Is your car a "gross emitter"?

[lloyd3]

I first encountered this at the Denver Auto Show last month. There was a young woman in a booth at the show talking to my son about how older cars pollute something like 100 times more than the new "green" cars (they like 'em young and dumb). The solution, according to her, would be to donate or "scrap" every older car in the now "holy" cause of "climate-change". When I quizzed her about the forces behind the booth (who's paying for this?), it turns out it's a joint venture between Air-Care Colorado (who are in the emissions-testing business here in Colorado, and the Auto Dealer's Association).  No conflict of interest there, eh? I bragged to her that I owned possibly the "King" of gross emitters, and that it wasn't going away anytime soon. She didn't know quite how to respond to that, so we left her in peace to spread her propaganda. Now I'm hearing the same crap on the local radio stations.  Very disturbing for us old car guys.

Global-warming and climate change dogma come right out of Karl Marx's writings on assuming and retaining central government power and population control (don't believe me, look it up). You will hear it repeated over and over that "97% of scientists agree" which is pure hogwash. The data has been proven invalid (or fraudulent) over and over again.

There is climate change, as it has been going on since the beginning of time (they switched to this after global warming didn't work out so good).  My mild fear is that they will use this junk science to get rid of these old cars once and for all. The boiled frog comes to mind.

[Baldwinvette77]

I had a girl simply ask "don't those pollute?"

i responded "well... what doesn't?"  

also for the record a 50 year old north american car, built and maintained in north america has a smaller carbon footprint than a brand new toyota prius or tesla model s, simply due to importing, and manufactoring of all those "green" batteries.. i suppose they are referring to the colour of sulphuric acid  

[XH29N0G]

As far as the old cars go, I would look at it in terms of the total amount of gas that is burned by old cars versus the amount that is burned by new cars.   How many gallons do you run through a year with your old car?  How does that compare with your daily driver?  For the whole year.  

I wouldn't even get into the "Is climate science valid?" argument.  

[lloyd3]

I won't argue that these cars are pretty "fumy". Carburetors are notoriously inefficient when it comes to unburned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide emissions. But so what?  The numbers of older cars on the road goes down with every passing year, due mostly to natural attrition.  It's a non-issue, and yet these people are insidious about it. This is just another way to misinform an already gullible public.  Younger folks in the public schools have been fed this non-sense for the last 25-years or so, and now they are prime targets for political manipulation because of it.

[aone415]

I believe in Climate Change... but do not believe that classic cars, trucks, boats and planes are or should be the targets of scorn... as mentioned above, most people put far fewer miles on these cars than they do their daily drivers which ARE EPA compliant.  #notatreehugger

[DeltaV]

In 1997, my 1979 Chrysler 300 passed the Washington State emissions requirements imposed on the Laser/Mitsu turbo 4 banger. Emissions testing is a money-making enterprise...just like state vehicle safety inspections.

[F8-4life]

Sounds like her mouth was the "gross emitter".

[68X426]

My Hemi is beautiful emitter, nothing gross about it.

Lloyd, brother Comrade, ask your fellow Coloradans about whether all their dope smoke qualifies as gross emissions. Shouldn't that be regulated  I know their answer of course.  

I think I'll get me a "gross emissions medical" card.  They have their medicine, my medicine is carbon and gas fumes.  

[ws23rt]

We haven't heard the term "cash for clunkers" for a while.  ---The wholesale destruction of good running vehicles seems to have petered out for now.

I admit to participating in the program (against my will) because I pay my taxes. 

Anyone have the story about that program's demise?

Or is it still alive under the radar of the media?

[RallyeMike]

I believe in Climate Change... but do not believe that classic cars, trucks, boats and planes are or should be the targets of scorn... as mentioned above, most people put far fewer miles on these cars than they do their daily drivers which ARE EPA compliant.  #notatreehugger

True. A few muscle cars are spit in the ocean compared to coal power plants, and other industrial sources. Global cow farts are more likely larger gross emitters that muscle cars by a factor of 1000.

The basic science or thermodynamics tell us that the stuff we are pumping into the air will absolutely trap heat. There is no question about it whatsoever except for those who don't understand, or care to understand basic science. Though science has a full understanding of thermodynamics, and a good understanding of weather, they do not fully understand how climate works. So, the exact effects of what we are doing remain to be seen. 

