Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)

On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:45:58 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>The problem is that the Clinton administration started treating routine 
>>> 
>>> maintenance on plants as
>>> 
>>>>"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Wrong.  They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was 
>>> exactly what the law allowed (and required).  If during 10 years of routine 
>>> maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet under your 
>and 
>>> Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls because you 
>>> replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.
>>> 
>>
>>Thats an incorrect interpretation. If I have a 1973 Plymouth (which I 
>>do) and I replace many components in the course of its 450,000 mile 
>>lifespan (which I have) it is STILL a 1973 Plymouth. It may have some 
>>improvements (modern tires, high-tech brake pads, modern shocks, 
>>aftermarket fuel injection) but it still costs me more to operate daily 
>>than a 2003 Intrepid would, and is still subject to 1973 emissions 
>>standards not 2003 standards. But my maintenance and improvements mean 
>>that it is cleaner and costs less to run than if I had a time machine 
>>and brought an UN-improved 1973 Plymouth to 2003 instead.
>
>But if you replace the carb, then the pistons, then the exhaust, you've got 
>enough of a new engine that you ought to not still have the exemption that old 
>engines get from emissions standards.

Why not?
It's the same block, but better (lower emissions).
Why do you want to encourage the owner from making it better by adding
more regulations and costs?

-- 
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"