tonnes of waste
> 74 million cubic litres of polluted air
>
> Driving the Car:
> 18.4 kilos of abrasive waste
> 1,016 million cubic litres of polluted air
>
> Disposing of the Car:
> 102 million cubic litres of polluted air
>
> --
> Steven Newell
> Denver, CO
> '62 TR4 enviro-convertible
>
>
James A. Ruffner
|