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
I looked into straw bales and adobe building for here in CA. Adobe is no longer allowed because of earthquake support. I could never get an affirmative answer on the straw bales. I followed one website in AZ and they went through H--- getting permits from the locals. I think both are better than the crap they are doing today with particle board siding and stucco. It is all controlled by the big contractors in CA. I built 3 energy efficient homes in Minnesota in 1977. It was horrible getting the bank to finance because we used all weather wood that they were not familiar with in that backward state. I think my building days are behind me. Too many hassles with all the regulations.
Our new home has excellent insulation. We had a few days of 45 degrees over night and the coldest our house got inside was 67 degrees with NO heat used yet.
•More Russians have cars. There are 36 million registered vehicles in Russia now compared with 11 million in 1995 and 28 million two years ago, according to Russia's Interior Ministry.
•And more are taking foreign vacations. Last year, 7.7 million Russians traveled outside the old Soviet bloc compared with 2.6 million in 1995, according to the Federal Tourism Agency, with foreign vacations increasing 31% in the first six months of this year.
More proof of what I've said in the forums many times; the improving economies and lifestyles of millions of people is what determines the future cost of oil, its use, and the environmental issues of it. Global trends are what's important. Russia alone put 8 million new cars on the road in 2 years. Did the U.S. reduce by 8 million just to hold emissions the same? Did a few hundred thousand hybrids save enough fuel to makeup for these 8 million new cars' gas usage?
I wonder how many new cars were put on the road in other countries?
Typical person: "I'm certainly not going to conserve just so someone else can drive a new car and take a vacation instead of me. I won't waste fuel, but I'm certainly going to use the $ I earn, to enjoy what I can afford. And I won't vote for any politician who would put laws in otherwise."
amen brother you preach it.
Why would I not use what I can afford when all the people in Washington DC are doing the same. If Al Gore, Hillary Clinton or John Edwards can fly around in a personal jet with the MONSTROUS Carbon footprint they put down. I should be able to join with a 150 other folks in a jet headed to Hawaii. To suggest that we as the poor middle class masses should give up our hard earned standard of living to accomodate some elitist politician really gets my blood to boiling. The sad part is so many even on this well informed Forum get sucked into that ignorance. If the globe is warming up it will make NO difference if you drive a Yugo or a Hummer.... At least with the Hummer you can get ahead of the rising oceans :P
I guess we're supposed to freak out and like the Hummer because it can take you back to a weather-stricken area after the damage is done. Not just away from it.
Interesting take on a way of trying to sell a behemoth SUV/tank, eh?
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
FIGURES in the final draft of the UN’s fourth five-year report on climate change show that the previous report, in 2001, had overestimated the human influence on the climate since the Industrial Revolution by at least one-third.
UN scientists faced several problems their computer models had not predicted. Globally, temperature is not rising at all, and sea level is not rising anything like as fast as had been forecast. Concentrations of methane in the air are actually falling.
Sources at the center of the drafting say that, though the now-traditional efforts are being made to sound alarmist and scientific at the same time, key projections are being quietly cut.
Computer models heavily relied on by the UN did not predict the considerable cooling of the oceans that has occurred since 2003 – a cooling which demonstrates that neither the frequency nor the intensity of the hurricanes in the year of Katrina was attributable to “global warming”.
The UN’s models also failed to predict the halt to the rise in methane concentrations in the air that began in 2001. And they did not predict the timing or size of the El Nino which hiked temperature in 1998.
Lord Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley, has sent an open letter to Senators Rockefeller (D-WV) and Snowe (R-Maine) in response to their recent open letter telling the CEO of ExxonMobil to cease funding climate-skeptic scientists.
Lord Monckton, former policy adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, writes: "You defy every tenet of democracy when you invite ExxonMobil to deny itself the right to provide information to 'senior elected and appointed government officials' who disagree with your opinion."
