OP
OP
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #16
This is so disputable from the:
mileage lost, which means more drilling and fracking, and more refining,
to the manufacturing of all the emissions components,
to the shortened lifespan of the engines,
not to mention their lubricants,
which require more manufacturing to replace prematurely.
Is the above so much better for them environment?
Can you quantify the differences in which has less impact? How about the quality of life as the cost to benefit of the end users skyrockets whether as a diesel vehicle owner or just a consumer to which everything consumed has a diesel cost?
And let's talk about DEF and the environmental cost to manufacture it and those wonderful cardboard and plastic single-use containers, and their contribution to landfill waste
The most destructive force to the environment is not carbon emissions, it's poverty which creates massive carbon emissions let alone any consideration for the environment.
I was around in the seventies and remember choking anytime I went downtown in the large metropolitan City I grew up in. There's been great strides in emissions controls which have yielded noticeable benefits in major metropolitan areas, and I'm not for zero emission controls, but by the same token one cannot make the blanket statement you made with any credibility given the likely immeasurable variables of the macro, and lack of consideration in comparison of fuel efficiency.
Sponsored
Last edited:
