-June 2024 Special Lease Deals-
2024 Chevy Blazer EV lease from Bayway Auto Group Click here
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee lease from Mark Dodge Click here
2025 Ram 1500 Factory Order Discounts from Mark Dodge Click here
2024 Chevy Blazer EV lease from Bayway Auto Group Click here
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee lease from Mark Dodge Click here
2025 Ram 1500 Factory Order Discounts from Mark Dodge Click here
Options
Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
How many dozens of examples would you like?
Welcome to the 21st century. We are going through water rationing. And they keep issuing new building permits for both commercial and residential. If we don't have enough water for the people in CA presently, why build anymore homes? Put roadblocks at the border. When someone moves out you let an equal amount in. Shoot anyone illegally crossing the Mexican border. So glaciers in So America melting may cause them the same problems we are already experiencing. Cutting CO2 will not increase our water supply. They could start by executing all the people on death row that are sucking up water. Our government does not know how to deal with the real problems. So they make up straw problems like GW.
I love seeing eagles in Anchorage and other places. However they are becoming a nuisance in many places that have open dumps in Alaska. The increase in population is a direct result of large populations around garbage dumps in many Eskimo villages. That we can blame on man. Has nothing to do with GW though.
Not so sure IM tests have much to do with cleaner air. That is just another money making scam. Cleaner gas and diesel was the real plus to cleaning our air. All the gizmos had a slight affect. Getting our vehicles to run more efficiently was a factor. From 1990 to 2009 there is not that much improvement on a car by car comparison. Our well maintained LS400 gets very good marks on the test every other year. The improvement over the last 20 years is insignificant. Other than the LS is much faster if that helps the environment.
Yes! . Food for your Peregrines? West Nile Virus is alive and well here also. So how many other examples would you like to match up with yours?
Let's see, directly with transportation. For years EPA enforced leaded regular !!?? For some reason, it took a number of years not to put in lead !!??? How INSANE IS THAT?? Then in the late 70's changed to so called unleaded regular that was supposed to end the emissions gig. Then they regulated the D2 side by letting most generators go unregulated and literally unchanged. LSD 500 ppm was later mandated but shipping which burns bunker oil up to 20,000 ppm sulfur is regulated in the EXACT same way unregulated by regulation or really regulated by remaining unregulated !!?? Oct 2006 sees actually ULSD @ 15-5 ppm which should have been done 30 years ago. Bio diesel (B5 to B100) that is even less than a boutique product is @ ZERO ppm sulfur and there is almost NO population to speak of that burns it !! ??? And now we find out that RUG to PUG was only recently required to really be 90 ppm sulfur and off line mitigated by fees to 30 ppm sulfur. !!!! So the REALITY is RUG to PUG is up to 18 x dirtier than so called "dirty diesel". And of course, my two TDI's that burn ULSD (15-5 ppm sulfur) are responsible for ALL the smog in LA LA county !!!
I did tell the story of having to drive 600 miles R/T to get a smog certification I could have gotten two miles R/T away but they said it HAD to be smog tested in the county of domicile !!!??
The longer I am back in CA the more I detest everything about this state's government. My daughter is so happy in Indiana where there are still some freedoms left. She does not miss CA at all.
I think you can get smogged at the repair shops here too.
Every two years is probably sufficient; 5 may be a bit much.
In the news, GM seems to be embracing Maximum Bob, and showing the greenies the door.
GM Environmental Officer Lowrey Follows Hydrogen Czar Burns Out the Door (Green Car Advisor)
Doesn't sound like Obama is running the shop closely enough if he let that happen.
Didn't the Car Czar quit the Obama team and let GM drift back into their old ways? How is putting more Silverado's on the highway with the C4C plan going to help the environment? I am not sure why I bother to conserve with the attitude of our Government.
I would agree, but for this:
Tesla Turns Monthly Profit After 7 Years: Its Cars Go Fast, Expenses Went Faster (Green Car Advisor)
If Tesla can make a profit, there's hope for GM yet!
Hmm, $3 billion for clunkers and Tesla recently received federal advanced technology loans of $465 million. I suppose those loans could be paid back. Maybe. Possibly.
I'd rather see the money go for more clunker vouchers myself.
By now, most are acquainted with the 27 mpg standard that has been in effect for... many years. The only thing to have changed seems to be the actual number. The new number is actually 35.5 mpg in MY 2016.
