🚀 go-pugleaf

koichi@unixg.ubc.ca (Koichi J Kishimoto) writes:

> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)writes:

> >A tax is probably
> >a more efficient and fair way of letting people depreciate their investments
> >(instead of paying big fees to mechanics). They would probably buy newer,
> >more efficient cars sooner, than if they paid for repairs. And the govt.
> >would get more money.
> 
> I don't think so, I can't afford a newer car. I can, however, ensure that
> my car is running properly.

This does seem to reduce the effectiveness of the testing from a
global perspective.  The environmental cost of producing a new car
vs. using an older one for a little longer is quite high.  One new
car means a lot of smoke coming out of Detroit or Japan.  It is
effective, however, in cleaning up the local air - at least
temporarily.

> >I also think it's very inconsistent to be basing the tests on the year of
> >the car. Either x% of pollution is bad, or it's not. I don't think a car
> >should be allowed to pass just because it meets specs at the time the
> >car was made.

See above...

> As far as older cars meeting the latest specs is concerned, how would you 
> like it if you were forced to trash a car (you couldn't sell it, who would 
> buy it?) every few years because it didn't meet the latest emission 
> requirements? Your car will pass the 1991 requirements. But will it pass
> the 1992 requirements? Or 1993? Can you buy a new car every year? I can't.

Right!  Too wasteful.


Brad Crockett, Duncan, British Columbia, Canada
bcrock@happy.nuts.almanac.bc.ca           :->