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.
Options

Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?

1205206208210211223

Comments

  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Nice work if you can get it.

    Here's a plant for you Gary:

    Global Warming Mums (MSNBC)
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,415
    And if you really lose, you just get bailed out on the taxpayer dime and also get to continue your lavish undeserved lifestyle. Three cheers to oligarchic psuedo-capitalism.

    On the warming note, the near record low max combined with record-shattering rain we had here yesterday makes me want a little warming.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I used to go to the Mum Festival every year at the San Diego Wild Animal Park. Gorgeous mum displays everywhere. The secret to getting Mums to bloom is darkness. They start blooming when the days get to a center length. They would raise them in the green houses, then cover them up a certain length of time to get them blooming on cue.

    They are also supposed to keep aphids away from your roses. We have found they attract more than they repel.

    All plants are good for absorbing CO2, so plant more flowers until we are into another Ice Age.
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,351
    The only suitable solution I can think of is to throw the bums out in November, including Obama, and bring some new bums in.

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    With global warming, the storms of November will come early. :D
  • robr2robr2 Member Posts: 8,805
    The only suitable solution I can think of is to throw the bums out in November, including Obama, and bring some new bums in.

    So we can recycle all the same complaints!! Now that's green!!

    ;)
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    And our government - both Democrat and republic administrations and Congresses go along with the policies of their sponsors - the wealthy and corporate/financial entities.

    Gagrice is right, even if MMGW is significant. MMGW and Green industries are "tools" for larger purposes. So that is why many say - "Nah, we don't need time to do the science and get some decent models of the climate. Let's just use the potential issue to pass a lot of regulations to change the economics as we want, and throw in some new bureaucracies, and hit the poor and middle classes with some hidden costs (carbon credits).

    The ecological problems that this planet has is coming directly from growth. Population growth and demand for resources. It doesn't matter what sort of technologies we deploy - wind or solar ... With uncontrolled growth - a billion people added each decade to feed and provide power to, not counting all those who need now, there is no solution. The best Green movement would be "No Growth". Maybe the Greek and French elections today, might be our a good start at further depressing the global economy, and the willingness of some to have too many babies.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited May 2012
    And you thought we were the only ones who liked to generate a bit of controversy. :shades:

    "Dr Lovelock, one of the world's leading environmental thinkers once warned climate change would reduce mankind to a few breeding pairs in the Arctic.

    Today Dr Lovelock implied that he had over-stated the certainty of catastrophe at the time.

    He told BBC Today Programme in 2010 the idea of trying to save the planet "is a lot of nonsense".

    "We can't do it," he said at the time. "If it's going to be saved it will save itself...The sensible thing to do is to enjoy life while you can."

    Gaia creator rows back on climate (BBC)
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Somewhat of a nut job eh? I take exception to this statement:

    "And the temperatures really zoomed. There were crocodiles in the Arctic. God knows what the rest of the Earth was like. But in a hundred million years it sank back to normal."

    He is assuming there is a Normal temperature for the Earth. I don't buy it. It is constantly changing and whoever or whatever is on it either survives of dies. I do agree the sensible thing is to enjoy life without making too big of an impact like dropping nuclear weapons.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    enjoy life without making too big of an impact like dropping nuclear weapons

    I won't if you won't. :D
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Its a deal
  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H Administrator Posts: 11,242
    And, if there is in fact a "normal" temperature, it's rather arrogant for humans to assume they know what that should be.

    I feel like I do my best to live with a reasonable balance of responsibility and enjoyment, and that's the best we can do. I find it a bit ridiculous for some of the climate change scaremongers to talk about the potential for the whole ecosystem to collapse due to the possibility of one or several species' extinction. While it is not responsible to engage in behavior that directly leads to the extinction of a species (e.g., over-hunting endangered animals), there are numerous species that have become extinct, and the earth continues to exist.

    MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
    Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
    2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
    Review your vehicle

  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Climate issues aside, chew on this:

    Well, my take on the "extinction" issue is that every species of everything is important.

    Because one of them might hold the key to curing AIDS, cancer, MS, etc etc.

