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
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Yes, as in exhausting through their mouths vast quantities of the pollution they abhor, CO2
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Beautifully stated.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
With a 6.6% increase the US made no sacrifices, basically, and we already had it good.
You can't compare that to nations living in poverty.
Sure you can, any 2 things can be compared, there is no rule for how similar or dissimilar things have to be.
What I think you mean is "it isn't fair"? And I was and will be the first to point that out, but then life has never been fair. Even in Communist countries you had rich and poor, weak and powerful.
Now getting back to GHG emissions. I would say the U.S. holding to 6.6% increase over 7 years is a per capita reduction - meaning our official and unofficial population and GDP grew faster than that. I'm certain our GDP was higher than 6.6% for that many years. So if GDP went up 3%/year compounded, we had 20-some% growth. So there would be a reduction in GHG per unit of economic activity as well.
Secondly nature and science do not care about "fair". If you really believe in, and want to maintain or reduce GHG emissions that means everyone has to reduce. This means that India, China, and the rest of the world must stop their modernization towards our lifestyles. That is what you would need to ask them to do. I don't see modernization stopping. The worst thing in the world is to take several hundred million Chinese and Indian farmers, build them factories fueled by coal-powerplants, transfer $ from the U.S. to these countries, and have a middle-class there who now buy TV's refrigs, AC's, scooters ... Is that great to be "fair"? - Yes. But it is not so good if you want to lower GHG emissions. You can't have both!
I don't see that happening anymore than I see the U.S. or Europe reducing their lifestyle and GDP. There is no politician in the world who is going to suggest to his people that the new policy is to reduce manufacturing, transportation of goods and people, electricity usage ... by 3% each year for the foreseeable future (each person needs to reduce each year to compensate for the population increase, to keep the total the same)!
Even the new CAFE number of 35mpg is only projected to save 10% of gasoline usage by 2020. But that does not consider how much more gasoline will be burnt in other countries, or how many more cars will be on the road here by 2020.
Which you would want to keep as high as possible, because studies have shown that it is the RICH nations that are most concerned about the environment. Poor nations are too concerned about things like starvation, disease and rampant poverty (and, in some cases, constant internal strife) to worry about global warming, no matter what lip service their leaders pay to the issue.
I can't recall the figure, but there was a study that showed when the per capita income of a nation crossed a certain threshold, that is when its citizens became more environmentally conscious. If you want to get people to think about the environment, you must first increase their wealth.
ateixeira: With a 6.6% increase the US made no sacrifices, basically, and we already had it good.
There were two environmentalists - their names escape me - who said that talking about sacrifices is a waste of time, because no one in the West is really going to make the level of sacrifice necessary to radically reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and the developing world isn't going to halt growth to satisfy western environmentalists.
And they are 100 percent correct.
It's one thing to push for "green" technologies. If someone figures out a way to have more households use solar panels to generate electricity; if a manufacturer produces a car with dramatically fewer carbon dioxide emissions while offering current levels of comfort, safety and performance; if industry strives to cut energy use to the bone while maintaining production (which many are striving to do) - no one objects to that.
But it's a mistake to think that we are going to restrict driving, or jawbone people into living in smaller houses, or accept lower productivity (which will show up in lower wages and benefits) in the name of "sacrificing" for the environment.
It's a waste of time.
I'm not going to do it; A- through Z-list Hollywood stars who profess to be worried about global warming aren't going to do it; unions aren't going to do it; the politicians who wail about global warming aren't going to do it; and 99 percent of the posters on this board aren't going to do it.
NOBODY is interested in the kinds of sacrifices that it would take to really lower global emissions.
Even if we adopted realistic curbs on our lifestyles we aren't going to really lower our energy use or Co2 emissions.
Let's look a little deeper into that, though.
Caring is one thing. Sure, I care.
However, I'm sure my carbon footprint is much higher than it was when I was younger (and had a lower standard of living).
I grew up in a small apartment in Brazil, and walked to school. We had one TV for the whole house, one small car for the 5 of us.
Today my house is probably bigger than that entire apartment building. (Not really, I just thought that sounded funny so I wrote it).
Heck, my minivan is bigger than that apartment.
Heck, the DVD screen on my minivan is as big as the only TV in that apartment.
I'll quit now before I start bragging too much.
The point is, we have it good. Sure, I may use "only" 6.6% more energy this year vs. last.
That means absolutely nothing. We used a TON of energy last year. Now we used 6.6% more than a TON.
Whoever is living in that apartment now may be using 25% more energy than last year, but 25% more than nothing is still nothing.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
After seeing that video the only thing I take away from it is that there might be a risk of global warming and if we do nothing we all might die. There is nothing really scientific that he shares that should frighten and freak out the viewer. Unless you count the part where he discusses oceans rising 15 feet and wiping out coastal cities. But he just suggests this as a "worst case scenario."
And, no, he does not discuss cars and how they fit in to the whole scenario, either. You might find this video educational.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Thank you for the fine example; explaining how you've improved your lifestyle, just as many, many millions of others are doing.
Sure, I may use "only" 6.6% more energy this year vs. last.
If you look back at Post 1264, first line you'll see that the 6.6% was for 7 years, not 1 year, and not each year. So emissions were going up less than 1% per year.
Now we used 6.6% more than a TON.
Yes and it was only 6.6% more (total for 7 years) because we found ways to reduce emissions. But in order for the number to really go down, you either need to: 1) reduce the population (growth), or 2) stop economic growth. Which do you propose? And how do you think we'll like it?
Anyone want to look up how much the population in the U.S. grew during 1997 and 2004? Or how much the GDP increased?
Secondly his worst-case is not all that different from other disasters that can affect mankind - the next super-influenza virus, an accidental nuclear war, a supervolcanic eruption. We are not spending billions and billions of $ on these issues, never mind triggering a Super Depression!
And thirdly, his worst-case scenario pales in comparision to the worst-case scenario of a large comet or asteroid impact. We've seen not so long ago what happened to Jupiter. we can look at the moon and see how common impacts are in our neighbohood of the solar system. How much are we spending on identifying and tracking solar objects? How much are we spending on researching and designing methods to divert a comet or asteroid?
To me there is no comparision of the magnitude of the effects of GW, some of which are positive - longer growing seasons, new land made hospitable, compared to other possibilities.
And really the whole concept of people willingly getting behind a decreased lifestyle is totally impossible based on human nature. People want a nice lifestyle now, rather than live as in the 15th century.
Agreed.
#2 is the one I was talking about, in a nutshell.
Do you work for a company or corporation? If so isn't their goal to increase sales, profit and stockholder wealth. This is true around the world, even in Communist China. Even the old Soviet Union set higher and higher production goals each year. So what society is trying to lower their GDP? What politician is running on the platform of reducing GDP? I missed those.
And I keep coming back to the reality that there is no way to stop or greatly reduce GHG until you get a new energy source. That is the only solution. All else is like trying to slowdown the sinking of the Titantic - a few mattresses in the hole? bucket brigade?
Or even worse, stop buying all the stuff that clutters our attics, garages and basements. How many of you can't get the car in the garage? But then again stop shopping , will hurt everyone's economies.
Any how, again, valid point. We're not going to cut back, we're going to prosper, or die trying.
And 2007 will go down as the year when the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded for dire warnings about the effects of global warming.
But geophysicist David Deming of the University of Oklahoma writes in The Washington Times that 2007 is also the year that Buenos Aires, Argentina saw snow for the first time since 1918. It is the year that saw 200 people in Peru perish from the cold. It is the year that killing freezes destroyed almost $1.5 billion of produce in California, 95 percent of South Carolina's peach crop, and 90 percent of North Carolina's apple harvest.
2007 was the third-quietest hurricane season since 1966. Last month Meacham, Oregon broke its record low temperature set in 1952 by 12 degrees, and the plains states are still trying to recover from a destructive autumn ice storm that has left at least 36 people dead.
More 2007 FACTS:
Denver's January has so far been the seventh coldest January on record
Media Ignore Near-Record Cold in Alaska
Record cold temperatures and snow accumulation is expected for the Los Angeles
Record cold winter may increase ozone hole over North Europe
Crops in Tennessee are also at risk due to the recent cold snap. ...
days of below freezing temperatures in Henderson County, N.C., Monday, April 9, 2007.
Temperatures in the 20s set record lows in Chattanooga, Memphis, Knoxville and Nashville this weekend.
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.
Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)
This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate.
Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.
This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were “futile.” (LINK)
Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a “consensus” of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. “I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority.”
US Senate Report
Scientists from Around the World Dissent
This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were “futile.”
Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a “consensus” of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. “I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority.”
This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about a dozen" skeptical scientists left in the world. (LINK) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to “flat Earth society members” and similar in number to those who “believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona.”
The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.
Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; University of Columbia; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.
The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped “consensus” that the debate is “settled.”
Good for U! You taught me something new; makes up for losing the debate on whether we can reduce GHG emissions. :P
"In receiving this award, I am pleased that I was chosen over two great spinners of fantasy — J.K. Rowling and Al Gore. It is truly an honor to be named the Associated Press' Celebrity of the Year.
from: http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2007-12-21-colbert-ap_N.htm
Actually it ran on unleaded gasoline as you would see in Back to the Future III
-Rocky
In Back to the Future III when Marty & Doc are in the cave and Marty tells Doc that the gasoline line broke that is when Doc, told Marty, that the DeLorean, always ran on gasoline
-Rocky
I wonder if the Mr. Fusion could be invented, that would cut down on greenhouse gas...we have a lot of catching up to do to realize that 1989 vision of 2015!
The most conspicuous doubter in France is Claude Allegre, a former education minister and a physicist by profession. His new book, ``Ma Verite Sur la Planete'' (``My Truth About the Planet''), doesn't mince words.
He calls Gore a ``crook'' presiding over an eco-business that pumps out cash. As for Gore's French followers, the author likens them to religious zealots who, far from saving humanity, are endangering it. Driven by a Judeo-Christian guilt complex, he says, French greens paint worst-case scenarios and attribute little-understood cycles to human misbehavior.
Allegre doesn't deny that the climate has changed or that extreme weather has become more common. He instead emphasizes the local character of these phenomena.
While the icecap of the North Pole is shrinking, the one covering Antarctica -- or 92 percent of the Earth's ice -- is not, he says. Nor have Scandinavian glaciers receded, he says. To play down these differences by basing forecasts on a global average makes no sense to Allegre.
He dismisses talk of renewable energies, such as wind or solar power, saying it would take a century for them to become a serious factor in meeting the world's energy demands.
Let Us Eat Cake
To his relief, France has taken another path: Almost 80 percent of its electricity comes from nuclear reactors. What's more, France has a talent for eating its cake and having it, too: Although it signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol, the country is nowhere near meeting the agreed targets.
French take on Gore
Yeah it was in the blacksmith shop because remember the bartenders whiskey blew the fuel line.
I wonder if the Mr. Fusion could be invented, that would cut down on greenhouse gas...we have a lot of catching up to do to realize that 1989 vision of 2015!
That ain't no joke.....It would be pretty cool to finish off a bottle of pop and throw the empty into Mr. Fusion. :P
-Rocky
-Rocky
Ah, but Al Gore has attacked the cars we drive. He would have outlawed the internal combustion engine years ago if he could have gained support for his idea.
I for one do not believe that our cars have a significant impact on the climate. It is possible that mankind does have some impact on climate. The zeal that CARB demonstrates attacking the automotive industry, is an issue that needs to be dealt with. I for one do not plan on driving a Yugo while anyone in Washington DC is driving an SUV or Limo. I think a lot of well meaning people think that some elixer is going to appear that makes CO2 and the other GHGs disappear. It ain't gonna happen. I have offered my solution to cut the GHG by a 3rd. CARB will not allow it. So I am stuck dumping 12.2 tons of CO2 every 15k miles.
All because of the high priest of GW, Al Gore. He is a lot like a TV evangelist.
Al Gore gets out front on this and becomes the "Church of Al Gore" and we should be able to reference his lack of knowledge of science as he goes around touting global warming and claiming he has the answer which just happens to be buying carbon credits in a silly scheme which benefits him as coowner of a carbon credit scheme-selling company.
As pointed out by the French reference, the scare tactic folks can point to one part of the world where ice is melting but ignore other areas where it's increasing. The Earth is a constantly changing entity. Whether the automobile can change Earth's homeostasis systems with some CO2 is doubtful to me.
On the other hand, if the concern about CO2 is really sincere, we need to start with one of the biggest problems which is jet planes sitting on taxiways idling for long periods waiting in line due to too many flights too close together. We need to start with reducing the total number of planes and flights. That will save more CO2 than the changes they propose; certainly more than a financial company buying stocks in companies planting trees to offset using all the jet fuel.
Let's also slow down truckers. I can watch semis traveling at 75 instead of 55 on an interstate that's nearby. Nobody can believe a semi with trailer going 75 is more efficient than one going 55. Reducing the speed limit on the 250 - 500 semis going along I70 an hour and you'll also save huge amounts of CO2 input into the air.
The contribution from automobiles is small, even trivial, compared to the potential savings available immediately through jet fuel for nonmilitary use reduction and through semi trucks speed limits.
The current hysteria is just a political distraction being put out there for some reason. Remember the summer where all we heard about was shark attacks, same number as usual within statistical variance, from Florida? Well, here the sharks are false science proponents.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I don't really see where society is into conservation. Whhat i do see is more and more people living better, more energy-intensive lifestyles than ever; from poor to riich. Autos is just a small part of the energy we use.
Also sort of like turning away trucks full of ice, water and food from Katrina victims because our real helpers, FEMA, told us that we have to wait for them. :sick:
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
The automobile is the scapegoat of the jet set. Look at the folks making the most noise about our addiction to the personal automobile. Check out how many flights per year they take in a personal jet. LAX has approximately 800,000 take-offs and landings per year. With each take-off and landing equal to the pollution of 4-5 cars for a whole year. When was the last time CARB restricted the number of flights in and out of LAX? I suppose if I had a Gulfstream at my disposal I could stoop to riding to the airport in a Prius for photo-ops.
It is all a BIG joke and the little guy gets the brunt of it.
Al Gore is a disaster and global warming is nothing but a fraud.
I like his predictions. Especially "Give the man the Gettelfinger"
ZEV was never really ZEV.
I've flown a lot lately and haven't been in a single plane that wasn't completely full. That includes an international flight (to Brazil).
Now the big thing is carbon emissions. How long do you think it will take the enviro-[non-permissible content removed] to take aim on the carbon dioxide coming out of each of us (not to mention the methane).
Do you think these folks will treat you any better than the cows?
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
MIAMI (AP) - Farmers rushed to protect citrus and other crops Tuesday as Florida braced for plunging temperatures, with the governor even lifting certain agricultural regulations as a precaution.
Temperatures were expected to drop below freezing in much of the state Tuesday night, hitting the lower to mid-20s for a few hours in many areas. Wind chill factors were expected to dive into the teens Wednesday night and Thursday morning.
They predicted about 1.5 to 2 inches of rain in the last days of 2007, stating that if the rain does not come, it will be the driest year on record, but if it does come, then the driest year on record will remain in 1954...read it again...1954...that was 54 years ago...
Where were the SUVs, the gas guzzlers (how many folks actually owned a V8 engine in 1954?), the global warming, etc???
Back in 1954, they probably said the drought was caused by a simple lack of rain that will happen cyclically...
Where were the massive hurricanes that alarmists GUARANTEED were coming after Katrina, all because we were ignoring the damage Man was doing to the planet...
While wanting/needing vehicle with higher mpg, and there is certainly nothing wrong with that, we need to calm the alarmists who blame everything on manmade global warming...someone needs to shut down AlGore as more and more scientists are FINALLY standing up and saying that they do NOT agree that there is any kind of a consensus on the climate...
And before we let Democrats in Congress start making rules on something they know nothing about, let's sit back and wait this out...
Our problem is the leaders want to do things about which they should be doing nothing and avoid doing the things the Federal government should be doing. It's hilarious to watch one of these folk try to act like they really studied some topic, global warming is a good example, as they talk. In reality their aide got a press release from a lobbyist and the aid gave them what to say on the way to the camera shot.
Al Gore is the archexample of someone who grew up in a hotel in Washington as his father was a well off senator IIRC. He has little understanding of real life. He probably studied pure science and applied science very little and decided this would be a good way to get a Nobel Prize since Bill wasn't able to get one as Bill was suggesting he should at the end of his tenure. I really feel Al's over-reaching is related to his disappointment at not getting the presidency and suffering under the 8 years of Clinton.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,