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
Seven years ago, WSJ published an article on Honda-Toyota rivalry, here is an excerpt from it:
As Honda Chief Executive Hiroyuki Yoshino strolled through the Toyota display at this year's Detroit auto show, what caught his eye wasn't the roster of new Toyotas but a very familiar red race car.
The Toyota Motor Corp. name was clearly emblazoned on the side of the car. But there was no doubt: This was the machine that had been powered by Honda engines and serviced by Honda engineers, until just a year ago. It was the same machine used by race-team owner Chip Ganassi -- under the Honda Motor Co. flag -- before he orchestrated a sensational defection last year and named Toyota as his new engine supplier.
The Toyota display did tout the Ganassi team's four racing championships. What it didn't mention was that Honda was associated with all of those wins.
:
Once the Ganassi team began using its engines, Toyota quickly launched a TV ad campaign that irritated Honda. Like the Detroit auto show display, Toyota billed the Ganassi team as its own four-time CART champion team, without mentioning that all those four times the team was driving Honda- powered machines. "The ads are absolutely misleading; we would never resort to a stunt like that," says Mr. Fukui. "We have pride."
That is a classic example of Toyota marketing, a reason I have lost respect for the company. The funny thing is, Ganassi racing never won the championship after the move to Toyota (and he was paid big bucks to make a switch). Honda moved on to other teams and kept doing its thing in CART (and there is more to it that follows, including CART seeing exit of Honda and others for political reasons).
I see something very similar with Toyota marketing itself as a "green" company. Sure they are making the best selling hybrid car in Prius (interestingly enough, it barely outdoes the more simplistic Civic Hybrid in real life). Yet, it also happened to be on the other side of the fence with virtually all others when feds were considering an increase in CAFE. Honda was on the other side.
Clearly, Toyota does have a strong marketing team. And that is a big time weakness for Honda. Here is another example of Toyota's aggression, and Honda's politeness (from the same article):
Toyota executives consider their slower entry into the U.S. market as no particular setback. They deem the two-seat Insight "a gimmicky rush job" to catch up with Toyota, says Toyota's Mr. Jagawa -- a claim Mr. Fukui partly concedes. Mr. Fukui says Honda wanted to make the Insight a family sedan with four seats but ran out of time while focusing on delivering a big number in fuel economy to top the Prius's performance.
Link
This is Honda... (click on the text for link to the article)
"the Honda Motor Company, Ltd broke ranks with the pack, becoming the first automotive manufacturer to publicly support higher CAFE standards. On January 30th, it said the U.S. government needs to do a better job of getting more fuel efficient vehicles on the road, including boosting gasoline mileage requirements and offering incentives so consumers want to buy cars and trucks that burn less fuel."
And this is Toyota...
"Up the street on Capitol Hill, though, the sight of Toyota lobbyists working with the Detroit 3 to defeat the toughest fuel economy proposals is raising eyebrows."
Based on just that, it is hard to justify Toyota as the greenest of all. Unless that green is $$$.
Duh !!!!!
They are trying to break into and then dominate the market !!
A little marketing lesson for you Gary:
What do you do when you have a competitor who is already the "Big Dog" in a market, and you are the newcomer trying to take some of the market share?
(insert Jeopardy Theme here while Gary thinks)
(insert Jeopardy Theme here while Gary thinks)
(insert Jeopardy Theme here while Gary thinks)
(insert Jeopardy Theme here while Gary thinks)
(insert Jeopardy Theme here while Gary thinks)
(insert Jeopardy Theme here while Gary thinks)
(insert Jeopardy Theme here while Gary thinks)
You try to BEAT THEIR PRODUCT IN THE AREAS WHICH THE BUYER CARES MOST ABOUT !!!
They know that most of those truck buyers CARE about POWER. So they TARGET what they think the buyer wants.
After they get a bigger share of the market and people love their trucks and they have created "brand loyalty" in that vehicle class, AT THAT POINT they can start worrying about higher mileage in those trucks.
That STILL DOES NOT TAKE AWAY from their efforts in the hybrid and clean car arena !!
Let me explain.
Yes, I think Toyota's PR juggernaut has done a phenominal job painting the company green while selling lots of big trucks that are the ones that really bring in the profits. The old 4.7l V8 wasn't even a particularly clean engine.
However, Tundra competes with other full-size trucks. It's not like you choose between a compact car and a full-size truck. A full-size truck buyer will buy one truck or another. Toyota just wants that buyer to pick theirs over a competitor's full-size truck.
That doesn't increase pollution. In fact I'm sure anyone trading in an older truck for a new Toyota ends up with far cleaner emissions. Think about it.
Compare what they trade in to what they buy, the Tundra (or any new truck) is no worse.
Do you really, honestly think that Toyota's brilliant engineers are so stupid that they cannot build an economical truck if the BigWigs at 'Yota told them to do so?
If you really do, that's outrageously comical......
Speaking of fuel economy, cost, performance etc, I referred to a comparison test by C&D and also got help from EPA's website, for the following numbers:
Silverado 1500
Observed mileage (C&D, over 500 miles): 12 mpg
Green House Gas Emissions (EPA): 13.1 ton
Air Pollution Score (EPA): 3
Tundra
Observed mileage (C&D, over 500 miles): 13 mpg
Green House Gas Emissions (EPA): 12.2-13.1 ton
Air Pollution Score (EPA): 6
So, while the Toyota isn't killing the Chevrolet in fuel economy and GHG and pollution, it is still beating it. Thats not a sign of being worse.
As for price tag, aren't they about the same, similarly equipped for similar engines? Is Chevy not placing deals on the hood of Silverado anymore?
Oh, and in that C&D comparison test, Tundra was also the quickest in all measured performance category. Now, if it were doing just that, and getting killed on fuel economy (or vice versa)... then we could talk a lot more about it.
PBS interview:
Some people hold that the threat of climate change is so great that we need to fundamentally change the way we produce and use energy. What's your response to this view?
Climate change is a natural phenomenon. Climate keeps changing all the time. The fact that climate changes is not in itself a threat, because, obviously, in the past human beings have adapted to all kinds of climate changes.
The argument is that there's a new cause for climate change, which is human beings. And that the dimensions of this change might exceed what is natural or normal.
Well, there's no question in my mind that humanity is able to affect climate on a local scale. We all know that cities are warmer than the suburbs or surrounding countryside. So there's clear indication that human beings, in producing energy, in just living, generate heat. We're not going to go back to living without energy.
Whether or not human beings can produce a global climate change is an important question. This question is not at all settled. It can only be settled by actual measurements, data. And the data are ambiguous. For example, the data show that the climate warmed between 1900 and 1940, long before humanity used much energy. But then the climate cooled between 1940 and 1975. Then it warmed again for a very short period of time, for about five years. But since 1979, our best measurements show that the climate has been cooling just slightly. Certainly, it has not been warming.
Anything else? . . .
Let me say something about this idea of scientific consensus. Well, you really shouldn't go by numbers. I think it's significant to straighten out misconceptions. One misconception is that 2,500 IPCC scientists agree that global warming is coming, and it's going to be two degrees Centigrade by the year 2100. That's just not so. In the first place, if you count the names in the IPCC report, it's less than 2,000. If you count the number of climate scientists, it's about 100. If you then ask how many of them agree, the answer is: You can't tell because there was never a poll taken. These scientists actually worked on the report. They agree with the report, obviously, in particular with the chapter that they wrote. They do not necessarily agree with the summary, because the summary was written by a different group, a handful of government scientists who had a particular point of view, and they extracted from the report those facts that tended to support their point of view.
For example, they came up with a conclusion--the only conclusion of this 1996 report--that there's a discernible human influence on climate. I don't know what that means. Nobody really knows what that means. On the one hand, it's easy to agree with a statement "a discernible human influence on global climate." Sure, why not? Nights are getting warmer. Maybe that's it. On the other hand, it certainly does not mean--as politicians think it does--it does not mean that the climate models have been validated, that there's going to be a major warming in the next century. It does not mean that. And they don't say that. They just imply it.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html
Smells like another agenda guy to me.
Besides, if humanity can adapt, do we really need environmental scientists? He should be the first to go.
Anecdotal, individual opinions matter far less than the consensus.
I don't think there is a doubt that Earf is warming. The CAUSE is the item of considerable debate.
There probably is a smoking gun out there somewhere waiting to be found for the I told you so crowd.
I don't think we should be judging scientific issues on opinions, unless we absolutely have no other choice ... ex. how to destroy/divert a comet. We should be asking for proof based on how the climate system works, and all the data and history of climate change. Using an unproven climate model and contributing factors, and selecting some data that supports the author's point is not being true to science.
We should save opinions for moral and religious matters.
In the PBS interview Singer makes some claims about the so-called consensus on GW. Are his numbers correct or is Al Gore's numbers correct? There is a very wide disparity. Any one have proof one way or the other? I see more scientists coming out against the UN GW summary than those that totally agree with it.
Any GW statement is going to have to be tested - with some studies/statements/positions, the past history of the proponent will certainly color the believability of the data or statement. I'm less inclined to spend much time reading a scientist's study in the first place if past history indicates that the data was collected with a paid result in mind.
Pols are advocates and my radar is already dopplered when they open their mouths.
Are there any credible scientists that do not owe their souls to an entity with an agenda?
That would sound like smokers trusting studies from Philip Morris' research facilities.
Yeah, but as I lamented before, Feynman isn't with us anymore.
So people believe the scientists they like, or those that scream the loudest and have the most charisma.
What people should be doing is questioning what they hear. If a scientist tells you there is GW because the temperature is warmer than in 1900, take a look to see if that wasn't a particularly cold year. What if you select other years. Look back 20K years and see that the Earth has been warming since the last Ice Age. Read about the history of the earth, tectonic plates and their movement, ancient seas, cycles of the sun, ... You could learn a lot just by watching Discovery or Science channels.
Sure man effects the climate, this is not rocket-science. Everything affects everything. The question is does man contribute to GW in a significant amount relative to what is and has occurred, and is this necessarily bad.
Summary: whether it is Feynmann, Bush, Gore, Letterman, Clinton, Obama, and any news- anchor, or whomever, don't go gung-ho over what they say. These are humans with biases and agendas. See if their theories or opinions fit ALL the facts.
I certainly see a few degrees warming of the Earth as beneficial, and not something worth destroying the world economy to slow-down any GW there might be, a little bit. If you don't like the heat, I think most of Alaska and Canada are empty. Or if you like to stay in the 48 - I know Maine has a lot of cooler, open inexpensive land.
The bottom line is I am not going to cut back on my lifestyle to make the likes of Al Gore look good. I will not buy any bigger home than my current 3000 sq feet. I will get an SUV when one I really like comes along. It will have to big enough for real comfort and get close to 30 MPG. That pretty much eliminates gas. With diesel I will be doing a small part to cut down on GHG gas IF it really makes any difference. So far I don't think so.
The only way to have real success in science ... is to describe the evidence very carefully without regard to the way you feel it should be. If you have a theory, you must try to explain what's good about it and what's bad about it equally. In science you learn a kind of standard integrity and honesty. — Richard Feynman
Man Made GW not likely
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2007-09-16-green-guilt_N.htm
So I don't feel guilty in the least. I don't have a psychological problem - apologizing because I'm successful, and that I use resources to exist.
Judge Tosses Calif Global Warming Suit (AP)
Mike Royko (he of the Governor Moonbeam reference) - there's another guy that I'd love to hear expound on GW.
Jenkins ruled that a court "injecting itself into the global warming thicket at this juncture would require an initial policy determination of the type reserved for the political branches of government."
Be careful what you wish for, LOL.
And, I will not call this a prediction: "some sun, some clouds and possible rain in the next 3-5 days, with some afternoon wind and mild temperatures"...that can be the forecast for over 180 days a years in Atlanta...
To call human-caused global warming a hoax is ridiculous as it almost gives it an iota of credibility... it is an outright lie...and being crammed down our throats by quacks and charlatans masquerading as scientists...
According to the U.N. panel of scientists, whose latest report is a synthesis of three previous ones, enough carbon dioxide already has built up that it imperils islands, coastlines and a fifth to two-thirds of the world's species.
As early as 2020, 75 million to 250 million people in Africa will suffer water shortages, residents of Asia's large cities will be at great risk of river and coastal flooding, according to the report.
In the best-case scenario, temperatures will keep rising from carbon already in the atmosphere, the report said. Even if factories were shut down today and cars taken off the roads, the average sea level will gradually rise over the next 1,000 years to reach as high as 4.6 feet above that in the preindustrial period, or about 1850.
"We have already committed the world to sea level rise," the panel's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, said. But if the Greenland ice sheet melts, the scientists said, they could not predict by how many feet the seas will rise, drowning coastal cities.
China and India have said any measures impinging on their development and efforts to lift their people from poverty were unacceptable - a point likely to be heeded at the Bali talks.
I hear that the guy who founded "The Weather Channel" has said that GW is a giant scam.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.
Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.
I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.
In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious.
Very interesting read on the heated subject (pardon the pun) and some really good food for thought. Without any new revelations on the GW juggernaut I think his argument makes some seriously good sense.
I mean, scientists and know-everythings on science wouldn't have an agenda going here,. would they? Of course they would!
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
The leading spokesperson of today’s enviro-chic celebrities is Al Gore, whose face is everywhere from his award winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth to Norway where he recently received the Nobel Peace Prize. Many Americans would naturally assume Gore follows the green lifestyle he widely promotes, and they would be wrong. Gore and his wife Tipper, whose children all live elsewhere, reside in a behemoth 20-room mansion outside of Nashville that used nearly 23,000 kilowatt-hours last August, more than twice the annual—yes, annual—energy usage of a typical American home. Gore’s preferred mode of transportation between stops on his international publicity tour is his private jet, which spews out CO2 emissions at the rate of a small army of SUVs.
Hypocritical enviro-advocates abound these days, constantly reminding us to make sacrifices in the interest of the earth while forgoing few comforts themselves. Green activist and actor John Travolta likes to spend his free time toying around in one of his five private planes, including a commercial Boeing 707, racking up 800 tons of carbon emissions in the last year. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has managed to promote his idea of an environmentally friendly lifestyle by creating a hydrogen-fueled Hummer—a car that gets a whopping 10-15 miles per gallon
Hollywood stars have long used their fame to advocate changes in our society. Today’s stars are falling short in their environmental efforts, holding a double standard that allows them to continue to fly private jets while imploring other Americans to drive hybrids and turn down their thermostats. In today’s celebrity obsessed society, where pictures of celebs are splashed across dozens of magazines, websites, and newspapers, this failure to practice what they preach detracts from their message. Americans want to emulate the stars, not just obey them.
The American lifestyle is built upon overindulgence; from McMansions to SUVs we love our conspicuous consumption. That way of life is no longer sustainable. Our planet is disintegrating, and unless we begin to change our ways—and not just talk about changing them—those $10 million dollar Malibu homes will no longer exist for Hollywood’s celebrities to frolic in. America has plenty of these phony Hollywood enviro-celebs what it needs now is someone who actually practices what he preaches.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=520555
I can tell you this about him. He is the meteorologist on KUSI TV here in San Diego. It is kind of a retirement job for him. He has been a TV weatherman since 1953, including 7 years as the weatherman on ABC's "Good Morning America".
An example:
After the horrendous winds that fanned the recent fires in Southern California, all the major weather services were predicting another similar Santa Ana condition was to follow in the next week. John Coleman came on his show on KUSI and said no we were in for higher humidity and Westerly winds through that period. Coleman was the ONLY weather service that called it right. We have had these warnings every week since the fire of more strong Easterly winds. None have materialized. It is just like the phony predictions of worse hurricanes following Katrina. It is only wishful thinking by the sensationalist news media in this country.
GW may be a scam but global pollution is still an important issue to try and do something about, though. GW may not be occurring but there is a whole lot of polluting going on. Evidently China's cities are lax on curbing or re-routing pollution, so I have been learning.
What makes that fact disturbing is that their population wants more and more automobiles (they now produce about 30% of the vehicles sold in China from their own domestic automakers and they are picking up what needs to be done from GM, Kia, Hyundai, Volkswagen, Citroen, Mitsubishi, etc.and becoming more and more independent. Of course not totally independent, no.) and more and more roads but you and I and pert-near everybody else knows what comes from that production. Nasty gobs and gobs of CO2 pollution. Ick.
Imagine if GW was real and we mix all of this pollution with more and more warming. Anyone for life on Mars instead?
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
So you avoid crowds at all times? You must freak-out when you go to a crowded movie theater? Imagine all the CO2 that people emit when breathing, that gets on your popcorn!
You are right about China, and that applies to most developing economies. In fact it was just announced that Chery will be delaying bringing cars here to the U.S. because they aren't technologically advanced enough to meet our emission standards. But they sell those very same cars throughout Asia.
When you're selling cars to people who will only pay a few thousand $, you might have to skip the platinum in the catalytic converter, or such.
This warming IS happening. It is our DUTY as citizens of and dependents of this Earf to make sure that if OUR ACTIONS are contributing to the warming, then WE need to take whatever reasonable REASONABLE steps we can to reverse or at the very least SLOW DOWN the warming.
As far as an answer to the topic at hand: I will be driving non-fossil-fueled vehicle as soon as something affordable and practical is put up for sale.
If the doomsday cults are correct, and we will run out of oil in the next few years, what is the big sweat to cut CO2 emissions. The GW crowd have already said we have damaged the earth to the extent it cannot be reversed for 100 years.
China & India stated in the last go around at the UN alarmist convention in Spain, that they were NOT going to do anything that would stop the move to bring their people into the 21st century. So you have over 2.5 billion people that are not going backward. What real significance can we play when we are already buying the cleanest cars on earth?
I can guarantee you will not be driving a vehicle in AZ that does not in some way depend on fossil fuel in your lifetime. Most of your electricity is derived for now and into the future with Coal. Solar is still a ways off for any practical solutions. Fuel cell cars all depend on natural gas.
If WE (the world) wants to stop increasing CO2 and pollution, then we had better decide to stop increasing GDP, and reduce our living standards and growth, until these non-fossil fuels are developed. Does anyone see us voting for a congressman or president who will reduce our economy 2% per year? ration gas and other fuels? suggest that families start doubling-up in housing? I'm sure we could all come up with some other "popular"
It ain't gonna happen. Because the majority of people want the American dream of a large house with the in-ground pool and central AC, and the right/opportunity to own a 5.7L Tundra to take their kids to football practice, haul some manure occasionally, and tow their fishing-boat around. Or they want a 400hp car, or for 1 reason or another they can't find appropriate housing within 30 miles of their work.
Regardless of whether the "earth as a whole" is warming", there ARE locations on Earf where warming is affecting the flora, fauna, and wildlife in a very negative way.
Whatever the cause, and whatever the solution might or might not be, IGNORING/DENYING/FIGHTING ABOUT IT is not the correct response.
Give the world affordable solar and we can make a serious dent in our own carbon footprint. Government, were it not OWNED by Big Oil, could give enough subsidy dollars to about 1/2 of the home owners in the USA for families to install solar and use it to power their homes and cars (enough for the average 26 mile commute.)
All the pie in the sky rhetoric ends up getting shot down by the reality of cost.
Solar power isn't free, it isn't cheap, and it isn't realistic for 90% of the US.
Even here in AZ, you would have to carpet the desert in solar cells to make a real difference.
Can you see the Sierra Club allowing that?
How do you figure that?
First of all, half the families in the US can't use Solar power,not enough sunlight.
Second, given the cost to install solar cells in a home, you are talking about BILLIONS of dollars, if not more.
PS
Big oil owns most of the solar PV manufacturing. I am sure they would welcome some corporate welfare like ADM is getting with Ethanol. We would be so much better off if the government kept their nose out of all but the air & water quality issues. They will never be able to steer us in a good direction on alternative energy. They are too far behind the curve.
"Give the world AFFORDABLE solar.........."
See the word you missed? I want more money thrown at solar research so a breakthrough can be made and solar can be AFFORDABLE.
And in case you guys missed it, solar works in Seattle too. UV rays make it through clouds. That's why you can get severely sunburned on a cloudy day.
See this article:
Cloudy but still Solar Powered in Germany
Even though millions of Germans flee their damp, dark homeland for holidays in the Mediterranean sun, 55 percent of the world's photovoltaic (PV) power is generated on solar panels set up between the Baltic Sea and the Black Forest.
Now, please, let us end the arguments that the USA could not generate enough of it's own solar power if there was a breakthrough which made it cheaper.