Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?

1104105107109110223

Comments

  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    The EPA has officially declared carbon dioxide a health hazard.

    We're Screwed: EPA Says Tailpipe Emissions Contribute To Climate Change (Straightline)
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Well now that the EPA is on board it is a true consensus. :sick:

    Glad to see Edmund's realizes the truth that we are being sold a bill of goods. I hate to say I told you so. But I told you so. The powers will not be happy until you are in a cave with a bike to ride. That is for the wealthier middle class. The rest will be barefoot and walking.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Let's also declare oxygen a health hazard. If not for oxygen nothing (like cars) could burn for example fossilized fuel , ergo no artificial carbon dioxide. :surprise: :lemon:
  • alltorquealltorque Member Posts: 535
    So, if CO2 is now officially a health hazard, in the USA, that must mean that all carbonated drinks; Coke, Pepsi et al will now be outlawed as they contain said noxious gas. Guess they'll just have to reformulate using propane, or something else "safe" to give it the fizz. There'll be a new on-can health warning : "Do not smoke within 5 feet of this product".Of course, they could always use Helium........now that would be a real gas. :shades:

    I guess all the other uses for CO2 will also be outlawed. You guys want to draw up a list of things that will have to cease ? Could be fun.

    Ah, the joys of the Laws of Unconsidered Consequences.

    If this stuff wasn't so pathetically stupid it would be funny. :mad:
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Tax all carbonated soda? Ban now Beer? Wine? Bread?
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    The list may be shorter than you think.

    "While greenhouse gases come from many sources, the EPA limits its oversight to sources with annual carbon dioxide emissions of emitting 25,000 tons or more. So while automakers and power plants could be regulated, there are no reported plans to slap carbon taxes on livestock operations and other small emitters."

    Ruling Opens Door to National Regulation of Automotive CO2 Emissions

    "While recognizing that "autos account for 20 percent of man-made CO2 emissions in the U.S." and acknowledging that "our job is to get cleaner, more fuel-efficient technologies on the road quickly," the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers said in statement that the Obama administration must now "reset the debate to address the environment and today's economic realities."

    Auto Industry Response to EPA Greenhouse Gas Finding: 'OK, Let's Talk'

    image

    Both stories and the lovely graphic courtesy of Green Car Advisor.
  • jipsterjipster Member Posts: 6,299
    Major? No way. Minor? Way.
    2021 Honda Passport EX-L, 2020 Honda Accord EX-L, 2011 Hyundai Veracruz, 2010 Mercury Milan Premiere.
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,356
    Well, it is not a done deal yet. We can only hope that some in Congress will come to their senses.

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    So as an "unintended consequence" part of the cycle needed by/for photosynthesis (C02) will now be "outlawed" So does that now mean the C02 that (ie.), algae "eats" in the production of fuel and oxygen, etc, now illegal? Can you now tax oxygen because a very identifiable portion of its production is due to now outlawed C02 and labeled a dangerous gas?

    Are places (with volcano's) like Yellowstone National Park, the state of Hawaii, WA state, going to be declare wholesale "pollution" SUPER FUND sites?
  • oldfarmer50oldfarmer50 Member Posts: 24,310
    "...Let's also declare oxygen a health hazard..."

    And let's not forget water. 8000 deaths each year from accidental overexposure. :surprise:

    2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible

  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,356
    Before long we will have to buy a permit to break wind...

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • alltorquealltorque Member Posts: 535
    er...............don't we humans exhale CO2 ? So, as another unintended consequence will we now have to embark upon a programme of human(e) culling to save the planet ? Moderators please note; this is a question, not a proposal.

    Now then, where would we start, I wonder ? I think I can guess............... :)

    Actually, whether we are here or not, the planet will still chug on its merry way through the continuum, doing exactly what its been doing for the last few billion years. So we'd not be saving the planet, just reducing our tax burden.

    Please don't try this at home.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    PRECISELY !!!

    Back in the day (late 60's early 70's... so .....40 years ago...) we studied and analyzed "DIEBACK" proposals ! Just the very thing you "hint" @ !!! So me thinks just a dusting off of the covers and a few updates.Good to GO !? :lemon: Some of those proposals made Hitler look like a back woods pioneer !! Most don't know this but Joe and Mao (of the Josef Stalin, USSR, the Chairman Mao Tze Tung modern day emperor of China fames) together die backed a min of 24 M EACH (of their own) folks (50 M) after WW2. :sick:

    So truly, do not try this at home, do NOT adopt these policies.... etc.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    I'm not going to hold my breath. :)

    Here's a greenhouse gas friendly car that's sure to cause a row:

    HumanCar is Back With a Grid-Rechargeable NEV - People Still Needed (Green Car Advisor)

    image
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    I would agree, the second coming in our lifetime has better odds. ;)

    As the host I would surmise you have better access to this kind of information/history, but exemptions are granted all the time to/in car building. Good/bad, depending on point of view most bad

    In other words part of the reason why cars that actually are on the market with such little fuel mileage is because it has to meet good to ridiculous fuel robbing standards. So given your posted picture, what would be the costs in (mpg) being able to meet current roll-over standards without exemptions? Another is almost all automakers who run DRL's daylight running lamps, applied for and got up to 9% fuel mileage exemption for the DRL requirement. Now keep in mind ANYONE can turn on their own lamps?????????

