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
Phoenix would essentially be unbearable without air conditioning.
One does have to wonder, however, whether 1.5 °F change in temperature would have a significant effect when the annual variation of temperature in many places is well over 100 °F.
It depends on where you're applying that 1.5 degree change. In late December or January, that could mean a difference between a 800 accident day in Dallas area or one that is more of a normal day. It could mean enough of a variation in the temperature of the ocean water to fuel or not fuel a hurricane, ice melt or whatever.
me: from all the news clips in Iraq, I don't see many AC's (at least w/o bullet holes in them), and the temp. gets to 120F there.
But I agree, those temps. are borderline tolerable. People may have to abandon those areas if GW is going higher; but there is an awful lot of land that is uncomfortably cold that could become more hospitable.
Next you might say, that those people can drink out of public tap water. Think an average American would consider that safe? People in different parts of the world have different tolerance to a lot of things. When was the last time you could live without AC like those people? I bet they also experience black outs a lot while a black out in America might make for a headline news.
It sounds like we're back to the Butterfly Effect again. I wonder whether that trumps "gut feelings?"
We already did that after the "energy crisis" of '73-'74 so we're getting into diminishing returns on that one now.
me: Yes I think you would have to give up a lot to really make a dent in CO2 emissions. And that was my argument to you before - that people will not give up their AC units, and general energy-intensive lifestyle and goodies, just because someone says the earth is warming a few degrees.
BTW I've used AC once this year - here at work for about 2 hours in the afternoon. I could have done without it, but heck I wasn't paying the bill. I don't use it in the car, and at most I've run a fan a few nights. If it gets real hot I consider taking the day off and go swimming for those few hours. But then again I play tennis when it's 95F and humid; I just drink a lot of fluids.
You are correct about electricity being the #1 source of manmade CO2 emissions. And you are correct that some efficiencies could be achieved in each individual's households or work. I see many people who leave monitors on all weekend, leave windows open, etc. My coworker went home the other day and found her kid left the window open with the AC on. There are lots of things people could do, but when it's not really hitting their wallet, or affecting their lifestyle people do little about saving energy.
The thing you must consider though is that despite individual saving methods, if the number of individuals increases, you get no absolute savings. Despite all the EnergyStar devices and CAFE over the last 30 years, we use more energy every year.
(07-05) 04:00 PDT Washington -- Now that China has surged past the United States to become the world's leading source of greenhouse gases, pressure is growing on U.S. policymakers to cast aside longtime anti-Beijing sentiment and help China clean up its emissions-spewing coal power industry.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/07/05/MNG1QQR9RO1.DTL
It is not about giving up something completely or a lot. A little awareness and effort can go a long way. On how many things have you see the "energy star" label? Not one bulb in my house is incandescent anymore, all fluorescent which use a fraction of energy. My landscape lighting is all solar. My home thermostat is set at 80 degrees in summer while I am home, and 86 degrees when I am not (it goes to 66 degrees during winter). On a good day, I just turn off the AC/heat. When friends ask me for advice on TV, I put LCD on top of the list, above plasma not just because I care for reliability and longetivity, but also that LCD is energy efficient. EPA (the new standard) tells me that I should expect 21 mpg from my TL. At this very moment, and after about 270 miles this month, the trip computer is showing 29 mpg in mixed driving. Am I proposing to drive a diesel or a hybrid or a CNG powered vehicle? No. I still went with my choice, and minimizing my impact.
But I'm a huge proponent of trees. I love greenery. Dallas city and its builders don't. If there is something I dislike about Dallas, it is just that, more concrete less green. Recently, a shopping complex opened about a mile from my home. Prior to the construction of that complex, the land was packed with pine trees. All but 15 trees in a corner were chopped off. Now, it looks like a very expensive forest with shrubberies (sorry, couldn't resist a Monty Python moment) bought from a landscape supply store. Perhaps they should have left or reused those mature pine trees. But no, here in Dallas, we love our concrete.
And I'm not someone you would call an environmentalist as I am far from it.
Me too. I may have planted more trees on property I own than anyone on here. Did I do it as a carbon sink or to gain carbon credits. No I like trees better than open land. I like citrus trees and avocado trees. I plant palm trees and flowering trees.
I see the rain forest being cut down to grow crops such as sugar to supply fuel and wonder why. Iowa was at one time a huge hardwood forest. They have cleared over 90% of the land to grow crops. Now mostly corn to make ethanol. And some environmentalist think this is good. Well I don't and if it warms up, I am with Kernick, GOOD, I like it warm.
