Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?

1545546548550551556

Comments

  • houdini1houdini1 Kansas City areaPosts: 5,769
    Keep in mind that even if you don't drive a hybrid or electric car....you helped pay for every one you see tooling down the road. Gives me a nice warm (very warm) feeling.

    2013 LX 570 2010 LS 460

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,678
    The way I have it figured is the Tesla driver should be paying 13 cents per KWH on his electric charge to cover the average gas tax the rest of US are paying. At least in CA where most of the EVs are sold. That would raise the cost per KWH up to about 47 cents at tier 3 which an EV would get you up to. That would make the cost of driving a Tesla about 14 cents per mile. If you are driving a luxury car that gets 20 MPG you are paying about 20 cents per mile with PUG at $4.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,678
    I don't think Californians are smart enough to vote out the eco nuts that are destroying our state's economy. Abbott addresses exactly what is wrong with CA and the US.

    An interview with Australia Prime Minister Tony Abbott

    During your campaign you called for a repeal of the carbon tax imposed by the Labor Party. Why are you against this tax?

    The carbon tax is bad for the economy and it doesn’t do any good for the environment. Despite a carbon tax of $37 a ton by 2020, Australia’s domestic emissions were going up, not down. The carbon tax was basically socialism masquerading as environmentalism, and that’s why it’s going to get abolished.

    It will be abolished this year?

    As soon as possible. If the Labor Party wants to give the people of Australia a Christmas present, they will vote to abolish the carbon tax. It was damaging the economy without helping the environment. It was a stupid tax. A misconceived tax.

    You said in your victory speech that Australia is once again open for business. Does that mean you believe that the previous government was unfriendly to businesses?

    I said Australia is under new management and is once again open for business. The previous government would often say the right thing but it would invariably do the wrong thing when it came to business. There was an explosion in red tape and green tape. There was a whole thicket of new restrictions in the labor market. There were big new taxes. It was a government which thought that there was no problem that more public servants, higher taxes and further regulation couldn’t fix.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lally-weymouth-an-interview-with-australi- a-prime-minister-tony-abbott/2013/10/24/f718e9ea-3cc7-11e3-b6a9-da62c264f40e_sto- ry.html
  • houdini1houdini1 Kansas City areaPosts: 5,769
    We can only hope that we will follow their lead and that common sense will also prevail here.

    2013 LX 570 2010 LS 460

  • texasestexases Posts: 5,423
    edited October 2013
    Mostly from better economy REGULAR and HYBRID (not EV) cars, and the explosion of natural gas production replacing coal. These states are pouring money down the drain. For the majority of the US a regular hybrid has equal or LOWER CO2 production than an EV.

    And tax money supporting hydrogen cars? What complete nonsense!

    p.s. - Do Tesla's 'Supercharger' stations work with other cars? If not, nice that our tax dollars are paying for rich folk to drive around...
  • houdini1houdini1 Kansas City areaPosts: 5,769
    I have seen many congressmen show their stupidity, but it is usually over trivial matters. The guys behind this deal are not stupid, so you can bet that someone is hoping to make some big money on this one.

    2013 LX 570 2010 LS 460

  • carnaughtcarnaught Posts: 1,569
    ".......so you can bet that someone is hoping to make some big money on this one."

    Makes one wonder if folks like Soros and Gore are involved.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,678
    p.s. - Do Tesla's 'Supercharger' stations work with other cars? If not, nice that our tax dollars are paying for rich folk to drive around...

    The EV network promises to enable Model S and Model X owners to charge 150 miles of range in 30 minutes. What about your Roadster? Sorry, you aren’t invited to this charging party. Have a Tesla and a LEAF? You’ll have to be satisfied with separate but equal charging facilities as the Tesla proprietary charging connector restricts access to Tesla shoppers only. Is this class warfare or do we parallel the computer industry where connectors come and go with the seasons?
  • Stever@EdmundsStever@Edmunds YooperlandPosts: 38,919
    edited November 2013
    "The reduction in the rate of increase took place even as the global economy grew. This could signal that countries are using more green energy, which allows them to grow economically without similarly increasing their CO2 emissions."

    Emissions going up, but more slowly (csmonitor.com)
  • houdini1houdini1 Kansas City areaPosts: 5,769
    Good news? No, just a bunch of meaningless nonsense !!

    2013 LX 570 2010 LS 460

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,678
    The secret, dirty cost of Obama's green power push

    As farmers rushed to find new places to plant corn, they wiped out millions of acres of conservation land, destroyed habitat and polluted water supplies, an Associated Press investigation found.

    Five million acres of land set aside for conservation - more than Yellowstone, Everglades and Yosemite National Parks combined - have vanished on Obama's watch.

    Landowners filled in wetlands. They plowed into pristine prairies, releasing carbon dioxide that had been locked in the soil.