It might be particularly instructive that the literally ubiquitious Camry/Accord was included then disallowed as a gas guzzler,aka cash for clunkers candidate @ 18 mpg/ 19 mpg old EPA standard new EPA standards. So deviation from the 27 mpg standard is -33%. So fast forward to 35.5 mpg, 2016 standards. Using the same deviation -33% that is is 23.79 mpg. So the V6 Camry/Accord @22 mpg combined is almost in compliance with the 2016 standards. The 4 cylinder would certainly be @ 24 mpg combined !!!????
WASHINGTON -- When 10 members of Congress wanted to study climate change, they did more than just dip their toes into the subject: They went diving and snorkeling at the Great Barrier Reef. They also rode a cable car through the Australian rain forest, visited a penguin rookery and flew to the South Pole.
The 11-day trip -- with six spouses traveling along as well -- took place over New Year's 2008. Details are only now coming to light as part of a Wall Street Journal analysis piecing together the specifics of the excursion.
It's tough to calculate the travel bills racked up by members of Congress, but one thing's for sure: They use a lot of airplanes. In recent days, House of Representatives members allocated $550 million to upgrade the fleet of luxury Air Force jets used for trips like these -- even though the Defense Department says it doesn't need all the planes.
The South Pole trip, led by Rep. Brian Baird (D., Wash.), ranks among the priciest. The lawmakers reported a cost to taxpayers of $103,000.
That figure, however, doesn't include the actual flying, because the trip used the Air Force planes, not commercial carriers. Flight costs would lift the total tab to more than $500,000, based on Defense Department figures for aircraft per-hour operating costs.
Lawmakers say the trip offered them a valuable chance to learn about global warming and to monitor how federal funds are spent. "The trip we made was more valuable than 100 hearings," said Rep. Baird, its leader. "Are there members of Congress who take trips somewhat recreationally? Perhaps. Is this what this trip was about? Absolutely not."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124967502810515267.html
By: Kevin Mooney
Commentary Staff Writer
08/06/09 12:34 AM EDT
Researchers who have inspected climate monitoring stations across the U.S. have found that almost 90 percent of the weather monitoring stations have failed to meet National Weather Service requirements.
Anthony Watts, a retired meteorologist, and a team of over 650 volunteers, photographically documented 1003 out of 1,221 of the climate monitoring stations managed by the U.S. Weather Service. The results of this survey show that the temperature cited as proof of man-made global warming is laced with false biases in favor of alarmism.
“We found stations located next to exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat,” Watts said. “We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.”
The research team also determined that 89 percent did not measure up to the National Weather Service’s requirement that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating source. This means almost 9 out of every 10 stations are reporting higher temperatures because they are badly sited.
“The errors in the record exceed by a wide margin the purported rise in temperatures of 0.7 degrees C (about 1.2 degrees F) during the twentieth century,” Watts said.
An analysis of 948 stations rated as of May 31, 2009, Watts estimates that 22 percent of stations have an expected error of 1 degree C, 61 percent have an expected error of 2 degrees C, and 8 percent have an expected error of 5 degrees C.
“This record should not be cited as evidence of any trend in temperature that may have occurred across the U.S. during the past century,” he said. “Since the U.S. record is thought to be `the best in the world,’ it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable.”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Weather-sta- tions-give-flawed-temperature-data-meteorologist-claims--52563192.html
But for detecting climate change, the concern is not the absolute temperature, whether a station is reading warmer or cooler than a nearby station over grass, but how that temperature changes over time."
No Congressman Left Behind: Rising Temperatures (Oakleigh)
..."but how that temperature changes over time."...
The temperature change delta measure has to again begin with acurate numbers!!??
The "cloud ships" are favoured among a series of schemes aimed at altering the climate which have been weighed up by a leading think-tank.
The project, which is being worked on by rival US and UK scientists, would see 1,900 wind-powered ships ply the oceans sucking up seawater and spraying minuscule droplets of it out through tall funnels to create large white clouds.
These clouds, it is predicted, would reflect around one or two per cent of the sunlight that would otherwise warm the ocean, thereby cancelling out the greenhouse effect caused by Carbon Dioxide emissions.
The unmanned ships would be directed by satellite to areas with the best conditions for increasing cloud cover, mainly in the Pacific and far enough away from land so as not to affect normal rainfall patterns.
Other ideas, such as sending mirrors into space by rocket to deflect the sun's rays, and scattering iron powder into the seas to boost CO2-absorbing plankton, have been dismissed as unfeasible or too expensive.
According to The Times, The Royal Society is expected to announce that the decade-old cloud ship plan is one of the most promising.
