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
Are you trying to say that just because "we don't know all the causes we should ignore one possibly huge cause, one which we can reduce with minimal personal effort?"
I hope you can see the foolishness of that statement.
Global waming is FAR from proven. And you have it backward. A lot of those that were convinced by half truths are now seeing that the whole issue was contrived to fill the pockets of a few people. It is kind of a Ponzi scheme where you convince everyone they will make money when the truth is the few that start it are the only ones. Does the name Al Gore come to mind? He may not have invented the Internet but he did start the first worldwide Ponzi scheme. Larsb, hope you get your check in the mail :shades:
You remind me of a guy I went to high screwl with who is a very smart person (as are you) and is world-traveled and wise (as are you) and who has only one fatal flaw in my eyes:
He believes that the U.S. guvmint was behind the 911 attacks. (insert Long, disgusted sigh here.)
You latched on to the "global warming is a scam" thinking a long time ago and I'm sad for that because that's just about as believable as my friend's faulty opinion on 9-11.
You find me some viable scientific studies that are not paid for by an entity with an ax to grind and I will read it. Dr. Hansen is fairly convincing in favor of man made GW. However I fear he has a political agenda that would disqualify his stand.
Then you get one scientist says Antarctica is shrinking another says it is growing. One of them is full of bologna. Here are too different views of GW from the same scientist. So when was he correct?
James Hansen, the director of NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has published a study in the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences (December 18, 2002) that downgrades the magnitude of global warming.
According to his analysis, the growth rate of climate forcing from greenhouse gases peaked in 1980 and has since declined from about 5 watts per square meter (W/m2) per century to about 3 W/m2 per century. When all forcings, both negative and positive, are taken into account total net forcing is about 1.6 1.1 W/m2. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assumes a 4 W/m2 forcing. As the study notes, "Most climate simulations, as summarized by the IPCC, do not include all of the negative forcings; indeed, if they did, and other forcings were unchanged, little global warming would be obtained."
http://www.globalwarming.org/node/160
(CBS) This story originally aired on March 19, 2006.
What James Hansen believes is that global warming is accelerating. He points to the melting arctic and to Antarctica, where new data show massive losses of ice to the sea.
Is it fair to say at this point that humans control the climate? Is that possible?
"There's no doubt about that, says Hansen. "The natural changes, the speed of the natural changes is now dwarfed by the changes that humans are making to the atmosphere and to the surface."
Those human changes, he says, are driven by burning fossil fuels that pump out greenhouse gases like CO2, carbon dioxide. Hansen has a theory that man has just 10 years to reduce greenhouse gases before global warming reaches what he calls a tipping point and becomes unstoppable.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml
So who do you believe, James Hansen in 2002 or James Hansen in 2006?
I say money talks and you know what walks. There is BIG BUCKS in Carbon credits......
Sorokhtin said "As we know, hothouse gases, in particular, nitrogen peroxide, warm up the atmosphere by keeping heat close to the ground"
The undeniers say that he can't tell the difference between nitrogen peroxide, NO2, which isn't a hothouse gas, and nitrous oxide, N2O, which is.
It took longer than usual for someone to latch onto something a denier published and then try to discredit it. :P
But new flow measurements for the Ross ice streams, using special satellite-based radars, indicate that movement of some of the ice streams has slowed or halted, allowing the ice to thicken, according to a paper in the Jan. 18 issue of the journal Science.
If the thickening is not merely part of some short-term fluctuation, it represents a reversal of the long retreat of the ice, say researchers Ian Joughin of the California Institute of Technology and Slawek Tulaczyk of the University of California, Santa Cruz.
Their finding comes less than a week after a separate paper in Nature reported that Antarctica's harsh desert valleys — long considered a bellwether for global climate change — have grown noticeably cooler since the mid-1980s.
Air temperatures recorded continuously over a 14-year period ending in 1999 declined by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the polar deserts and across the White Continent, that paper said.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/cold-science/2002-01-18-wais-thicker.htm
The Earth's polar regions long have been considered canaries in the coal mine on climate change - the first places to look, many scientists said, to learn whether the planet's temperature is, in fact, rising. Indeed, climate models generally predict that the heating of the atmosphere - precipitated by global warming - will cause the vast layer of ice that covers Antarctica to melt, raising sea levels and changing regional climate patterns by altering ocean currents.
This week, that widely held presumption is being challenged.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0118/p02s01-usgn.html
The real point is to disrupt a countries economy for the sake of political maneuvering, is not smart. China and India are NOT buying into it. So there is a hard sell to the rest of us.
The point was that climate change is a very complicated phenomenon and that oversimplication or simplemindedness is to be avoided. You agreed with that but your statements suggest that you don't really believe it.
