| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 81482 | 2007-07-29 00:34:00 | Vehicle emission hysteria loses the plot | netchicken (4843) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 573714 | 2007-07-29 00:34:00 | They are talking about upgrading the NZ fleet, but look at these amazing stats.... I really wonder if we have lost the plot with trying to reduce pollution. When I create more pollution from my fireplace in one winter than I would ever make in my entire life running a car, is it worth it to force us all to buy newer cars? Burning one cord of wood produces more smog emissions than a new SUV driven around the Earth's circumference 35 times. Burning a cord of wood in your fireplace this winter will create more smog causing emissions than 10 of our new Chevrolet sport utilities over their entire practical lifetime - in fact you'd have to drive one of our new Trailblazers around the earth's circumference more than 37 times to match the output of that nice warm winter fire Or consider that painting a room with one can of interior water-based paint generates more smog causing emissions than driving one of our GMC sport utilities from Toronto to Vancouver and back again. And that same new vehicle will emit less in a year than operating a snowmobile for 1 hour. xmb.stuffucanuse.com |
netchicken (4843) | ||
| 573715 | 2007-07-29 01:07:00 | my neighbour has just got a new fireplace. becasue they are on a sizable farm they can have a more polluting fireplace, yet just down the road we have to have a lower polluting fireplace due to our much smaller land. go figure ;) | tweak'e (69) | ||
| 573716 | 2007-07-29 01:41:00 | The comparison is not very rigorous. For example there are far more vehicles than there are woodfires. Woodfires are used only occasionally in some places, whilst vehicles are used more often in more places. It is still a good idea to upgrade the vehicle fleet to reduce pollution. It is going to be very expensive and time-consuming. Woodfires also need to be made less polluting. |
vinref (6194) | ||
| 573717 | 2007-07-29 02:27:00 | my neighbour has just got a new fireplace . becasue they are on a sizable farm they can have a more polluting fireplace, yet just down the road we have to have a lower polluting fireplace due to our much smaller land . And its the filthy coal that makes the pollution . I see it here . Everyone thinks we haven't got ours going because theres never smoke coming out - we only use wood . |
pctek (84) | ||
| 573718 | 2007-07-29 02:27:00 | Good answer vinref, however if me running my fire for one winter geneerates enough pollution to equal the running of 1000's of vehicles, then surely its better to shut me down first, than deal with the cars? A few open fires in the winter in the South Island could easily negate replacing the entire fleet of the North Island for environmental reasons . In this case whats the REAL reason for us having newer cars? The environmental concerns have either lost the plot, or just want to force us to purchase newer cars . BTW I wonder how much pollution coal fires on the West coast add? |
netchicken (4843) | ||
| 573719 | 2007-07-29 02:29:00 | Of course, the SI councils are moving to shut down the open fireplaces. Already we aren't allowed coal fires. Perhaps we should burn SUV tyres. That would attack the car pollution problem. |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 573720 | 2007-07-29 02:35:00 | As far as I know thats only in chch because of the inversion layer I use a total recycling program in my house, I use plastic for starting fires so saving them from adding to the landfill. People say that it releases poisonous gas but hey, I am inside totally safe from it :) |
netchicken (4843) | ||
| 573721 | 2007-07-29 02:44:00 | Of course, the SI councils are moving to shut down the open fireplaces. Already we aren't allowed coal fires. Perhaps we should burn SUV tyres. That would attack the car pollution problem. Perhaps we should park the SUV in the living room and have it running. Pipe the exhaust to the outside of course. |
vinref (6194) | ||
| 573722 | 2007-07-29 02:49:00 | Oi! I just read the article that that claim (about one cord of wood and driving around the earth 35 times) comes from! It comes from a calculation by the Auto Industry. They are resisting anti-pollution regulations because their SUVs and other gas-guzzlers would be penalized. |
vinref (6194) | ||
| 573723 | 2007-07-29 03:53:00 | Hmm I don't know about that . Sure its been USED by the auto industry but its cited in numerous reports including this one I used 38th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development . parl . gc . ca/cmte/CommitteePublication . aspx?COM=8976&SourceId=115524&SwitchLanguage=1" target="_blank">cmte . parl . gc . ca However I do concede that in that article it is mentioned by Mr . Mark Nantais (President, Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association): But he does cite it Supporting data: . epa . gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index . html" target="_blank">www . epa . gov (under Chapter 1 – External Combustion Sources) . References: Wood Burning Emissions: USEPA, 2003 . "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources," U . S . Environmental Protection Agency, contained on the Web Page: . epa . gov /ttn/chief/ap42/index . html . " target="_blank">www . epa . gov |
netchicken (4843) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||