FredR

The problem here is "experts". Back in 1975 as a spotty 17 year old teenager I attended a lecture at Bradford University aimed at attracting budding chemical engineers into the business because in those days they were struggling to recruit such. The guest speaker was probably the most preeminent chemical engineer in British history- doubtless a great individual. He gave a lecture about how emissions were "safely" disseminated by sending them high enough into the air in stacks. I did not buy into this theory and challenged him saying that his model did not consider everybody else's crap that was being chugged into the air via other factories and things that burnt fuel and that a young chap in Scandinavia called Errka should have a say in all this as all these acids formed by combustion were probably going to dump on top of his head and dissolve his hair!

Our [British] expert smiled and dismissed me saying that "we [experts] have thought about all that and it is not a problem". Some 5 to 10 years later the term acid rain suddenly became vogue and then measures were taken. Not long ago I read an article published by the Government of Norway stating that production in the forests of Norway had in fact ratcheted upwards rather dramatically due to all the nitrogen compounds in the pollution streams fertilizing their soils!

To be fair, converting our power stations to burn gas instead of coal was probably a very good thing but at the end of day what do we really know? If I were one of the Dutch lads I would simply take my banned car and drive around those magnificent dykes [the man made barrier type not the female ones] located around the south west of Rotterdam knowing that the crap they spew might just land on the ********* who made this useless piece of legislation!

Rgds

Fred

Vilhuer

There are experts and then there are things everyone can see is not normal. For example there used to be healthy trees in north east Finland in Lapland until pollution from Petsamo area in Soviet Union practically killed them in some areas. One do not have to be rocket scientist to see the connection. Especially since industry there has been cleened up lately and forest in damaged area is again looking much better.

Simple fact is that internal combustion engine is dirty messy thing. It would be very good to get rid of them on equipment which is in daily use. However banning existing technology from being used is not right way to do it. There needs to be viable alternatives for it. Large scale clean energy creation and storage question needs to be solved. Current available options are not enough to get world off oil, gas and coal. There needs to be new Manhattan project for fusion power. Hopefully something into which all nations contribute.

worf928

IB4TM to P&C

(For my 928 Rennlist friends from across the pond: "In before the move to the Politics and Controversy forum.")

Strosek Ultra

I am sorry but my cars are not clean anymore. Two of my three Strosek cars all imported from Germany were equipped with catalytic converters. Before the technical inspection and registration in Sweden, I modified the cars to the non cat version. As most staff at the Swedish test stations do have limited knowledge in the German language, from the paperwork they did not see that the cars should be low emission and I got both approved as non cat cars.
Cars sold new in Sweden model year 1989 and later have to have cats. For private imports from model year 1992. This was all planned for later performance modifications of the cars. So far it has not been proven that the driving I do has changed the climate but living in a cold country a slightly warmer climate like what we had during the Viking age will be most welcome.
I hate shovelling snow during the winter time.
Åke

9two8

Your right, obviously Mr Obama does'nt realise that

docmirror

There's no question that burning fossil fuels in an IC engine produces emissions. The question becomes what to do about it, and who gets targeted. This from the OP regarding the number of ships idling in the port in winter just to keep the heat on, and the boilers from clogging. Let's look at the aggregate of what's been done politically here and see if this makes sense. The prevailing winds near the surface in the city generally run from SW to NE which puts millions of people and lots of land downwind.

So for every classic car that's running per hour, how many classic cars would it take to equal the point-source emissions from ONE 100k DWT cargo ship as it serves Rotterdam? Why is the classic car targeted for restriction when everyone knows that the number of hours they are driven contributing to the pollution load is some microscopic factor of the total?

It's politics plain and simple. A citizen of Rotterdam, or the Hague sees an old car, and someone along the political line has convinced them that the owner is; A. Wealthy, and therefore a criminal, B. The car is polluting billions of tonnes of pollution per year. Both are ridiculous statements, and both pander to the frothing-at-the-mouth enviro-wackjobs who can't stand anyone else being able to express their personal choice. In the US it's exactly like our finger-pointing cadre of oligarchs who fly around in personal jets, and applaud the govt who drops 30,000 car batteries in the sound of New England, and blows up a gold mine polluting a major western river!

Now, I know something about auto pollution. I grew up in S California in the 60s and 70s. The emission controls put in place by the state back then have had a dramatic and beneficial effect on the air quality. But, SoCal targeted basically everyone. Eventually trucks, buses, ships in port, lawn mowers, weedwackers, even homes got the shaft. The shaft was shared equally and the gains where dramatic in a matter of a decade. So, again - why target JUST classic cars? It's ludicrous to ignore so many point-source polluters and go after a few hundred cars that spend the majority of their time in a garage. Also - the cure is an out-right ban on use of a personal asset? WTF? They can't be driven to a car show, Sunday breakfast, limited to xxxx KM per year? Fitted with aftermarket cats? There are sooooo many solution out there but the enviro-***** only see how much power they can enforce.

johnu

Although I am in favour of reducing pollution wherever we can within reason, I think it is safe to say that the eruption of the volcano in Iceland a few years back pumped more crap into the atmosphere than the entire human race did in 100yrs!

SteveG

No doubt about it. Does that mean you abandon all other means?

Wope: You will have forgive Doc for his contractions, he seems to think libtard (liberal retard(ed) person) and I'll contribute repugnic (repugnant republican) are terms that fairly describe political groups and furthers the discussion by name calling.

DK, I wonder what is causing the smog in most large cities world wide, but especially in China and India where coal is the fuel of choice together with a few million wood/charcoal stoves. I also question your statements about Roman times. The scientific studies I have seen, do show cycles of heat/cold, but never has it risen this fast in such a short period of time.

Clearly our European friends have a different view than some here. But they are way more socialized (and socialist) than we are, they also actually have a health care system. It's kinda like a large institution, it generates more rules so the minions have direction. The more people there are, the more rules. Home Owners Associations are lovely til you have to obey their rules.

OMG, I swore not to ever visit OT again.

bureau13

I know what's NOT causing problem levels of pollution: Classic cars from 20 or more years ago. There simply aren't enough of them. I get the idea that you want the old ****boxes off the road, but there should be some sort of classic or collector car exception.

Ad0911

In fact, there is. Cars older than 40 years are considered classic cars and are free from road tax and are allowed to drive in those emission zones.

Strosek Ultra

In Sweden it is 30 years.
Åke

wopfe

It used to be 30 years too in The Netherlands. Again i think European law says 25. So Viva Europe!

docmirror

So, I get it. A carburated car with maybe a PCV and no cats that is 30 or 40 years old is exempt. But a car with cats, and a modern EFI system is NOT exempt. Yeah - the US should be more like Yerrup. uh-huh

Ad0911

I think this whole thing about banning cars of certain age got started when too many people started driving cars from the 80s because they were free from roadtax at that time (>25y). Lots of old Merc diesels etc were imported from surrounding countries because it was a way of driving a car for free. Nothing at all to do with the love for classic cars. Than they thought up some regulations that banned those cars, e.g. not allowed to drive them during winter months and if you did, pay the full amount of road tax. The age for classic cars was raised from 25y to 40y to prevent people trying to drive cars for free.

DAS928

Someone else with a 911 inferiority complex