How Will Global Warming Concerns Change The Vehicles We Drive?

rockylee

Lawmakers get survey of scientists, half of whom report political pressure

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16886008/

Rocky

luvmbooty

There is a list of top 100 Green Cars. The top 6 are hybrids. The top dino fuel engine is the Toyota Yaris. Then the very next on the list is the Hyundai Elantra, big difference in interior volume between these 2!

IMO, I think this is a great car that as high MPGs, large interior, low price, low emissions, and a great warranty! I just hope crash test scores are descent. Then it would be my perfect vehicle!

rockylee

VAN NUYS, Calif. — The electric-vehicle bandwagon is getting increasingly crowded. Now, TLC, maker of the Toyota FJ40-inspired Icon, says its next alternative-drivetrain project is a "full-electric Icon with an optional biodiesel generator."

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=119410

Perfect example for this topic. Could this be a future example ?????

Rocky

rockylee

He's talking about this subject on TV right now on CNN

Rocky

nippononly

this whole debate makes clear (IMO) is that in the future we are going to have to diversify our automobile fuel sources a LOT. Boy did GM ever get a big leg up in my mind with the Volt. That car is exactly what we need to turn the tide of consumer disinterest regarding global warming in the U.S. That, or a HUGE rise in gas prices, which may yet happen by 2010, but I'm not so sure.

HOWEVER, imagine if every car in America were a Volt. Now you've overloaded the electricity grid with all those cars charging at night. (I am assuming here that the battery problem is solved so that the Volt can actually see production).
A TRULY sustainable future must contain vehicles mostly propelled by electricity like the Volt, but with a variety of ways of generating their own electricity.
And when these vehicles become commercially viable (hopefully within the next decade, preferably EARLY in the next decade), and people figure out they can get 150 mpg or more without inconvenience, the monetary savings will be their own incentive for switching technologies. But there, the big question will be whether the car companies can produce and sell these cars at comparable prices to the current models, which has as everyone knows been the major impediment to the widespread acceptance of hybrids so far. (And before we all get carried away with thinking the problem is solved, attention must then turn to the ways in which we generate electricity in this country, which are greenhouse gas intensive for the most part - coal and natural gas)

I can foresee the day when the U.S. is in the global spotlight (it is this week, in fact, but I am talking more seriously than now) for its role as the largest global polluter (a term which is already being applied not only to traditional "polluters", but also to countries with large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions like the U.S. and China). It is possible that economic pressure could come from outside the U.S. that would make the federal government change regulations around car fuel standards. If not, the consumers' wallets will be the only way to pressure them to change.

One hopeful note: despite historical surveys that indicated to the contrary, Americans reduced their driving by more than 10% last year, a change that is unprecedented and so has been attributed mostly to the very high gas prices. If $3.50/gallon could knock down driving by 12%, maybe $5/gallon gas could also force people to downsize their automobiles and lifestyles too.

bpraxis

Does everyone in this chat room agree with the premise of Global Warming?

It seems more than a religion to me than a matter of science based on the many articles that I have read. There are many periods in our planets history were mean temperatures were higher than they are now including the 1930s. The theory is that the sun was simply hotter.

Has anyone read Micheal Crightons book State Of Fear? He has 40 pages of footnotes disputing Global Warming. He does not have any vested interest. Of course the UN and the US government spend 30 billion on grants to prove the existence of Global Warming. Some scientists make a lot of money promoting this subject.

It seems to me that politicians have a new sales presentation to steal more money from oil companies and taxpayers with their carbon tax.

Yes of course the world will be a better place if we just pay more tax.

The upside that we all forget is that the human mind can accomplish anthing. Englehard is now developing a radiator for cars to eat smog and emit oxygen.

Some of you may remember reading that in 1900 the fearmongers were most concerned about the amount of horse excrement that was building up in the cities. We were warned that in 20 years every city would have 20 feet of horse excrement.

Of course new technology eliminated this problem.

We all need to feel that we are involved in something that really matters but Global Warming??? In the 1970s it was the next ice age coming.

Please accept my apology if I have offended your deeply held beliefs.

nippononly

It's funny, when I came in here (took a deep breath first), I was expecting to find a number of global warming naysayers, and was most pleasantly surprised that was not the case. Guess I had that thought a little too soon, eh? :-P

There is a great deal, in fact an overwhelming preponderance, of evidence and agreement among scientists all over the globe that global warming has accelerated greatly as a result of human activities. In fact, it has been a very hot (please forgive the pun) topic in the international news this week because of the release of a new report by the IPCC.

While the Earth has been through cycles of warming and cooling in the past, 6 billion humans weren't trying to live off its resources at any of those times. The issue is not the survival of the planet, you understand, but rather the welfare of the human race. The planet will be just fine, with or without humans.