Oh by the way there is a lot of evidence that fluorescent bulbs are detrimental to your health.
What isn't?
Funny, I just saw a banner at C&D "if every home in the USA replaced five bulbs with fluorescent ones, that would be akin to taking 8 million cars off the road"
And I'm assuming that is taking into account, not just emissions, but energy usage (by cars themselves, during oil extraction, refinement, transportation/delivery and pumping etc).
I'm sure if you eat enough of them you'll at least feel a little bit ill.
Q 5: Are CF bulbs harmful to my health?
A 5: There are common myths that fluorescent lights cause headaches, rob the body of Vitamin B and can cause seizures. Many of these myths began when fluorescent lights first came into being in the 1940's. At that time, the phosphors (white coating on the inside of the glass tubes) were very primitive and gave off an unnatural and unpleasant bluish-green color causing people to look jaundiced or sick. The old-style tubes also produced excessive glare that prompted some people to squint and get headaches. And the ballasts were magnetic which caused the lights to flicker at 60 Hz (cycles per second). This just-barely perceptible flickering was annoying to some, and was blamed for headaches and seizures, although this effect was never proven. Today's fluorescent tubes and bulbs are vastly improved. State-of-the-art rare earth phosphors show true colors and natural skin tones. And flicker is totally eliminated with new electronic ballasts that operate as high as 20,000 Hz.
2. How do I minimize UV radiation from fluorescent lamps?
Lamp manufacturers generally strive to minimize ultraviolet (UV) radiation in all lamps used in general lighting applications.
The amount of UV produced by standard fluorescent lamps, such as those in your office, home, or school, is not hazardous and does not pose a major health concern. In fact, a paper by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) explores this subject in more detail. It cites a study in which it was determined that UV exposure from sitting indoors under fluorescent lights at typical office light levels for an eight hour workday is equivalent to just over a minute of exposure to the sun in Washington, D.C. on a clear day in July.
Some applications require the absence of UV. To completely eliminate UV, we would recommend using CovRguard® shatter-resistant lamps. Where CovRguard is not available, UV sleeves or filters are also used to eliminate UV.
back to top
3. Do light bulbs (such as compact fluorescent bulbs) give off hazardous amounts of ultraviolet (UV) light?
Regular fluorescent light bulbs used in your home and office do not produce a hazardous amount of ultraviolet light (UV). Most light sources, including fluorescent bulbs, emit a small amount of UV, but the UV produced by fluorescent light bulbs is far less than the amount produced by natural daylight. (UV light rays are the light wavelengths that can cause sunburn and skin damage.)
All of our light bulbs designed for general public use and minimize the amount of UV light emitted.
If you're looking for a low-UV bulb for an especially sensitive area, try our Saf-T-Gard® bulbs. They block most ultraviolet light emissions, and they're also shatter-resistant.
You can take it much farther than that. looking back through the last 2000 years of human history, mankind has flourished the most during the warmest periods, and conversely suffered and declined the most during the coldest. simply look at the time during the little ice age. The viking colonies were wiped out (never to return), the bubonic plague ravaged europe, there were record numbers of famines, and plagues (in one year, france experienced 70) a steep decline in the population, and a shortening of the life expectancy.
the GW nonsense just makes me laugh anymore.
China may not be the only country building more coal fired plants in the future to run our plug-in cars.
July 20, 2007;
One tainted export from China can't be avoided in North America -- air.
An outpouring of dust layered with man-made sulfates, smog, industrial fumes, carbon grit and nitrates is crossing the Pacific Ocean on prevailing winds from booming Asian economies in plumes so vast they alter the climate. These rivers of polluted air can be wider than the Amazon and deeper than the Grand Canyon.
"There are times when it covers the entire Pacific Ocean basin like a ribbon bent back and forth," said atmospheric physicist V. Ramanathan at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif.
On some days, almost a third of the air over Los Angeles and San Francisco can be traced directly to Asia. With it comes up to three-quarters of the black carbon particulate pollution that reaches the West Coast, Dr. Ramanathan and his colleagues recently reported in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
Chinese Pollution
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
But while the sulfates they carry lower temperatures by reflecting sunlight, the soot they contain absorbs solar heat, thus warming the planet.
