Would you say that a 2.0 liter Neon generates less pollution per mile than a 5.9 liter Grand Cherokee? Most people would. After all, the Neon gets 38 mpg highway; the Grand Cherokee is stuck in the low 20s.

Would you say that the Neon should be held to tighter standards than the Grand Cherokee? In Europe, it would not be; in the United States, it is. Yes, "light trucks" (which includes sport utility vehicles) are allowed to pollute more, on a percentage basis, than cars. Why? Who knows?

 American law looks at car pollution in terms of percentages, not absolute volumes. X % of your exhaust can be carbon monoxide. X % can be NOx compounds. If you have a truck, it's X + Y %.

 I found this rather ironic when I switched from a Camaro to a Rabbit, because the Rabbit got more than twice the distance from a gallon of gas than the Camaro; yet, it failed inspection where the Camaro passed. It was producing a higher proportion of pollution, but a smaller amount.

 Which would you rather cut down on: the proportion of pollution created, or the amount? Which really matters? Would you rather have an ounce of rock that's 10% gold or a pound of rock that's 8% gold?

Want to cut down on pollution very fast? Have different emissions standard for engines with different fuel economies. If you get 30 mpg, you can pollute have twice the percentage of pollutants as a 15 mpg car or truck. This would make more efficient engines cheaper to make (and, possibly, raise their gas mileage as pollution control devices were removed); and it would make less efficient engines more expensive to make. It would also be much more fair, because, as a high-mileage car owner (or even an average-mileage car owner), you would not have to pass more stringent standards than a monster truck owner!

 

Return

safety and pollution standards