    Keep in mind the theory of most of the low hanging fruit has already been picked.

    So for example on the 03 TDI which gets 50 mpg, would 9%, 4.5 mpg, or 54.5 mpg be better or worse than 50 mpg (as good as that is) ?
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    I think we're "agreeing" on different things.

    Nothing special about my knowledge or access. I just get the red type behind my name because I have a dustpan (and I know how to use it).

    The big gains are going from a fleet average of 15 to 20mpg, not from 50 to 54 mpg. (I don't recall what the CAFE fleet mpg is, but you get my drift I hope).
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Yes!

    OK !

    I would agree partially! The difference between 15 to 20 is 33%. Being as how the majority of the passenger vehicle fleet gets that, if they can roll it from theory to reality, that is nothing short of a miracle. It just really indicates the lack of seriousness when they poo poo the low hanging fruit so to speak. If you stay within gasser parameters this is HUGE also. It is as big as like model gasser to diesel comparisons.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Here is a google source on the WW2 death toll. 48.2 M

    link title

    Here is a Stalin stat

    with 34 to 49 million under Stalin.
    link title

    Mao Zedong's regime (1949-1975): 40 000 000
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    The drive-thrus are a problem for many reasons!

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/20/thin.global.warming/index.html
  • oldfarmer50oldfarmer50 Member Posts: 24,310
    "...we will have to buy a permit to break wind..."

    The EPA has already proposed taxing farmers who's cows break wind. Can we humans be far behind? :cry:

    No more beans for you. :mad:

    2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible

  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Our cars are safe, they have found the REAL cause of Global Warming.

    Fatties cause global warming

    THE rising number of fat people was yesterday blamed for global warming.

    Scientists warned that the increase in big-eaters means more food production — a major cause of CO2 gas emissions warming the planet.


    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2387203.ece

    United Airlines is charging double for fat people to fly.

    Urbanski said those passengers who are unable to comfortably fasten a safety belt with one extension, or sit comfortably with armrests down, will be moved next to an empty seat on board the same flight at no charge if possible. If no empty seats exist, the passenger can be denied boarding, or taken off the flight – and put on the next flight on which space is available – at double the charge.

    http://www.wbbm780.com/pages/4206947.php?contentType=4&contentId=3833137

    Not going to be a good year for those that are overweight. Aside from eating more CO2 producing food the probably exhale more. We will know more when we are all mandated to wear a GHG counter over our two major openings. :sick:
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,356
    Makes about as much sense to me as any other of their hair brained GW theories. They should demand that fat boy Al Gore give back that Cracker Jacks prize that was bestowed on him.

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Al Gore is the Porker I thought of first when I read the article. Not only that he has a carbon footprint the size of Kansas. So he is a double whammy and probably the leading cause of global warming in the USA with all the hot air he exhales.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    San Diego Will Finance Residents' Solar Panels

    San Diego has announced that they are starting a new city-wide incentive program in July for residents who want to install solar panels, but don't have the cash to pay for it up front. The city will finance the cost of the solar panels and allow homeowners to pay back the loan in property tax bills over 20 years.

    This new incentive program takes advantage of a statewide law that allows loan programs for renewable energy to be paid back through property tax payments. Berkeley and Palm Desert have also enacted similar programs for their residents.

    The loans will have a fixed interest rate and are transferrable if property is sold during the life of the loan.

    Many more people would be willing to install solar power on their property if the initial cost wasn't so high. Programs like these could really increase the amount of residential solar in the country if more cities and states offered them. It seems to be an easy investment for cities to make, with potential for a great payoff, both through the interest money the city would collect and the advancement in renewable energy being generated.


    What a great idea !!!
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,356
    Yes, a wonderful idea....if you are selling solar panels !!

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    I'd be interested but the program is only available in a few places. Berkeley has something similar going on I think, and maybe a couple of other cities. The payback is too long otherwise but if the cap costs go with the house, then you can sell the house and the next owner finishes paying it off.

    GM did this a few years back. They gave some company access to a couple of big factory or warehouse roofs, and the company put solar panels up. They sell the power to GM. GM gets cheaper power with no capital outlay.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I don't think the proposal extends to the County. That means less than a quarter of the homes would be eligible. The interest rate in Palm Desert is 7%, kind of high for a promotion. They do not address the warranty. Will the City guarantee the system they are financing? I learned something this weekend at Kiwanis about solar panels. They need to be washed at least once a month or they start dropping output. Dust is a real killer and we have dust in San Diego county. It still has to be approved and a map of the areas that are eligible.

    Participants would agree to be annexed into a special assessment district as the legal mechanism for adding the solar-loan repayment to their property tax bills. Over the two-decade span of their loan, the average cost would amount to about $150 a month.

    I have never had an electric bill on this house that was that high. It was 95 degrees today and we did not use the AC. It did not get uncomfortable until late this afternoon. By then it was cooling outside and we opened the windows. If the Feds were really interested in cutting CO2 they should finance and give big tax rebates on Solar. Unless it is just another form of corporate welfare like Corn Ethanol.

    I'm not impressed. When the systems get down to $10k and they carry a $5k tax credit I would consider installing. Though I still have the neighbors trees blocking the sun especially in the winter. I would be surprised if it saved 30% on the electric bill.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    I am also not impressed. The school district invested in solar panels on roofs and breezeways to much local media fan fare. It will be a sad day when the same media documents widespread vandalism to this equipment, despite how much I hope, does NOT happen.
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,356
    Recent satellite photos confirm that sea ice is up 43% in Antarctica when you compare March 2009 to March 1980. Our wonderful media just reports that a huge ice shelf broke off. They did not mention the huge increase in sea ice or the fact that this is what happens when ice builds up so much over the continental shelf that it has to break off. This is how glaciers and ice bergs are formed...and has been for billions of years.

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    It's the hole in the ozone layer.

    Meanwhile "summer sea ice around the North Pole shrank in 2007 to the smallest since satellite records began in the 1970s."

    Reuters

    I don't know why Reuters said 2007 - the Arctic ice is still shrinking.

    Arctic sea ice at its thinnest ever going into spring (Anchorage Daily News - Anchorage is hosting a circumpolar climate change conference this week).
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,356
    ROFLMAO

    Thanks for the link, it is hilarious. The article said that man made global warming, while causing the ice to DECREASE in the Arctic...has actually caused the ice to INCREASE in the Antarctic !!!!

    Very funny, and typical of the way they try to twist the facts ! If the earth was suddenly covered by ice they would still be saying it was caused by global warming !

    Please keep that link up there so I can refer back to it from time to time. ;)

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    That is become so transparent even with devotees that I can no longer say GW with a straight face.

    Cold? GW
    Hot? GW
    Sahara Desert? GW
    ICE Cream? GW
    Beer? GW
    Wine? GW
    Cheese? GW
    Bread? GW
    CO2? GW
    No C02? GW
    Solar? GW
    No Solar? GW
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    "Despite an intense lobbying campaign from biofuel manufacturers, particularly in the ethanol industry, California's top air quality regulator approved the nation's first low-carbon fuel regulations Thursday, launching a plan that will require the carbon content of fuels used in the state to be reduced by10 percent by 2020.

    The rules, many still to be developed, will be implemented beginning January 1, 2010, with the amount of fuel consumed in the state that year to be the baseline for measuring the amount of low carbon fuel that must be added to the state's transportation fuels mix by 2020.

    Schwarzenegger issued the executive order requiring a statewide low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) more than two years ago. "

    California Regulators Approve World's First Low Carbon Fuels Standard (Green Car Advisor)

    image
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    If it gets rid of ethanol, I am all for it. I just don't see any chance of us getting cars that run on NG, Hydrogen or Electric by 2020. Too many regs that will block anything that is tried. Electricity being a big roadblock in CA. What good will solar do the guy charging his car overnight?
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    If it gets rid of ethanol, I am all for it

    I thought you'd like that part. Assuming that the hammer falls on the corn-style ethanol that is. Maybe there's something to this algae stuff?

    I think with the right bump in stimulus money, NG cars could be all over. They are "relatively" common in the interstate corridor around Salt Lake City.

    For solar, just get two battery packs and swap 'em out every night. Just think how buff you'll get picking up a couple of battery packs every day.

    image

    Automakers Raise Questions About Better Place's Battery Swap Model (Green Car Advisor)
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    The significant part of the idea is counting all the CO2, in the process. Rare for CARB to count all the cost. I am for biofuel if it does not make an impact on the environment that is worse than fossil fuel. I cannot see any positives connected with Corn Ethanol.

    I like Natural Gas a lot. Just the limited range and lack of infrastructure. That and I would hate to have to stop every couple hundred miles to fill up or switch batteries. It may come to that.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    In the city that brings you Ipods, Mac's etc (as if they do not get enough fees from Apple Computer)., the cost of A permit to install a mid-sized solar-energy system $11,737.

    link title
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    That's pretty bad especially when the county only charges $324. Sounds like the Sierra Club is going to shame them into fixing it.

