Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site amdcad.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!amdcad!phil
From: phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: net.auto,net.consumers
Subject: Re: No Leaded Gas -- Now What?
Message-ID: <823@amdcad.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 16-Mar-85 16:36:06 EST
Article-I.D.: amdcad.823
Posted: Sat Mar 16 16:36:06 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 17-Mar-85 02:28:55 EST
References: <132@ucbcad.UUCP> <147@tove.UUCP> <168@osiris.UUCP> <1092@watdcsu.UUCP> <1400@orca.UUCP>
Organization: AMDCAD, Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 19
Xref: watmath net.auto:6118 net.consumers:1991

I think the EPA decision stinks. They used the wrong solution for a
problem which may be real. What's the problem? People using leaded
gas in cars designed for unleaded. Why? Because it's cheaper. How
can we stop them? It's already illegal. We can ban leaded gas. Or,
we can tax leaded gas til it's more expensive than unleaded.

That way, people who really think they need leaded will be able to
get it. But people who only use it because it's cheaper will switch
to unleaded. And the government gets more money and (ha ha) can reduce
taxes on other goods.

I think the problem of lead in the environment will be greatly reduced
when leaded gas costs more than unleaded. EPA sucks.
-- 
 A man without a woman is still a man. But a woman without a man is nothing.

 Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720
 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil
 ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA