Err... I didn't realize it was Earth Day today.
Err... I didn't realize it was Earth Day today.
I'm driving my 1994 GT track car to the recycling center to drop off some stuff today.
Yeah, it's Earth day, and much like most churchgoers I know, most people are only good for one day as opposed to the whole year.
My thinking is to just have some fun with it. 
Same car I drive every day: a bridge ported RX-7.
It gets better fuel economy than the truck.
In an hour or so (gotta love car salesman work schedules) Im going to take the fire spitting 25mpg wonder machine of course I am going to sell giant trucks and SUVs
If the challenge omni or the omnaru ran Id take one of them
njansenv wrote: I'm all for driving/recycling "old cars", but replacing the existing catalytic converter(s) on a modern car with a test pipe is pretty wrong, IMHO. What "benefit" does that bring?
Amen.
I may have the greenest car list thus far. Its a well maintained '93 Honda Civic that averages about 38 mpg and accoding to the last California smog check far exceeds the polutant standards for its year.
Interestingly, its actually painted green.
Range Rover. I'm all about the Earth.
nocones wrote:alfadriver wrote: Mileage is a small part of what I'm concerned about. CO, NMOG, and NOx will hurt you much, much sooner than CO2 will.But still I can't imagine guys on this board driving any kind of car for 100-150K miles at almost any emissions level after some other schmo gets rid of it and thinks it's "all used up" is worse for the environment than producing an new Prius, and driving it for 150K miles. I'm talking Cradle to Cradle environmental impact here. Lets assume that 1978 Mercedes already exists and is ready to fill that drivers needs, or they have to have a new car BUILT for them. I'm going to guess correct and accurate Non biased data is difficult to find. Me, I drove my 2005 Pontiac Vibe getting 36mpg on my 75 mile round trip commute.
I think of that, too. And the answer is it depends. Well, except for the data part, as it is hard to find.
It's a pretty good fact that manufacturing is a lot cleaner today than it has been in a while, so in terms of building a car, I'm pretty sure that it IS cleaner to get rid of cars pre-1985 (daily use) and buy somewhat new. Again, I'm not saying that you should go out and get a 2010 Escape Hybrid. As 2000 Miata will do just fine.
Cars are more recycled than any other personal product out there- more than aluminum cans. So much of the materials are re-used, and that helps a lot in terms of environmental impact.
But when you get to the point of measuring your emissions in actual grams per mile vs. fractions of a gram per mile, then it does become a loosing game in most aspects. CO2 is important today, but CO, NMOG, and NOx were important 40 years ago, and continue to be today. Plants are a lot cleaner in their off emissions, by quite a margin.
If you are driving a carbed car without anything else, well, then it's not even much of a question- your car puts out more emissions sitting still than my new car will in it's entire driving life (Recent measurements have non-equipped cars putting out the equivallent of 3 g/mi HC, and our new cars put out 0.04 g/mile on average). Once you start driving it (4-10g/mi HC, 10-50g/mi CO, 3-15g/mi NOx depending on tune), you more than make up for the plants.
As a car enthusiest, I would not be bragging that I daily drive a car that has been converted to carbs, and all the evap hardware has been removed. All you are doing is justifying more draconian rules. Although, it does keep me employed, I suppose.
Eric
Bobzilla wrote: I wanted to drive the truck and let it idle all day, but I need to get the MoS aligned so today was the day. In case you hadn't guessed I'm say F earth day and the hippies that created it. I try to live a responsible existence every day and not be wasteful if somethign has a use...... unlike the peopel that are likely "celebrating" this day and only think about it once a year. F the hippo's and the crits that go with them.
^this. I had intended to drive the 1 ton, quad cab, dually with the 454 just for this reason.
But I was tired and spaced out and took the Smart car instead.
The bronco in the background. It actually has the capability to leave the road and go see some of the less travelled parts of the earth and appreciate them. As far as pollution goes - there's nigerian gas flares that pump out 70 metric tons of c02 (something like 1/2 of all the cars in the US). The raw materials for prius batteries - mined in canada, shipped to china for processing (with by products dumped in the yang tse), shipped to japan then shipped to dealers around the world - so I'm thinking there may be some other areas that could stand at least as much attention if not more so than a well maintained old bronco. FWIW - it did have to be smog tested once - it scored very close to my wife's 2005 jeep wrangler.
Land Rover Discovery, with oversized tires and a giant, drag creating roof rack.
It crushes the earth beneath it and can go nearly anywhere on it
it crushes my wallet at the gas pump too, can't wait to get a new clutch in my Miata and start using that daily.
We should all take responsibility and make efforts to keep the planet as healthy as possible, but alarmists don't help in convincing the masses.