So does anyone know if and how pollution is factored into "THE" GW model that we're all supposed to be frightened of. Has anyone found
the model/equation so we can all have a peak at it?
Fuel formulation has more to do with auto emissions than any thing else. The last smog check on my 1990 Mazda 626 came out with very clean exhaust. It Should be rated SULEV II from its emissions score.
How did that happen? Was it a problem earlier? Would it have been a problem otherwise? Is it better to keep pointing fingers at other causes to hide the rest? Or should we care about everything that makes any impact?
I would have an issue too, if someone claimed automobiles were THE cause for pollution/global warming. But I don't, since I do consider them to be A contributor to the issue.
Dallas area doesn't have many industries, but the air is far cleaner just a few miles out of the mega concrete jungle. What might be the reason?
Are you not aware of the Pareto Rule? You work on the main contributors. You also would only work on those that you know you could change. For instance we can do nothing about solar activity or volcanoes in regards to GW or air pollution. And with the current global political, social and economic programs - growth and increased standards of living, and our current technology, we will have high levels of pollution and CO2. The demand is there for cheap goods from developing countries, who will use coal to generate their electricity at the lowest possible cost.
Dallas area doesn't have many industries, but the air is far cleaner just a few miles out of the mega concrete jungle
me: you're kidding right? What are you comparing it to; some extreme like the Houston refinery area? or Mexico City?
What might be the reason?
me: diesel rigs and buses, and barbecues? Do you have power plants?
What would you like it compared to? Are you telling me that the air isn’t any different in Dallas city compared to the outskirts (much less places a hundred miles away)? But on a global scale, the idea is to minimize impact from things that we can control. And that must include every major and minor contributor. If we discriminate, then nothing gets done except pointing fingers.
You work on the main contributors. You also would only work on those that you know you could change.
You’re now agreeing with me although it remains to be decided who determines these contributors. Are automobiles not supposed to be included at all (you did throw in diesel rigs and buses as reason behind worse air quality in major cities but it seems you’re reluctant to include vehicles in general)? In a metro area like Dallas with 6 million people, you can pretty much take it for granted that 6 million plus vehicles do cause substantial damage.
me: I was commenting on your specific statement "Dallas area doesn't have many industries,..." It is not necessaryily a financial or tourist area, so I'm sure there is an average amount of industry for a city that size. It is not a refinery heavy city like Houston or Newark, but it is not exactly Orlando.
Are automobiles not supposed to be included at all
me: I'm sure there are many autos that do pollute and all emit CO2. But the pollution problem has had the fix implemented as personal autos today basically "clean the air" of pollutants. PZEV, ULEV etc. But you can still have polluting older cars or those with malfunctions. It takes many years for such a "fix" to fully have an effect (just like you don't get better the next minute when you take a pill). But I can't imagine there are that many polluting vehicles on the roads. that is why you need to focus on the main contributors of pollution - 1 diesel big rig, dump truck or bus can put out the pollution of hundreds of cars.
Up here in New Hampshire our main sources of air pollution are from power plants in the Midwest, our own power plants, people burning wood for heat, a million or so homes that use heating oil for heat 7 months of the year, and trucks. The cars that have been coming off the production lines are not a problem. they are emitting almostly entirely H2O and CO2, so I don't see what "damage" that is. The use of AC'ing, lawn mowers, boats, planes and charcoal barbecues probably put more pollution in the air in the Dallas area than autos.
If you want to look at who causes air pollution, environmental damage, and CO2 emissions, you need to look no further than the societies that promote population and economic growth, consumerism, increased lifestyles (travel/tourism - see how crowded the airports are!).
And that must include every major and minor contributor. If we discriminate, then nothing gets done except pointing fingers.
me: So it's all or nothing with you? If we took that attitude we wouldn't have any pollution reduction equipment on cars unless you could totally eliminate hydrocarbons from the exhaust? That's absolutely foolish. When looking at a problem, managers use the limited resources to target the majority of the problem. And you tackle the problems that can be solved.
We have worked for the last 30 or 40 years to reduce the pollution and emissions to the level we're at now. There has been great progress IMO. But however much we have reduced per person or auto, has been countered by an increase in overall energy usage because of our growth - numerically and economically.
The real question is how does the air quality of the Dallas area compare to the air quality say, 20 years ago? And how much of today's pollution comes from vehicles, and which particular vehicles (old versus new - with very little snow or sleet and associated road salt use, I would imagine that there isn't much a of rust problem in Dallas, which is what eventually removes most vehicles from the road)?
If the warmest year on record was 1934, that pretty much lets Bill Clinton off the hook for causing the 1998 heat wave!
Pedersen Glacier has retreated a mile (according to my guide friend) since I paddled there in 2004, for what that's worth (yeah, the photo is of Aialik, but you get the idea).
We were still suffering from global COOLING back in 1980...and no one had SUVs yet...
Heck, in 1980, the hostages were still in IRAN...
In my short lifespan, I've heard:
1) We'd be out of Oil by 1985
2) Mankind would starve due to over population
3) Reagan would blow up the world
4) We'd freeze to death from Global Cooling
All from "experts", some of the very same making warming claims today. This time they're right because we're soooo much more advanced, have better computers, more data, blah blah blah... Sorry but everything changes, probably much beyond our feeble control. Sure, I'm all for cleaner air, water and food...who isn't?
Are we about done here? GW is finished?
Don't forget the Politics discussion (I know you found it, but others may not know about it).
You just have to look at which YEAR it was...:):):)...if it was 1998 and Clinton was pres, Kerry, Clinton, Kennedy, et al knew it...if it was 2001-2, after we had been attacked on 9/11, and we had already planned the expense of going to Afghanistan (sp?), skipping over to Iraq was, really, quite an efficient move, to kill two birds with one stone...
The error, I believe, was that we should have left once Saddam was found (and should have been shot and killed on sight) in the spider hole...it was the staying there that, IMO, caused the problem we know have...
We should have deaprted when the boat said Mission Accomplished
Let's either get back to global warming stuff in here or call it toast and move on to The Inconvenient Truth About Ethanol or Should cell phone drivers be singled out? or some other fun discussion. Thanks.
Most of the recent global-warming alarmists use 1998 as the benchmark for the hottest year on record, but it turns out that their reporting is flawed, the result of a math blunder.
In fact, 1934 was the hottest year on record, and four of the ten hottest years in the U.S. were recorded in the 1930s. The second hottest year on record was 1998, but the third hottest was 1921, not 2006. Notably, six of the ten hottest years occurred prior to 90 percent of the economic growth associated with increased greenhouse-gas emissions.
H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, reports, “Much of the current global-warming fear has been driven by [NASA scientist James] Hansen’s pronouncements, and he routinely claims to have been censored by the Bush administration for his views on warming. Now that NASA, without fanfare, has cleaned up his mess, Hansen has been silent—I guess we can chalk this up to self-censorship.”
New climate reports
In the winter of 2007, NASA satellites indicated that water temperatures in the Gulf of Alaska were dropping, suggesting that cooling Pacific waters may be a precursor to the reversal of a 30-year warming trend. The cooling resulted in the coldest season of Arctic air the lower 48 have seen in more than three decades.
Additionally, Reuters “News” Service reports, “Australian scientists have discovered a giant underwater current that is one of the last missing links of a system that connects the world’s oceans and helps govern global climate. New research shows that a current sweeping past Australia’s southern island of Tasmania toward the South Atlantic is a previously undetected part of the world climate system’s engine-room.”
This, of course, raises an all-important question: How can the climate debate be “settled” if we still don’t know what we don’t know?
What we do know is this is something that is easily related to children. So we are brainwashing our children into thinking that GW is a done deal and momma and daddy are the cause, driving there Lexus RX350 to drop them off at school. Our education system is a shambles and crap like GW does not help teach children what they need to cope in this world. Movies like the Inconvenient truth should be banned from at least grade school kids. It took me several days to convince my grandson that it was all political designed to get certain people elected to office. I believe he told his 4th grade teacher GW was voodoo science.
Ohhh great gagrice!! Next thing we know, Libs will be whining its all "for the children" and how heartless, cold and uncaring (besides all the other normal accusations :)we are because we all don't march in goose step with them. Don't help em!! Of course Libs can show "Truth" but you'll never get them to show "The great global warming swindle" from the BBC.....could never expect balance or even an attempt at it
Arctic sea ice expected to hit record low ("There is an element of human activity in the cause of this melt," said Drobot. "Natural variations can't explain everything.")
Now that Rupert Murdock is on board, you'll likely even see similar stories at the WSJ (he's already editorializing on Fox, which doesn't exactly have CNN's rep):
Rupert Murdoch's climate crusade