Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized.
Something else caught my attention. And this should be posted in the diesel forum. Most of the NoX and Methane are from agriculture. NoX is main reason we cannot buy diesel cars in several states. Sounds to me like we were beating a dead horse on the NoX issue with diesel cars.
Lastly in this report to the UN it appears that they are not backing the Kyoto Treaty.
The SRES scenarios do not include additional climate initiatives, which means that no scenarios are included that
explicitly assume implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change or the emissions
targets of the Kyoto Protocol.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/6861027.html
Rocky
The CNW study has been WIDELY debunked, and not just by the hybrid lovers either.
The nickel thing is vastly overstated and Toyota uses FAR less than the article implicates.
Believe that story at your peril. I have read posting after posting of facts which debunk it.
Do you have any data to back up your statement? Sounds like a problem to me. I know many have discounted the CNW report because it does not fit their preconceived notions. I would be interested in this new bit of information concerning nickel as in NiMH batteries. 100lbs per hybrid. 500,000 hybrids sold that is 50 million pounds of batteries, that will have to be dealt with. How much of those batteries is nickel? How much GHG is expelled in recycling those batteries? We know that recycling is more energy intensive than using raw materials.
I have no problem believing the xB is a far more eco friendly choice than the Prius. Or the Echo that the original Prius was built on.
- The typical non-hybrid car uses 50 pounds of nickel
- The Prius battery pack uses 22 pounds
- Electronic appliances such as cell phones use way more nickel in their NiMH batteries worldwide than hybrids
- Toyota is not a primary customer of this factory - 1,000 tons of nickel is far too little to keep it in business. That Inco plant produced 267,500 tons of nickel in 2006.
- The 1,000 tons of nickel is not dedicated to the Prius, but Toyota. Tundra probably uses more nickel.
- The plant is not owned by Toyota or joined at the hip.
The studies are reported on two small lakes at Sudbury, Ontario located close to a nickel-copper smelter which closed in 1972.
25 years later, Toyota Prius was introduced in Japan in 1997.
So reporters need to REALLY check the facts before doing something like this. The world is far better off with hybrids like the Prius on the road, not vice-versa.
Rocky
The nickel plant in question sold 267,500 tons of nickel and only a mere 1000 of those tons went to Toyota.
All the damage the nickel plant did was done decades ago, long before the Prius.
- The typical non-hybrid car uses 50 pounds of nickel
- The Prius battery pack uses 22 pounds
EVERY CAR and EVERY CARMAKER contribute(s) to global warming in a small way, some more than others, but the Prius balances it's production by producing FAR LESS GHG gasses than most cars during the total of the lifetime.
Rocky
Well, let's do some math:
1000 tons x 2000 lbs/ton = 2,000,000 (2 million) lbs. of nickel......
.....and at larsb number of 50 lbs. of nickel / car:
2 million lbs. / 50 lbs per car = 40,000 cars
Something tells me that Toyota builds slightly more that 40,000 cars/year........
Rocky
I have no idea how much nickel Toyota or any other automaker purchases a year.
But since average non-hybrid cars use about 50 pounds of nickel, I'd say worldwide use of nickel in cars is pretty substantial.
But that was not the topic - nickel was only brought up to show that Toyota is not ITSELF responsible for the Sudbury pollution issues as was blamed on them.
No metal illustrates this point more so than nickel, whose rapid increase in value is driven by market forces reacting to a supply situation that is expected to worsen in the years to come. Last Autumn several commentators predicted that future nickel prices would move into the US$10,000-12,000 range, or possibly even higher, in the next few years. These have already been exceeded, with the price peaking at US$17,000/tonne in January this year. So far these price increases have failed to stifle demand and as a consequence LME stocks are at their lowest for 12 months.
Demand Driven By Stainless Steel
Nevertheless, the demand for nickel is growing, driven by the market for stainless steel, which accounts for 54% of nickel consumption in the USA and more than 60% in other countries. The next largest market is super alloys, consuming 10% of nickel production. Nickel demand has grown at a rate of 4% per year during the past decade, with 7% growth seen during the past two years - a rate most metals would envy
Geographical Demand for Nickel
Demand is up in the US, Europe and Japan, despite the absence of economic recovery. However the greatest growth in demand is in Asia and specifically China.
Inco is a major company in the nickel industry and has seen sales to China amounting to 60% of the company's total sales - a market greater than Japan and Europe combined.
Question is have they found a solution for the pollution caused by smelting the ore for all this nickel? Of course that includes massive amounts of GHG. Our only hope is for everyone to keep the car they have right now and stop building cars. :shades:
I agree that we should stop building cars ASAP.
I think we have enough cars and trucks to last us 30 years. Just keep making parts to fix 'em. !!!
Rocky
Just don't DRIVE them..... :P
I understand that temperatures on the planet Mars are also increasing; those SUVs must be everywhere. The temperatures on Earth have varied significantly in past periods without much of an automobile industry being present. It's those humans we need to get rid of (except for you and I).
Study suggests ethanol may cause more smog (Straightline)
The Ethanol - E85 FlexFuel board has some more topicial discussions to talk about the study, like the Is Ethanol good for the environment? discussion.
But we won't solve the "people living with growing GW" problem.
I understand that temperatures on the planet Mars are also increasing...
The temps increase in my oven when I turn it on, too.
I think if we combine these observations we'll have something. Something half-baked, perhaps.
Rocky
The Prius uses an above avg amount of Ni because of the battery. An F-350 probably uses almost as much as a Prius. A Cobalt uses 22 lbs less than a Prius. A 15 year old car costs far less to keep running clean than it costs to buy a new one. If 50% of all new cars are V8 SUV's and trucks getting mileage in the teens, how can they ever be helping us reduce pollution and raise efficiency?
A woman in Fl wrote the auto experts column in the newspaper. She asked what dealer she should buy her Prius from. The one charging 4000 over MSRP or the one charging 3000 over? The columnnist wrote back that both dealers were going to use the extra 3 or 4k to upgrade to twin V10's for their 35' boat that is rated in gallons per mile.
$619 per year is the amount of gas money a 48mpg Prius can save in 12000 miles as compared to a 25 mpg car that can be bought for so much less. What is a year's interest on the extra cost of the Hybrid option? Could be most of the gas savings. How can the Hybrid ever become popular enough to matter? They say $8 a gallon gas will do it.
The problem with cars is that they're extremely pollutant. We should be worried about all the negative effects that pollution causes before we start worrying global warming, even though global warming may be caused by the greenhouse gases cars create
People buy cars and trucks for the most part, BECAUSE THEY NEED THEM .Try functioning in life or getting to work in Southern California without a car.
What I want to know is why I can't buy a car that runs on hydrogen fuel cell technology or one that runs on electricity,etc.. Why are we forced to use one technology?
When I go to the store, I have a choice of 500 different brands of shampoos I can use....
________________
reference text::::::
People buy automobiles. Also carbon dioxide has just been determined to be a pollutant (by the Supreme Court). If we stop making people, we will solve the automobile problem and lessen the carbon dioxide problem.
I understand that temperatures on the planet Mars are also increasing; those SUVs must be everywhere. The temperatures on Earth have varied significantly in past periods without much of an automobile industry being present. It's those humans we need to get rid of (except for you and I).
Rocky
Maybe because the technology has not matured to the place it can be sold for a price you would pay. You can get a Civic HX or a Tesla electric if you want to pony up the bucks. With hydrogen you would be using natural gas to produce it. It would be cheaper to get the Civic GX and eliminate a $100,000 worth of fuel cells. CNG is getting easy to find in So CA. EPA says it is the cleanest car they ever tested.
If I lived where you live in San Bernardino, no I would never live there. But say I did. I would be extremely interested in getting rid of pollution. San Bernardino should be ashamed of that brown haze they seem to enjoy. One solution would be to blow up the mountains that trap that nasty air coming from the port at San Pedro. You could then build houses all the way to Hesperia without those nasty mountains blocking progress.
If everyone did this it would do far more for GHG reduction than any amount of improving the fleet fuel economy or switching the fleet to alt power sources. As a rule of thumb 60% of the energy consumed by a vehicle is used up in its manufacture. And we all know that the source of the energy being used in those factories is mostly greenhouse gas-emitting...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I think if we combine these observations we'll have something. Something half-baked, perhaps.
Except that no one can plausibly claim that the increasing temperatures in your oven are the direct result of solar activity.
Oh, I don't know. I wouldn't exist without solar activity and I'm the only one that turns my oven on. And I'm as direct as they come. There, a plausible claim.
Sort of like Mars/SUV claims re GW
Yes, but the specification was "a direct result of solar activity. I think you and your oven are somewhat indirect even if your replies are not. :P
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
Not the host here!
-Rocky
I'm impressed. :-P
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
It (as a social discussion point) was started mostly by an unsourced, alarmist article in Newsweek. As a whole this article contained a very large percentage of draconian, alarmist and largely unsourced statements.
See more on this:
One Alarmist article in Newsweek in 1975
No one REALLY SERIOUSLY thought we were heading for a new Ice Age. At least no one CREDIBLE.
I have no problem with your ideas that we need to use less fossil fuel. I just do not believe our Congress & state legislatures are on the same page. They all want to look environmentally astute without giving up any of the amenities they enjoy. EVERYTHING we do uses energy of some sort. Unless you think we can put limits on the amount of energy each person uses. I think as long as it looks like we have enough oil people will not change much in their habits.
"The Day After Tommorow" :surprise:
-Rocky
-Rocky
You do know, or course, that there are scientific organizations with the backing of both liberals AND conservatives who believe that man is causing global warming, right?
It's not JUST the left-wing wackos, although they are the wheels which are squeaking the loudest in almost every instance.
What irritates me is the FINANCIAL aspect. Like the recent stories of Exxon-Mobil paying scientists $10,000 bounties to refute global warming, JUST SO THEY CAN KEEP SELLING OIL.
That my friend is bordering on criminal behavior if you ask me.
-Rocky
There are some graphs showing future growth of CO2 emissions. So basically if you took that 15% CO2 away by banning all autos, in a few short years we're back to where we are now and then we're climbing higher. The reason CO2 is and will continue to increase is that economies and population are growing. The only way to stop that is either to regress economically, or to grow nuclear, wind and solar power quicker than we grow our use of energy.
Anyone want to check if the article's on-line?
-Rocky