But I am not here to convince anyone of the existence of anthropomorphic global warming. I certainly accept it as a premise myself. Actually, this could be quite an interesting discussion whether or not one believes in the premise, because either way it's in the news and is shaping the policies of governments around the world.

john500

Interesting question. I recall reading a book entitled "the Discovery of global warming" a few years ago. All of the "proof" of global warming is derived from extremely complex computer models (i.e. no one person was capable of deriving this theory) with lots of "fudge factors" (i.e. values added to a complex nonsense calculation to make reality fit with simplified theory). I have no real tangible proof to offer about global warming, however, circumstantial evidence is very powerful. Melting ice caps, anecdotal information from farmers about elongated or shortened crop seasons, seeing animals out of their natural habitat (i.e. seeing multiple Baltimore orioles as far north as New York, etc) all suggest that global warming is real. The real question now is "So what?". China and India have made it clear that they weren't responsible for the huge CO2 emissions from the US and UK in the 19th and 20th century (ie the potential root cause in addition to exponential population growth and deforestation). Why should they be deprived of a "better life" because of past indiscretions of "advanced countries"?

That said, it probably makes no difference what anyone or any company does. It's too late. However, to quote Martin Luther King, "I have a dream" to one day see
1. Cars filled to capacity (during your next commute to work, periodically observe how many empty seats there are in the car next to you).
2. Cars that are designed to go just over the speed limit at full throttle. This implies a weight and power sufficient to propel the vehicle at a top speed of 80 mph when fully loaded. I see no reason to drive a car that weighs more than 2000 lbs or has > 100 hp when one can't legally use the vehicle beyond that.

In terms of the question, I've always driven one of the lightest and most efficient vehicles offered as a commodity. I suspect that others will always do as they always have done.

douglasr

The most that will happen irrespective of whether Global Climate Change is real or not is two fold:

Enough evidence will be (has been) presented to make the case, such that governments react to political pressure. CO-2 standards will be strengthened in years to come. Though not without a fight as German Chancellor Merkel has just proved by nixing European Commission Stavros Dimas in his desire to impose an overtly stringent 120g/km standard by 2010 for average manufacture fleet emissions. Either way regulations on either emissions or fuel content will become part of life, just as the increasing use of Ethanol. Cars not meeting new standards will be heavily taxed just as the U.S. imposed "Gas Guzzler" taxes on cars above a certain mpg/weight class. Emissions standards no doubt will be stratefied for engine and weight classes---which was part of the basis of Chancellor Merkel's successful defeat of the new E.U. proposed standard.

None of which will stop the reality that no single solution other than the individual motorcar has been developed sufficiently to take its place in the mind of the consumer in terms of individual transportation needs. We can't all live in New York, Tokyo, London, or Paris where public transport is excellent and you can "get by" without a car. But try hauling your new TV or refigerator home in a Taxi Cab! Whatever gain you got saving money buying it would be lost in the price of getting it home (unless you paid for delivery). Try that in states like Nebraska and Colorado where a car is necessary, unless your horse is in fine fettle. For that matter try getting all the kids to their respective post-school practice sessions, games, etc, and still make it to the grocery store in time to keep the hearth whole, and that's after the wife (or significant other) stops working for the day. Without a car? You'd have to reorganize city centres and exurbs to take into account the minutia of daily living.

Nevermind the effect of a shift in manufacturing on the economy if autos were no longer providing 1 in six to 1 in ten jobs in industrialised nations. No, the auto isn't going away any-time soon. What fuels we use, and what emissions it produces will change, but not the essential package provided. The real worry should be what happens when both India and China combined raise their standards of living to equal the U.S.? Potentially that means a world where 500 Million cars are in operation consuming 2-4 gallons of gas per day on average, that means 1-2 Billion gallons every day. Where will the oil come from to service those needs and WHO will control it, becomes a paramount issue. The U.S. represents 27.4% of World GDP, and we as a nation have the highest concetration of auto ownership in the world (1 car for every 2-3 inhabitants), but if we are deprived of our necessary resources by political factions lining up against us (and they can use the GCC issue as a fulcrum to slow or halt sales of essential fuels) then we are in for a wider ranging set of problems that could easily errupt in further conflicts.

It's not all doom, of course. The U.S. could take the lead, and essentially embarrass other nations into following suit. It would skirt international opinion that we do not care about the issue. Congress could get serious not about a new CAFE standard, but a D.A.F.E. standard: (pun intended) Domestic Average Fleet Emissions, arranged on a sliding scale for weight and engine size classes. That way people buying pick up trucks and SUV's would not inordinately be punished for buying the vehicle that meets their individual needs. (Let me see you put an 8x4 sheet of Plywood into your Acura...) Those buying at the higher end would simply pay another tax. Regulations and taxes aren't what we all want, but if things "tighten-up" in the economic and international scene, it might be a way to ease political tensions about GCC.

DouglasR

(Sources: WSJ, FT)

thegraduate

Click the link to my local ABC Affiliate's Weather Blog.

cooterbfd

Or is it large industry. While I'm all in favor of cleaning up our personal act w/ hybrids, fuel cells, etc., here in SE New England two of the biggest polluters are coal fired electric plants. A company ( Cape Wind, I believe ) wants to build a huge wind farm in Nantucket sound, large enough to supply the Cape and Islands w/ electricity. While I understand that wind isn't the most reliable source, this area ( as well as Block Island Sound) are probably the most logical areas to do it. Amazingly, all the tree huggers in this area are up in arms and against the project, because they might see some blades spinning in the distance. Personally, I think we are at a point in time where we ALL have to make some sacrifices, whether it be wind, solar, nuclear, synthetic or biofuels. Even if the climate change has to do solely w/ Mother Earth, and is only magnified slightly by Humans, I think there are plenty of other reasons to look elsewhere, whether it is finite resources, political instability, or just plain old conservation.

trispec

1) In reply to the empty seats concern. Here in the Northeast, some metro areas have spend hundreds of millions building HOV lanes. After decades of trying to get folks to share rides, these money's and programs have been pronounced to be utter failures that waste tax payers already strained patience. Metro planners, economists and sociologist know why. People hate sharing their cars with riders, much more than they hate taking cabs, buses, subways and trains.

2) NASCAR engine and car designs are massively influence US car buyers. As long are NASCAR racing is the largest sport in the US, then big [non-permissible content removed] gas guzzler 300HP, 400HP and 500HP engines designs are going to crush 100HP cars in sales. BTW seen any Yugos lately.

saabgirl

-- Whether there were global warming or not, I'd favor less dependence on dino fuel because, in a marvelous cosmic prank, large quantities of this resource were placed under very inconvenient terrain. I've no idea why our oil is under their sand, but we need to become less dependent on it.

-- It seems to me that our earth has undergone dramatic climate variation even without our help. Anyone who regularly dozes off to the Discovery or Science channels at least absorbs the idea that our continents and oceans weren't always as they are now. Maybe long-term weather cycles, inconvenient though they may be, are normal. Maybe they're like our short-term weather patterns; we can fret over them, but we can't do much about them. I don't know for sure, but usually when I hear someone say this, the anthropomorphic global warming camp changes the subject. But as I said, I don't know. I wonder how anyone can know. It's possible the agnostic position is the right one.

-- Finally, I'm more than a bit suspicious, because I notice politicians and public interest leadership types -- yes Al, I'm talking about you and your insinuating pals -- have seized upon global warming as a lever they can use to decide for us how we can live, where we can work, what we can drive and, oh, yes, how much additional tax $$$ they'll need to fund their interminable flitting about.

The problem with global warming as an issue, I think is:
1) Scientists have the knowledge, but they can't communicate it in a way that is persuasive (or even informative) to non-scientists, and
2) Politicians are by nature eager communicators, but everyone is accustomed to their operational habit of predicting horrible consequences unless we do as they say and, having heard this time and time again, we regard their opinions as grist for the opening monologues of Jay Leno and David Letterman.

So my .02 is that I wouldn't tie the need to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels to global warming. If cutting our dependence does anything to lessen global warming (so far, I doubt it) so much the better.

teamyonex

I read “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis—Summary for Policymakers” with interest and skepticism. This is the document all the fuss is about, and it is available at the IPCC website. There are some dates in the document that strike me as more than just coincidence, and lead me to believe that the notion of human driven global warming is really a political tool to wean us from oil.

· The furthest the report cares to go back in the data is 650,000 years ago. This is because prior to 650,000 years ago, the relationship between CO2 and temperature falls apart, even to the extent that when CO2 was at its highest in ice samples, the earth was at its coldest. Those data points wouldn’t do, so the data was “shaved,” meaning IPCC started their report where the data supported it.

· Global warming is a big topic now (2007) because we have, according to the Hubbert Theory, probably passed Peak Oil. It is widely held that we have used half the world’s reserves, and from this point forward, alternative energy sources will continue to be more economical.

· The report makes near term predictions to the year 2020. This is a significant date as it represents when it is believed 80% of oil reserves will be held in the Middle East. All ready we’re seeing minor oil producing countries like Venezuela linking themselves politically with Iran.

· The report makes longer-term predictions out to between the years 2100 and 2200, the 100 year span when it is believed oil resources will be exhausted. This was the most significant part of the report for me.

The likelihood of global conflict seems to be greatly reduced if “Global Warming” is embraced. It spreads the burden of the weaning-from-oil process. If we embraced the notion that oil will run out in a couple centuries, I think there is a real likelihood of an “oil grab,” where reserve holding countries are invaded and reserves horded.

I think the IPCC report is essentially worthless to the extent that even if it is spot on, we’re doomed to catastrophic sea level rise. On the other hand, I do think “global warming” is an interesting political tool to help us face the inevitable oil drought in a round about way.

I should note that my three vehicles average 14 mpg each. Will this change in my lifetime? Probably. Someday an electric Range Rover will be cool.

bean3422

I have no idea whether the "scientific method" is still taught in schools today, but it was when I was going to school. This is a perfect example of finding results that fit your political or other agenda. Are these scientists so smart that they become stupid?

You don't have to be a brilliant scientist to realize that we only have accurate records going back 100 years approximately. And even then, 100 years ago, we did not have the technology that we have today. We could just measure temperature, etc. (Interestingly enough, about 100 years ago there was a big heat wave for several winters in many places in the US.)

The scientific method I learned was that science has to be observable (one of many parts of the scientific method). Otherwise it becomes a theory. So...really we have the global warming theory, just like the Evolution Theory, etc. NONE of us were living back then to observe any of this. For all we know, the polar ice caps melted 300 years ago and then had a re-freezing process, but nobody knew it.

So, I'm sure if your mind is made up and you are blindly listening to the media or other politically motivited hyper spaz "scientists" instead of just thinking about it for yourself, then my arguments are not going to change a thing. All I ask is use your own brain, don't just blindly swallow all the "experts" advice. Most of the time your brain is good enough, you are just living a real life and don't have time to get paid ungodly amounts of money to come up with theories to fit political or other agendas.

Like everything in life, this just rotates around the almighty $$$$$. There are a lot of people getting rich off of Global Warming.

So...my last word is be careful changing global economies, exerting massive tax pressure, and uprooting millions of lives on a theory that is not remotely provable. Hmmmm...

wale_bate1

all that many people are getting rich off global warming just yet. I sure see a lot of possibilities, though.

GW or not, a shift in energy infrastructure would be a good thing for the US in most respects, unless you happen to be in the awl bidness. Or the coal business. Filthy dirty junk, that, and no way to clean it up, whatever the industry itself may insist.

Whole new world of investment and employment opportunities are at hand, I'm thinking, and provided we in the US are at the forefront of it all, not only would we reap the rewards in green matters and economic growth but also delightfully revised foreign policy, while our own carbon-energy companies can still sell product to other nations while they either reinvent, and reinvest in, themselves, or decline into oblivion. Seriously, this might be our only chance to re-grab a permanent leg-up over China!

But this ain't about GW. It's about changing vehicles to respond to the pressures that won't be going away real soon. Emissions will be curbed - bank on that. By hook, crook, tax, tariff, writ or regulation, it will happen. Smart thing to do would be to adopt policy right now that allows generous time for industries to come up with their own solutions to achieve prescribed incremental output decreases. Oh wait, CA already did that...

Looks like consumption reduction will be the focus, with a near-level emphasis on alternatives.

tpe

Like everything in life, this just rotates around the almighty $$$$$. There are a lot of people getting rich off of Global Warming.

There are also a lot of people getting rich off maintaining the status quo. Exxon/Mobil has spent $10's of millions on PR campaigns that dispute and discredit global warming. Could that point of view be based on $$$$'s? The findings of the scientists that authored this recent report on global warming was qualified with a statement to the effect that they were 90% certain man was a contributing factor. It seems the people that dispute global warming are 100% certain. Anyway I'll accept your position that global warming is just a theory, like Evolution. I consider your position to the contrary to be a belief. I mean, what's it based upon? A heat wave 100 years ago. Is that what you consider the "scientific method". BTW, I tend to find the theory of Evolution to be very plausible. Certainly more so than the theory that the earth's only being 6,000 years old. Oh wait, that's not a theory, its a belief, which means it requires no basis in reason or science.

nippononly

Europe and Japan are going ahead with big reductions in greenhouse gas emissions limits, because they believe global warming is anthropomorphic. It is quite likely that the Chinese won't be too far behind, as they are already getting very interested (and they are now officially the second-biggest auto market in the world, as of 2006). California has gone ahead, and is going to stick to its guns. Most everyone is going to get dragged into this thing, and if all it ultimately accomplishes is that it leaves us independent of foreign oil sheiks in 20 or 30 years, it still will have served a good purpose, no?

Not to mention, it will have kept our domestic automakers up with global emissions standards, which will make them more competitive internationally.

Seems to me that's all to the good.

Just in the last few weeks we have seen (what has seemed to me like) an EXPLOSION in the number of automakers that intend to have ready 50-state diesels for next model year in the U.S. The diesel bandwagon is the first and easiest way for automakers to go at present to reduce their carbon-based emissions. That one is a win-win for the consumer - lower GHG emissions AND money saved at the gas pump!

Electrically powered vehicles, which are the future of reducing automotive GHG emissions I am sure, have the ability to provide a ton of low-end torque at 0 rpm. Where's the downside to that? This doesn't have to be something that everyone fights, that's part of the point of this thread: this could be a good thing (that also happens to address a big problem).

hpmctorque

I read that the European Union will ban the current A/C refrigerant R-34a beginning in 2011. This will pose difficult challenges for air conditioning cars in the future.

trispec

I love it, the world is freak'n warming up and we humans are going to ban AC. We are just toast.

I don't want to be in France when a million old folk drop dead from the lack of AC.

tpe

I agree completely. Even if the scientists of tomorrow conclude that this concern over global warming was misplaced there will be nothing lost in acting on this issue as if it were for real. In addition to the the points you've made there will be a lot of new, well paid, domestic jobs created in the alternative energy field. No longer exporting 100's of billions of dollars a year to pay for oil will also eliminate a current drag on our standard of living. And the air will definitely be easier to breathe.

Like you said, what's the downside? Some people seem to be afraid of the costs. You mean like the $3+/gallon we paid for gas last year and almost certainly will be paying again. Alternative/renewable energy will eventually be cheaper. Afterall, how much does nature charge for the sun, wind, tides, etc.. There may be a transition period that requires some sacrifice but when we get to the other side we will all be better off. It will be a nice present to leave future generations as opposed to the $8 trillion dollar debt they now have to look forward.

rorr

"The findings of the scientists that authored this recent report on global warming was qualified with a statement to the effect that they were 90% certain man was a contributing factor."

Which is meaningless.

What does "contributing factor" mean? What ELSE are "contributing factors"? Does man's contribution to GW account for 5%, 50%, 90% of the GW observed? Why aren't all of the OTHER "contributing factors" getting airplay from the GW crowd?

That's like saying that a set of worn out tires was a "contibuting factor" in a wreck that occurred on a rain-slicked street.......and ignoring the fact that the driver had a BAC of 0.20 and was driving at 90mph.....

fezo

He probably forgot to get new tires because he was drunk.....

rorr

Either that or he was racing to the tire store before it closed.....

Kirstie_H

But if it turns out to be a big lie, that's not good. I don't like being conned, and I suspect that most people feel the same. That's the old "end justifies the means" principle, with which I do not agree.

Sell it to me on facts, or don't peddle it at all. There's enough evidence around that heavy emissions are unhealthy, and that dependence on oil from unfriendly countries puts us on the precipice of economic disaster. I'm not saying GW IS a lie... but it's also not been proven a truth either.

trispec: I don't want to be in France when a million old folk drop dead from the lack of AC.

Ah, yes. But it doesn't generally get hot enough in France to cause mass heat exhaustion.

nippononly

Oh absolutely. But conned you will be, both by the politicians that believe in it and the ones who don't, as well as all the moneyed interests on either side of the issue.

I just think that if we accept that the con is what politics is about, and that we won't know the exact nature of the "reality" until after it's too late to do anything about it, it's a good idea to act now. The atmosphere has heated up more in the last 100 years than in any 100-year, or even 1000-year period, in Earth's history. Plus, it's logical - we know that CO2 emission increases greenhouse warming (basic high school physics experiment that many including myself had to do), we know we are pumping out a ton more of it (actually millions of tons more) than any other natural process, it is logical that it would lead to warming. If in addition to my own logic, it turns out that most of the scientists agree we are contributing, I will go along with it.

And I would really like to see us move to more sustainable sources of energy (and a lot more energy conservation), both for automobiles and for homes and businesses. Oil and coal are the way of the past. We really need to get away from them.

One final thought you prompt me to have, when you say " I'm not saying GW IS a lie... but it's also not been proven a truth either."
The same applies to evolution and many other scientific theories that you probably believe in as if they were fact. This is one that won't be proven a "fact" or a "truth" until it is done happening I suspect. Eventually enough of it will happen that we will believe in it, even though it will still officially be a theory. But by that time, reversing it will be 1000 times more difficult than it would be if we started today, and the effects many times more dire.

tpe

Why aren't all of the OTHER "contributing factors" getting airplay from the GW crowd?

I don't know what all the other factors are but it's possible they are out of our control. If that's the case then it's just something that needs to be accepted but no need to aggravate the situation.

You seem to disagree with the premise that mankind is contributing to global warming. What is your level of certainty on this? I suspect that you carry life, car, home and maybe other insurances even though the probability of you using them is relatively low in any given year. Why not just cancel them for a year and save the premiums? Most people would say that the consequences of being wrong, abeit remote, are too great. That's kind of my philosophy when it comes to GW.

Maybe you're 100% sure GW is a myth. Given that its fairly difficult to prove a negative I'd be interested in what you're basing this position on.

Regardless of the validity of GW, how would transitioning from a fossil fuels based economy hurt our society in the long run? If it would only represent a short term setback, well, that's what responsible decisions are often times based upon. Short term sacrifice for long term gain.

rorr

"You seem to disagree with the premise that mankind is contributing to global warming."

No. But I'd like to know if we are contributing to 10% of GW or 90%. Kinda makes a difference, don't you think?

"I suspect that you carry life, car, home and maybe other insurances even though the probability of you using them is relatively low in any given year. Why not just cancel them for a year and save the premiums? Most people would say that the consequences of being wrong, abeit remote, are too great."

Well, that's fine. What if your premiums were 10x higher? Is it still worth it? Has anyone given serious consideration to the economic ramifications of doing what is necessary to curtail global GHG emissions enough to make a difference? I've no idea; do you? How much GHG reductions are necessary to make a difference? I've no idea; do you? And how is a warmer planet a major disaster; historically speaking man's life has been EASIER during warmer climatic times due to extended growing seasons; and yet it seems to be taken on 'faith' by the GW crowd that warmer temps will be an unmitigated disaster.

What I WANT is more even-handed discussion about how much man is contributing to the GW phenomenon and what would REALLY be necessary to 'correct' our part (btw - anyone have a CLUE about the number of coal-fired power plants the Chinese build in a year? Try 30 new coal-fired plants big enough to supply a city the size of San Diego every year. Yet, for some reason, China is exempt from Kyoto. How many U.S. cars have to go 100% electric JUST to offset what the Chinese do, let alone making a net reduction in GHG?)

And yet, instead of talking about these points, the GW crowd want to make the ENTIRE focus of the discussion American consumption and everybody that brings up 'contrarian points' needs to be demonized.

drewba

"If it would only represent a short term setback, well, that's what responsible decisions are often times based upon. Short term sacrifice for long term gain."

A fact that our political leaders (and much of our society) seem to have forgotten unfortunately.

tpe

While it would be nice to know what percent of global warming is caused by mankind that might be very difficult to accurately quantify. If knowing this becomes a pre-requisite for taking action we might be stuck for awhile.

I know the current administration has cited significant, negative economic impact for not signing Kyoto. I don't put all that much significance in whether or not a country signed this treaty since most, if not all, the countries that did sign it are not complying with it. So it's really nothing but a symbolic gesture. Maybe the US should have signed it and just blown it off like everyone else. At least that way we could avoid be depicted as the villian and instead joined the crowd of those that make empty promises.

As far as the cost of reducing GHG's is concerned, I am by no means an expert. I do look at California, which by itself represents the 7th biggest economy in the world. They've passed aggressive legislation to significantly cut GHG emissions. My understanding is that there is popular support for this policy amongst state residents. Despite what people think CA is not inhabited by a bunch of flaky, tree-huggers that will sacrifice everything, including standard of living, to save the planet. So based upon this I believe that the state feels like it can cut GHG's without imposing too much hardship. That's just speculation on my part so maybe I'm wrong on that one.

It's true that China will pass the US in the next couple of years in terms of GHG emissions. Doing the right thing should not be predicated on what others do. China will eventually reduce their emissions just because it makes economic sense to do so. If I'm not mistaken they've now become an oil importer. China likes to export things, not import them. From what I've read they have invested significantly in "green" technologies like EVs and renewable energy. More so than the US. The next Olympics is being held in Beijing. I've read that China plans to use this global event to showcase many of these technologies they've been developing.

rorr

"I know the current administration has cited significant, negative economic impact for not signing Kyoto."

As did the previous administration. As did the Senate in 1997 when they voted AGAINST the ratification of the Kyoto treaty by a 95-0 vote (with 5 absentions). And I don't think that Bush was guiding Clinton or the U.S. Congress in 1997 since he was still governor of Texas at that time.

"At least that way we could avoid be depicted as the villian and instead joined the crowd of those that make empty promises. "

You should have prefaced that with a spew alert. Now I've got coffee in my keyboard.

"They've passed aggressive legislation to significantly cut GHG emissions."

Super-de-duper. Have they ACTUALLY cut anything? Or are they just looking to join the crowd making empty promises? Popular support amoung the public? Great! Everyone DOES know that the only way to cut GHG emissions is to cut fuel usage, right?

"Doing the right thing should not be predicated on what others do."

Correct; but it SHOULD be predictated on whether the measures will be effective.

"China will eventually reduce their emissions just because it makes economic sense to do so."

In the meantime, their emissions rise dramatically because....it makes economic sense to do so.

"If I'm not mistaken they've now become an oil importer. China likes to export things, not import them."

Nope, you're not mistaken. But China also happens to have HUGE reserves of coal (which explains why all their new power-plants are coal-fired). In fact, China exports far more coal than they consume domestically. Yet Kyoto doesn't apply to China (despite their exploding economic strength and reliance on dirty 'ol coal) but WOULD curtail U.S. emissions despite our already voluntary moves towards alternate energy.

"From what I've read they have invested significantly in "green" technologies like EVs and renewable energy."

Yes. Because it is cheaper for the Chinese to generate electricity from domestic coal than to import oil. In other words, it makes ECONOMIC SENSE for them to move to coal. Yep, I'm sure they'd love to see millions of EV's on their roads, powered by domestic coal.

Hell, it makes economic sense for the U.S. to move to coal. But I guess that stance would be a non-starter in this forum...

wale_bate1

"Hell, it makes economic sense for the U.S. to move to coal. But I guess that stance would be a non-starter in this forum..."

Heck, I oughta knock you down with a shovel just for thinking it.

rorr

HA!

Yeah, I'll bet you'd like that too, wouldn't you? (where's the little devil emoticon when you really need one..... )

wale_bate1

"Yeah, I'll bet you'd like that too, wouldn't you?"

Long as there's liquor involved, good buddy, I guess I'm game; 'mon back. :shades:

I just think there are huge advantages to us at home and abroad downstream to being in the lead on dumping carbon energy, and certainly ways to mitigate some of the impact on industries that have to react to a change in infrastructure.

I think oil and coal are becoming pretty much second-world technologies, and we're overdue to exploit our talents and capabilities on cementing new first-world gigs. Pretty stinkin' elitist, eh? I also think the economic hardship argument gets used many times as an excuse somewhat akin to the ones you hear when you're stuck in the jury selection process. Certainly I've never...

fezo

I mean I like the dude but.....

There isn't a way I can justify Kyoto exempting the Chinese in my book either.

I know the Chinese are making huge investments in bring down the cost of solar electric cells it's not like they are planning to shut their nice new coal plants down as a result.

wale_bate1

"There isn't a way I can justify Kyoto exempting the Chinese in my book either."

Agreed. Absolutely and completely.

Far as I'm goin' with that one...

rorr

"I think oil and coal are becoming pretty much second-world technologies, and we're overdue to exploit our talents and capabilities on cementing new first-world gigs."

Oil and coal have been 2nd-world (and 3rd-world) technologies for 40 years (outside of some pretty impressive efforts to clean up coal emmissions). Problem is that they are still top-tier as far as economics goes.

One can't escape the economics, no matter what good intentions you have. And the entire REASON that China was exempted from the Kyoto protocols is PRECISELY becuase it was understood that actual implementation would be a major economic hardship (unless you can determine another reason why China was excluded?).

So, one can be as 'elitist' as you want (and I'm sure it feels pretty darned good knowing you are always on the high road), but you can't escape the $$$ aspect.

Over-due to exploit our talents and capabilities? Perhaps. But I look around at the huge number of wind-turbines I see sprouting up all over west Tejas and I know that we are at least moving in the right direction.

As an aside - didja know that Tejas and CA are by far the biggest wind energy producers with Tejas currently generating 2768 MW (with another 1013 MW under construction) and CA generating 2361 MW (with another 565 MW under construction).

http://www.awea.org/projects/

rorr

Like pulling teeth, ain't it..... :P

fezo

Tejas and California are the biggest producers of wind. With the possible exceptions of US Senators from Massachusetts.

rorr

I like easy shots.

What I found interesting was that Iowa was #3 on the list of wind producers.

Here's another interesting tidbit concerning Wind Energy production:

http://www.awea.org/faq/instcap.html

Interesting who was in the WH while production numbers stagnated in the 90's and who was in the WH while production numbers took off around 2000. Which bolsters my point (I think I have one) that economics matters more than good intentions....

wale_bate1

"As an aside - didja know that Tejas and CA are by far the biggest wind energy producers with Tejas currently generating 2768 MW (with another 1013 MW under construction) and CA generating 2361 MW (with another 565 MW under construction)."

Well gee, just look at two shmoes who live there...

wale_bate1

"What I found interesting was that Iowa was #3 on the list of wind producers."

Hey, c'mon, what else is there to do in Iowa?

rorr

"Hey, c'mon, what else is there to do in Iowa?"

Make ADM rich?

rorr

"Well gee, just look at two shmoes who live there..."

Cheers to my fellow shmoe.....

fezo

Well, I guess it's flat enough.

I do think that in the end you will see not A solution to energy (both carbon problems and oil being in the worst places problem - no offense to any Norwegians) but multiple solutions. It doesn't have to be wind OR sun OR tidal OR hydroelectric. You'll see different solutions where different local strengths are. Heck, look at Iceland for geothermal.

There is not only a bundle to be made by the folks who bring this stuff to where it's priced competitively but a ton of national strength to the country that leads the way.

wale_bate1

"Make ADM rich? "

Had to go there, dinya?

Grrrr...

brightness04

Exactly! Humanity rely on cabonaceous fuel only because it's the cheapest source of energy that we are aware of (including the cost of mining and distribution); otherwise, we'd never have given up burning firewood and twigs; talk about the original renewable energy source :-) As soon as we find something else cheaper, we will switch over in a New York minute.

brightness04

both carbon problems and oil being in the worst places problem

Neither are co-incidental problems. The second one is easy to tackle so I will address that one first: if there were top quality pure oil reservoir (no sand, wax or water to deal with like most normal oil wells) right under my back yard here in New England, do you think it will turn into a producing well? Nope. At $1 million per acre, even XOM would run out of money before buying out enough neighbors to put together a functioning oil well. Oil is a primary resource, just like farming and mining; it takes land, lots of it, and denude it in the process. Places that are not "the worst places" usually demand a high price on allowing their land to be exploited like that, so to speak. In reality, we'd rather someone else' backyard half a world away to be drilled than our own gets the shaft. And in a way, that's for a good reason: because the natural scale of economy and land claims involved, oil/mineral extraction is highly land/government-centric. That usually lead to repressive governments because normal free market competition is crowded out by the government hand-outs from oil/mineral revenue. It is no co-incidence that almost none of the rapidly democratizing nations of the late 20th century is natural-resource rich; on the contrary, those that are natural-resoure rich, be it oil, gold, diamond, cobolt or practically anything else, are almost always chronically bedevilled by repressive governments. Why? Because the people get used to fighting over the big prize pie through political intrigues instead of wealth-creating entrepreneurship.

Nowadays, if one looks through the balance sheets of the oil companies, it's easily discernable that the leading cost of oil production is not exploration or drilling cost, but the fees and taxes that they have to pay to the governments holding the master deed to the land that their wells sit on. The fees used to be miniscule in the immediate post-WWII era. Then anti-colonialism and nationalism were promoted so that the local elite can exact a heavy tax on the energy trade; eventually repressing and exploiting the local people even worse than the erstwhile evil colonialists. Over time, that tax becomes bigger and bigger as per centage of the cost of energy. That leaves the governments of the energy consuming states out of the loot. So the Carbon Problem was invented as a justification for a whole new breed of taxes can be justified on the consumption end in addition to the extraction end.

Given that neither problems are co-incidental, IMHO, regardless what form of energy we resort to, the two "problems" of consumption tax and production site political monopoly will always follow us, so long as energy distribution is centralized because there is inherent economy of scale.

tpe

Nothing's cheaper than the sun, wind, tides, geo-thermal, etc. all energy sources that nature provides us freely. No government can lay claim to these sources. The only obstacle is developing cost effective conversion and storage devices. A lot of venture capital is currently being poured into finding a way to overcome these obstacles. I have a lot of confidence that in a relatively short time, 3-5 years, technologies will advance that completely change our mindset when it comes to how we will deal with our energy needs. It's really kind of exciting, albeit in a very disruptive way to the entrenched interests.

brightness04

I certainly hope any and all forms of energy source emerge competitive to what we have. That being said, I'm somewhat more sanguine to that the real cost of energy is in storing and readying for use. Otherwise, lightening alone can keep some parts of the world in business :-) Tides and geothermal probably involve substantial land use and right claims. Wind only works in some parts of the world, and there is still zoning law concern that prevent average consumer from installing a windmill. A century and half human history dealing with energy distribution has pretty much proven that so long as the distribution is centralized, it ain't gonna be cheap, in money terms and in human lives. Congo/Zaire fought decades of civil war over hydrolic electricity distribution. What can be inherently cheaper than water going from high place to low place, pulled by gravity? ;-)