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
whoa there big fella.
I have NEVER seen any study or data that claims that there was a "big" decrease in drinking after prohibition was repealed.
Heck, look at alcohol sales today. Big BIg business.
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.
Tell that to Al Gore's kid.
Sorry, but I see hybrids zipping down the highways here at well over the posted speed.
Hybrids are simply a social status symbiol,nothing more.
Read down to paragraph 7, and you'll see that sales of small-cars have gone up 1.7%. Not exactly "many people" in many peoples' book.
http://money.aol.com/news/articles/_a/small-car-sales-up-despite-death-risk/2007- 0820091009990001
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.
If you take 100 or 200 million peasants in China or in India, give them factory jobs, and some $ to start buying scooters, basic cars, and TV's ... you have taken people who have used little or no energy, and now have energy-consumers. This is happening in many areas of the world. Many areas of Asia did not have roads and private autos 30 years ago; now there are traffic jams.
As the world prospers and economies grow we are taking hundreds of millions of people who basically USED 0 energy BEFORE, and no amount of conservation lowers that. The world is increasing its energy usage ... it is not about conservation; the problem globally is people are moving up into using some energy. This is a very big world and there are still very, very many people who would be happy to have 50% of the energy usage that you have!
You probably think you're a conservationist in terms of energy whil at least 50% of the world thinks you live like a king.
"throw up your hands, forget conservation, nothing we can do will help"
I refuse to accept that attitude in my own life.
The air in California has been cleaned in the last 30-35 years by a combined effort involving regulation, education, conservation, and clean air programs.
Preaching conservation and legislating clean air works.
Everything I do helps a little, and as a little person on this big Earf, that should be all I can hope for. Combined efforts of a lot of people helps a lot. It's not linear, but it is recognizable.
I hope we're not talking about an opinion here, because the melting point for ice isn't based on that. Did medieval time era also record accelerated recession of glaciers and breaking off of polar ice?
Why is it so hard to understand that it is better for nature to take its course than us imposing our will on it? If you believe in evolution, is there such thing as accelerated evolution?
Do you really believe that anti-GW folks aren't making millions by sticking to their side of the story? That would be naive.
We are part of nature, so how is imparting our will unnatural?
Without "baby-step-progress," we'd all be living in caves or at best huts.
There are a lot of PZEV cars that are not hybrids...see this page:
Not only Hybrids are the clean car choices
Hybrids are just one available option when it comes to clean cars. They are not the end-all, be-all.
But conservation does not reduce energy consumption or CO2 emissions, because there are simply more people at the supper table every evening. And many of the newcomers are still hungry, and the door's still open.
The solution to the energy problem and CO2 emissions only comes when you can give people plentiful quantities of non-carbon-based fuel. Until we can discover/harness other energy sources, people will demand more and more carbon-fuels to make their lives comfortable.
Conservation is something that should always be taught and encouraged.
But like I stated in an earlier post, "multi-pronged" attacks are best for large problems.
Alternative, non-carbon-based fuels are definitely important and advances in that area are important.
I think the idea of harnessing ocean waves for power is one of the ideas whose time has come. Encourage your Congressman to look into that.
Any and all affordable alternatives should be on the table. Massive research needs to be done in all applicable areas.
So you don't agree that the global population is increasing? You don't agree that more and more people are increasing their living standards and the accompanying energy usage? Is one of your prongs to keep down the masses of people such that they never have an auto, a refrigerator, or a TV because global energy usage goes up? Tell us what you would say to the billions of people who want the comforts and energy usage you have? What is your plan for providing energy to the 100 million or so people who will be added to the world next year? Do the math!
Humans have evolved naturally to using their intelligence to shape and try and control nature. This is a totally natural course. I don't know if it's a religious thing or human ego, that somehow we're "above being natural".
I find it rather silly and ecocentric that some want to apologize for our existence and the effect we have on the planet. The only way I know that we could not effect nature is that we didn't exist. 6 Billion people living as cavemen, or as in 500AD, or 1800AD, or whatever is going to have quite an effect.
I simply fail to see why we should apologize for existing, and deny that we are natural, and what we do is a natural effect of the evolution of our intelligence!
We try to do what is best, but there really is no positive action that doesn't have some negatives to it. We get a lot of positives from using energy, and yes there are some negatives that result from that. Even the best chef making the best meal, eventually ends up producing nasty waste.
You can find other studies that claim alcohol deaths or cirrhosis rates didn't change so much but consumption (and we're talking gallons here I think) is down since prohibition.
1. The Global Population is increasing.
2. More and more people are increasing both their living standards and the accompanying energy use required to fuel that living standard.
3. Of course I would not deny someone the joys of living to a certain standard which they could achieve with their own successes.
4. What would I say to the billions of people who want the comforts and energy usage I have? "Live your life frugally and with common sense. Do not waste. Teach your children well. Pay attention to your health. If you believe in an afterlife, live your life with the hope of achieving peace upon your death."