    This may be a better link btw - I had trouble with yours.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I could not get either one. Try this link:

    http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_12222237?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.merc- urynews.com

    The state should wave all permit fees and kick in 50%. Then throw any dealer in jail that tries to gouge the buyers. That is if they are serious about solar energy. I think it is all a big scam at this point. Before I could put in solar I will have to buy my neighbors home and cut down a forest of trees. Which I may do as she is considering selling and moving to Florida with her son.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    LOL !! Pick 1, 2, 3, I hope they are not trying to suppress free speech. This is how a monopoly operates at one of the most cushy levels.

    It would be hard to argue with your quote.

    ..."I think it is all a big scam at this point"...

    The rest of the post is a minor foot note.

    Let's see, based on my last month's electrical bill of $33.21 mo/$11,737, it would take me 353 mo/12 mo-yr = 29.5 years, as a min to break even. This is JUST to pay for the permits. The equipment is another $20-30,000 dollars.............. :lemon: That's the good news!!?? How many will have another flawless trouble free 30 years?

    But as the article points out, but does not explain; the only one that makes ANY sense is the:

    ..."An 8-kilowatt system valued at $74,000, which is roughly twice the size of a solar system on a typical home."...

    So anybody can divide $74,000/ $33.21 prt mo??? /12mo= years + 29.5 years? :blush: Naturally we wish you a flawless 215.18704 years, in your break even equation..........either that you whiners or.... use more electricity !!!! :sick:
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,356
    I'm not sure that it is a scan...let's just say that it doesn't work for me.

    But don't forget that good green feeling you would get...priceless !! :)

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I am looking at the Solar industry as a scam. They raise the prices to take all the tax incentives for themselves. Kind of like Toyota and the Prius tax credit. Now they cannot give them away. When Solar gets back to reality I might consider it. Not a chance with the current pricing.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    You just live in the wrong state(s) Gary.

    Here in AZ it's affordable, providing you have the $5K-$6K up front to spend.
  • oldfarmer50oldfarmer50 Member Posts: 24,310
    "...providing you have the 5K-6K up front to spend..."

    For that kind of money you could probably install enough solar to charge a small flashlight. Hardly worth it.

    Didn't you say you spent around 16K on your system?

    That's the problem with these "green" technologies, the scam artists and the crooked bureaucrats ding you for their "cut". It drives the cost up to the point that IF you have 5K to spend you'd be better off putting a down payment on a hybrid car.

    I can understand the solar installers trying to rip you off, after all they're just greedy capitalists. I don't get why the government thinks they can prey on you too. They're suposed to be the ones helping you...and the environment. :(

    2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible

  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    My advice is get a warranty from a large corporation with offices in your state. When my system went out in Lake Havasu, AZ, I was out of luck as the company had long since went out of business. It is the nature of these type scams. Don't expect the lender to feel sorry for you. They just want the money YOU borrowed against your home to put the solar in. No name solar panels sold by a slick talking salesperson is an invitation for disappointment 5-10 years from now. Been there, done that.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    @ the White House,

    ..."The director of the White House military office, Louis Caldera, took the blame a few hours later. One of the planes was a 747 that is called Air Force One when used by the president....

    ...The director of the White House military office, Louis Caldera, took the blame a few hours later. One of the planes was a 747 that is called Air Force One when used by the president."...

    Some folks would expect this from a republican (Bush) administration..

    ... "This was a photo shoot. There was no need for surprise," Sen. Charles Schumer said. "There was no need to scare thousands of New Yorkers who still have the vivid memory of 9/11." ...

    Do you think the response would have been as laconic if the order had been from a Bush White House administration?

    Makes you wonder how much C02 was expended in this sortie..... :P

    link title
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Member Posts: 3,062
    The director of the White House military office, Louis Caldera, took the blame a few hours later. One of the planes was a 747 that is called Air Force One when used by the president

    Besides the co2 from 747, fighter jets, add in the thousands on New Yorkers who were fleeing buildings and running in the streets.

    That incident is one of many examples of incompetence and bone-headed actions of this Admin. Question is do we want to trust them to provide guidance on types of future auto designs and whether or not there is global warming and if so is it man-made.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    As if they could/did not figure out that this would be an almost natural (logical) reaction !!?? This stuff is better than cable TV !!
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    In addition, the MISSION "sorties" was/were said to cost 350,000 dollars in flight costs alone. Panic among NYC liberals....PRICELESS....? :sick: :lemon:
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    ..."AP: Mexico's epidemiology boss faults WHO"...

    link title
This discussion has been closed.

Your Privacy

By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our Visitor Agreement.