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 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Whomever said it, is contradicting the UN report on Global Warming. I do understand with so much hype how they could have made such a HUGE error. Trucks, planes and ships contribute a lot more than cars. According to other reports that may be bad information from someone in the restroom at a Yankees game.
His movie and book.
His speeches.
His investments.
His rich wife.
What he does to earn that money is not the point. He at no point in his life said, "I'm gonna invent some bogus Global Warming Agenda and fake out the world and get rich on something that's not TRUE AT ALL !!!"
You can bet your bottom dollar that Algore BELIEVES that GW is real and believes man is causing it.
I'm neither disagreeing or agreeing with him. He is getting rich from it, but not because he's using it as a scam.
No REAL SCIENTISTS are getting rich from GW.
He's all for reducing carbon so long as he gets to keep his mansion, 30k electric bill, private jet, limos and all the other trappings.
He is making money on Global Warming speculation.
But like I said in my last post: Not because he sees it as a scam. It's because he believes man is causing it.
link
I think there's where a lot of the money is coming from for that ad campaign I linked earlier.
In the other corner we have Ford, Exxon, et. al funding the CEI ads (well, Ford supports CEI but disclaims funding the CO2 ads).
link
Good quote in that link -- "As for the business world, smart companies are way past wondering what climate change is all about and have moved on to thinking about solutions."
His movie is the biggest "hammer" used so far to drive the idea home to the masses. But he did not "create it" any more than he "created the Internet." LOL
It's a scam if you are selling it and do not personally believe it. If you believe it to be true yourself, and you are trying to convince others of it, it's called a "cause" or in his case I think he sees it as a "calling."
He may not have created the hysteria, but he's a large part of it. He desn't objectively look at it. He proclaims the end of the world unless we do what he tells us to.
as for algore's movie
link title
I'm not defending Algore.
This line of discussion came about because Gary says that GW is "all about money" and I disagree.
I believe it's about recognizing a problem (the warming of the Earth) and trying to find a scientific explanation of the cause and trying to take steps to curb the problem, IF WE CAN.
Anyone have anything else to add on that particular topic?
"In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request."
That has been one of my main contentions throught this whole discussion. We don't even study weather or not its happening. we assume it is, then fund research to determin how bad it is, what the consequences will be, and what we have to do to stop it.
But harris just wrote the article, the quotes come from actual climate specialists, ones with a more objective and open mind.
Money is the lifeblood of the research world. research scientist don't do anything to make money. they rely on government and private sector funding. and whenever governments are handing out the money, there will be polotics involved.
Let me put it to you this way. I would not take seriously any GW study funded by the auto industry, or oil industry. I don't think I need to explain why. By they same token, I am equally suspicious of government funded GW studies.
Quotes have a funny way of being pulled out of context. Pick out a quote or a so-called denier or so-called Algoreite and I bet I can find a quote that looks like the person stands for the opposite position that everyone thinks he or she takes. :shades:
Even Ford (you know, an automaker) has been doing sustainability stuff for several years now that makes them look like one of the biggest supporters of the Algorite position around (link). Makes it hard to reconcile their CAFE position sometimes.
Lots of this talk is just yammering (nothing personal). The people have spoken and if you are in biz, you'll try to increase your carbon offsets or suffer the wrath of the consumer or your shareholders.
If you're a parent, your kid is going to hammer you, because the kids aren't believing the handouts and coloring books that the America Coal Industry tries to foist on the NEA (and you thought trying to give An Inconvenient Truth DVDs to the teachers was brainwashing).
If you're a politician ... well, even GW himself came around to believing in GW (maybe the Pentagon convinced him?).
How major a cause of GW does an auto have to be to go to the next step? And what steps do we take or not take? Stricter CAFE? Higher road use taxes or a fee on peak car use? A GW surcharge on gasoline?
