928=Big Carbon Footprint? NOT!!!
 

The long & short, pets are worst than cars, INCLUDING build impact.

details here
http://www.vancouversun.com/technolo...119/story.html

and check out New Scientist as well.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ly-greedy.html

Need to make some bumper stickers for 928s

"When you crush Fifi, I'll consider crushing this car!"

"Save the planet, eat pussy(cats)!":evilgrin: --too far maybe?

regards
Ken

Maybe not too far, just might get taken out of context? Unless of course that's the intent.

As a tree-hugging lefty, I'm going to go out on a limb (pun not intended) and guess that it causes more environmental damage and consumes more energy to recycle my 10mpg Porsche than letting me drive it every day. Therefore, it's my duty to buy and drive as many faded supercars as I can (and, well, current ones if I was rich). You know, to keep them getting recycled.

Just anecdotal, have no evidence other than one story, but at my last state inspection the tech commented that my 928's emission levels were below a lot of brand new cars he sees.

So, I'm green, screw it :)

Recycling rules
 

Hiya

I did (mostly) mean the fact that if a person were truly, unambiguously, concerned about the environment, they would eat the dogs and/or cats.

I have pets, I enjoy the company of cats & dogs, but I WILL NOT tolerate some jack-ass telling me my shark is bad for the environment, as they order their new (loaded with toxic metals & other nasty stuff) Pious, and let their dogs crap on the neighborhood lawns.:grr:


JayC I've seen that before; I am sensitive to exhaust gasses, and while there are many new cars that I find obnoxious, I had an '86 XR4Ti that was so clean I could not smell any fumes, and the tailpipe was always squeaky clean. Now if I could just get my sharks to burn that clean, I would be happy....

regards
Ken

What next??

Human Beings are toxic to the environment. It would be easier and less money just to say that.

(everything that we surround ourselves is toxic to the environment)

So how bout we stop studying and elaborating on what we already know, and change how we go about things!

Dog Influenza, H1N1 (Pandemic???), Generic Flu.... come on really?? :atwhore:

In the scheme of the human race being so self centered, instead of looking at ourselves solely as the problem(and then changing our ways), we're now looking at the dog. Sounds like a bunch of scientists with nothing better to do, than waste millions of dollars...

My rant..:soapbox:
My.02 sorry!

I had an 86 XR4Ti also. I rebadged it to a Ford Sierra. Talk about getting looks from knowing drivers. Put an alcohol injection system on that one. Great car. Drove it for 180,000 before I traded it on a new Honda Civic Si. Wish I still had it. Fun car to drive. Went fast pretty well.

I'll take some of that millions to study the dogs. "Yep, that's a dog" Study over.

Agreed, spread the wealth... My 928 could use another grand or two... I wasted oxygen and electricity to read the article... I made a larger carbon footprint on the earth for reading that complete waste of time and then typing these responses.

Hey how bout this.... They should spend money on studying the idiots that did that study and see what their total carbon footprint was for completing that study,.

I agree that the energy consumed in production of a new car will greatly out weigh the poor fuel economy of our older cars but the above statement is incorrect. in that statement it is implied that the emmisions measured by the inspection station are the same compounds that effect the carbon foot print of the vehicle. This is not the case for emmisions purposes the primary compounds of interest are NxO, CO and HC. these compounds equate to only a small percentage of the CO2 produced. if you want to look at the carbon footprint you also need to take into account all the combustion gasses and by products formed. in essence if you had a car the got 2mpg but managed to achieve complete combustion and only for H2O and CO2. The emmisions station would see no polution, but the car would still have a significant carbon footprint.

if you look at the breakdown of carbon emissions and see that 40% is from manufacturing another 40% is from electricity production and more than 10% is from agricultural and less than 10 % is from cars why are we concentrating on one of the lowest producers of co2 on the list why would i want to buy a new car and contribute to that 40% with no emissions control for any of the other bad emissions either it makes more sense to me to recycle an old cool car and one thats is very clean to drive too just my 2 cents worth