5. It's not my job to have a plan for providing energy for all the 100 million new people every year, so I don't have a "plan" for that. There can be no on single "plan" for that.
My part in the overall scheme is to live my life as I would expect others in similar circumstances to also live. I'd like to see millions of people using Segways instead of cars to commute every day.
But "want" in one hand and "spit" in the other.........
and they will come. But, there are two ways to do it.
1. Let things go as they are. Oil, gasoline, all energy will continue to rise. gas will cross $4, then $5, and so on. At that point, the private sector will see the oprotunity to make some money. capital will flow to where it will do the most good (the most prommising tecnology) and as always happens, somebody will build the better mouse trap. Heck, $2.50-3.00 has givin us hibrids, upcoming plugins, fuel cell research and god knows what else. imagine what $5 will do.
2. Have the government(s) impose a buch of regulations, mandates concerning what energy you will use. That will drive capital to pet projects, companies that lobby the best, home state companies, and cronies. and in the end, the most promising tecnology will get shortchanged, the consumer won't get what he wants, or even a choice and the economic impact of sudden jumps in energy prices and most everything we buy will cause untold damage to the economy as people see thier buying power erroded. and with consumer spending 70% of our economy, it just get uglier from there.
And its still amoung the dirtiest in the country/world. great work there. you may not have power the entire day, but at least huston has worse air quality.
you asked if I thought the planet had warmed up, and I told you it depended on what timeframe you used. more or less, yes and no. because if you go back only 150 years (when the last ice age ended) then yes. the planet has warmed up. its what ended the little ice age. But, if you go back to before the little ice age (about 900 AD) then no, its not much, if any warmer today.
what does that have to do with the melting point of ice?
the only thing I can gather from you post is that your suggesting we're accelerating the natural warrming process? If thats what your saying, there is no evidence of it, as temps haven't risen significantly. a couple degrees at best.
I can attest that the last two months have produced the two highest monthly electricity bills since I moved into my home in April 2004.
If this does not turn out to be the hottest summer ever in Phoenix, it will be in the top echelon.
PS This has no bearing on my opinion and is not evidence of anything. It's just a factual posting related to heat. Nothing more should be read into it. I'm not assuming anything, making any hidden statements, not subliminal, etc. Just a report of a fact.
I don't know if your point is that your hot summer is evidence of global warming but I live in Washington state now and we've had one of the coolest summers in my memory. Your hot summer and my cool summer are both evidence of nothing.
The DFW area had 69 days that summer of 100 degree plus weather and broke records on 29 individual days.
I don't think WF had 45 days of 110+ weather. Maybe you are thinking of 100+ days.
June 1980 in WF is the 7th hottest June ever.
July 1980 in WF is the hottest July ever by 1.9 degrees.
August 1980 in WF is the 4th hottest August ever.
You had a lot of hot days but not 45 110+ days in a row. In fact, 1980 still only holds 16 days in June-August which are record hot days.
Included in the 79 total 100-degree days at Wichita Falls are streaks of 42 consecutive 100-degree days from June 23 to August 3, 28 consecutive days of temperatures greater than 102 degrees, and a remarkable 10 straight days of at least a high of 110 degrees.
The warmest temperature ever recorded in Wichita Falls was set three times during this heat wave. On June 25, the high of 114 degrees surpassed the previous record of 113 degrees set in August 1964. Two days later, on June 27, Wichita Falls reached a high temperature of 116 degrees again breaking the record. This new record stood for one day, as Wichita Falls warmed to a high of 117 degrees on the 28th. This remains today as the warmest temperature recorded in the Wichita Falls area.
See the charts here and re-live the heat wave of 1980:
Weather charts for WF through the year
P.S. This summer in Phoenix we had a streak of 18 days of 109+ degree days and set the record for most 110+ days in a row. Means nothing per se in regard to Global Warming, I'm just reporting it.
Prius is still the Hollywood darling. Anyone see the "Girls Next Door" episode where Holly goes and gets one with custom magnetic graphics?
No, that would be supernatural.
Why are we scared of WMD? Isn't nuclear fission/fusion a natural process? It happens all the time!
As an addition to my last post, Phoenix also had a 41 day stretch this summer of 100+ days. One day less than the WF 1980 Summer 100+ Streak.
Means nothing per se in regard to Global Warming, I'm just reporting it.
Isn't nuclear fission/fusion a natural process?
Fusion and the emission of radiation are some of the most natural, frequent, and prevalent process there are in the universe.
It happens all the time!
Yep. In terms of WMD though it happens very infrequently.
Back to GW. How do you folks rank the typical GW scenario of 100 years in the future, relative to the other threats we face a species. I know the media and our former VP certainly spend an inordinate amount of time on it. Where's the media attention and concern about the more serious threats to humanity?
There was a show on Science Channel a few months ago which summarized a survey of the world's top scientists in various fields, and ranked the threats to civilization. I can't remember whether GW made the list or where it did. Did anyone see that show?
If your philosophy is that if mankind just "treaded lightly" on the Earth, we would be rewarded with a shangri-la, you are naieve. Nature has no concern or feeling for us. We sit on an insignificantly small rock, around an insignificant medium-small star, in an average galaxy amongst many millions. If we don't get naturally eliminated by a large comet, or even worse a gamma-ray burst from a super-nova, then nature gets us in a billion years or so as the sun turns into a Red Giant. Our ancestors will have plenty of solar-power.
Gagrice, didn't you see my rant about moving to the northern climes when GW hits? It's still going to be dark there 8 months out of the year.
I'm driving this weekend, so I guess my carbon footprint is goin up!!!!
Ever since “An Inconvenient Truth,” Al Gore has been the darling of
environmentalists, but that movie hardly endeared him to the animal rights
folks. According to them, the most inconvenient truth of all is that
raising animals for meat contributes more to global warming than all the
sport utility vehicles combined.
The biggest animal rights groups do not always overlap in their missions,
but now they have coalesced around a message that eating meat is worse for
the environment than driving. They and smaller groups have started
advertising campaigns that try to equate vegetarianism with curbing
greenhouse gases.
So the animal rights groups are mobilizing on their own. PETA is outfitting
a Hummer with a driver in a chicken suit and a vinyl banner proclaiming
meat as the top cause of global warming. It will send the vehicle to the
start of the climate forum the White House is sponsoring in Washington on
Sept. 27, “and to headquarters of environmental groups, if they don’t start
shaping up,” Mr. Prescott warned.
Somehow I wouldn’t call dropping of a bomb as a natural event.
How do you folks rank the typical GW scenario of 100 years in the future, relative to the other threats we face a species. Where's the media attention and concern about the more serious threats to humanity?
They should be addressed too, but what is the point of putting a night vision camera at the front door for security while leaving the back door open? Just because there are more threats, you can’t keep marking off some that, in your opinion, are “minor”. Besides, you don’t have to listen to politicians and businessmen to figure things out for yourself. You should be able to analyze it for yourself, and act responsibly. Extremism is a dangerous thing.
If your philosophy is that if mankind just "treaded lightly" on the Earth, we would be rewarded with a shangri-la, you are naieve. Nature has no concern or feeling for us.
Are you saying that we should have no concern for nature? There are certain things that can’t be avoided. We will likely run out of oil in the foreseeable future. Does that mean it is okay to just take it all out and burn it, just because it is going to happen anyway?
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
I would agree that GW should be studied and addressed, if there was a solution. Just telling people to conserve and decrease their lifestyle has not worked and will not work - it is not a solution. The money and brain-power should go towards accelerating alternatives. To use a Titantic analogy again, people on the ship would be better served to work towards getting off the ship, rather than studying the damage and how the ship is sinking. We can spend all the money we want studying the climate and CO2 emissions, but it really doesn't stop it.
Does that mean it is okay to just take it all out and burn it, just because it is going to happen anyway?
Neither you or I, or the U.S. government can stop it. As you say in that statement - there is no alternative (its going to happen anyway); without working on a solution. Instead of having 100 scientists and $6 billion spent on studying whether GW is happening and how much, and 100 scientists and $6 billion working on alternative energy, if we put 200 scientists and $12 billion to work on alternative energy we'd have alternative energy faster. The money and time being spent studying the climate does change the CO2 emissions.
Man was a natural being 1 million years ago in Africa, as Neanderthals, as Cromagnons, and as present. Man was a part of nature and affected nature then and now. Everything we see is natural. Humans are not some unnatural, supernatural or god-like being that can exist without affecting our environment, and therefore we should delude ourselves and feel guilty for effecting the environment.
I am not saying we should intentionally destroy our environment, but on the other hand we should not feel guilty to use the resources of the Earth to make people happy and comfortable. And the fact is that using any sort of resource is going to have some negatives to it. If you own a car or house, or just buy food that is shipped from around the world, consider that to get that item, you have used resources and created waste-products.
This said, while the earth may be warming there is no proof that man is the cause. Thirteen thousand years ago the last ice age ended to to warming. I'm fairly certain this is not ;inked to human industrialization. The earth has gone through numerous cooling and heating cycles, I'm confident its normal. The assumption by many that humans are behind it all is sheer arrogance. :mad:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_i- d=b35c36a3-802a-23ad-46ec-6880767e7966
I think a lot of conservation efforts have worked - energy star appliances, CAFE standards, tougher building codes, cogeneration, low flow showerheads, you name it.
I've worked at home since '83 - bet I've saved the need for one new gas refinery all by myself. :shades:
Here's a good example of conservation efforts:
Glass Houses
Got a link for you Gary. You might like the Glass Houses one I just edited in my other post above too. :shades: