Jack May wrote:
> "Bolwerk" <bolwerk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:13s8er2qjm26s5d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Martin Edwards wrote:
>>> donquijote1954 wrote:
>>>> On Feb 24, 6:59 pm, Eric Vey <jun...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>> donquijote1954 wrote:
>
>> It's probably because it doesn't take a genius to see that much of
>> California was/is an environmental disaster. It's not as bad as it
was,
>> but that many cars just isn't environmentally friendly.
(Interestingly,
>> California is on the lower end of the scale when it comes to greenhouse
>> gases per person.)
>
> More of your retarded nutcase crap. Cars have become extremely clean,
even
> cleaner than required by law. The problem now in California is transit
> which is extremely dirty with diesel particulates degrading health.
That is
> why California is mandating testing hydrogen busses to try and solve the
> transit pollution problem.
Transit is really dirty? Can I have some of what you've been smoking?
> NYC of course has a bunch of diesel hybrid busses which are cleaner than
> normal but far too dirty to be approved for use in California.
Even if that is true (and knowing you, it most likely isn't), per
capita, a New Yorker also produces far less pollution than a typical
Californian.
> BTW, according to Top Gear on BBC America ****sche and maybe some other
> brands sell some car models that have negative pollution. In places
like
> LA, the air coming out of the tail pipe has less pollution than the air
> going into the engine. None of your filthy transit can come anywhere
near
> that performance.
Again, giving you the benefit of the doubt, so what? They're still
going to add particles to the air, cleaner than LA in general or not.
Anyway, electric rail transit can use energy sources with zero
emissions. So it can hardly be called filthy. Only the energy source
can be filthy, and that can be anything.
|