In what The Charleston (WV) Daily Mail has called "an intemperate attempt to squelch debate with a hint of political consequences," Senators Rockefeller and Snowe released an open letter dated October 30 to ExxonMobil CEO, Rex Tillerson, insisting he end Exxon's funding of a "climate change denial campaign." The Senators labeled scientists with whom they disagree as "deniers," a term usually directed at "Holocaust deniers." Some voices on the political left have called for the arrest and prosecution of skeptical scientists. The British Foreign Secretary has said skeptics should be treated like advocates of Islamic terror and must be denied access to the media.
Responds Lord Monckton, "Sceptics and those who have the courage to support them are actually helpful in getting the science right. They do not, as you improperly suggest, 'obfuscate' the issue: they assist in clarifying it by challenging weaknesses in the 'consensus' argument and they compel necessary corrections ... "
Lord Monckton's Churchillian reproof continues, "You acknowledge the effectiveness of the climate sceptics. In so doing, you pay a compliment to the courage of those free-thinking scientists who continue to research climate change independently despite the likelihood of refusal of publication in journals that have taken preconceived positions; the hate mail and vilification from ignorant environmentalists; and the threat of loss of tenure in institutions of learning which no longer make any pretence to uphold or cherish academic freedom."
Of Britain's Royal Society, a State-funded scientific body which, like the Senators, has publicly leaned on ExxonMobil, Lord Monckton said, "The Society's long-standing funding by taxpayers does not ensure any greater purity of motive or rigour of thought than industrial funding of scientists who dare to question whether 'climate change' will do any harm."
To the Senators' comparison of ExxonMobil's funding of climate sceptics with tobacco-industry funding of research denying the link between smoking and lung cancer, Lord Monckton counters, "Your comparison of Exxon's funding of sceptical scientists and groups with the former antics of the tobacco industry is unjustifiable and unworthy of any credible elected representatives. Either withdraw that monstrous comparison forthwith, or resign so as not to pollute the office you hold."
Concludes Lord Monckton, "I challenge you to withdraw or resign because your letter is the latest in what appears to be an internationally-coordinated series of maladroit and malevolent attempts to silence the voices of scientists and others who have sound grounds, rooted firmly in the peer- reviewed scientific literature, to question what you would have us believe is the unanimous agreement of scientists worldwide that global warming will lead to what you excitedly but unjustifiably call 'disastrous' and 'calamitous' consequences."
He screwed up his Andean glacier statements and DDT stuff but has his mind made up and won't accept anyone's corrections.
Maybe he is used to Presidential debates where you do not need facts to fool the masses.
CHICAGO, IL: In recent months, former vice president Al Gore has become the world’s most recognized advocate of the theory that human greenhouse gas emissions are altering the world’s climate and could cause catastrophic damage if not arrested and reduced. He is getting hundreds of millions of dollars in free publicity from the press and from environmental groups that echo his warning.
But Al Gore refuses to debate those who say global warming is not a crisis.
Maybe it’s because climate alarmists tend to lose when they debate climate realists. Or because most scientists do not support climate alarmism.
Dennis Avery, coauthor of the best-selling book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, is still waiting for Gore to respond to his April 16 formal debate challenge:
[Our two] books represent the two leading explanations for the earth’s recent temperature changes—and they conflict. If global warming truly is the most important public policy issue of our day, then it is high time the public got to hear the arguments from both sides matched up against each other. How else can people make informed decisions? Therefore, I formally challenge you to debate me at a public event, preferably to be televised or carried by a radio station, sometime in the coming months.
Avery is director of the Center for Global Food Issues and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. He holds awards for outstanding performance from three different government agencies and was awarded the National Intelligence Medal of Achievement in 1983. He travels the world as a speaker, has testified before Congress, and has appeared on most of the nation's major television networks. He is well-qualified to debate Gore ... and certainly at least merits the decency of a response to his challenge, which he has yet to receive.
Avery is not the only person to challenge Gore to debate. Lord Monckton of Brenchley, a former advisor to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, issued the following challenge on March 14:
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley presents his compliments to Vice-President Albert Gore and by these presents challenges the said former Vice-President to a head-to-head, internationally-televised debate upon the question “That our effect on climate is not dangerous,” to be held in the Library of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History at a date of the Vice-President’s choosing.
Forasmuch as it is His Lordship who now flings down the gauntlet to the Vice-President, it shall be the Vice-President’s prerogative and right to choose his weapons by specifying the form of the Great Debate. May the Truth win! Magna est veritas, et praevalet.
Like Avery, Lord Monckton is eminently qualified to debate Gore
How does that compare to the 11 known mis-truths in the Al Gore Movie "Inconvenient Truth"? What is the difference between Scientists receiving money from Exxon or a Congress with an agenda? Why is it so bad to have a debate among scientists over the issue of GW. I am going with my local meteorologist John Coleman that calls the weather right more than the rest. He is also the one that started the Weather Channel in the early 1980s. His take on GW follows. He is semi retired and just does the weather on KUSI. NO Exxon or Gore money involved.
On Nov. 11, a blog called Icecap posted a commentary by Coleman in which he called global warming “the greatest scam in history.” He said “manipulated science has been accepted as fact” by “well-informed but very gullible environmentally conscientious citizens.”
It seems a little like arguing about social security at this point. Most people seem to have accepted that [having social security] [being greener] [making contractors follow OSHA laws] [heavily taxing cigarettes] is a societal need.
I think Al and his ilk are more interested in talking about how to decrease CO2 emissions or invest in clean tech (link) than arguing over whether GW exists (or whether we should do away with social security or workplace safety laws or cig taxes).
GW proponents think they've won the war in other words; now they are battling over how to direct the policy changes and profit from the new regs, laws and incentives that have already come along and those in the wings. Why spin their wheels rehashing stuff with Lord Monckton or Mr. Coleman?
Whether autos are a major cause of GW is still debatable, but the debate is really about how much to increase CAFE or how much will the next hybrid incentive will be.
“proponents of man-made global warming have been funded to the tune of $50 BILLION in the last decade or so,” not even counting the impact of one-sided media reporting, “while skeptics have received a paltry $19 MILLION.”
That should buy off a consensus of scientists. To date Exxon has contributed $16 million to study GW in a scientific manner without presupposed answers. Al Gore and ULTRA left wing organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists started out with the Answers they wanted and set out to convince an unsuspecting public.
If that were true I would be in agreement with the policy. It is not true. They have managed to fill our children with half truths and out right lies. Kids coming home and telling their parents they need to get rid of the SUV as it IS causing GW.
I have no problem with cutting emissions and GHG in a practical and realistic manner. That is not what the GW Cult is after. They want control of our lives. When they get people thinking that it is OK to tax our CO2 output, we need to fight that kind of ignorance.
Al Gore and his ilk have opened this can of worms. They have managed to further split the country that was already at odds on the war and several other social issues.
We can all voluntarily contribute to social security while we're at it. That proposal keeps trying to rise about the lead balloon stage now and then.... :shades:
Well, there's Google and Wal-Mart on the corporate side. link. Oh wait, can't use Wal-Mart since they've been talking with Gore. Oops, he's a senior advisor to Google too.
Still looking for a link I saw today about a different approach proposed up in Canada that lets the emitters grow and lets their emissions grow (to avoid crimping the economy) with some sort of offset downstream to bring overall emissions down.
"This spring, Canada became the first country to adopt a nationwide policy that seeks to reduce the rate at which carbon dioxide and other greenhouse-gas emissions are produced, rather than the total amount of emissions produced. Taking a markedly different approach from the Kyoto Protocol, which mandates cuts in emissions, Canada's new rules mean that producers of oil, gas, power, iron, steel, chemicals, cement and other materials can increase production -- and their total emissions -- as long as the ratio of their emissions to the basic unit of production in their industry declines. For power generators, say, the ratio is per kilowatt-hour; for oil producers, it's per barrel of oil. The rules are set to take effect in 2010."
WJS subscription? link
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071202/ap_on_go_co/more_mpg
-Rocky
Domestic automakers and Toyota Motor Corp. vehemently opposed a Senate bill approved passed in June that contained the same mileage requirements and timeline. They warned the measure would limit the choice of vehicles, threaten jobs and drive up costs.
The companies backed an alternative of 32 mpg to 35 mpg by 2022. At the time, Chrysler LLC executive Tom LaSorda told employees the Senate bill would "add up to a staggering $6,700 — almost a 40 percent increase — to the cost of every Chrysler vehicle."
But the compromise worked out by Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate leaders, maintains a significant boost in mileage standards while giving the industry more flexibility and certainty as they plan new vehicles.
-Rocky
Whilst I strongly believe we must lessen our use of natural resources, I'm afraid I find the Gore, et al, approach to be just another control mechanism and a particularly cynical and arrogant one at that. However, I am amazed that large parts of the USA population still seems to cling to it's "need" for oversize automobiles when no real "need" exists.
Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" really impressed me - particularly the reference bibliography at the back.
All of that is purely my opinion, of course and, as an ardent Climate Change proponent recently pointed out to me; "Opinions are like a**holes - everbody has one".
I agree that wasting natural resources is not good. The difference between the mindset of Americans and Europeans is not one of how much can we use. It is based on what can we afford. Or more correctly, how much can we borrow. Our vehicle buying fluctuates with the price of fuel. Gas and diesel has been expensive in the EU forever, due to very high taxes. Most Europeans bought cars that would get good mileage. We have not been given the opportunity to buy the high mileage cars here that the EU has available to them. Mostly because of our very strict emissions regulations. In the EU the first step was to try and use less fossil fuel. Then clean the emissions as technology advanced. We got the cart before the horse and are trying to catch up.
Add to that the political tone of the whole GW hysteria. I for one do not believe we have a very big impact on the globe as far as CO2 is concerned. We have not been told the truth about the actual amount of CO2 we are supposed to be emitting. CO2 is still a minute part of our atmosphere. Our current average of CO2 around the Globe is 375 PPM. The rise over the last 200 years is only a few PPM. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would have to get in the area of 5000 PPM to become unhealthy for animals and people.
I think if we took a vote across the world, especially the North and South of the 45th parallel, people would like to see it a bit warmer.
I think making sure emissions are clean should be the primary goal. Then, in the course of accomplishing that goal you manage to produce cars which burn less fuel while it is also polluting less, then the extra "burn less fuel" perk is a "side benefit," not a primary benefit.
If anyone in Washington had a spine, they would pass a law making all 4-cylinder cars required to be PZEVs.
And regardless of "who or what caused the current warming trend which is melting polar ice caps etc etc," doing something about trying to maintain a proper balance of human-generated pollution is a good goal.
Denying the fact that isolated warming is definitely happening just blowing hot air (pun intended).
The South polar ice cap is growing without a doubt. I am not sure what they measured to determine that the Arctic ice is melting. I spent a long 25 years working on the Arctic Ocean. The last winter I was up there was the coldest recorded. About 35 Days that never got above 45 degrees below zero. The previous Summer was so short they almost missed getting their barges in and out as the Ice pack was not going out as it usually does. You feel free to believe what you will. I will do the same. And I can tell you I do not believe anything that comes out of Al Gore's lips.
I think making sure emissions are clean should be the primary goal.
I guess you are getting your wish. I was responding to the comment about the Fact that Europeans on average drive higher mileage vehicles. It is quite simple. They went for cutting waste and emissions second. I happen to think that is the proper sequence. So again we just have to disagree.
And the matter of "believing what we each want to believe" does not even apply. It's not an opinion thing. It's a "this is happening" thing.
SATELLITES CONTINUE TO SEE DECLINE IN ARCTIC SEA ICE IN 2005
Researchers from NASA, the National Snow and Ice Data Center and others using satellite data have detected a significant loss in Arctic sea ice this year. On Sept. 21, 2005, sea ice extent dropped to 2.05 million sq. miles, the lowest extent yet recorded in the satellite record.
Incorporating the 2005 minimum using satellite data going back to 1978, with a projection for ice growth in the last few days of this September, brings the estimated decline in Arctic sea ice to 8.5 percent per decade over the 27 year satellite record.
Scientists involved in this research are from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and the University of Washington, Seattle.
Satellites have made continual observations of Arctic sea ice extent since 1978, recording a general decline throughout that period. Since 2002, satellite records have revealed early onsets of springtime melting in the areas north of Alaska and Siberia. In addition, the 2004-2005 winter season showed a smaller recovery of sea ice extent than any previous winter in the satellite record and the earliest onset of melt throughout the Arctic.
With the exception of May 2005, every month since December 2004 has seen the lowest monthly average since the satellite record began, but more data are needed to fully understand this pattern. Sea ice records prior to late 1978, for example, are comparatively sparse, but they do imply that the recent decline exceeds previous sea ice lows.
Arctic sea ice typically reaches its minimum in September, at the end of the summer melt season. The last four Septembers (2002-2005) have seen sea ice extents 20 percent below the mean September sea ice extent for 1979-2000.
Perennial ice cover is ice that survives the summer melt, consisting mainly of thick multiyear ice floes that are the mainstay of the Arctic sea ice cover. "Since 1979, by using passive microwave satellite data, we've seen that the area of Arctic perennial sea ice cover has been declining at 9.8 percent per decade," said Joey Comiso, senior scientist at Goddard.
For the perennial ice to recover, sustained cooling is needed, especially during the summer period. This has not been the case over the past 20 years, as the satellite data show a warming trend in the Arctic, and it is not expected to be the case in the future, as climate models project continued Arctic warming. If ice were to grow back in these areas, the new ice would likely be thinner and more susceptible to future melt than the thick perennial ice that it replaces.
Scientists are working to understand the extent to which these decreases in sea ice are due to naturally occurring climate variability or longer-term human influenced climate changes.
So it's not "this is not happening" - the question is "are we helping it happen, and if so, what can we do to help stop or at least SLOW it?"
That is what I love about this country. So far we are not FORCED to do much but pay taxes. The less the better.
If NASA is correct and the Arctic ice is melting. Good maybe the Eskimos can finally have their agricultural period. It would be nice to see some crops growing in the Arctic.
If it sounds like I am a BIG SKEPTIC, I am for sure. I do not trust any scientific data paid for by those with an agenda. Remember NASA depends on Congress to fund future projects. A Congress that is using GW to further their Tax and spend agenda.
Of course the rail line that connects Churchill to the rest of Canada is sinking in the melting permafrost.
link
But don't ignore the real data that shows, politics aside, that certain areas of the Earf are without a doubt warming.
Do cars make things worse? Who knows?
I vote for natural warming.
Cleaner cars will decrease CO2 emissions and perhaps ease climate disruption. But there's always unintended consequences. The whole battery disposal issue with hybrids comes to mind off-hand.
Hybrids are some of the most recyclable cars on the road. Don't want to clutter this forum with that info, but you can Google it and find out all you want to about recycling hybrids very quickly.
And remember: Even the most optimistic projections only put hybrids at most about 10-15% of the cars on the road. It's not like were going to have as many as, say, the F-150.
Real world recycling in the EU is 16 to 59% of all spent batteries. That's a lot of mercury, lead and lithium winding up in the landfield. (link)
I don't have cells or iPods and I still have 2 cordless phone batteries, a laptop battery, 3 9 volts in my smoke detectors, 3 D cells in my Maglight and another 8 or so AAs in my other torches. Then there's the AAAs in the remotes and the fob and garage door batteries. Plus the batteries in the clocks and radios. And two 12 v car batteries.
You may be able to control the waste stream better with the automotive hybrid batteries but it doesn't seem to be all that clean a tech.
I got some fresh Ds and 9 volts the other day. A 4 pack of Ds or 2 pack of 9vs are running anywhere from $4.50 to $9 here. With all the income that Duracell must be raking in with those prices, you'd think the R&D would have advanced more by now. Or are they afraid that rechargeable batteries will kill their stock price? (waiting for Michael Moore to come out with Who Killed the Lifetime Rechargeable Battery, lol).
