"Vito" wrote in message
...
Mark Weaver wrote:

A) The LA basin isn't representative of the country as a whole, and

Agreed, but Fredricksburg, Va is now as crowded as Alexandria was just
20 years ago and the farms between Rockville and Fredrick Md have been
buried under houses and apartments, and ....


There's no doubt that there's been recent local population growth due to
migration within the country and there's suburban sprawl going on even in
areas where there's no significant pop growth at all. Those are different
problems than people having too many babies (they aren't).

B) Nobody said there was no population growth going on 50 years ago --
50
years ago the country was in the middle of the post WWII baby boom.

Thank you. I hear there's another boom starting.


Where do you hear that?

Mark

Mark Weaver wrote:

"Jere Lull" wrote in message


http://www.uyseg.org/catalysis/catalytic/cat1.htm



I agree with your conclusion, from a different direction: particulates
from diesel (mostly carbon) are trivial compared to CO & other
pollutants from gas engines.




Particulates aren't at all trivial to people with respiratory diseases.
Many places, for example, have started passing 'anti-idling' laws for diesel
powered vehicles.

I don't disagree with this, and had it in an early draft, but edited it
out to keep the traffic down. *I* sometimes will turn the car off as I
wait for "fast" food or a light I know will take a long while. Started
doing that after we visited Switzerland that had signs at some of the
intersections asking people to do that.

Efficiency DOES roughly equate to environmental protection.



Go to Mexico City and see if you think that's true. Generally small, fuel
efficient vehicles there, but lacking emissions controls and terrible air
pollution.

Mexico city has pollution laws? I was under the impression that cheap
fuel and no EPA was their problem.

The trouble is that the US EPA regs don't cover all passenger vehicles.


SUVs


and other "trucks" aren't regulated.



No, that's not true -- SUVs and other "trucks" aren't regulated as "cars",
but they are regulated. They all have modern emissions control systems.
Still applying the same standards to SUVs as cars is a good idea.

Okay, but they aren't in the CAFE calculations, my main point.

The best way might be to drive (tax?) personal-use fuel to European


prices.

Raising fuel prices to European levels would not be politically viable here,
but fuel taxes should be raised with a 'carbon tax' and the proceeds used to
lower other taxes by an equivalent amount. A much better approach than CAFE
rules.


I didn't say it'd be politically viable, but that it might be best....
$10/gallon fuel might help reverse the awful trend. BUT I'm sure it'd be
called another attempt to stratify the classes and un-democratic or
something. Personally, if I could reasonable expect to find acceptable
public transit from home to work, I'd take it. We already have a boat
and car that are well below average consumptions.

--
Jere Lull
Xan-a-Deux ('73 Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD)
Xan's Pages: http://members.dca.net/jerelull/X-Main.html
Our BVI FAQs (290+ pics) http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/