Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
GW hasn't been much of a concern for me today. I'm wearing a long-sleeve shirt, and a sweatshirt this morning at my desk. I rode my bike to work today, but now I'm thinking I breathe faster when pedaling; so there again I'm increasing the CO2 - darn just can't win.
The real concern is that if we don't start changing course now, the 1 or 2 or 3 degree increase we'd see in the next 100 years - which is manageable, won't stop there.
you: And how do you propose to drastically reduce CO2 emissions without worldwide economic suicide?
me: I don't see a way; that's been my point all along. We can't change quickly, and making a few million hybrids or diesels per year is not going to make a difference. Us and our descendents are surely going to find out what happens when this CO2 does get into the atmosphere.
Regardless of your position on this issue, doing nothing (collectively) doesn't seem to be one of the options, since so many countries (and cities and states in the US) are trying to do something.
For example, there's federal legislation afoot to shut down Governor Schwarzenegger's global warming efforts that would require the automakers to reduce greenhouse emissions, but opposition to blocking state action is fierce. Pelosi opposes bill that would block states on global warming (Mercury News)
We could, but that is not the trend here in San Diego. They are leveling off the mountain behind me for 384 new homes. The big homes are over 5,000 square feet. The smallest condos in the project are about 1,800 sq ft. With the market down turn they may sit for a while.
What is the carbon foot print of a 5,000 sq ft home? How much more is it than a Suburban? The nice thing about a Suburban is when they foreclose on your McMansion you can live in the Suburban quite reasonably.
1. Slowly raising the required mpg on vehicles...not because of man-made (hereafter abbreviated as M-M) global warming, but because the cost of fuel will impose this on automakers faster than any legislation ever could, if they want to continue selling high-profit Explorers...
2. Continue to insulate houses better, esp new construction, again, NOT because of alleged M-M global warming, but in order to allow expensive fuel to last longer...
3. Obviously do not dump old tires into the Hudson River...
4. Altho we have in the USA over a 100 year supply of coal, continue to work on ways to use it more efficiently and improve scrubber technology...
5. Continue to improve battery technology so that a charge of any battery will last longer, whether mp3, cell phone, automobile, flashlight, etc.
Whether this could, would, or should affect M-M global warming I really do not care, as I do not believe that it does...but, for the sake of efficiency, clean water and air, it would be prudent...
I think there's quite a few people who would like a warmer earth. What's the average global temp. - 59F I've read? I think people would prefer 70-75F. If GW really kicks in, people will have to migrate on average 1-2 thousand miles away from the equator. Whereas the polar regions are mostly desolate now, maybe it's the equatorial areas that become less populated. Time to buy property in Canada before the costs go up?
Cars do put some CO2 in the air - about 15%? But it's really the electricity generation that's the main factor. And this is going up. China alone is building a coal power-plant each and every week.
Is that all? Sheesh... why then the big discussion about automobiles being a major cause of global warming?
We could eliminate all vehicles bigger than a Civic and it would only drop to 14.5%
I was thinking cars probably put about 30% C02 in the atmosphere...15% doesn't seem like much.
I wonder how much CO2 is put out when they burn off sugar cane fields. That was one of the reasons they quit growing cane in Hawaii. It is a BIG polluter. Does the ethanol compensate for the CO2 the burning adds?
Cane burning
http://starbulletin.com/97/11/03/news/story3.html
California's fire season is no longer seasonal but year round now eh?
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Snowstorms in Arizona in May???...global warming
Worst snowfall in years in NY???...global warming
Ice storms in Texas???...global warming
A couple of hot days, near 100, in the Mojave desert in July???...global warming (even tho it is always over 100 in the desert in the summer)...
Salmon not biting this season???...global warming...
My wife in a rotten mood 21 days out of a month???...global warming...OK, maybe this one I CAN believe is global warming, as there is no other reasonble explanation for it...:):):)
We went from a record 98 last week to a high of 58 yesterday (normal would be high 70's). Those kinds of temp swings are hard on paint (hard on me too), but fortunately those blips apparently won't show up on any long term graphs so I can pretend they didn't happen, lol.
The salmon aren't biting because they are backed up behind the dams and can't get to the spawning grounds. :P
In the hearings to up CAFE mpg numbers on the Hill yesterday, the buzz is over Dorgan of ND's quote aimed at the Detroit automakers who are fighing any increase:
"I think you've lost that issue. I think your position is yesterday forever." (Washington Post)
PS
This was the coldest winter in at least 50 years for San Diego County. I lost $1000s in trees and tropical plants. Makes me want to get a Hummer to warm this place up.
Gary, the global warming phenomenon does not mean that "every single City in the world will be warmer every day than last year on the same date."
It does not even mean, "there will never be cold winters again."
What it DOES mean is that GLOBALLY, as a WHOLE PLANET, the overall average temps are rising gradually.
From a San Diego weather Blog I found:
"June is now averaging 63.1 degrees in San Diego, or 2.9 degrees below normal. Last year at this time, the average temperature was more than three degrees above normal ...
The Climate Prediction Center's monthly diagnostic discussion says the Pacific is edging ever closer to La Nina conditions. The sea-surface temperatures in the eastern Pacific are now nearly 2 degrees Celsius below normal. But in the region known as Nino 3.4, which climatologists consider the key indicator, the SSTs are right at normal. The Pacific isn't there yet, but the CPC expects La Nina conditions to develop within the next three months.
La Ninas usually mean dry conditions here in the winter, but the Pacific has been out of whack the last year or so. El Nino conditions existed this last year, but we didn't get anything remotely resembling El Nino impacts. This year will go down as one of San Diego's five driest ever."
Here's what you can expect for the next few months Gary:
"Long-range Weather Forecast for the Pacific Southwest
Annual Weather Summary November 2006 to October 2007
Includes predictions for all or portions of California (Long Beach, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose).
Pacific Southwest Long-range Weather Region
Winter will be slightly cooler than normal near the coast and much cooler inland, on average. Rainfall will be well above normal, with above-normal snowfall in the mountains. The most widespread snow will be in mid-January. The stormiest periods will be in mid- and late November and early and mid-February. The coldest periods will be in early December, mid-January, and mid- to late February.
April and May will be drier than normal, with temperatures above normal in April and below normal in May, on average.
Summer will be cooler than normal in coastal sections, but hotter than normal inland, on average. The hottest temperatures will be in mid-June and mid-August.
Expect stormy weather in early October, with total rainfall in September and October above normal in the north and below normal in the south. Despite very warm temperatures in mid-September and mid- to late October, temperatures will be near normal, on average.
That's right - vehicles are generating about 15% of the CO2 that's manmade. I posted the link in here about a month ago. That 15% includes buses and the trucks that bring you all your food and goods, so some is "needed".
Everytime anyone turns on a light-bulb, your refrigerator comes on, or a TV or a computer is on, if that electricity is not generated from nuclear, solar, wind, or hydro there's carbon based fuels being burnt. All that carbon has to exit the plant in some form, and the least polluting is CO2. CO - carbon monoxide has it's own problems.
And everytime millions of homeowners turn on their heating - oil or natural gas, the result is a lot of CO2. All the places that run AC in the summer - probably causing a carbon-based electrical generating plant to hum thru the fuel. Every plane you see in the sky - CO2.
Here's an idea to reduce CO2 emissions. In every city in the nation in all the office buildings, maybe the AC could be turned back to 85F when vacant, and most of the lights turned out. And during the day do we really need AC set at 68F? If it's 95F out yes it is nice to run the AC; but wouldn't 75F or 80F be okay?
I know we do these things to prevent brown-outs, but electricity use isn't typically mentioned as a way to reduce CO2.