Still, its not hard to close the gap between the rising CO % in the atmosphere caused by humanity and the rising overall temperature of the earth. We're way better off to work on fixing what is most assuredly causing the changes than wait until too much damage is done. Stopping people from driving classic cars will be essentially meaningless in this effort.

[stripedelete]

Any one that remembers back-in-the-day can't disagree with the lady.  However, why spend any time chasing what, less than one tenth of one percent of the American fleet?  Which is, btw, driven less than 3k/car/year.

It just weakens thier cause and makes them look like idiots.

[kab69440]

Don't bother telling her that it takes about 6 hours of driving at highway speed for your big block to equal the same amount of pollution as 1 hour running her 2 cycle lawnmower. Not to mention the act of cutting grass even by hand with a pair of scissors releases mass quantities of greenhouse gasses. Wanna save the world, lady? Stop mowing your lawn.

[b5blue]

Hell for that matter....I AM a gross emitter also!  
 I've also explained to tree huggers that a car that has been around 40+ years has saved the entire cycle of making a new car many times over and that needs to be calculated in the oversimplified tailpipe emission test. Next I crack on them about how I chose to live close to where I work so I actually pollute less yearly and oh do you have a dish washing machine...I don't, they waste tons of water and gobble electricity.
 A local mechanic said he's seeing more and more hybrids for service. The owners can't afford to replace the batteries so they are running the crap out of the systems designed to share load demand with the now useless dead weight battery system.        

[ws23rt]

I believe in Climate Change... but do not believe that classic cars, trucks, boats and planes are or should be the targets of scorn... as mentioned above, most people put far fewer miles on these cars than they do their daily drivers which ARE EPA compliant.  #notatreehugger

True. A few muscle cars are spit in the ocean compared to coal power plants, and other industrial sources. Global cow farts are more likely larger gross emitters that muscle cars by a factor of 1000.

The basic science or thermodynamics tell us that the stuff we are pumping into the air will absolutely trap heat. There is no question about it whatsoever except for those who don't understand, or care to understand basic science. Though science has a full understanding of thermodynamics, and a good understanding of weather, they do not fully understand how climate works. So, the exact effects of what we are doing remain to be seen. 



Still, its not hard to close the gap between the rising CO % in the atmosphere caused by humanity and the rising overall temperature of the earth. We're way better off to work on fixing what is most assuredly causing the changes than wait until too much damage is done. Stopping people from driving classic cars will be essentially meaningless in this effort.

Well said -----One item usually left out of the models is the scale of the environment. Also the primitive understanding we yet have for how the weather works. (the affects of the oceans for example).   The counter for questions like this is ----well we should do something just in case we are right.  

Sometimes a solution can have an affect greater than the problem it is intended to address.  To blindly move forward --just in case-- is just plain stupid.  Those that come to that kind of answer owe it to everyone-- that they back off because they are out of their field of expertise.

What ever happened to the integrity that should come with decision making power?

[skip68]

Kinda like the disc.  Is it round or flat?       
Everything pollutes so if you're going to target a specific item then make sure it's the real main cause and have the facts to back it. 

[ws23rt]

Kinda like the disc.  Is it round or flat?      
Everything pollutes so if you're going to target a specific item then make sure it's the real main cause and have the facts to back it.  

---Remember the quote "the debate is over". --That was made by many  (over and over) that felt exasperation and frustration that climate change/the world is a disc could be wrong. ---Who was that high carbon footprint making guru?  

[lloyd3]

The climate change argument is all about control, period.  Anthropogenic (man-made) climate change is unsupported by any form of good science. We get all sweaty about coal-burning power plants and then Mt. Pinatubo blows and alters world temperatures for over a year.  Global warming (and cooling, for that matter) can be directly linked to solar activity and very little else. Man's activities are insignificant on a global scale.  

[Ghoste]

I agree.  We'll find a way to create our own extinction event I'm sure of that but it wont be for altering the climate.

[JR]

The climate change argument is all about control, period.  Anthropogenic (man-made) climate change is unsupported by any form of good science. We get all sweaty about coal-burning power plants and then Mt. Pinatubo blows and alters world temperatures for over a year.  Global warming (and cooling, for that matter) can be directly linked to solar activity and very little else. Man's activities are insignificant on a global scale.  

What is your source for this? Who is possibly being controlled by reducing C02 emissions? Are you willing to bet the future lives of your grandchildren on that claim?

