Cantrell, Adam wrote: > I'm no expert, but I think the amount of emitted CO2 correlates pretty well > with the amount of poisonous gasses emitted. In other words, it would be > pretty hard to emit a bunch of poisonous gas without emitting a bunch of CO2 > as well. Instead of making it complicated by limiting each poisonous gas, > they just limit the CO2 and the others will naturally follow.
Not entirely correct. CO2 is is just a measure for the amount of fuel a car burns. One of the easiest steps to increase the efficiency of a conventional combustion engine is to increase its working temperature (it is basically a Carnot cycle). But the temperature an engine can have is limited because the amount of NOx produced increases exponentially with the temperature. So decreasing the CO2 emissions could very well lead to higher NOx emissions (although a catalyst could deal with this, at the expense of a shorter lifecycle). > There's another argument here that's not related to the environment - it's > our foreign dependence on oil. With modern technology (catalytic > converters/unleaded gasoline) you can do a much better job of catching > Hydrocarbons, Nitrogen Oxide, and Carbon Monoxide, but this doesn't do > anything about our huge dependence. By limiting CO2, you're actually forcing > an increase of the average MPG which will eventually reduce our dependence. > Pretty smart move if you ask me. For me this is the main reason to support this type of law. Jochem ______________________________________________________________________ Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-community@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