The Copenhagen Consensus Centre, which advises governments on how to spend aid money, examined the various plans and found the cloud ships to be the most cost-effective.
They would cost $9 billion (£5.3 billion) to test and launch within 25 years, compared to the $250 billion that the world’s leading nations are considering spending each year to cut CO2 emissions, and the $395 trillion it would cost to launch mirrors into space.
picture
When are the GW wonks going to come to the realization the World is going broke? We cannot even feed ourselves. Where are these TRILLIONS going to come from. Even if they took all the cash from all the billionaires in the World it would not be a Trillion dollars.
http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/4799/
"...But Reason and its ideological cousin the Cato Institute have spent twenty years plumping for any global warming skeptic they can find or fund—their position, apparently, is that the atmospheric chemists and physicists who, by application of the scientific process, have reached broad consensus that we are warming the Earth have somehow managed to screw up the math. It’s embarrassing to read—no argument is too absurd or too trivial...."
"And third, by refusing to engage the reality of the problem, conservatives as a whole have contributed nothing to the search for workable solutions. This is unfortunate, because their help would be useful..."
Actually, I would be happy if they would just admit to AGCC and agree to help fund research into understanding the issue. We could certainly explore zero or very low cost solutions until we understand and can predict future impacts.
And in the theater of the absurd, I looked up the stats on the Cadillac Escalade - weight 5,810, horsepower 403, 13.1 tons of CO2. I was floored by the HP numbers. I expected something around 350. And why do we need 403 hp? To take junior to soccer practice? To pick up a loaf of bread? Or maybe all that hp is useful siting in LA traffic??? And people wonder why we need to import 60% of the oil we use.
I agree that is a waste of resources. However the same Democrats that are pushing climate change legislation have blocked more efficient sources of power for these larger vehicles. GM was building a diesel engine for the chassis the Escalade uses. It would have nearly doubled the MPG out on the highway. It was canceled because the cost of meeting the regulations is too stiff. Maybe our Congress needs to decide which pollutants need to be addressed. Then make common sense legislation. Utopia is not an option, in spite of those that would like to believe it is. We are not going to cool our homes without some negatives involved. We are not going to grow our food without causing some adverse affect on the environment. We are not going to drive even an EV without some environmental expense.
What those that push for Climate Change regulation really want, they are afraid to ask for. They would like to eliminate about half the World's population. That not being politically correct they try coming in through the back door. Just starve them out and freeze them out. Cap n Trade is just such a vehicle to do that. Will 25% to 50% increase in utilities kill me? Not likely. How about the family they convinced they needed to own their own home and are upside down in their mortgage right now? Add $100 or more to their monthly utilities and they will likely walk away from their home. If they can find someone to rent to them with a foreclosure record, they will not have to live out of their car. Unless they have lost their job due to repressive government regulations. The 2008 crash was in part a result of business fearing the worst with a totally Democratic controlled Congress and Administration. I think their fears are well founded. We are fortunate that a few in that Congress are starting to see the light and pulling away from the high and mighty ideas that are sure to bankrupt US all.
China and India refuse to buy into the madness. I say good for them. The GW advocates have not come up with ANY common sense solutions. Only tax, tax, tax then waste, waste, waste. :sick:
Try to keep in mind that a big share of the conservatives are the small business people in this country. The current Federal, State and local governments as a whole are their enemies. They are being buried under heavy tax burdens, regulations and red tape. The future for business and jobs in this country is bleak at best. It is hard to get fired up over Man Made Climate Change theories, when you are being shot at by half a dozen government agencies.
I was a bit floored by the 2010 Prius.
It has a 1.8l engine with 134 hp. The curb weight is 3042 lbs. Seats 5.
Now take the Scion xD, another 5 seater.
It has a 1.8l engine with 128 hp, curb weight 2624 lbs.
I had just assumed that the gas engine was probably around 60 hp in the hybrid since the electric motor can contribute to propulsion. Those 400 pounds must be a killer.
Indeed the powers and regulations that be made 24 mpg in a gasser "better" than 50 mph in an 03 VW Jetta gasser vs TDI. Indeed the TDI put out 98 hp. So the Prius is a muscle car @ 134 hp !!! ??? So why do you ask the question when you already know the answer?.
Indeed there were some years when that Cadillac was totally legal and new diesels could not be sold that got 45-50 mpg !!
On the other hand it's sort of nice to be able to see and feel a stimulus like this one, instead of wondering where in the world all the bank bailout money went.
But some fuel saving or air quality stats would be good to see.
So for example, my 2515# Civic gets 38-42 mpg (same commute) while my 2950 (435#'s delta) Jetta TDI gets 48-52 mpg. !! ??
I often wonder what my TDI drive train would get in a 2515# chassis, mpg wise !! I already swag the power to weight ratio would make the much lighter chassis a lot more fun to drive. I would swag the mpg would jump dramatically also, Again a swag but a MINIMUIM of 4 mpg MORE for a (now) range of 52 to 56 mpg !!! .
Of course, it should be apparent the Civic drive train pushing a 2950 # chassis would take a giant loss of mpg. I would swag the loss would be -4 mpg min for a (now )range of 34 to 38 mpg.
Well no. To me it would be more "intergral. " However using the Former CEO of GE's Jack Welch saying: "What gets measured gets done", 3,000,000,000 (billion) $ speaks.... volumes.... vs no, none, nada, zip, zippo, ZERO to even a cursury look at the effects to the air quality.
Is this a trick question? :surprise: You mean I have the option to pick the mighty Exxon, you know, the one that "Just last year, ... recorded the largest corporate annual net income ever, $45.22 billion." http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jul2009/db20090730_219469.ht- m
or the almost dead revolutionary. Let me get back to you on that one.
Seriously, I think they will use all the oil they find for their own needs.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/country_energy_data.cfm?fips=CU
They import about 128,000 barrels a day. We could also assume that as production increases Cuba will start to use more....to drive around in these
http://www.danheller.com/cuba-cars.html
On a related note, Mexico is upset that the U.S. may start drilling in oil fields that straddle the gulf border. They are concerned that the oil on their side will get sucked up by U.S. rigs.
Your comment also reminded me of the missing island issue.
http://www.spacedaily.com/2006/090211185744.8z1tpwk3.html
Gee those old 1950's cars (wrecks by our "standards") are sure getting a BAD rap !! Viva da Emperor !!! He is da best PRESIDENT we've ever had !!
Really anybody in America can pay 8 per gal gas !!! Just calculate how many gals you use in a year and make an IRS donation April 15 to mitigate to 8 per gal !! Funny how those advocating $8.00 per gal gas don't indeed do this !!?? See... easy, eh? I am missing the .74 cents a gal RUG in 1987....
So what is the environmental battle plan when Russia and China have their oil spills off the coast of Cuba? (aka affects the Florida Keys and Coasts?)
Hopefully you have some of your 401K in oil stocks such as Exxon. It always cracks me up to see those figures. Exxon does not make any higher percentage on investment than Coca Cola which is much less important than oil for our survival. And they do not make a fraction of what Microsoft makes most years. Too bad we don't have leaders in our country that are as capable at managing money as Exxon does. I am thankful that Exxon and the other oil companies have done so well at providing our fuel needs over the years. If it was the government we would be lucky to have access to gas once a week. Check out Mexico sometime. They have many times when there is no gas at the government run stations. And they are an exporter of oil.
You want Putin drilling off our coast, I do not, simple as that. Anyone that cares about the environment would not want Russia or China drilling 40 miles off our coast.
Coke would do even better if they got all the tax breaks for coke exploration that Exxon gets for drilling for oil. Oil and Gas Tax Breaks: $2.4 billion a year
The $3 billion clunker program will probably "find" more gas in three months than the $2.4 billion yearly tax break has contributed to increasing oil reserves.
I'm not sure why this is in the news today. I thought the Pentagon came out with a global warming national security warning a few years back:
Military Admits Global Warming a Threat to National Security (Chattahbox.com)
Essentially that would be way cool if you could pour coke in your tank as fuel and takes a load off corporations like Exxon coming up with dry holes.
But this brings up at least another anamoly. It is perfectly logical to pay for dry holes, (aka wasted money for... no result), and not pay to make bio diesel from algae a reality !!?? Algae growth and its downstream harvesting for D2 ethanol and livestock feedis absolutely slam dunk. It is proven by millions of years, and evolution. it can be constantly improved by genetic engineering. What oil refining or drilling process eats C02 and produces oxygen? The process is essentially carbon neutral. Petro is NOT carbon neutral. D2 from algae growth is literally an on demand proposition.
I have suspected that to be true for some time. Perhaps we should have a Congressional investigation to determine if GW zealots were responsible for the placement.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Steve, Steve, I'm calling BS on that one. Does Coke build a bottling plant and just hope that soda is produced? Have they built a lot of plants that turn out to be dry holes? Would the military be unable to fight if the coke supply ran out?
If they did I might be in favor of them getting tax breaks too.
I have no love for big oil but they get demonized to an incredible degree by people who have their own money making adgenda.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
I want you to think about that for a while. Every agency in the Government will want a piece of the Climate Change Pie. To get it you have to be on board with those in charge of handing it out. Follow the money...
Interesting point Ruking - it is incredibly expensive to drill but that's just a cost of doing business. But everyone screams to the hills about paying for a clean coal demonstration or battery funding.
Oldfarmer, some of my best friends are oil trash. They do make easy targets eh?
The tax breaks for oil exploration are a pittance compared to the corporate taxes paid to the Federal government. Reality check:
In other words, just one corporation (Exxon Mobil) pays as much in taxes ($27 billion) annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers paid in 2004 (most recent year available), which is 65,000,000 people! Further, the tax rate for the bottom 50% was only 3% of adjusted gross income ($27.4 billion / $922 billion) in 2004, and the tax rate for Exxon was 41% in 2006 ($67.4 billion in taxable income, $27.9 billion in taxes).
As the Feds keep strangling business they will be getting less and less taxes. Oh, that is already happening. Companies don't make money they don't pay taxes. Think US automakers. No taxes for the last few years. Just leeches on the rest of US.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Either way, nobody should feel sorry for that company.
So why is VW able to meet the regulations? GM seems to be willing to make a Tahoe Hybrid. How much does that cost over the regular gasoline version?
http://www.timesleader.com/news/Can_diesel_pass_dirty_reputation__08-09-2009.htm- l
"Count Bob Lutz, General Motors Co.’s outspoken design czar, among diesel’s detractors....He said in a Web chat earlier this month that diesel isn’t the focus of GM’s technology strategy, pointing out that extra costs, including emissions controls, comes to about $6,000 per vehicle with only a 20 percent improvement in mileage."
What gives? What other costs and how much are they? The Volkswagen Touareg TDi and MB 320 TDi are not $6,000 more than the gasoline counterpart. I thought the rule of thumb was 20 to 40% improvement for diesels depending on the application.
Diesels do decrease CO2 emissions relative to gasoline engines. And, with diesel prices at about the same as gasoline they do have a decent payback. The arguments made by Lutz do not seem to add up.
Probably true. I noticed that the local Toyota dealer lot looked like a ghost town today. They reported their best July sales ever - that might explain the lack of cars.
They are going to do it anyway. How would you stop them drilling off Cuba?
'Anyone that cares about the environment would not want Russia or China drilling 40 miles off our coast."
Not to worry, a 3.5 meter sea level rise will increase the distance from our coast to the oil rigs by a good 50 miles. :shades:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/coastal/slrmaps_sa_fl.html
We really do need a "Bob Newhart" sarcasm icon.
"I thought the rule of thumb was 20 to 40% improvement for diesels depending on the application."
As an observation, the 09 gasser VW Jetta is rated @ 24 mpg C, the TDI is @ 38 mpg C, the TDI being 58% better.
Best suggestion I've heard all year. :shades:
And we do have a "Bob" here we can harass all day... oh Bob. He does a good M*A*S*H* impersonation too. No Emily's though.
Yes, he is a fine example of someone who makes really, really, good decisions...NOT!
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I'm going to say German engineering vs GM engineering. Has Lutz and company done anything of note but lose money in the last 20+ years? Right today a Jetta TDI with tax credit is less than the comparable gas version. It has more torque and many are getting up to 50 MPG.
If Lutz is proud of the Tahoe Hybrid he needs to have a reality check. Any new Tahoe will get 20 MPG on the highway. That is what the Tahoe hybrid is rated at. The non hybrid is rated 8200 lbs towing vs the hybrid at 6000 lbs. One of the main reasons given for buying a big SUV is towing. All that for a cool $10,000 more. Some deal. Many folks with the Chevy Duramax get 22-24 MPG and it is a fire breathing engine.
A 6 cylinder diesel is all that is needed in a half ton rig. No one is coming to the plate so everyone continues to buy what is available. Maybe India or China will show Detroit how it is done. That is if the Feds don't continue to protect their gas guzzling trucks.
How's it do in town though? The hybrids all do better in town than on the highway.
When hybrids match utility and are cost effective I will consider one again. My experience was less than positive.
PS
There is 2 people posted on fueleconomy for their GMC hybrids. One is getting 16 MPG the other 19 MPG mostly highway driving. It would take a couple hundred years with only 1 MPG gain to pay the $10 grand difference. I want no less than 30 MPG highway in a mid to large SUV. When they get those I will part with some more cash. Until then the auto industry can die for all I care.