A sampling of the "We're-All-Gonna-Die" predictions from the first Earth day:
Earth Day Predictions, 1970
"We have about five more years at the outside to do something." • Kenneth Watt, ecologist
"Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." • George Wald, Harvard Biologist
"We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation." • Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist
"Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction." • New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day
"Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years." • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
"By...[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s." • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
"It is already too late to avoid mass starvation." • Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day
"Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions....By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine." • Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University
"Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support...the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution...by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half...." • Life Magazine, January 1970
"At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it's only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable." • Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
"Air pollution...is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone." • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
"We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones." • Martin Litton, Sierra Club director
"By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate...that there won't be any more crude oil. You'll drive up to the pump and say, Fill 'er up, buddy,' and he'll say,I am very sorry, there isn't any.'"
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
"Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct." • Sen. Gaylord Nelson
"The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age." • Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
I drove my Rx-8 to the airport, flew the company Mitsubishi MU-2 turbo prop to a sales call(170 miles in 29 minutes) and will finish the day driving my 1974 F-100 hauling dirt bikes to trout fishing camp in northern MI. A well rounded day of enjoying high speed on my short stay on Earth.
"The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age." • Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
Quite a turn around here. Fourty years later and it's warming that is all the rage, not cooling
'91 Dodge Spirit R/T
The "sky is falling" attidude has always hurt the environmental movement. And always will.
But the careful analysis on actual impact, and what can be done at a reasonable cost has been very, very beneficial. So I've got to give major props to the EPA. And that's not just because I'm very biased- look at our air, compare it to many other countries who were late to the party, and note that actual heath problems have decreased due to water and air pollution.
Heck, ignoring some of the odd political games that we've seen over the years, I need to give cred to the California ARB.
Of course, it's time that both change their focus to different sources, but that's normally a directive from their bosses- the US govenment (our elected officials) and the California govenemnt (just some of us).
I can remember cars from the late 70's- we are SOOOO far from that, it's pretty awesome. I remember plants from the 80s, and we are so far from that, too. Water? Same.
We've come a long way since the first Earth Day.
Eric
ditchdigger wrote: Can we hotlink from our readers rides?Same thing I drive every day. Damn near 50mpg and slow.
why not, I did!
alfadriver wrote: The "sky is falling" attidude has always hurt the environmental movement. And always will. But the careful analysis on actual impact, and what can be done at a reasonable cost has been very, very beneficial. So I've got to give major props to the EPA. And that's not just because I'm very biased- look at our air, compare it to many other countries who were late to the party, and note that actual heath problems have decreased due to water and air pollution. Heck, ignoring some of the odd political games that we've seen over the years, I need to give cred to the California ARB. Of course, it's time that both change their focus to different sources, but that's normally a directive from their bosses- the US govenment (our elected officials) and the California govenemnt (just some of us). I can remember cars from the late 70's- we are SOOOO far from that, it's pretty awesome. I remember plants from the 80s, and we are so far from that, too. Water? Same. We've come a long way since the first Earth Day. Eric
From the article I linked to:
"There's much to celebrate on the 30th anniversary of Earth Day. Indeed, one of the chief things to get happy about is that the doomsters were so wrong. Civilization didn't collapse, hundreds of millions didn't die in famines, pesticides didn't cause epidemics of cancer, and the air and water didn't get dirtier in the industrialized countries.
On the occasions when they admit things have gotten better, doomsters will claim whatever environmental progress has been made over the past 30 years is only a result of the warnings that they sounded. One of the more annoying characteristics of activists such as Ehrlich and Lester Brown is the way in which these prophets of doom get out ahead of a parade that has already started. When things get better, they claim that it's only because people heeded their warnings, not because of longstanding trends and increased efficiencies. As a result, there is always the danger that governments may actually enact their policies, thereby stifling technological progress and economic growth--and making the world worse off. Then the doomsters would be able to say "I told you so." So good or bad, they get to claim that they were right all along."
The problem with environmentalists/climatologists is that instead of simply trying to reduce pollution and work toward a more efficent use of resources, both very valuable, worthwhile goals, what they want to do is find and preserve the status quo of nature. Find a certain set of optimum climate/species numbers and try to maintain that.
Well, nature is not, and never has been, about the status quo. Climate and species have been in a state of flux forever. Trying to preserve/conserve the status quo is never EVER going to work, no matter how hard we try. We could create the perfect environment according to climatologists and the earth pops off a few volcanos and you've got no one to fine. A huge sunspot storm changes the temps globally for a few years and you've got no way to control it.
We didn't cause the glaciers to receed over North America, nor could we ahve stopped the warming trend that caused it if we had the tech (or were even around) to do so.
Reduce pollution. Manage resources wisely. But beyond that, just watch and record it. Because the Earth will win no matter what.
I drove my highly sensible Mercedes Diesel:
Actually I spent the day gardening, which is much greener than I usually am.
In reply to Chris_V:
Well put.
350Z, but I did drive it rather conservatively. But I do everyday.
Jeep Cherokee Sport. Exactly 11 miles to the gallon 
Hmmm. another reason to megasquirt my BMW - I can do it for the earth.
I drove a new Dodge Ram 3500 Mega Cab today. I did see 18-20 mpg on the highway. And no, it's not mine.
You'll need to log in to post.
