Methods to prevent pollution from motor vehicle emissions include all of the following except?

Question

a. improving fuel efficiency
b. giving subsidies to car makers for each low-polluting, energy-efficient car they sell.
c. raising annual registration fees on older, more polluting cars.
d. using pollution control devices.

I think is b... any thoughts?

Thank you!

Answer 1

None of these PREVENT pollution, they all reduce pollution, supposedly.

You really hate the poor don't you? They can't afford new cars and you are going to make it hard for them to register older ones.

Answer 2

Depends on your teacher.

For me it is "no best answer".

Because with answer A - Fuel efficiency and vehicle emissions do not go hand-in-hand. Lower emissions is a compromise with fuel efficiency, you can't have it both ways.
If you don't believe me look at the EPA rated MPG on any California vehicle vs a 49 state vehicle.

Answer B - Why subsidies to the car maker; the consumer needs a reason to buy the car first. Why pay a car company to produce a product before anyone buys it. That is corporate welfare. Any incentives should go to the buyer and not the seller. Ideas like this always come from people who don't understand Economics, or want to rip off the taxpayers.

Answer C - Sure, raising fees on older cars might help reduce pollution by making someone purchase a newer car.
But you pass on the cost to some of the people that can least afford it. And is replacing an older useful car with a newer car really all that good for the environment. It still has to go the salvage yard, or be dumped on the side of the road, or be recycled into the waste stream. You are just trading one form of pollution for another and producing another vehicle from our limited resources that has to be disposed of later also.

Answer D - Sensible answer.

Answer 3

First, fuel efficiency and pollution are 2 different things. Smaller vehicles such as 2-stroke scooters and motorcycles get very good gas mileage (ie they go father on a smaller amount of fuel) but the exhaust is dirtier than cars that have the LEV(low emissions vehicle), ULEV(ultra low emissions vehicle) or SULEV(super ultra low emissions vehicle) exhaust emissions certifications.
Second, the LEV standard is now law in the US and there are many cars that are even cleaner at the ULEV or SULEV. So, basically they have already done choice b but instead of subsidies to low emissions vehicles they just outlawed high emissions vehicles. In fact the ULEV and SULEV cars produce exhaust that is so clean and the air quality around some cities is so bad that the exhaust coming out of the car is actually cleaner than the air that came in. This is because the toxins are mostly burned during the engine combustion but some of the toxins end up in the air filter of the car.
Since car emissions account for such a small amount of the air pollution now I think that choice b has been working.

Also, cars have mandated pollution control devices such as the oxygen sensors and cataylitic converters. The California emissions standard is one of the most stringent in the world.

Bear in mind that industrial pollution and cow ruminants (cow burps and farts), especially pollution from coal burning power generation are the biggest polluters in the US right now.

Answer 4

I believe it is C. But that opens a whole can of worms. Old cars should be less expensive to own because poor people own them and need to get around. If you don't live in the big city you need a car. And if you put up with a junk car with no AC then you should get a break.
Second, properly maintained they don't pollute much more than when they were new. I recently took my 2000 4runner to get smogged. It has 160,000 miles on it and it was so clean that the smog tech commented that they were going to get in trouble because my car shouldn't be that clean. All I do is the recommended maintenance.
Third. Classic cars are a huge hobby. Charity car shows happen every weekend. The manufacture and sale of parts employ a lot of people, and a lot of Americans. It is a difficult hobby, but it keeps people out of trouble. Some people collect cars and rarely drive them. I have a classic car which I drive about 1500 miles a year, mostly to car shows. I shouldn't be charged a bunch to keep it when it is used as a work of art for a hobby and not everyday transportation.

Ok, I'll get off my soapbox.

Answer 5

that still won't solve the bigger problem...you see, even if we dispose them off polythene separately, it won't degrade any faster. ultimately it will end up in soil or water and be as hazardous! the best that we can do is making an effort to stop the use of plastic/poly bags. use paper bags instead, or maybe polythene that has been approved. we can do our best by being aware & spreading the awareness among everyone we know. we must stop the use of polybags & even request markets/sellers to discourage it's use.

Answer 6

The environmentalist have already screwed up the car which reduced the millage.

Answer 7

There all bull crap . We need a new energy source . .Why keep dumping money into all that old stuff .

We just need a hole new way of thinking

Answer 8

http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/
here is the answer to the whole vehicle pollution problem!!!

Answer 9

b
you are correct sir !