internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
List archive
- From: Jeremy Portzer <jeremyp AT pobox.com>
- To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [internetworkers] EPA v. NC (and more)
- Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 11:05:38 -0400
On Thu, 2004-07-15 at 10:44, zman wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, Alan MacHett wrote:
> > Agreed. But you can't discount the cars, well, automobiles of all types.
> > You can't possibly look at the Beltline and tell me vehicles aren't a
> > problem.
>
> Yes but they seem to take the brunt of the heat. I just looked out the
> window at the construction across the street, those machines are putting
> out some crud. Everytime I see a semi take off at a light. And on the
> beltline yeah the 1000 SUV's with a 90lb woman and no one else. Until next
> year they are still classified as trucks (farm equipment).
Just because construction vehicles are putting out visible crud (i.e.,
carbon in the smoke) doesn't mean they are polluting all that badly.
What really matters is things like sulfur (causes acid rain), nitrous
oxides (causes smog), etc -- these are invisible. Controlling these
pollutants requires different measures that controlling the visible
pollutants that you can see out your window. The EPA's "Tier 2" program
for deisel emissions is making a big dent in these problems.
However, I have heard that much of the pollution, even among
automobiles, is caused by a very small number of vehicles. This is
partially driven by the desire to "grandfather" all old cars from new
pollution requirements. Yet a 1970's clunker can output something like
100 times the emissions of a 2004 vehicle -- maybe it's time we came up
with programs to buy off these old polluters from those who still drive
them.
--Jeremy, not chemist or anything, this is just what I've heard
--
/---------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Jeremy Portzer jeremyp AT pobox.com trilug.org/~jeremy |
| GPG Fingerprint: 712D 77C7 AB2D 2130 989F E135 6F9F F7BC CC1A 7B92 |
\---------------------------------------------------------------------/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-
[internetworkers] EPA v. NC (and more),
Alan MacHett, 07/15/2004
-
Re: [internetworkers] EPA v. NC (and more),
zman, 07/15/2004
-
Re: [internetworkers] EPA v. NC (and more),
Alan MacHett, 07/15/2004
-
Re: [internetworkers] EPA v. NC (and more),
zman, 07/15/2004
-
Re: [internetworkers] EPA v. NC (and more),
Jeremy Portzer, 07/15/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] EPA v. NC (and more), zman, 07/15/2004
-
Re: [internetworkers] EPA v. NC (and more),
ron thigpen, 07/15/2004
-
Re: [internetworkers] EPA v. NC (and more),
Alan MacHett, 07/15/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] EPA v. NC (and more), ron thigpen, 07/15/2004
- [internetworkers] EPA & Bureauocracy, Alan MacHett, 07/15/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] EPA v. NC (and more), zman, 07/15/2004
-
Re: [internetworkers] EPA v. NC (and more),
Alan MacHett, 07/15/2004
-
Re: [internetworkers] EPA v. NC (and more),
Jeremy Portzer, 07/15/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] EPA v. NC (and more), Greg Cox, 07/15/2004
-
Re: [internetworkers] EPA v. NC (and more),
zman, 07/15/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] EPA v. NC (and more), Michael Czeiszperger, 07/15/2004
-
Re: [internetworkers] EPA v. NC (and more),
Alan MacHett, 07/15/2004
-
RE: [internetworkers] EPA v. NC (and more),
Shea Tisdale, 07/15/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] EPA v. NC (and more), ron thigpen, 07/15/2004
-
Re: [internetworkers] EPA v. NC (and more),
zman, 07/15/2004
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.