Maybe we can give everyone who lives within 2 miles of the coast a $400 grant so they can put a lift kit on their car so they can still drive over the flooded roads. :P
Not trying to jump you here, but I try to keep things simple. Gore is suggesting that we change to save the world. Assuming he believes it, why won't he change? If things are as dire as he states why would he set foot on a jet again?
Given that question that I can't easily answer I have to assume things are not as bad as he is saying, or else he would not fly/drive/have a big house etc.
Given that he is a huge proponent of man made global warming, yet he cannot walk the walk what am I suppose to make of that?
I think of the phrase of lead by example.
"When it rains, it gets cooler.
If it does not rain, it will stay hot."
That's nice, but my post was in response to your contention regarding the effect of dust on temperature. Rain was never mentioned.
Generally, it is best to respond to the point raised, not one that is unrelated. That tends to boost your credibility.
The horrible conditions are the result of humans NOT having enough influence over the environment, hence they are at the mercy of disease, harsh weather and other natural plagues.
Our better conditions are the result of a cumulative series of technological and agricultural improvements fueled by the higher standard of living brought about by energy-intensive industries.
In other words, the processes and industries that many environmentalists criticize are the source of our greater health and welfare.
Our conditions are better because we have insulated ourselves from the natural environment. That is why New Englanders don't freeze to death in January; why Texas, Arizona and New Mexico can be inhabited even in August; why heat waves result in inconvenience as opposed to large-scale deaths; and why the last really devastating epidemic in the United States was the influenza epidemic of 1918.
Disease, borderline starvation, early death and near constant warfare are the natural living conditions for large groups of people. Thanks to our technology, which has conquered many aspects of the natural environment, we in the United States (and Europe, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore and Australia) have moved beyond that.
robertsmx: I can't imagine what our part of the world will be like, if everybody chose to be that way... ignore the impact. Fortunately, we don't, and a good reason why we can even talk about new cars being so much more cleaner than those from the 1960s.
For years the United States didn't have any major environmental regulations, and our conditions, even at the beginning of the great industrialization surge in the wake of the Civil War, were never as bad as they are in some Third World countries today.
There is more to it to than the mere absence of regulations.
My cred is fine around here.
And I'm not dodging anything.
I've already had my say on the dirty cars thing.
You thinking you refuted it is fine with me. My posts stand alone and speak logically for themselves.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand......
These few tips and modifications might knock a few million pounds of CO2 out of the picture:
We can all help a little bit
The Loire Valley in France brings images of magnificent castles, breathtaking landscape, superb wine, and driving 10,705 miles per gallon (3,789 km/l). A team of students at the La Joliverie in Loire won the 2003 Shell Eco-Marathon race with this remarkable fuel economy. Yes, you read that right - over 10,000 mpg and the fuel was gasoline. It was not an electric vehicle. It was not even a hybrid. The vehicle was shaped for minimal wind resistance.
The vehicle was also built with new materials that are lighter, stronger, and available in some new models now in car showrooms. When you buy your next vehicle, you can get 40 miles per gallon (mpg), not 14 mpg, by selecting a vehicle that is lighter and more aerodynamic. Some people want you to think that you need to wait years before you can get a car with great mileage. This is not true. You can get over 40 miles per gallon today. You do not need to wait for future technologies.
By going on an energy diet we can have healthy cities, be energy independent, and stop global warming. This can be done with modest annual improvements. We could cut vehicle greenhouse gas emissions by 60% by improving mileage 4% annually for 22 years.
Sure, I think we all understand that. I had a Honda CRX that got 40mpg, and I've now got a car that gets 25mpg. Why because I wanted more room, power, AWD, and safety from increased mass. And there are few cars like the CRX made these days because people simply prefer to use more energy to have a larger, more powerful, roomier vehicle. The POSITIVES outweigh the perceived negatives of the difference in fuel economy.