    We don't know, so protecting them is important to ALL humanity.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    If it is extinct we will never know. And 95% of all species ever on earth are now extinct. I agree with Kristie, that willfully exterminating a species is wrong. I don't see spending millions to stop the inevitable either. Who knows when you get rid of one species another may evolve in its place that is more beneficial to man.
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,351
    That seems to be the prevailing opinion of the vast majority of people, including yours truly.

    The average person's activities has no appreciable effect on the climate. If governments started dropping nuclear bombs all over the planet you might see some effect.

    The time will surely come when Man is no longer able to survive here on earth, but it won't be because we all did not buy a Prius or install solar panels.

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    houdini1 says, "The average person's activities has no appreciable effect on the climate."

    That's an unfortunate attitude.

    It takes a lot of drops in the bucket to fill a bucket.

    Rome wasn't built in a day.

    It takes small contributions to make a big difference.
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,351
    It takes a lot of drops in the bucket to fill a bucket.

    And this particular bucket will never fill because it has a big hole in it.

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Now the USA made Solar Panels will have a chance.

    (Reuters) - The United States hit Chinese solar companies with punitive import tariffs of 30 percent or more on Thursday, ruling they had dumped cut-price solar panels into the U.S. market.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/17/us-china-trade-idUSBRE84G19U20120517
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Will our overly zealous push to develop alternatives to fossil fuel kill off species that are very important to the health of our planet?

    In the push to develop new forms of sustainable energy, the wind power industry is at the forefront. Turbines that harness the power of wind already serve as effective power sources across the globe, and this proven effectiveness has led to vast increases in the number of turbines currently under construction. The general impact of wind turbines on the environment is likely far less than that of conventional power sources. However, recent evidence shows that certain species of bats are particularly susceptible to mortality from wind turbines. Bats are beneficial consumers of harmful insect pests, and migratory species of bats cross international and interstate boundaries.

    Dead bats are turning up beneath wind turbines all over the world. Bat fatalities have now been documented at nearly every wind facility in North America where adequate surveys for bats have been conducted, and several of these sites are estimated to cause the deaths of thousands of bats per year. This unanticipated and unprecedented problem for bats has moved to the forefront of conservation and management efforts directed toward this poorly understood group of mammals. The mystery of why bats die at turbine sites remains unsolved. Is it a simple case of flying in the wrong place at the wrong time? Are bats attracted to the spinning turbine blades? Why are so many bats colliding with turbines compared to their infrequent crashes with other tall, human-made structures?


    http://www.mesc.usgs.gov/BatsWindmills/
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, gave a startling interview to msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been unduly “alarmist” about climate change.

    The implications were extraordinary.

    Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist whose Gaia theory — that the Earth operates as a single, living organism — has had a profound impact on the development of global warming theory.

    Unlike many “environmentalists,” who have degrees in political science, Lovelock, until his recent retirement at age 92, was a much-honoured working scientist and academic.


    http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/22/green-drivel
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,351
    Nice to see someone come clean and tell the truth for a change. It took him long enough though. I guess at age 92 he is no longer concerned about government grants !!

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    He probably did not want to die with those lies on his conscience. :)
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,351
    I agree. I really think you could accurately call this a "death bed confession". Those carry a lot of weight.

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    toronto sun=FoxNews
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    edited June 2012
    Fox News= Fair and Balanced :P

    Are you questioning the scientists credentials?

    Or are you drinking the Al Gore Koolaid?
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    edited June 2012
    Not doing either.

    Just remarking that the Toronto Sun is a conservative newspaper, so to take that into consideration.

    Fox News only attempts to balance out the lefty-ness of the other mainstream media outlets, but in the process goes too far.

    As for anyone's opinion on anything related to GW - no opinions melted that arctic ice.

    No opinions have been included in the warming trend we have noticed since basically the 70s.

    So, is it possible that people are being "alarmist" about things? Of course. But maybe they need to be to get people's attention.

    P.S. I dismissed AlGore and his bullcrap years ago.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    It could be the same natural phenomenon melting the Arctic that has expanded the Antarctic. It was quite significant that one of the foremost GW alarmist admit to the truth. It is a terrorist tactic when you lie about polar bears dying because of a warming trend. Especially when you tell little children mommy's SUV is killing the polar bears. No real reason to believe man is significant in the scope of any climate change. All politics to extort money.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Gary - ice melting HAS killed polar bears. That's not a lie.

    Now, as a "tactic" it is indeed a little underhanded, but it's based on true events.

    There are "real" reasons to think man has made impacts in the climate. It's called "common sense" if nothing else. 7+ billion people can't be on Earf and not make an impact in many, many, many areas.

    Why does Phoenix have a brown cloud? We didn't 75 years years ago. HHHMMMM, I wonder what changed? Maybe adding millions of people and the associated pollution to that had an impact?

    This debate cannot be resolved....it will be here my entire remaining life and I'm sure that of my children too.

    The reason is that both sides have solid arguments.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Gary - ice melting HAS killed polar bears. That's not a lie.

    That is the lie. Polar bears have never been more plentiful in the last 100 years. Man killing them has caused more loss than GW. You are listening to paid AGW scientists again.

    "The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations 'may now be near historic highs,'" it read.
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,351
    edited June 2012
    So are you saying the Toronto Sun made up that interview? Or are you saying that, since they are conservative, they are the only ones who would report it?

    It is a real news story, but if the Toronto Sun hadn't reported it, no one would ever know it happened. Fair and balanced.

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • lemmerlemmer Member Posts: 2,689
    edited June 2012
    Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect.



    Sounds like he has distanced himself from the extremists and crackpots and is in lockstep with the majority of the scientific community now. And really, the crackpots are the only ones arguing about it anymore, the Al Gores versus the Rush Limbaughs. The scientific community has moved past the silly arguments.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    And that is as it should be. It became a joke when the UN, politicians & pundits saw an opportunity to exploit the tax payers. So they pushed the scientists to say things they probably would not have said in their normal way of discovery. If a politician is involved it is likely a scam.
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,351
    edited June 2012
    I agree with you. It seemed like an honest assessment and that his moderating views were accurately reported.

    However, for whatever reason, some here felt compelled to point out that in their opinion, it was reported in a conservative publication. Now that is something right out of Al Gore's playbook.

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Sir, please. I would not state something as "fact" if I did know know for sure it was a fact.

    http://e360.yale.edu/feature/as_arctic_sea_ice_declines_polar_bear_patrol_gets_b- usy/2497/

    http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=35187

    http://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/witnessing-summer-starvation-among-po- lar-bears-pics.html

    http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/01/10/plight-of-the-ice-bear/

    When the ice pack is smaller, the bears have less and less feeding grounds and tougher access to seals.

    Oppose "alarmists" all you want - it's a free country.

    But don't dismiss facts that oppose your case just to try to improve said case.

    Sure, the "GW types" use this fact to tug at our hearts strings - I mean who doesn't love a baby polar bear, regardless of your politics?

    But using it to tug at our heart strings does not make it a lie.

    I'm ready for you to go ahead and just admit you are wrong on this one, Gary. It's the right thing to do, and we can move on.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    I was using that merely as a reminder of how "unnecessarily politicized" this issue has become.

    "Conservative" outlets jump on anything anti-GW.

    "Liberal" outlets jump on anything pro-GW.

    It's just how it works now.

    And it's sad. Melting ice doesn't have a political philosophy.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    My contention is and has been from the beginning that warming or cooling is little impacted by man. Even the most avid polar bear people say it is hard to tell if the World's population of polar bears has diminished. There may be fewer in one location and more in another. And the same scientist say there were none 20,000 years ago. So did man cause their extinction then? You want GW to be put onto man, I don't. So we disagree on the subject. And there are liars among the many eco types that are pushing a particular agenda. This started when one of them admitted as much. You just like the polar bear one because it is a good way to sway little minds to your agenda.

    since research has shown that all modern polar bears today may well be descended from interbreeding with a now-extinct brown bear species found in Ireland about 20,000 years ago.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Gary - I'm not saying there are not liars amongst the alarmists. There obviously ARE.

    But it does not help the "spirit of debate" for anyone on either side to dismiss a fact as "propaganda."

    I don't "want GW to be put onto man" at all. You know my stance, which I will repeat here for the uninitiated:

    There are not enough facts that conclude conclusively that man HAS NOT contributed to the warming trend. Until that happens, we should hedge our bet by polluting less, recycling more, and in general, be better denizens of Planet Earf.

    I've yet to see a valid argument that defeats that logic.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    edited June 2012
    I've yet to see a valid argument that defeats that logic.

    The valid argument is the opposite of yours:
    There are not enough facts that conclude conclusively that man HAS contributed to the warming trend.

    Until that happens we should not try to steal money from people to push a flawed agenda.

    Speaking of recycle. I had a bag full of old AA batteries(30-40 of them). I took them to the local Albertson's Recycle center. He was not interested because they do not pay him for them. He suggested I take them to a place in San Diego that handles such things. That is 35 miles each way. Recycling, what a joke. I dropped them in his waste basket and walked off. I think he knew better than to try and stop me.

    PS
    about 6 months ago I took him a bunch of wine bottles. He did not want them either. So they go in the dumpster with the trash.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Gary says "Recycling, what a joke."

    Them's fightin' words, mister !! PUT 'EM UP !!!! ;)

    No, but seriously, like everything else, there are exceptions to rules. You just happen to mention one of the rare exceptions in the recycling world.

    Let me completely explain how I recycle, so I can show you MY VERSION is DEFINITELY NOT A JOKE.

    The City of Phoenix has a recycling system, for which they give each homeowner a blue bin. I have a tan "small" recycle bin inside my kitchen (and another in my garage) and a regular tall stainless steel "trash" can.

    Almost EVERYTHING I dispose of goes into the recycle bin. All cans, bottles, plastic bottles, plastic containers, etc. Anything that's not a plastic or cloth BAG goes in there.

    Food waste goes down the garbage disposal in the sink.

    I put my blue bin on the curb on average about once every 3 weeks.

    I put my green "trash" bin out about 3 times a YEAR.


    I recycle plastic garbage bags which in some cases I cannot avoid receiving.

    I wash and repeatedly re-use Ziploc bags.

    I re-use plastic water and soda bottles until they become unusable.

    I use large Ikea shopping bags for my groceries, which I bag myself at the stores.

    I take burned-out CFLs to Home Depot for recycling.

    Nothing about any of that is a "joke" at all, sir.

    Does it hurt me one bit? No. Does it make me feel like I'm doing my part and the part of several friends who do NO recycling? Absolutely. And that's a good feeling.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Some things I agree with but some I think can cause more pollution than help.

    I have you on the garbage, as all goes onto my compost pile to be used in our garden. We rarely ever use the garbage disposal.

    We reuse plastic & glass containers and ziplocs, if safe to do so.

    Our same Albertson's went to no plastic bags over a year ago, and we take our reusable ones when shopping there. I have a large box in the garage filled with plastic grocery bags. We use them when giving fruit and veggies to friends and family.

    Green cuttings mostly go on the compost pile, except poison oak which is bagged and dumped in dumpster.

    We have 4 trash services that hit our street every week. Only the one I see on Wednesday has the blue recycle bins. I watched as they dumped the blue one then the grey one into the same front loader and over the top into the truck. Recycling for the most part is a joke. Go fight with someone that does not know better. If you drive a mile out of your way to recycle you are probably causing more damage to the environment, than the person that dumps it all in the trash.

    When was the last time you took CFLs to Home Depot? I took two 4ft tubes and 3 Burnt out CFLs and they tried to sell me special recycle containers. $35 for CFL and $107 for the tubes. I am not saying what happened to them and subsequent burnouts.

    Recycling is a BIG FAT JOKE.... on you.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    You are seeing the world of recycling through your personal lens.........Phoenix doesn't mix recycling and garbage waste, and shame on any city that does that !!
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I see it as all Californians must see it. When you go to the Home Depot site and type in CFL recycle to send you to this link:

    http://www.lamprecycling.com/store/program.aspx?prodcategory=cfls

    How many people with a brain are going to pay $35 for a one gallon bucket to put CFL bulbs in for recycle. The negatives of CFLs over ride the positives. Better to have just kept the safe incandescent lights. My guess is 90% of CFL bulbs end up in the land fill. And that is bad.

