|
On June 11, L.A. Times motorcycling editor Susan Carpenter posted this piece that basically stamped motorcycles as being much more polluting—per mile—than four-wheeled vehicles. Tech Editor Kevin Cameron quickly penned this response.
Carpenter is quite right in saying that in general, motorcycles and other powered road-going two-wheelers are held to less-stringent emissions standards than are the far more numerous cars. It should not surprise us that small industries are not required to support the same level of emissions-control R&D as are the large automakers.
 |
| You pollute less driving your bike around than riding on the dunes...but that's not much fun, is it? |
It has long been a question as to whether reductions of oil imports or reductions of emissions should receive the higher priority in government regulation. In Europe, for example, the much more efficient diesel engine is allowed emissions levels not permitted here because Euro-regulators are more concerned with the expense of oil imports and carbon dioxide emissions. It was the air-quality problems of U.S. cities such as Los Angeles that brought about research that revealed the connections among unburned hydrocarbons, sunlight and oxides of nitrogen. Despite much that has been accomplished in reduction of vehicular emissions, this remains the priority in the U.S.
It's well to remember that what is being compared are measurements made in particular driving-cycle tests. Some while ago, a Colorado researcher was amazed to discover that low-emissions autos of widely admired makes emitted a great deal more during full-throttle acceleration, which is not part of the standard driving cycle (which seeks to mimic commuter use). The same would be true of even the most emissions-regulated motorcycles (which may have exhaust catalysts just as cars do). When maximum power is commanded, mixture is enriched considerably from the chemically correct or "stoichiometric" mixture required for operation of a 3-way exhaust catalyst system.
Must a motorcyclist imagine that his/her vehicle is outstanding in all respects? Its consumption of fuel is moderate and its consumption of materials and space is quite low. As it happens, the specific emissions of motorcycles are higher than those of recent autos. Who can assign an unarguable weighting to these apples and oranges, and thereby find the "absolute good"?
There has been too much talk of "saving the planet" by driving expensive hybrid-drive autos, or by switching to electric vehicles (roughly 50 percent of whose power likely comes from coal). We can hope to "pound the planet a little less hard," but saving it is a much taller order. By our use of electricity, food, heating and vehicles of any kind, we all impose a "planetary load." Short of joining the Voluntary Human Extinction Society, or making the difficult and disciplined switch to some kind of fully engineered and "rational" society, it would seem that personal moderation is a reasonable goal.
Back in the months just after the first oil shock of 1973-74, many people congratulated themselves upon putting two bricks in their toilet tanks, turning their home thermostats down 5 degrees and driving 55 mph in the passing lane. Today, the price of this same degree of "environmental feel-good" has risen to the approximately $6000 penalty that hybrid drive imposes on economy auto prices. Do any of these measures—with the fresh problems they inevitably entail—actually accomplish what is claimed for them? The discussion remains lively.
Sound Off! Are you a gross polluter?
|