It is inherent in our lifestyle and economic goals to earn more to consume more. People are working so they can buy the bigger vehicle, put in the hottub, take an extra airtrip/year, buy a bigger TV ... All these things require energy - mostly from carbon-based fuels. People are not going to strive to make money, to have it simply sit in the bank. And frankly our government wants us to spend the money, consume, and increase economic activity.
So if you think people are going to voluntarily cut back on their lifestyle ... well you're not dealing with reality.
We all understand that all people have to do quit smoking, taking drugs, or being an alcoholic is "just say no". And obese people just need to stick with their diet to solve their problem. But these things are not happening because the majority of people will do what they like, not what's best for them.
And since our government is elected by us, then we are likely to get representatives who enact policies for what we want, not necessarily what's best for us.
It is not an American thing either. People globally are trying to grab as much wealth and an improved lifestyle, as they can.
It sure doesn't sound to me that the science is complete on this issue (when you can't account for a large % of what you're studying).
I agree with much of what you have said. However:
Actually, it has already happened on a small scale. With the gasoline price spike of 2005-current, many MANY people have traded out of SUVs and into smaller cars. It effectively ended the long "Era of the SUV" and now cross-overs and smaller cars are making a sales surge.
Not on the scale we need to have SERIOUS impact on pollution, but every little bit helps. For every individual family that downsizes their SUV to a family car, there are usually several tons of reduced CO2 output on the positive side of the ledger and there is usually less fossil fuel burned.
Sure, there will always be hundreds of millions of people worldwide who will not sacrifice anything in their life to reduce pollution or to reduce their own carbon footprint.
But for every one of us who decides to do so, the world will be made an even better place.
Can't be cynical and throw our hands up and just say "forget it" now can we?
This really isn't true at all.
Aside from the really small hybrids,most hybrids don't achieve any real gain over their normal gasoline powered twins,plus they cost more.
In the case of the Prius and Civic Hybrid,alot more.
So, for most people buying a hybrid is penny wise and pound foolish.
Very little we can do will have any real impact on the planets climate long or short term. The Earth has a self adjusting mechanism. coast lines change,mountain rise and fall. it is arrogance to assume that the Earth must stay static.
I think most of the hysteria over this issue is politically driven. There are people who think we have too much and others not enough and want to reign in the American lifestyle.
That is not to say that we do not live in a throw away society,because we do.
Todays kids are really no better about it than we were,and they really don't care any more than we did.
Economics will win out in the end. There is alot we can do,but it costs money.
If company A lives the green life,but its products are more than company B,more consumers will buy from company B.
your only choice is to mandate a certian standard,but that will result in economic upheaval that no politician really wants to face.
Taking the next step, will take decades.
The modern automobiles sold in the US are the cleanest buring cars ever produced. Their contribution to global warming is minor compared to some of the other contributors around the globe. Everyone in the US could drive electric cars,but if the pollution in the rest of the world,esp the developing world isn't addressed, it will all have been for nothing.
I don't think CAFE standards or road taxes or gas taxes are fair or workable.
My idea would be for a tax on engine displacement.
Buy a big engine,pay a big tax just like in Europe.
Say you buy a car or truck w/ a 5.0L V8,and it has a $5000 Federal Tax on it,would you maybe reconsider that purchase?
What if you could buy the same car or truck w/ a 3.0L engine w/ no tax?
Automakers can still sell bigger cars that the people really want,but they now can steer people to smaller engines. Plus,those that really want the power can pay for it.
You hit the nail on the head. Some call it conspiracy, but thats a bit of an overstatement. Now, I will addmitedly state that I have not looked into the motivations of the GW crowd nearly as much as if GW is real or not, but from what I've gathered, It goes along the lines of:
The current GW proponents are more or less a coalition of groups that want the same outcome. They don't all necessarily think the earth is burrning up. For example, the environmentlist, anti capitalist (the groups you see at all the G-8 summits) all think we need to get back to a simpler life with less excess, waste, and indulgence. They've been around forever, and I have nothing against them or their opinions, but GW provides a common way for all of them to get what they want. Add to them the poloticians, or certain ones. Just as I've seen posted here, their floating arround the idea of new taxes, user fees, fines, penalties and so forth. Or for the lay man, hundreds of billions of dollars in new revenue for the government. Despite the fact we're told its not about the money.