I hope you can see the foolishness of that statement.
As I pointed out in my earlier post, inappropriate and weak analogies are not particularly compelling. Nor is posturing based on personal insult particularly convincing.
I did not say "we don't know all the causes we should ignore one possibly huge cause, one which we can reduce with minimal personal effort?" so please don't put words in my mouth.
The facts are that global heating and global cooling have been occurring since forever. Historically, warming has preceded rises in atmospheric CO2 levels and cooling has preceded falls in atmospheric CO2 levels. Global warming theory dismisses this with NO justification. It is also a fact that we are merely in an interglacial period within the continuing Pleistocene ice age (see the reference I provided in an earlier post).
Today, satellite measurements suggest that "global temperatures" are either holding steady or, in fact, decreasing over the past 10 years completely contradicting the climate change models. The models just do not include very important matters of physics (water/water vapor, clouds, biomass, convection etc. etc.) or, if they do include them, it is done in a very ad hoc manner. Simply put, the models are not to be relied on and, more importantly, computer simulations do not constitute data or evidence.
A compelling case for anthropogenic climate change has not been made and simply declaring that it has does not make it so. The burden of proof is on the proponents who have failed to explain the stark contradictions to their theory evident in the historical record and to explain the stark shortcomings of their models.
And, no, Exxon did not pay for this message! :P
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
Not to get off-topic:
Well he is not alone. A lot of folks believe in that theory and the video's I saw raised both eyebrows and at least made me think for a momment.
Back to the Al Gore, is a liar forum. :P
-Rocky
I think other posters have pretty efficiently dispatched your analogy.
larsb: Even if the data is flawed in the long run, nothing can be harmed by encouraging people to use less fuel and less electricity and to pollute less and to reduce their own personal carbon footprint.
Yes, it can, if said regulations do more harm than good (depress economic growth, for example, making the majority of people poorer, and thus less concerned about the environment, as it is prosperous societies that are more concerned about having a nice environment).
larsb: I have personally been recycling and conserving for most of my adult life ( after age 25 when you really hit your best reasoning capability and your brain fully matures ) and I think, no, I KNOW for a fact that my conservation and recycling has been beneficial to the planet.
A developed and mature brain is able to look at each situation separately, and judge it on its own merits.
We recycle, too, because we want to reduce waste going into landfills and don't like using paper or plastic items one time and then discarding them. We are also limited in the number of bags of trash we can set out per week, and we want to make sure that we stay below that limit.
We consolidate our errands when possible because we like to save time and reduce mileage on the car.
We are looking for a house near work and not too far out of the city, because we don't want to spend lots of time commuting (I like to drive, but hate the grind of rush-hour traffic), and don't want to be 10 miles from the grocery store. We are not, however, living within the city.
We want an energy efficient house, but not a cramped one, because the extra room is worth the cost.
We are not driving the smallest car possible because the comfort, room and superior control of noise, vibration and harshness that usually come with larger vehicles is worth the lower gas mileage.
We are not "slowing down" on limited access highways because I have no intention of having more gray hairs or the stress that comes with crawling along at either 55 mph or 65 mph. The extra fuel I use to go faster is well worth it.
Your priorities may be different. That doesn't mean that you are wrong, or right. Different people have different priorities.
There was an article in Popular Mechanics that effectively debunked those claims. It should be available via Google.
Lots of people believed Elvis was alive (yesterday was his birthday, by the way), but it's safe to say that he has been six feet under since August 1977.
In a big country, you can find a group of people for almost every belief.
grbeck: Yes, it can, if said regulations do more harm than good (depress economic growth, for example, making the majority of people poorer, and thus less concerned about the environment, as it is prosperous societies that are more concerned about having a nice environment).
I don't see how a regulation could be written which accomplishes what I said in my statement and then also does more harm than good. Any regs which encourage people to :
1. Use less fuel and thus pollute less (maybe buy a smaller car, or diesel, or hybrid, or take the bus?) Can that make people poorer? Most people who are driving a vehicle too large for their needs could REDUCE their car payment by accomplishing this one, which only puts more money in their own pocket and the double-whammy is that they spend less on fuel also. Mass numbers of people using less fuel would force the oil companies to spend more time on alternative fuels and in the end, be a win-win for everyone.
2. Reduce their electricity usage - that can't make anyone poorer except maybe the employees of the electric companies - a very small minority in the big picture.
