"I really don't understand your complaint. Presumably, if one donates to a charity, one believes in what they are doing. The charity sells the car which helps that goal. The power company trashes the car and gets it off the road. Since older cars polluted more than newer ones that reduces net pollution. Seems like everyone wins. I think you just want to force the power companies to reduce pollution irrespective of cost. Do you have a patent on a method to reduce sulfur and mercury emissions? Here in Michigan people are up in arms about EPA rules that require drastic actions to reduce pollution that blows in from elsewhere. I get uneasy when I see the power of the state coming in with a big hammer. These trade offs may make more sense in the long run.
GeoM"
Well to answer that and I mean to be nice about it too.
It's when they put on a false pretense and refuse to answer questions that I have a problem with them. If they act as if they are going to teach a person a skill then sell the car for a reasonable amount and use that money to further their goals, I support them DOING THAT, but to act like that is what they are going to do, then scrap the cars for a few bucks or whatever is NOT what I support! Or if they say that is what they are doing honestly and openly with out the false pretense involved then I would support that maybe. Most likely I'd keep the car and give em money instead though.
Many of these older cars ARE NOT creating polution because they are not being used, or they are seldom used. Also when I need parts for my classic hot rods and have to buy new parts, polution is made producing those new parts, so it's a double whammy. Cars not creating polution are destroyed so some Corp CAN produce that polution, and parts for cars are being made new because used parts are not as available. Not that big a problem, but it does exist also. And besides that, how much polution was created making your new car for the lower emisions you have? It's back to the same old thing, is it worthwhile to pay 3 times the money for a car to use half as much gas and then pay high repair bills when it breaks? Sorta the same thing here, your taking a seldom used car and creating polution to destroy it, poplution to build a new one and the polution the new one creates since it will be driven much more often and longer trips, PLUS the CORP gets to mauch all the polution the old car supposedly would have made.
And your kinda contradicting yourself there. MI is right across the lake from WI and you say something about polution blowing in from other areas? Well maybe if the old cars sat unused and the Corps did not get the credits to alough them to produce all that extra polution you would not have to worry about cleaning it up when it blows in!! So no, not everyone wins, you just lost! And did that trade off make sense to you now since your state has to clean it up??
As for the polution, I don't care that much about it, it's not the fact they are aloughed to make it, it's the scam involved to be aloughed that I was talking about.
Sure I'd like a cleaner place to live too I geuss, but I'm not a nut about it. I know it's a trade off, have life as we know it, or live in a cave in the dark!
I mean even building windmills creates polution! Those parts had to be made somewhere, the inverters, the batteries, ect....
Anyway, what I was saying is I think it's just another scam by the power companies when they want more money for green power and I was using that scam as an example of some of the crap that gets pulled.
I donate to alot of charities at times and will be founding my own before long if all goes well, but I'll never donate a car unless I am told exactly what is gonna be done with it now. And I would never give a power company a dime more than my bill!!
Use that money to buy energy effieceint stuff for your house and benefit twice instead! You use less power so save money on your bill, and they can produce less since your not buying it!! That's much better than giving them extra money for nothing on their claim they will use it for green power production. Just think if everyone spent $4 a month for flouresent lights instead of giving it to the power company for nothing! Then each month power comsumtion goes down alittle more as more lights are replaced! In 12 months you replace 12 bulbs and that's 12 bulbs a month saving power for a long long time! Or save up 3 months and buy a $12 light! Far better!!
My main reasons for trying to go wind power. Stop paying the electric company at all, and reliable power since this little outfit here has alot of problems.
It may cost me more in the long run, but look what I save in UPS systems alone! I need one for each computer, TV/vcr/DVd clock, and other stuff. Less polution is nice too, but not much thought on that here really.
