>At 08:31 PM 9/25/97 -0700, you wrote:
>>I might be mistaken, but I seem to recall something in the Calif. papers
>>long ago that stated that the "new" car manufactures had more to do with
>>new smog laws then just giving money and providing legal and writing staff.
>>
>
>Mark,
>
g check they can pay a fee. By the way, the fee money is to go into a
>pile to fund the buy-off of OLDER cars to "save our air." Maybe it will.
>But, it will also mean that someone somewhere will have to buy a NEW car to
>domino-replace that old car just distroyed.
Has anyone ever calculated how much pollution is generated in producing a
new car (including all that electricity, water, and so on, and of course
the pollution generated in recycling that old car?) I'll bet it's more than
a few years worth of a pretty dirty running vehicle...but that's not the
point, now is it? The point is for state legislators to be able to clean
old cars off the roads because they are eyesores, and for wealthy people
who commute for more than two hours a day to assauge their guilt at wasting
so much gasoline by thinking "well, at least I'm not polluting, even though
my car only gets 20 mpg, when I could have a ten year old Tercel and get
twice the mileage...
>The resulting logic. New-car-owner, your car is in compliance, pay anyway.
>Not to a service station for a check, not the 7 or 8 dollar "certificate"
>fee, but rather 5 times that ammount to do your additional fair share in....
>well, in what? You tell me.
YOU MUST PAY BECAUSE THEY NEED YOUR MONEY AND KNOW BETTER THAN YOU HOW TO
SPEND IT! COME ON, SILLY, YOU KNOW THIS BY NOW...
Have a nice weekend,
Nevin (Who wakes up thankful that he doesn't live in California)
>
>
>Thomas Howard
>LUSD, (619) 390-2627
>('72 Triumph GT-6; and a good bit of USA iron)
|