We only turn on the heat when it is real cold. And the AC when it goes past 85 degrees in the house. Mainly because we were raised without it and are ultra conservative with money. Most people keep their homes at 75 in the winter and 70 in the summer. Then cry because their electric bill is $200 plus each month. I would guess most people that heat with oil or natural gas are dumping more CO2 and other pollutants out of their homes than out of their cars.
I doubt the politicians have the nerve to ask us to cut back on heating our homes. We all know how opulent their homes are on average.
Agreed. I can't picture ANYBODY doing a remake of Carter's fireside sweater-speach..... :sick:
People may care about global warming, but corporations sure as hell don't. Worrying about the planet in the minds of most corporations is not profitable, otherwise why in the world would they have gone ga-ga over crude oil in the beginning.
And just take a look around you. The computer you're typing on was made from crude oil (plastics), some of the clothes you're wearing were probably made from crude oil(polyester, rayon), The pen you're writing with has crude oil components in it (plastics, ink ingredients)
I think translated that says that companies (and stockholders) understand that going green can be profitable.
True enough. Killer is he was right on that one. Probably the fact that Carter was for it set it back twenty years.
We say all the time that automakers could get 35 mpg if they "really wanted to"...but is it really possible, or is it just pie in the sky???
Back in the 70s we "heard" (urban legend?) about the 50 mpg carburetor that was bought by the oil companies and hidden away better then the secret formula for Coke...but did it really exist???...
If an automaker COULD make a 35 mpg V8, wouldn't they do so and to hell with the oil companies???...can you say "market share?"...can you say "long term profitability?"...can you say "Number 1 automaker for the next 25 years?"...
With all the cutthroat competition, if that engine could be developed, who wouldn't do it in a heartbeat???
So, aside from politicians trying to sound good to the "advocates" to keep their votes, are high mpg figures really attainable from large engines???
I am not counting Mini-Coopers with tiny engines with no more safety than a motorcycle, I mean vehicles that are relatively safe in size and mass...
Altho I do not want to publish my opinion of Carter, is now the time to pull out my argyle sweaters from mothballs???
That works both ways. Remember that the next time your local news tells you that today was the hottest day on record since Archimedes jumped out of his bathtub.
And from a strictly nonequilibrium thermodynamics perspective, a global average temperature is about as meaningful as calculating the average of the phone numbers in a telephone book.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
Great idea but the typical house gets a dismal zero miles per gallon!
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
Bob, I got 29.9 mpg a few times in my minivan so I don't see any reason why a full size pickup couldn't do 35 highway on a V8 gas engine.
I don't think it is possible, even with diesel. The end result of a 35 mpg CAFE would be that automakers could sell very few of these large, powerful, low mpg vehicles. They would accomplish this by pricing them very high and pricing their fuel efficient vehicles very low. The automakers already do this but they would have to widen the gap. The problem is that the American consumer's tastes haven't changed. If gas is affordable they are going to want a big, powerful vehicle but for many they will find that they can no longer afford one. This is what the automakers object to. They are being told to manufacture and try to sell something that the consumers don't want. Imagine telling Burger King that they could only sell salads? How long would they stay in business?
The best, most effective and expeditious way to raise the fleet's efficiency is to make the consumers want efficient vehicles.
Alarmist warning us of impending doom have been around for centuries and longer. Why should I believe the current batch?
In April, 1975, in an issue mostly taken up with stories about the collapse of the American-backed government of South Vietnam, NEWSWEEK published a small back-page article about a very different kind of disaster. Citing "ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically," the magazine warned of an impending "drastic decline in food production." Political disruptions stemming from food shortages could affect "just about every nation on earth." Scientists urged governments to consider emergency action to head off the terrible threat of . . . well, if you had been following the climate-change debates at the time, you'd have known that the threat was: global cooling.
As recently as last year we were told the 2006 Hurricane season was going to be a doozy. Not one hurricane hit our shores during the 2006 hurricane season. The sad part is neither Gore or RFK jr thanked George Bush for calming the storms.