Anti-climate change skeptics are strange to me. I find it strange you don't have any problem trusting the scientists and engineers who designed and built the airplanes we travel on or who develop vaccines  and other medical lifesaving technology,  but when it comes to the subject of man made climate change suddenly the people who study this stuff for DECADES are wrong.

I would ask: what's the worst that could happen if you're right and cleaning up the planet makes no difference, versus if you're wrong and we do nothing about the issue?

That said, I think that lady was playing up the crowd. No one is coming to take our classics away anytime soon. The amount of emissions our (usually weekend driven) cars put out in the big picture is miniscule.

[adauto]

Long long ago....... this thing was going on...... it was called the 'ice age"........ then the ice melted and it was called "global warming"........ the earth is a living thing and cycles just like anything else.....

[Ghoste]

Why are only the "people who study this stuff" and agree with it correct?  There are many qualified scientists who don't agree with the theories being put forth, why is it wrong for me to put my trust in them?  If I felt I was endangering my grandchildren I certainly wouldn't choose as a hobby something that is so petroleum dependent, even if my daily driver uses more fuel my Charger is a frivolous TOY. 

[JB400]

Long long ago....... this thing was going on...... it was called the 'ice age"........ then the ice melted and it was called "global warming"........ the earth is a living thing and cycles just like anything else.....

I have to agree.  I'm not so certain that our impact is on the climate, but more on the lines of just environmental impact.

[ws23rt]

What I think it comes down to is.  Some folks obsess about being clean and thrifty. Others not so much.

The hand washers would go into a panic in places where there is no toilet paper and one needs to take care which hand to shake when greeting someone.

For these folks (in general) humans are dirty. Their/our very existence creates pollution. Without humans the world would naturally turn into a perfect garden of Eden.

The current situation is our natural dirtiness has become a social concern beyond reality.

Smoking tobacco for example has turned into a taboo.---Example-- I was going through prep for a surgery recently and the nurse doing the final prep asked a few questions.  One was do you smoke?  Yes I do. What?--how can that be? She told me that the doctors at that hospital don't perform surgery on smokers.--Hmm  

Another example is one of many large industrial sites I work at is tobacco free.  It's posted as such and smokers must pass through security and beyond until on county property to light up. It is patrolled and enforced. What is next gluten or sugar free work place?

This sort of thinking only moves further into our personal lives until enough is enough.

As for the scientists that are spoken of so often as credible about MAN caused global warming?---Is it not long past time for them to come back in a formal way (all 97 or so of them) and speak again just for clarity. Their are thousands of scientists that would welcome such a gathering.  The credibility of all scientists is at stake because of a few that don't follow the basics of research and conclusion.  ---This has got to be at least  worth

[JR]

Why are only the "people who study this stuff" and agree with it correct?  There are many qualified scientists who don't agree with the theories being put forth, why is it wrong for me to put my trust in them?  If I felt I was endangering my grandchildren I certainly wouldn't choose as a hobby something that is so petroleum dependent, even if my daily driver uses more fuel my Charger is a frivolous TOY. 

Would you have brain surgery performed by a guy with his own opinion of how the brain works instead of a trained, educated medical professional? Would you fly on a plane built by a random dude with no experience in aviation?  That's why "the people who study this stuff" have more credibility.

There is no debate in the scientific community that man made climate change is occurring.  If you don't want to believe that I'd encourage you to look at the rate of animal extinctions happening over just the past decade, the concern of rising pH levels in our oceans (caused by carbon emissions) and the consequences of them getting much higher, and numerous other bad things happening now.

Again, think about the worst thing that could happen if the scientists are wrong and we clean up the planet anyways, versus if they're right and we do nothing.

Disclaimer: I'm not a tree hugging hippie per say, but as an avid science enthusiast, it's hard for me to bite my tounge on this one.

[lloyd3]

JR - I have multiple degrees, with one being a Bachelor of Science in Geology.  I worked in the environmental industry as both a Federal contractor and a private industry consultant for over 20-years. I've seen the data sets presented as the core arguments and I've read the peer reviews. The science used, in my personal opinion, is highly suspect. It has also been revealed (by emails leaked from inside of the United Nations Climate Commission a few years ago) that the data sets used to justify global warming claims were highly manipulated. I also consider the source of most of these arguments; many (if not all) of the people involved are either far-left zealots or are self-serving political ass-hats. None of them, IMHO, are deserving of respect or any form of trust.