    Sprayers pumped out billions of pounds of fertilizer, some of which seeped into drinking water, contaminated rivers and worsened the huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico where marine life can't survive.


    http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/11/12/3747824/the-secret-dirty-cost-of-obamas.ht- ml
  • scwmcanscwmcan Niagara, CanadaPosts: 386
    edited November 2013
    I don't disagree with the problem of the ethanol mandate, just do t recall Obama being the one who instituted it, but maybe I am remembering incorrectly. The problem is much more obviously the policing of these plots of land that had beens et aside as preserves, obviously the penalties are not high enough even if the got caught, is this Obama's fault or the states where it has happened fault? Asking because I am not sure who had jurisdiction over this land. In any case the ethanol scam definately was not a good decision, and should have been ended long ago, I still seem to remember it being introduced by a different President though, also even if Obama had been against it it seems the republicans would have stopped him from being able to do anything, just like they seem to with everything else ( not saying either side is behaving properly, they are both to blame for a lot of things, just like everywhere else in the world if two parties cannot work together to come to a good compromise than things start to break down).

    Edit : read the article in the link, seems strange that they are calling an Obama disaster when Bush is the one who signed the Ethanol subsidy into law, including the fact that it pretty much had to be from domestically produced corn ( thank the corn lobbyist for this disaster if you want to blame anyone really). Again it seems to be blame Obama for things that happened before he was even in power.
  • Stever@EdmundsStever@Edmunds YooperlandPosts: 38,919
    edited November 2013
    Just goes with the territory. Whoever POTUS is, s/he'll get the credit or the blame for whatever is on the radar at the moment.

    Meanwhile Chris Christie Claims Weight Problem Caused by Global Warming, which also explains Al Gore getting a bit pudgy. (guardianlv.com)

    Bill slimmed down, but he went vegan, which is about the same as a high ethanol diet I guess. I presume Bush II is continuing to lead by example and putting the miles on his mountain bike. (HuffPo)
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,678
    I still seem to remember it being introduced by a different President though,

    For sure it was another lame duck President, GW Bush that signed onto the ethanol mandate. The article focused on the doubling of land dedicated to growing corn for ethanol under the current president B. Obama. Everything I read says clearing land for corn with take over 90 years to mitigate the loss of the carbon sink provided by the forest removed. And that does not address the biggest problem which is the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. Corn producers want high yields. So they dump LOTS of Ammonium Nitrate on their crops. Anhydrous Ammonia is made from Natural Gas. Making the cost of Ethanol very questionable. It is purely a political football used to pay off the big farmers in our corporate Oligarchy. MIT scientists have debunked any GW benefit. Look at the big Ag companies to see who really benefits. It is not the American people or our environment.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,678
    Dubya was a marginal leader. He is a great humanitarian. Unlike our current Potus. After the 2006 election, Bush lost the desire to lead. And we have this current mess as a result.
  • Stever@EdmundsStever@Edmunds YooperlandPosts: 38,919
    edited November 2013
    As opposed to the previous mess or the coming one? All you have to do is get in your high mpg SUV and roll with it, while feeling good that you're doing your part to reduce your emissions. :)

    Haven't seen a poll lately. This one is from Stanford as reported by AZ Central.

    "It finds that in every state surveyed, most Americans support tax breaks to produce renewable energy and reduce air pollution from coal as well as efforts to boost energy efficiency for cars, appliances and buildings.

    Less popular were government policies to encourage the building of electric vehicles and nuclear power plants. Most unpopular were higher consumption taxes on electricity and gasoline."
  • texasestexases Posts: 5,423
    edited November 2013
    People obviously don't understand that 'tax breaks' = taxes. If somebody's paying less, somebody else is paying more. And the ugly truth is this:

    THE GOVERNMENT EFFORTS TO DATE REGARDING GREEN ENERGY HAVE MADE THINGS WORSE, NOT BETTER.

    I'm looking at you, ethanol (both corn and cane based), and biodiesel (resulting in the destruction of thousands of acres of rainforest). And wind turbines are killing valued wildlife by the hundreds of thousands.

    Here's just another sad chapter in the tale of government disasters:
    http://apnews.excite.com/article/20131113/DAA1JE8G1.html

    Then ONLY significant impact on coal use and CO2 emissions has resulted from the huge increase in natural gas production from those 'evil' oil and gas companies.
  • scwmcanscwmcan Niagara, CanadaPosts: 386
    As I pointed out , I agree, the biggest problem is the land that was supposed to be preserved, the question is why was it allowed to be used. In any case I don't think we are on different sides on this one, I was only calling out the title of the article ( which isn't your fault I. The least). I have a feeling that the land would have been used no matter who was president, after all it is big money who controls everything ( not just in he states, but pretty much everywhere) and that is who not only got the ethanol mandate passed, but also who used the land ( not small farmers, they don't really exist anymore).
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,678
    I totally agree it was the Mega Ag companies pushing the ethanol agenda. They did it in the late 1970s and most of those tax payer built stills are now rusted hulks with towns left devastated. Same will happen this time around. The auto makers should build cars that will run on E100 and quit messing with our RUG. Offer E100 for those with cars designed to run on alcohol. Brazil has a lot of them.
This discussion has been closed.