[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [New Search]
On 5 Jul 99, at 9:59, Big Al wrote: > >I'm afraid that a statement like this really turns me off. Is there > >really anyone out there who is opposed to clean air? > I think you may have missed the p[²¾‡ ell, not really. I just didn't care for the way it was phrased. There should be no need to make a choice between the two goals [clean air and preserving old cars.] Unfortunately, however, this is the way the debate has turned with few cool heads bothering to note how little pollution the old car lovers are responsible for. Those of us interested in both goals need to take every opportunity to point out that these two goals are NOT mutually exclusive. > There are laws in effect in some states (and in developement in > others) that state that you cannot have a vehicle unregistered and > immoble. It must be destroyed. If this happens, where will our > replacement parts come from? I agree that such policies are actually no solution at all. > Many large companies have found a way (a way I won't go into) to get > state representatives to allow them to fund car crushing incentives > rather than clean up their own poluting sources. The state reps have > sided with bug business rather than the people they are supposed to > represent. Such solutions are proposed because they seem to be a good idea that offends no one with political clout. This is the siren call of modern politics, but it leads to non-solutions and lots of wasted energy. The amount of heat that this debate has raised over the past few years would have saved a lot of petroleum if it had just been channeled constructively. > Hopefully this letter gives enough content for it's size. ; ) A job very well done, thanks. Jim - ******************************* Jim Adney, jadney@vwtype3.org Madison, Wisconsin, USA ******************************* ------------------------------------------------------------------- Too much? Digest! mailto:type3-d-request@vwtype3.org Subj=subscribe