Tom,
Fact: Any AMC (or similar vintage) car, in it's most perfect state of tune,NOT RUNNING, SITTING IN A PARKING LOT emits more hydrocarbons into the air than a 2008 Honda does RUNNING AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS.
This is different than the argument that was made. Manufacturing the Honda will produce more pollution than continuing to operate the AMC. Smelting the steel, manufacturing plastic, paint, etc. have to be taken into account. If we can reduce the total number of vehicles produced each year, this will have a greater impact on pollution than getting rid of old cars. I frankly don't know if this holds up or not, but it's an interesting argument. We need to look at the entire life cycle, not just the operation of the vehicle.
If anyone here wants to argue that dumping CO2 etc into the air at the present rate is OK or unimportant, well, that belongs in a flat-earthconference or something. It's not even arguable. The air and ocean isn't aninfinite toilet to crap in.
I'll bite. You made a leap from hydrocarbons to CO2. CO2 is not a hydrocarbon. I agree that the air and ocean aren't an infinite toilet, but I'm just not convinced yet that CO2 is really an issue. In my opinion, the jury is still out on global warming. Here's the questions that I think still have to be answered. Is the temperature really rising, or is this just normal climate variations? Is the greenhouse effect a significant factor in temperature change? Are the actions of humanity a significant factor? Is CO2 really a major player in all this?
We can't afford to be dogmatic about this. I fear that we may have reached a point where people are forcing the data to fit the theory. We need to keep an open mind and look at the facts. In the long run that may prove or disprove these theories.
Todd _______________________________________________ AMC-list mailing list AMC-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://list.amc-list.com/listinfo.cgi/amc-list-amc-list.com
Back to the Home of the AMC Gremlin