View Single Post
      04-03-2009, 08:12 PM   #18
lucid
Major General
lucid's Avatar
United_States
116
Rep
8,034
Posts

 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

jm1234, what exactly is your point here? His car causes pollution. His car causes pollution because it uses energy and materials. The exact source of the pollution is irrelavant. How can you deny that? It really is rather pointless to say the source of the pollution is elsewhere, and therefore it doesn't matter.

The metrics do not result in apples to oranges comparison as you claim. You are misinformed, and need to review that literature. They measure the environmental impact of producing various materials, shaping them into components through various manufacturing processes, using energy produced by various methods, and even simply using various natural resources (such as tap water) in terms of common denomators such as associated CO2 emissions or other agreed upon environmental impact variables. Some are composite metrics made up of various such varibles (and, yes, the contributions of invidual variables to the composite metric is somewhat subjective, but it is at least the same composition for whatever it is that you are evaluating). You can indeed compare the environmental of impact of lead vs another material found in a product in that way if you know the processes through which they were produced, transported, shaped, and retired.

The inefficiency figure I referenced has nothing to do with business models. You haven't even seen the details of what I referenced, and are making assumptions in the process. Just give me time to obtain the figure, which will probably take a few days...
__________________