Bring on the supercapacitors?
So if you are paying .06 cents a kilowatt hour for power (that's about my rate), you're losing a chunk of that by charging a battery. If you run AC in your solar house, you'll lose about 10% just inverting the power, and then if you dump that AC back into a battery bank, you'll lose another 10%. Battery tech advances haven't wowed me yet.
The alternative is to pay Rayovac for a throwaway battery and take advantage of their corporate power rate. Or use gas in your Prius to assist the regenerative braking. The energy loss from the grid crisscrossing the country doesn't impress me much either.
"Hybrids garner only 2% of the U.S. light-vehicle market today, but the broad effect of the mileage deal reached on Capitol Hill late last week could push that market share to 25% by 2020, according to Global Insight." WSJ
That's a lot of batteries to recycle any way you cut it.
From the same article:
"Diesel engines -- about 30% more efficient than their gasoline-powered counterparts and increasingly cleaner -- could also jump in share during that time frame, from a minuscule slice of the market to about 27%"
Climate concerns are mentioned as a factor in pushing the bill to raise MPG standards.
No one here seems to want to wade into that side of the issue - more and more people driving. It does little good to cut the pie smaller, if we continue to have more people at the table.
No one here seems to want to wade into that side of the issue - more and more people driving. It does little good to cut the pie smaller, if we continue to have more people at the table.
That really is the other side of the coin.
Not only here in the US, but abroad as well.
China stands to gain MILLIONS of new drivers,so does India.
Even if we do pass the necessary legislation, we may not reduce our fuel useage that much.
Also, the developing countries are under no obligation to promote cleaner emissions.
For comparison, California now has 22.8 million cars on the road. By 2020, California is predicted to have 31.5 million cars on the road. (link)
Maybe someone has some global numbers?
You notice no one is talking about the manufacturing of those hybrid batteries. I think that is a huge concern for the future. Especially if we get electric vehicles that satisfy a segment of the population.
Every sensor module added to the car is another bit of pollution in the MFG process. I really do not think all this complexity will give us a better bottom line on emissions. And especially CO2. It is adding to the throw away mindset. keep it till the warranty runs out and unload it. Given the fact that a car pollutes as much in the manufacturing as it does in the driving. It behooves us to keep cars as long as possible. I think the auto makers are building them to make that impractical.
Or let's bring on the flux capacitor! Marty!
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
And that's based on only 100K miles - so every mile a hybrid goes over 100K it's just increasing that 35% figure.
I was thinking it was 150K miles. I agree that over the life of the hybrid it will be less polluting than the ICE only vehicle of comparable size. However, I would like to see people putting less miles per year on their vehicles and keeping them longer. IF the added complexity, of which the hybrids top the list, makes keeping a car longer financially impractical, it is not as environmentally sound. I contend that a simple car such as the Honda CRX HF kept in good condition for 20 years, is far more beneficial to the environment than a Prius that is ready for the junk heap at 10 years, because it would cost more to keep it than is practical.
I can guarantee that in real life driving the 1988 CRX HF gets better mileage than a 2007 Prius. That is backed up by the EPA website. I should also point out that it costs a whole lot less to keep the CRX running well than it will for a Prius 19 years from now. I say we are headed backwards not forwards if we are really wanting to cut CO2 and fossil fuel usage.
And it'a an econobox versus a midsize too.
And on the fueleconomy.gov site:
2007 Prius rated combined 46 MPG, 4.00 tons of GHG per year
1988 Honda CRX HF combined 45 MPG, 4.10 tons of GHG per year
So they are pretty much neck and neck MPG and pollution-wise. Years apart in comfort, safety, amenities, etc.
My Tercel was running fine when I sold it when it was 17 years of age. Yeah, it was dwarfed by the SUVs and was a bit tinny, but it was still fun to drive. Used to pass IM fine. Both my current cars are pushing ten years old.
Even Daewoo owners can track down parts, so I don't think that's too much of an issue either.
Go Green By Driving It 'Til The Wheels Fall Off