With cars, energy consumption is not just a matter of miles driven, but also manufacturing. Manufacturing, according to a Carnegie-Mellon study, accounts for 10 percent of energy consumed and more than half the toxic releases over a car's lifetime (http://www.ilea.org/lcas/macleanlave1998.html).
The analysis is based on a 1990 Ford Taurus with an expected lifetime of 14 years. Although a direct extrapolation to older/newer cars and manufacturing plants isn't possible, you might guess that keeping an old clunker running wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, if it were to delay the creation of a new car.
Kevin
jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net wrote:
I too love big old cars and have a few of them. In itself this would hardly seem a reason to reject climate change or reject the idea of autos as contributing a significant portion to the CO2 problem. That's said I pollute less driving my big old V8 to Florida from Missouri than someone who takes a flight there on a plane seating under 60% of it's capacity. My car does not need 105 AvGas with lead and run with absolutely no pollution control devices. I have installed a MPFI system with Cat back exhaust. On a per gallon basis it pollutes somewhere between a new SUV and new automobile. Anyone who gets on an airplane to do something other than cross an ocean is more likely than not having more pollution dumped into the environment than a person driving a newer car to the same destination. Cars are no more a problem than airplanes or the trucks that inefficiently haul everyones groceries to their destination.
John Thornton
--------------------------------- Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20060906/d15b5b3f/attachment.htm>