Derek Evans wrote:
> living in australia, it's not really for me to comment specifically on
> sb-42. there is a point hovever that i rarely see raised when the
> discussion of older vehicles and their 'extra' air pollution is
brought up.
> if you put and old car in the crusher (or worse, let it rust away) and
> buy a new one, many megawatt hours of energy are expended by the
> factories involved in its production.
Good point Derek (an others). I've read the same but have had trouble chasing
down
a reference to quote, so in the meantime, such "logic" is viewed by oponents
to SB42 as hearsay and urban myth.
Unfortunately, pollution control is not about making air cleaner for us and
future generations (although a small minority do believe this), it is
about money, pure and simple. If nobody was going to get rich out of cleaning
up the environment, man would not do it, except at individual or possibly
community levels.
The real motive behind cleaning Californian air is the junking of older
cars and the resale of the thus-freed "smog credits" to heavy industry
fo nearly US$10,000, per credit. This is a huge windfall for the State,
and helps ease the burden for major industrial polluters to satisfy
federal pollution requirements.
Other US states are looking at this "scam" in California, some states
have already implemented it (New Jersey and Colorado, I believe).
So what happens here in Calif. with SB42 will affect how other states implement
their management of the credits.
Having said all of this, and also with your analysis of the "energy inequality"
between junking an old car and replacing it with something newer, we should
view SB42 as being pro-environment. By supporting SB42, we stand to
win on two counts, we can keep our cars and help clean the environment.
The State stands to lose $2M-$3M. Big deal, huh?
Seems like a good idea to me....
Shane Ingate and soap box in San Diego
|