Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?

jd10013

I mentioned this in another post. a lot of fringe groups are using GW to promote their own causes now. Its why everything is blammed on GW, or tied to it. Thats all PETA is doing. Trying to use GW fear to get everybody to eat less meat. In the end, I think thats going to be what finnally kills GW. The claims are just going to get to outrageous to believe it anymore. Katrina, thats GW. Drought, GW. Floods, GW. Heck, if we get an unusally cold winter, or a lot of snow (like in the rockies this year) then, you guessed it, GW. I think when that bridge collapsed up in MN, saw some stuff about GW causing that too.

jd10013

Kill the messenger if you want, he was just posting the results of a PEER REVIEWED paper by others.

stever

Yeah, I saw the story linked earlier on Drudge. The fine print compared the numbers to the UN numbers. Seemed to be another one of those "here's the conclusion, let's make the numbers fit" kind of things.

jd10013

Thats just one study, and like I said, there arn't a whole lot out there yet. But, I'm seeing more and more of them all the time. Either scientists are changing their mind, they're being honest about it where they just towed the line before, or they're just finnally being heard.

As I said, I haven't had time to check it out throughly yet, but it is another nail in the coffin of the "consensus" on GW, if there ever really was one.

gagrice

OK, how about if we say Al Gore tried to take credit for the implementation of the Internet? Does he take credit for pushing the Global Warming hysteria? I know his movie tries to paint those that drive around in an SUV as a major cause of GW. At least that is what my grandson got out of the movie.

gagrice

Yes that was going around a while back. I don't think that big Al would have included it in his movie as a good example of decreasing your carbon footprint. GWB's Ford PU also runs on CNG. I hear it gets about the same mileage as a Prius being driven at 100 MPH.

stever

Thats just one study

Well, more like a study of a bunch of studies, like the UN report. It's like my love of picking out a quote out of context to prove a point. When you read an entire study you sometimes come away knowing less than when you started. :shades:

The fun thing about this discussion is that it may take another generation for that consensus to settle out. But Edmunds has been around for a few generations now, and the forums are a decade old too. So mark your calendars for when we tally up the win/loss column.

I missed the George Bush ranch stuff when it was going around. His house would work great here on my lot in Boise.

stever

Yesterday:

"Sacrifice" Your SUV, Says Presidential Candidate John Edwards

Today:

Political Fallout: John Edwards Slammed for Pushing SUV "Sacrifice"

"Brit Hume, writing on FoxNews.com, points out that Edwards is, in fact, an SUV owner himself. The Edwards campaign admitted to Hume that the former senator owns a Ford Escape Hybrid SUV and a 2004 Chrysler Pacifica SUV, but said he is driving them less frequently. Hume also notes that Edwards "lives in a 28,000-square-foot mansion in North Carolina."

gagrice

I really like the idea of drilling a 300 foot well to use for heating & air conditioning fluids. That would not cost a great deal. I wonder who came up with the engineering on that idea. It did not say if he has solar panels to provide his own power. The area I just moved into has a lot of homes with both solar water heating for the swimming pools and PV cells for electricity. If it was a little more cost effective I would put some solar panels on my South facing roof. The whole area is minimum one acre lots, so most put them away from the house. Still kind of an eyesore.

stever

My water well is almost that deep and replacement wells in my neighborhood are running around $14,000 (seems like 1 or 2 a year in this subdivision of ~60 homes fail - we have our fingers crossed!).

Another neighbor happens to have a hot water well that's about 570 feet - it's not geothermal temp, but would be enough to take the edge off of most winter temps. But the plumbing would take lots of years to pay off the investment, even if we went in together on the pump station and stuff.

Home Depot stocks solar panels in San Diego last I heard. It's hard to economically compete with Idaho Power here on off-the-grid stuff, but I don't have my electric car or electric ATV yet. That would change the equation. :shades:

gagrice

I would think they could just run a couple more copper pipes down the well when they pull the pump. If it is hot water it would transfer and they could keep their home toasty all winter. I think Idaho has a lot of potential geothermal sites. Yes Home Depot sells PV cells. I have not priced them recently. When I talked to SDG&E a couple years ago they were not accepting power back onto the grid. Some goofy excuse. My new home has a much better Southern exposure so it would be beneficial. When we sell our other home and pay this one off we may do something along that line.

stever

It's an interesting topic - the US's first district heating system was started here in 1890. It's not an unlimited resource however, but they are figuring out the closed loops systems and drilling injection wells so they can recharge the aquifer. (link).

iluvmysephia1

Minnesota may have been affected by big 'ole nasty GW. Imagine this one for a short second.

Pigeons and other fowl poop for years and even decades on the bridge. Not just on top of the girders but they hunch in underneath, down low on the support structuring below. Then, GW along with acid rain continue pelting on the support structures that have been bird-pooped on for years already. Through a science that people like Al Gore understand the support structure is slowly weakened through the years.

Huge GM SUV's and Ford pick-em-up trucks constantly run over the bridge as well as countless 18 wheelers. Eventually the vital supports give way and the once vital bridge is reduced to twisted, knarled peices of metal and concrete down below. Imagineer that for just two or three seconds.

ateixeira

But man is natural. As soon as you take a religious perspective that somehow man is above nature, ...

Whoa, slow down there. I didn't say anything about man being above nature nor did I even mention religion.

Man is a natural being, sure. But what man does often it not natural. In fact everything artificial is created by man, that's the definition of the term artificial. That's the only point I was making.

Your argument would make every thing natural. I respectfully disagree. These Corn Puffs I'm eating are NOT natural, trust me!

I'm not judging what's above or below nature, leave that to the Darwinian Evolutionists vs. Creationists to debate.

Meanwhile, I'm off to go find some man-made, unnatural antacids to chase down those Corn Puffs.

gagrice

These Corn Puffs I'm eating are NOT natural, trust me

You got that right! And they are killing you my friend, very slowly. Look on the ingredients. Where is High Fructose Corn Syrup listed.....

No dry cereal allowed in my home anymore. I am a believer. Good Old Fashioned Quaker Oats for me in the morning....

HFCS: From the Lips to the Hips?

ateixeira

HFCS is nothing compared to Red #7 and Yellow #4. Those kill I tell ya!

I'm switching to Nantucket Nectars.

john500

Interesting theory. Not too far fetched when you look at a car's paint job if bird crap isn't cleaned off within a week or so.

kernick

I think a lot of conservation efforts have worked - energy star appliances, CAFE standards, tougher building codes, cogeneration, low flow showerheads, you name it.

Sure those have been implemented by many people. But many of those same people must be part of the population who drive LT's; I'm sure the number of homes with AC have increased, and part of the ever-increasing growth of air travel. And what I meant about conservation not working, is that if you look at DOE charts on total energy usage it still is climbing.

Conservation on some fronts, and even reduced energy usage/person through conservation is not working if it is not sufficient to bring down total energy usage.

kernick

In fact everything artificial is created by man, that's the definition of the term artificial. That's the only point I was making.

Then I wonder how any food in the box, jar or can can be called "natural", as it obviously didn't grow in that container.

Could it be that someone is trying to make you think that the product is somehow better by calling it natural? What could be the reason?

Might environmentalists want to twist the word natural such that anything man does is "unnatural" which is then setting a bias to argue against something and call it pollution. I'd think environmentalists would embrace the construction of windmills, but many argue even against those as being unnatural - polluting the scenic beauty of an area? Upsetting the air currents and confusing and endangering birds?

I'm sure any sort of tidal energy projects would run into all sorts of environmental pollution and species endangerment arguments no matter where you put them. Because a natural crab wants to crawl on the natural sand, unnatural man should not put his uunnatural machine anywhere that interferes?

gagrice

The two best examples I witnessed of environmental ignorance was in the Arctic oilfields. BP built a causeway out onto the ocean. It has big culverts for the tide to move through. The environmentalist got involved and BP had to put lights in the culverts for the fish to be able to see. Then another group were successful in shutting down drilling as they claimed the drill rig was in a flight pattern of migratory birds. All expanding the carbon footprint of the oil production.

jd10013

The reason energystar and other programs have worked is because people wanted them. There is a HUGE difference between industry giving people what they want, and government telling you what you have to use. The prius is the best example. No government funding or mandates there. The marketplace reacted to what consumers wanted. And I don't think its a save the world thing either. Some probably do, but most prius buyers don't get them thinking they're saving the planet. Most people buy them because they commute long distances and want to save a couple hundred buck a month on the gas bill.

jd10013

But the point remains, more and more scientist are jumpping off the GW train, and more will continue to. People have been yammering about GW for about 20-25 years now, and the dire predictions of ecologic arrmagedon just haven't happened. At some point, they're going to start to look like fools. They're credibility as objective scientists is at stake.

gagrice

Well the feds did give up to $3100 tax credit on hybrids such as the Prius. That is all but gone for Toyota. It will be interesting to see if it has any affect on their hybrid sales.

I do think that you are right. Most people look for ways to save money on energy costs. Whether it is energy efficient appliances or vehicles. Taxes or incentives to motivate are not really a good way to do things. I would be happy to cut my CO2 emissions. The only option I can see is a diesel. My next new vehicle will be a diesel SUV or I will continue to buy old beaters and accept that the government is not interested in cutting fuel consumption or GHG.

stever

I guess you are talking about Endicott - I remember arguments about the breaching and culverts for fish passage but I never heard anything about lights (nor can I find a link - got one? You have me curious).

gagrice

Yes, it is Endicott Island. I think it was kept local. I was out there working on the phones when they were installing the conduit through the culverts. I don't think the fish see much in that silty water flowing into the Arctic anyway. It was amazing the hoops BP would go through to keep the whale watchers and fish squeezers happy. Many of the scientists studying everything from tundra grass to Bowhead whales were on grants from BP and ARCO. I can tell you they were much tougher on leaking trucks than they are here in CA. Every truck had a diaper that you put under the engine when you stopped. You would not get through the checkpoints without one in your vehicle. All snow that melted off your truck in the shop was put into a tank and cooked. To remove any contaminants.

PS you should be out kayaking the rivers....

stever

There's tons of links about Endicott on the net. Nothing I can find about lighted culverts though. Sounds a bit fishy. :shades:

Went sailing (motoring really) today but only had one of my 3 canoes in the water this year, and that was just a lake paddle once afternoon. I should Craigslist them.

kernick

Yep. I agree that people are mostly motivated by their personal finances; except if you're wealthy where $200/month is about your valet-parking bill.

I use fluorescent lights, unplug my DVR and TV when not in use, so it's not using power idling, live in a small apt., and drive < 4 miles to work. I use little energy and conserve. But I do travel when I want. I have no illusion that by me cutting back or my neighbors or the entire U.S. that that will otherwise extend carbon-based fuels and reduce CO2 emissions much. The U.S. is only 5% of the world's population, and there is a whole world out there modernizing, with people earning discretionary income. People who have had nothing in the way of appliances and vehicles will drive global energy demand upwards.

The best we will do is slow the growth, and if the past and current CO2 emissions have caused GW (a big IF), then GW will continue. Almost every environmental and resource challenge we face and will face has its root-cause in population growth; and our goal of economic growth so these people live rich and long lives.

kernick

And as I said every action has negatives. The environmentalists caused quite a bit of diesel fuel to be burnt in building that culvert right? How much energy went into manufacturing those lights/fixtures/cables and transporting them to Alaska, and then having them installed? What fuel creates the electricity to power those lights?

Remember that when you hear the word natural, do not associate that automatically with "good". Neither when you hear the word artificial or man-made should you automatically associate that with "bad". My house used to have very natural radon-gas, which is very bad natural pollution. Nature is certainly not very warm-and-fuzzy, and good. In fact one could argue that our prehistoric ancestors were very in-touch with a pure nature, and what was their average lifespan - 25 years? So maybe items having our marketing terms of man-made and artificial aren't so bad; they protect us from nature?

stever

The greenies didn't want the 5 mile causeway built in the first place - breaches were demanded to mitigate water flow and fish migration issues. The trout up there support a summer subsistence fishery.

It sounds like many of the newer rigs on the slope are now running on cleaner natural gas btw.

kernick

Cleaner maybe in terms of non-CO2 pollution. What do you think the carbon in the natural gas is being converted into during the combustion, if CO2 isn't formed?

I believe when the industry gas refers to clean they mean - relatively benign CO2 and H2O are formed.

gagrice

Yes the supply of natural gas is enormous. The way I understand it they needed to set a well head price. There was a big conflict between BP the producer and those that actually own the Natural Gas reserves. We got NG into our complex about 12 years ago if memory serves me. The rigs were much later as they moved around it was harder to get gas to them. The diesel was not real low sulfur most of the time. So the rig generators were fairly big polluters. The yellow haze on the Arctic horizon was quite visible at times. BP blamed it on the Russians.

stever

Better than flaring it eh? link

gagrice

Flaring in Prudhoe was very common when I went to work in 1980. Then they tacked a big charge on and the practice slowed way down. I really did not understand why they had to do that. I think it was to relieve gas pressure in the wells. I know they kept the pilots burning 24/7. There was enough gas burning from the pilot to probably heat the neighborhood in the winter. About a 10 foot flame shooting out all the time.

larsb

Some up, some down - but pollution continues

Five of the six largest sellers of automobiles in the United States increased average vehicle emissions over a 15-year-period, largely because of the dramatic increase in SUV sales, a new study has found.

Nissan Motor Co. had the biggest jump in per-vehicle carbon dioxide emissions, up 9.2 percent. In contrast, Toyota saw its average emissions drop by 3 percent, in part because of the gasoline-electric hybrid Prius.

U.S. autos emitted 331 million tons of energy-related carbon dioxide in 2004, which accounted for about 20 percent of all U.S. carbon emissions, according to the report released by Environmental Defense. The report noted that if they were ranked as a separate nation, U.S. autos would be the world's fifth highest carbon emitter.

In response, automakers noted the efforts they've made in recent years to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles -- such as hybrids and smaller cars -- and reduce emissions. They also said they are committed to increasing fuel efficiency.

gagrice

I would imagine that Toyota will be one of the worst in the next survey, with the Tundra outselling all the hybrids they build. Toyota will have to sell 3.275 Prius to each Tundra to maintain a GHG balance. Yes the most popular model Tundra spews 13.1 tons to the Prius 4.0 tons per year. And the Tundra spits out 4 tons more CO2 than the competitor from Chevy burning E85. Toyota would have been up with Nissan but for getting behind with the release of their gas guzzling monster truck.

ateixeira

competitor from Chevy burning E85

Except few actually do use E85.

I bet it's less than 1% of the Chevy pickup fleet.

larsb

Toyota sells a "gas guzzling monster truck?" Which model is that? I guess I missed that one.....

And I thought you dislike Ethanol as a fuel? Why are you comparing E85 Chevys in a favorable way to a Toyota truck?

You have failed to explain why you are mad at Toyota for trying to get a piece of the profitable large pickup market?

ateixeira

The funny thing is he's critical of the Tundra for not having heavy duty offerings over in the Toyota threads!

Can't have it both ways, gagrice. :P

grbeck

The headline is misleading. "Pollution" would constitute the emissions that are regulated for all vehicles by the Clean Air Act.

The level of pollutants emitted by all new vehicles continues to decline, as it has for over two decades. If carbon dioxide is suddenly defined as "pollution," then we have lots more than automobiles to worry about.

stever

Carbon dioxide was an auto pollutant under Clinton and then ruled (by the EPA) that it couldn't be regulated as a pollutant under Bush II. Then the Supremes said the EPA had to revisit the issue back in April. (link and link)

I don't think the EPA has said whether they will now try to classify carbon dioxide emissions from cars as a pollutant. They'll likely get sued either way.

kernick

Ah, good old Bill ... didn't he rule on what a "Hummer" in his office was or wasn't also? That was the Executive Privilege definition?Also, even though he didn't inhale, I believe the pollution from the joint was the same?

If a CO2 is a pollutant simply because it is manmade, thus as many want to then say - unnatural, couldn't any molecular/chemical change not occurring naturally pollution? If I throw some salt in some water that is pollution? but naturally occurring seawater is not pollution?

robertsmx

I&#146;m wondering if there was a power outage, in Crawford, TX, before GWB embarked on his journey to Australia. :P

Link

gagrice

Toyota sells a "gas guzzling monster truck?" Which model is that?

Their most popular new model. The CrewMax 4X4 with the 5.7L gas guzzling V8. If you don't feel that 13.1 tons of CO2 per year is all that bad. I guess I misread some of your other posts.

Yes, it is more CO2 than the competition's most popular 5.3L V8 engine using regular unleaded gas.

I don't care if Toyota tries to sell Hummer sized vehicles. I will bad mouth their hype that they are green. Selling one hybrid for every gas guzzler does not give you a green light.

gagrice

The funny thing is he's critical of the Tundra for not having heavy duty offerings

I think if you re-read what I said it was that the Tundra was a flimsy framed excuse for a 1/2 ton PU truck. It has less strength than any of the competition. I am sure you have seen the video someone else posted showing a comparison on a rough road. The Tundra almost fell apart it was flexing so much.

robertsmx

I'm wondering...

What is being discussed here?

gagrice

CO2 and the gas guzzling trucks & SUVs from the supposedly "Green" Toyota....

robertsmx

I thought green trees loved CO2...

During my absence, did I miss a transformation in contributors that everybody wants to be green (not as in Martian green), and unanimously complain about non-green automobiles?

larsb

Gary - one question:

Has any other company sold as many clean cars as Toyota in the last 10 years?

If that answer is YES, then they are not "the greenest."

But with over a million hybrids on the road, they have to be in the top two or three.

How can that statement not be true?

robertsmx

Even if Toyota did sell more hybrids, I don't think Toyota's fundamental approach bodes well with "we value green more than anybody else" slogan. There is a smaller company we're forgetting, that is usually on the other side of the fence compared to others when more stringent measures are asked for. Guess which company that is...

stever

If I throw some salt in some water that is pollution?

I was going to say yeah, if it's my well you're tossing it into. Then I remembered my water softener. :shades:

Robertsmx - Honda?