    I was cleaning out my storage and filled a bag full of trash. When I put it in the dumpster there was an old TV in there. California charges $16 for disposal when you buy a TV or Monitor. Then the trash people charge you extra to dispose of it. Recycle is like so many other things where the government is involved. Just a big money grab.

    The recycle concept is good. The implementation in most cases is lousy. At least in CA and Hawaii. We looked for a recycle bin for cans and plastic at our condo last time there. People told us the cost to ship out recycle was too much.
  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H Administrator Posts: 11,242
    The City of Phoenix has a recycling system, for which they give each homeowner a blue bin.

    And there's the issue. Many places do not offer curbside recycling. I recycled when I lived in St. Louis because they did the same as Phoenix. I do not recycle much here (except glass) because it is made wholly inconvenient for the consumer. The glass recycling bin is located along a route I regularly take, but I don't see much benefit in me driving around for 30 minutes to hit the various privately-owned recycling bins dispersed around the area.

    I'm also not sure about the overall environmental benefits of having a giant truck drive around to do recycling pick-up several times a week.

    I do the same as you, though, if only out of pure cheapness - I re-use bottles and bags as much as possible. I rarely purchase anything that comes in a plastic bottle to begin with... ziplocs get re-used when possible.

    MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
    Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
    2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
    Review your vehicle

  • lemmerlemmer Member Posts: 2,689
    We have curbside recycling for most things. The other stuff is easy to drop off once I get a few of something. Like batteries - Best Buy takes them.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    As toxic as batteries and CFL bulbs are you would think they would put a charge on them, that can be returned when you take them in. I use to collect pop bottles as a kid to get the refund. Instead of making it difficult to dispose of old batteries and burnt out CFLs. How many people have read the 40 page manual from the EPA on CFL disposal? Stupid FEDS.
  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H Administrator Posts: 11,242
    Curbside is best, but conveniently-located self-serve bins are a 2nd best. The Best Buy idea is great, but only for those who live in cities and close suburbs. The nearest BB is 15 miles from my house. Not a reasonable distance just to dispose of batteries, unless you're there anyway.

    Another issue - why don't some of these dang hazardous waste collection facilities take dead appliances, even if for a fee?? We recently came to understand why people dump stuff on the side of the road. We had a dead mini-fridge and it took us 6 months to find a facility around here that would take it (for a $10 fee), and it was 30 miles away. We have local county collection events held all over the county, and they will take oil, paint, etc., and we always go to those. Anything else? Good luck finding somewhere to take them.

    MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
    Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
    2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
    Review your vehicle

  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited June 2012
    "A federal appeals court panel ruled Tuesday that the Environmental Protection Agency had acted properly when it set the nation's first limits on greenhouse gases.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that the EPA's 2009 finding that greenhouse gases endanger human health and the environment was based on "an ocean of evidence," saying the agency's move to limit those emissions from cars and trucks was "neither arbitrary nor capricious."

    One group that didn't join the challenge was automakers, which support the EPA's plans. Major automakers agreed earlier to a single nationwide standard for vehicles. The court's ruling gives the Obama administration a green light to move ahead with standards for later models of vehicles out to 2025.

    Federal court panel upholds EPA rules aimed at global warming (miamiherald.com)
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Will that shut down CARB and their crazy regulations that make it difficult for automakers in the USA to comply?

    One thing is certain. Our utilities will go up dramatically. But the fat cats in control could care less, just steal more from the middle class to subsidize the poor. :sick:
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    They keep saying that about gas prices. Never would have guessed they'd be under $3 again in some areas of the US.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I think all concerned in the oil business are happy when oil is $80-$100 a barrel. Makes exploration and development profitable. That 2008 run up was a few unscrupulous speculators like Soros robbing from the rest of US.
This discussion has been closed.