I have an idea for a possible application - variable airline fees. Using this sensor, you can maximize shareholder value by increasing various airline fees just short of inducing murderous rampage in the flyers. If we have access this technology, we can fine-tune this down to unprecedented resolution.

You are misinformed. Catalytic converters are mandatory in US and EU since 80s, any car that doesn't have one from factory is already classic collectable that already exempt from testing.

You ignoring deterrent effect of inspections. I lived in two different states - one that requires emission inspections, and another that does not. In the state that did not require inspections, the suggested fix for a plugged catalytic converter issue was a straight pipe welded in its place.

You fail to account that majority of metabolic costs is simply to run your body. It takes about 1500 cal to sit on your ass all day, more if you move off your couch. If it takes 2500 calories to bike to work, vs 1800 calories to drive + gas, then the math is not that clear. Plus, you are over-simplifying by assuming that non-vegetarian diet is all-meat.

To simplify, lets imagine cradle to grave car ownership. Which scenario generates more pollution?

Scenario A: Purchase car A, drive it for 15 years, drop it off at a junk yard.

Scenario B: Purchase car A, drive it for 7.5 years, drop it off at a junk yard. Purchase car B, drive it for 7.5 years, drop it off at a junk yard.

We can see that in both scenarios first 7.5 years are the same. For the next 7.5 years, the question is as follows - given 7.5 years worth of technology improvements, does improved efficiency of operation of car B offsets its manufacturing?

It is clear from this example that improvement has to be drastic to offset manufacturing results.

It is almost always has less environmental impact to keep driving less efficient older car. This is counter-intuitive, but only because manufacturing is done out-of-sight while tailpipe pollution is more in-your-face. Read up on carbon footprint of car manufacturing, it is larger than tailpipe emissions for its entire expected life. As such, leasing new Prius every 2 years is arguably less environmentally friendly that driving around in 70s-era muscle car.

I disagree with a number of your points.

First, Beyond Economical Repair is based on replacement value, not on actual value of the asset. For example, you can have $0 value car, it is still more economical to spend $499 to repair it than $500 for a replacement vehicle. If you work on your car yourself, then 500$ will buy you A LOT of parts.

Second, your time to fix the car IS free. You don't fix your car instead of working, you do it on top of working. Unless you are making more than mechanic's hourly rate, or are not capable of performing the job, then it doesn't make sense to pay for someone else to do it. You clean your house, you cut your own grass, and you wash your clothing... why this should be any different?

Third, replacement culture leads to disposable cheap goods. This in turn leads to race to the bottom on quality to compete on price point. End result - we all stuck using new, throw-away stuff that generates a lot of waste and manufacturing pollution. In your example - if you have $3000 TV that lasts 10 years and can be fixed, or $1000 TV that lasts 3 years and can't be fixed, given that materials to use both are comparable, which one is more environmentally friendly?

All my points come to following - question of badly-running cars is mostly question of poverty or ignorance. You can't solve this by making it more expensive to operate cars. If you try to, you will also be hit with a side effect of more disposable cars, that get to "clunker" stage much quicker. "Maintain your car" regulation makes sense (e.g. no check engine), "your car must be no more than X years old or we penalize you a lot" does not.

I disagree with your recommendation, manufacturing and recycling cars is very pollution producing process. While mandating new car use will reduce tailpipe emissions, driving old cars for maximum life, given they are maintained, will result in less total emissions.

Bottom-line - instead of encouraging replacing cars, we should encourage people to keep driving cars for as long as possible, and to maintain them well.

I don't understand the hate for people who groom pets without a license. I mean, I know people who have licenses and are really bad at grooming pets. And a lot of people I know who have no license are good groomers. Why the hate, man? It's a free country you should be allowed to groom pets without a license or insurance if you want...

While I dislike Uber for different reasons, why do we need to regulate/legislate tax drivers in any other way than regular drivers? Is giving rides to others somehow requires a different skill set than driving yourself?

Also, do you insure your house against meteorite strikes? Think of the devastation one could cause! If you somehow to survive one, there would be a smoldering crate where your house used to be. This would financially ruin you for sure!

I am surprised that nobody here is talking about massive invasion of privacy that comes from using Uber services. They have NSA-like capabilities through their application and everyone here talks only about morality of breaking municipal taxi regulations?!

I am surprised politicians don't mind getting tracked this way. All it takes is one drop-off near anything mildly controversial to create serious blackmail against said politician.

I am curious, what are they doing to increase the number of female plumbers?