I agree with some of your hybrid comments and the economics of them don't really compute (they may compute for me since I drive cars ~10 years).
But they may have unintended benefits to the owners as well - the hybrids all have gizmos that train the drivers how to get the highest mpg and lots of people have turned into full fledged hypermilers. The gizmos make people think as they commute and they get feedback on how their behavior affects their mpg.
That kind of training carries over to regular cars too, and the egg under the accelerator trick may actually begin to get inbred.
So if they want to help the economy and the environment in one fell swoop, and they can afford to do so, why should they be criticized?
Yes that is true; but I bet it isn't voluntary. What I mean by voluntary is that they were economically forced to. I work with people making $15/hr who do buy a new vehicle and the mpg does make a difference. However give these people more money and they are not "voluntarily" buying a high mpg vehicle.
But for every one of us who decides to do so, the world will be made an even better place.
Only if it is the majority of people; a few people conserving does not significantly affect the outcome. If 10% of the population each saves 25% energy, and there is 100 years of carbon-based fuels, that simply means that 100 years of fuel is burned in 102.5 years. The fuel still gets burnt and the CO2 is in the atmosphere.
And I can tell you that the majority of the people in the world want a lifestyle that uses more energy; not less. Call it cynicism, but that is the reality. The reality is nearly every person on this Earth wants a vehicle, a refrig, an AC or heater, A large screen TV, a computer, and the money to travel and see the world. The demand is there to use more and more energy. The only solution to reducing carbon-based fuel use, is to find alternative fuels. And those fuels have to be at least as plentiful, collectible and convenient as oil, gas, and coal.
The money that is going into GW research and the scientists spending their time on that, might be better spent working on geothermal or fusion projects?
As I woke up this morning to the southern light streaming through the french doors of the bedroom this morning (starting to sound like a Better Homes & Garden blurb, doesn't it?), I realized one major problem with everyone moving north to escape the heat. GW isn't going to change the angle of the sun.
After 20 Anchorage winters, I hadn't been officially diagnosed with Seasonal Affective Disorder, but even though I skiied the bike paths almost every midday in the winter, the long dark gray days of winter got old. It was especially dreary in October before the snows fell and brightened the ground up. (The endless summer days were wonderful on the other hand).
Even on a bright sunny midwinter Anchorage day with a full 6 hours of daylight, you'd see the sun glowing away up there but the heat it put out felt neglible on your face. Then there's Barrow, where the sun sets in November and doesn't rise again until Jan. (They just enjoyed their first sunset on Aug. 2 after 84 days with no sunrise).
All that winter dark makes it hard to commute, since you drive to and from work in the dark for months on end (hey, an auto tie-in!).
I personally gave up a large vehicle (an Avalanche) to buy a high mpg vehicle. So did my sister, leaving a minivan for a sedan. Cube-mate left a Hummer for a Prius.
If I personally have that many people in my own very small circle of family and acquaintances, surely it happened a lot of other people for many many reasons, not just the cost of gas. I did not do it for financial reasons, and neither did my sister. She realized she had too much vehicle and did not need that much.
People were unnecessarily purchasing larger vehicles than they needed (for social status, or sales pressure, or whatever reasons) during the SUV Craze. Many of them were duped into thinking they needed that large a vehicle when in REALITY they did not at all, or they made personally bad decisions.
My sister's reason for buying a minivan? Her 3 daughters were about 7-10 years old and would always argue that "she's touching me" when they were in the car. She got sick of that and instead of doing the RIGHT THING which would have been to tell the girls to get over it, she bought a minivan so they could all sit apart from each other.
I had two five-passenger cars and a 7-member family. I could have and should have kept the two cars, which combined got about 34 MPG. Instead, I traded for a 1997 Suburban which got about 16 MPG. Bad move, since very rarely did all 7 of us need to go to the same place at the same time.
And sure people want more "stuff" and that in turn will use more energy, ON THE SURFACE. If we teach people conservation techniques and help people learn that waste is stupid and not so hard to avoid, then people can have their luxuries and conserve too.
And sure, we need science money going to alternate energy sources. And a ton of it is doing that. We at the same time need to figure out what is warming the Earth and try to find out if we as humans can have an effect and what we can do to curb that influence. No big problem is ever easily solved using a single-pronged approach.
All that accomplished was to give someone else a good buy on a Hummer, Avalanche and a mini-van. The overall carbon footprint was just moved from one part of Phoenix to another. You all lost money on the trade-down. None of you will have a better bottom line at the end of the year. Saving a little gas but no economic improvement. The only people to make out are the auto makers and dealers. Not my idea of folks that deserve it.
Now to funding GW research. If the $6 billion was spent on alternative energy research, I believe that we would be addressing GW, if we are the cause. Rather than wasting money on studies that will make accusations without any solutions that are practical. That is where we are currently. Pointing fingers at everything under the sun. When in fact it may be the SUN causing the alleged warming.
I did a similar thing. I sold my $26k GMC Sierra Hybrid for $23k after 26 months of ownership. Guy from LA just had to have a hybrid truck to go with his wife's 2002 Prius. I bought a 1999 Ford Ranger Flex Fuel PU truck for $4k. Added a lumber rack and hitch. I put $18k back in the bank and my mileage is similar to before. However I have a more practical PU truck. People that feel they have to take a big loss on vehicles every year are mistaken. Buy low sell high and let the other guy take the loss. It has always worked well for me.
PS
He let me know he liked the Prius, he loves the GMC. He is feeling green without losing comfort and safety.
The key word, however, is "voluntarily."
When we begin demonizing the choices of others, or call certain vehicles "dirty" based on a study designed to inflame rather than inform...that is when the problems result.
And not everyone will choose the smallest car possible. Some drivers want more room, power or features. I could probably get around quite well in a Civic sedan, but I prefer the greater room, smoother ride and improved levels of noise, vibration and harshness control in the Accord, even if it does use more gas. But the trade-off is worth it.
And lots of people think you need to bend the envelope; go a bit overboard in other words to get their message across with the end result being a bit of a shift towards their direction.
Sort of like how prohibition didn't work because it was too extreme, but the net result was a big decrease in alcohol consumption after repeal. People still smoke but the stigma, expense and clean air laws have whacked those numbers way down.
The green movement has already accomplished some of that - Prius sales are over a million right?
Notice how deftly I was able to lump the evils of gas-guzzlers in with smoking and drinking.
As for Prohibition - it also gave organized crime a strong foothold that it has never relinquished, and increased disrepect for all laws. Which is why history considers it a failure. I don't think that is a good example.
Yesterday's WSJ (looks like a free link) has an interesting GW opinion piece (A Denier's Confession). To pull a couple of quotes:
"It's hard to work toward solutions the benefits of which will not be felt in our lifetime."
And on hypocrites, "When we are called on to bike to work, permanently abjure air travel, "eat locally" and so on, we expect to be led by example, not by a new nomenklatura."
That's an incorrect assumption on your part when it comes to my personal knowledge level. Check my history and you'll see I do indeed know what I'm talking about.
Having an opinion, even a "wrong one" in some people's eyes, on what constitutes a dirty or clean car does not make someone uninformed or indicate a level of competency on the issue at hand one way or another.
I've already explained what I meant about the dirty car comment and if you still don't understand my point and about how calling cars "dirty" serves a higher purpose in the broader scheme of things, then go re-read the posts which obviously went past you without you getting the point.