Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

2 stroke scooters 'less environmenally friendly than SUVs'

Discussion in 'Scooters' started by Tone, Aug 11, 2006.

  1. http://www.wweek.com/editorial/3240/7867

    It's typical Neo-Conservative American Republican trash, but I thought it would give you guys a bit of a laugh.

    The way the writer of the article gets comprehensively shot down in flames by those who have commented on the article is particularly nice. :)

  2. Ack, I'm a science educator (I teach science teachers): our work here is clearly not done.
  3. Looks like the "intelligent design" people lend out their scientists. :roll:
  4. What a wonderful article. Journalism at its best.

    I love all the comments from people hey. especially the "OMG OMG OMG the world is going to end"
  5. Oh yeah that's fair - compare a 1968 2-stroke with a 2006 SUV :roll:. However scooters, both 2 and 4 stroke, do generate more pollution per km travelled than any Euro 4 compliant car - despite using less fuel. If they didn't they wouldn't still be operating on Euro 3 or Euro 2 levels.
  6. This is one I get into pretty regularly with people: we need a definition of 'pollution'. Yeah, a scooter pumps out some dirty looking/smelling unburned oil. But 'pollution' is not just what you can see, and as it happens it's nice, clean, invisible, odourless carbon dioxide that is causing climate change and is the real villain these days. And the SUV releases a metric assload (that's a technical term) more CO2 than any scooter, bike or whatever.
  7. Yea, and remember, guns don't kill people, people kill people.. :roll: :roll:
  8. Yes and No. Euro emissions standards are based on amount of pollution produced per kilometre travelled - and it's a fact that most cars, and even some SUVs meet a higher standard than bikes and scooters. Therefore even though they're burning more fuel and producing more carbon dioxide - they are in fact releasing a much smaller amount of the more harmful pollution (carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen compounds, solid particulates etc.). It's all down to the fact that cars have far more room to be running complex exhaust systems and catalytic converters - the exhaust on a scooter is really only designed to minimise noise.
  9. Those pollutants are more harmful in the short term/local scale with smog and acid rain and so on, but carbon dioxide is arguably much more of a major, worldscale problem... Anyway, not to get into an argument... I think we're all agreed that the journalist in question was either massively dishonest or massively ignorant.
  10. Possibly, but what about the huge amount of greenhouse gases it took to build it in the first place? or tha fact that it sits in traffic for much longer on a given journey and therefore produces pollutants for far longer? particularly as scooters are primarily city vehicles where an SUV would be at it's most inefficient.

    EDIT- Spelling
  11. I certainly got the impression that she was ignorant rather than intentionally dishonest. But that was just my feeling.

    One thing is for sure, tighter controls are needed. It would be good if some Australian pollies had the guts to demand we meet Euro 4 standards.
  12. True, although you could also factor in the shorter lifespan (generally) of a scooter coupled with the fact that many are made in countries with far more lenient emissions regulations (ie China). Still I'm not saying scooters aren't a good alternative - certainly a lot better than having a huge number of large vehicles with just one occupant. Four people in a 4wd/car compared to 4 scooters would be a different matter though, so there's also an advantage to things like car pooling.