I have no problem with the scientist that are studying and making observations concerning global warming and possible scenarios as a result of higher or lower global temperatures. My problem is the whackos that take bits and pieces of the scientific data and use it to further a political agenda. It really makes me want to buy a fleet of Hummers and leave them idling in front of their mansions.
Go back and find it so we can stop talking about that garbage.
Previously Debunked
I am concerned with the damage being caused when our children and grandchildren are being indoctrinated in the schools to believe fictionalized stories based on very little scientific fact.
What we do about it, how we can attack it, to what extent and in what areas do we need to focus our anti-warming efforts? Those are the things we need to discuss.
No more arguing over whether it's happening or not.
Focus on solutions to the obvious warming trends and data.
I'm listening... what's the solution(s)?
According to the EPA, the transportation sector accounts for 27% of total GHG emissions in the US. And since 85% of US GHG is CO2, then transportation must be 32% of US CO2, unless my math is wrong.
That's from EPA
You mention a website you posted previously, I don't see it, could you post it again?
Energy production is the largest source of CO2, at 38%.
What's the best way to measure the earth's atmospheric heat content over time, if not global average temperature? It's certainly not constant, and the manifestation of "GW" (in the vernacular) is a measure of this, is it not?
Well, I guess it depends, at least partly, on the weight of the PU, no?
I think the funny part of this is the implied notion that unless we can raise the mpg of full sized PUs, then there isn't much we can do. As if any significant % of the US actually needs a full size PU.
I have no doubt that the only way to significantly improve the mpg of the US fleet is a combination of applied technology as well as reduced size and weight.
The salient fact is that we are producing a hell of a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere and the sinks to absorb it are simultaneously shrinking. This is not in doubt by anyone sane.
The only question is what effect this will have and when.
Alarmist...
I love this word in this context. It's sort of like using the word "winning" and "losing" in Iraq. Tossed about with zero definition.
I'm an alarmist and you're a mypoist.
Tag, you're it.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=36&article_id=5198
Since CO2 and GW are global issues you want to use global numbers. As your post states the 32% is U.S. which we know has a lot of automobiles. Many other countries in the world probably have high electricity usage relative to the number of autos, or the amount driven.
In europe with better transportation and $7/gal fuel, fuel usage will be less but they will probably use a comparable amount of electricity. In China the 1.1 billion people and all the industry use considerable electricity, compared to the relatively few vehicles. Thus I believe 15% would be about accurate, the U.S. is atypical in this reggard.
we are producing a hell of a lot of CO2
Good my trees thrive on that stuff....
You didn't specify. And given the following chart, perhaps not:
In any case, I've seen numbers around 24% for global CO2 sources from transport....frankly, I wouldn't assume Road & Track to be a great source, esp since they preface the 15% with "perhaps".
Yes, because the earth has gone through several naturally occurring warming and cooling cycles.
The question is whether our emissions of carbon dioxide are exacerbating the naturally occurring trends, and there is a real question about that.
That's the point. It's not just the "heat content" that matters so much as how that energy is distributed with temperature differences driving weather. Strictly speaking, temperature has meaning only within the context of thermodynamic equilibrium. In the case of an entire planet, a condition of thermodynamic equilibrium is strictly a local condition - i.e. not global!
The point is made well in this article, for example: Researchers Question Validity Of A 'Global Temperature'. Any respectable thermodynamics textbook will attest to these fundamentals including the works of Tolman, Hwang and, particularly, Prigogene who deals specifically with nonequilibrium thermodynamics.
The prevailing attitude seems to be that "we don't know the best measure but we'll use the simplest one we can think of even though we know it's a meaningless one and has no physical basis."
Glad you asked.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
If you look at page 1 of the article you'll see the sources used, and though not an academic article, I think it's fairly written and educational. I don't see what the author (he's a mechanical engineer, who if you read the magazine regularly is a fairly bright guy) would have to gain in his research if the # was 15 or 24.
So show us a more believable source, that it is currently 24%, or we'll stick with the 15%.