sb427f-car

At least Bush is doing something about it while the eco wariors want to protest about it. Read carefully (about middle of the article) and you'll notice what I'm talking about. Also, factor in that diesels are 30~40% more efficent, and the fact that they only primarily emit soot (and TRACE other emmissions) and you'll figure out real quick that you are cutting emmissions by a ton, as well as consumption. At any rate...something needs to be done short term and long term and I applaud the pres for at least trying to get congress to do something.

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosins...E01-164891.htm

02-4.8

Yeah, heard about that yesterday. Especially like the part about building new refineries on old military bases.

technical

Every f-in time with those crackerjacks. I still remain skeptical that environmentalist aren't really aliens come to take over the world.

Shinkaze

FWIW I think a move to diesel is more realistic than hydrogen in the short run. But first the United States needs to bring the quality of our diesel fuel up to European standards, otherwise consumers will never adopt it.

sb427f-car

Don't disagree with that, but the article shows their true hidden agenda, NO CARS FOR ANYONE. Unless of course you are of the priviliaged few that absolutely "NEEDS" to have one. Common, don't lie to us that "diesels emmit more greenhouse gasses than gasoline engines." I can see if you spend numerous amounts of time breathing in the soot associated with diesel equipment, trucks or servicing said pieces, than yes, I can see a POSSIBLE increase in cancer risk. By the same token, I guess breathing break jobs, even of synthetic materials or gasoline emissions won't increase your cancer risk.


Me >>>>>> <<<<<< Ecco warrior.

cantdrv65

iTrader: (3)

I believe the latest enviro uproar is a scam akin to the flourocarbon/ozone layer hole scam.....Two opposing extreme viewpoints usually lead to a common good, however.