Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!llustig!sgi!jeremy@perf2.asd.sgi.com
From: jeremy@perf2.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,ca.environment,sci.electronics
Subject: Re: Fuel efficiency
Message-ID: <70303@sgi.sgi.com>
Date: 26 Sep 90 04:44:16 GMT
References: <38772@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <1990Sep20.231021.5512@amd.com> <JYM.90Sep24150347@remarque.berkeley.edu>
Sender: news@sgi.sgi.com
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 21

In article <JYM.90Sep24150347@remarque.berkeley.edu>, jym@remarque.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
> > Also, pollution standards are in grams per mile, not parts per
> > million, so that the average Lincoln Town Car puts out no more
> > of the nasty pollutants than a Honda Civic.
> .-.
> |T|his sounds wrong to me.  If a Lincoln sucks up (e.g.) 3 times
> `-' as much gas as a Honda, it's got to deal with (e.g.) 3 times
>     as much output.
> .-.
> |A|lso, is carbon dioxide considered a pollutant in this scheme?
> `-' <_Jym_>
> 
> P.S.:  Then again, Lincolns have gotten smaller and Hondas have
>     gotten bigger . . . :-)


It may sound wrong, but it's true.  Ever since 1972, measurement of
emissions by the EPA have been in grams per mile, not parts per million.

I do not consider carbon dioxide a nasty pollutant.  Carbon monoxide,
oxides of nitrogen, and hydrocarbons are nasty pollutants.