Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxk.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!ihuxk!rs55611
From: rs55611@ihuxk.UUCP (Robert E. Schleicher)
Newsgroups: net.auto
Subject: Re: Leaded vs. unleaded - (nf)
Message-ID: <781@ihuxk.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Oct-84 16:23:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihuxk.781
Posted: Mon Oct 22 16:23:37 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 23-Oct-84 02:13:18 EDT
References: <5186@brl-tgr.UUCP> <33000013@convex.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 43

Again, it seems to me that the best solution to the leaded gas
controversy is to tax it at an appropriate amount to make leaded
gas more expensive than unleaded gas of approximately the same octane.

This would:

1.  Remove the incentive for people to put leaded gas into their cars
     which require unleaded gas (and thus lower the incidence of people
     removing their catalytic converters).

2.  Therefore greatly reduce the lead emissions levels, if we can believe
    the proponents of a ledaded gas ban when they say that most of the
     lead emissions are due to cars that were designed for unleaded gas,
     but whose owners use leaded gas to save money.

3.  Allow owners of older cars, antiques, etc. to continue to buy pump gas
    without fear of long-term damage to valve trains, etc.

4.  Won't hit poor people so hard (since they presumably own a higher percentage
    of old cars still needing lead), in that they will have to pay higher gas
    prices (not much different than if a straight ban was imposed), but
    will still be able to drive their old cars.


I am amazed that with all the talk of leaded gas bans, I have yet to hear
anyone in govt. propose something like this, despite the fact that I can't
find anything really wrong with the idea.  Obviously, it doesn't eliminate
lead completely, but there are a number of people (myself included) who
buy leaded gas because they sincerely feel that it might harm their car's
engine if they didn't use it.  I'll be perfectly happy to pay a dime or so
more per gallon for leaded gas, and would propose that the money from this
tax be used for some good purpose, either for additional research on the
subject, or for treatment.  Does anyone have any data on how much lead emissions
would decline if everyone who was supposed to use unleaded gas actually did
so?  Also, would this reduction solve the problem?  I also feel that it's likely
that leaded gas has more lead in it than is really necessary for valve lu-
brication.  How much could the lead content be reduced without adversely
affecting the lubricating properties of the lead additive?  Perhaps what
we really need is unleaded gas, and a new kind of "reduced-lead" leaded
gas, with the new leaded gas taxed to make it slightly more expensive.

Bob Schleicher
ihuxk!rs55611