Movie star No. 1 famous for driving his Prius around and then, boards a private jet to do a photo shoot for Global Warming Awareness somewhere up in Greenland or wherever - Thousands of pounds of jet fuel for a few chosen wealthy individuals but somehow this is sanctified because of the mission status and the need to get the word out. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Movie star No. 2 quietly boards a regular airline, often a discount carrier like Southwest and rubs shoulders with the common people and takes care of things somewhere in the desert Southwest, lot of common sense and NOT a mouthpiece. Same thing as two individuals that drive to work, Monday through Friday, 9 to 5... One drives a big honking SUV for some bizarre reason and is constantly "rationalizing" and defending their gas usage but drones on about global warming. The other guy takes mass transit or a small car and thinks global warming is a crock.... He just drives a small car because he wants to save money..... Go figure.
Mother Earth is going to do whatever she wants as we spin around the sun in our tiny little solar system. If she could talk I think she would quiet and comfort the "fussy baby" known as mankind and gently tell us "Dont' be frightened little one - it's just the end of the Holocene Epoch, I've been planning this for a long time and you'll be fine..... I would like you to explain why you need to drive that SUV to work everyday however....."
I'm afraid that this old, English, cynic thinks the Cold War has been conveniently replaced by the dual threats of Climate Change and Global Terrorism.
9/11 was sad but, assuming it wasn't a home-brewed affair, it surely was not a reasonable jumping off point for an invasion of Iraq. It could be argued that successive US Presidents, (with a few exceptions), have been bigger megalomaniacs than Sadam ever was. But as we all know - might is right. Isn't it ? :confuse:
Sorry, gone off topic. One of the problems of old age.
How's that? When I went for my MS, they taught me that if there's reduced demand, the sale-price goes down. So if oil is $100/barrel today and demand goes down, the price of oil will go down - this is known as "elasticity". So if demand goes down such that the price of oil drops to $40/barrel say, what happens?
Work on alternative fuels comes to a stop (except for some basic R&D). Why? because the cost of alternative fuels has to be lower than the cost of oil, or else the market will not buy the alternative fuels
I personally know this, as the situation was the same in 1981-82, when oil prices were high. I was interviewing working for an oil company that was going to build a coal-to-gas plant; the plant and jobs were cancelled when oil prices began to decline.
Oil companies want to make money. Right?
If the amount of fuel they sell to refiners or refine themselves GOES DOWN significantly, their profit goes which direction? Not up.
So with profits going DOWN, they will spend more time figuring out OTHER WAYS to make money. Thus more alternative fuel research and development will take place.
Heck, if demand can be reduced low enough, we might see the day when oil companies start researching electric cars !! LOL !!!
1. Use less fuel and thus pollute less (maybe buy a smaller car, or diesel, or hybrid, or take the bus?) Can that make people poorer?
As has been explained before, all vehicles within the same Clean Air Act regulatory category are limited to the same amount of emissions, regardless of their mileage. A Maybach cannot, by law, emit more emissins than a Honda Fit. So that's a non-issue.
As for mass transit - please reread my original post. I don't want to take the bus. End of discussion. I don't want to take the bus anymore than I want to be required to live 100 miles from work.
You may not mind taking mass transit - fine. I'm happy for you. That does not mean that everyone regards being required to take mass transit as a "win-win" situation. Maybe you don't want to spend money on gasoline for commuting to work, which is fine. I don't mind. That's your choice. I don't like mass transit (and I've used it, so I'm not just rejecting mass transit out of hand, like a toddler confronted with a plate of broccoli).
Every mass transit system I've ever used has required more time to travel the same distance as when I used a car. My time is precious to me, and I will be poorer if I waste more of it commuting, whether it's taking the subway or driving 50 miles each way to work.
larsb: Most people who are driving a vehicle too large for their needs could REDUCE their car payment by accomplishing this one, which only puts more money in their own pocket and the double-whammy is that they spend less on fuel also.
We aren't talking about "most people," we were talking about me. And I've already explained that fuel mileage isn't the be-all when I choose what to drive. I'm happy to trade some fuel economy for comfort, space and performance. You may not be willing to make that trade, but that is your choice. Please do not force it upon me.
I know what vehicle size I need.
Unless you have been camping out in the Harrisburg region and spying on me, you do not.
larsb: Mass numbers of people using less fuel would force the oil companies to spend more time on alternative fuels and in the end, be a win-win for everyone.
Mass numbers of people using less oil will cause the price of oil to drop (supply-and-demand equations still work for oil consumption, too), which will cause the oil companies to either lose lots of money or go out of business completely.
larsb: 2. Reduce their electricity usage - that can't make anyone poorer except maybe the employees of the electric companies - a very small minority in the big picture.
The surefire way to reduce electricity usage is to raise its price. When I am paying more for electricity, that means I have less to spend on other things. Having less income for other things because I am paying more for utilities meets my definition of "poorer." (Unless some central agency is going to cap the amount of electricity that can be used by each household, which is completely unacceptable.)
If the price of electricity goes up enough, it will make other forms of electric generation - solar - along with conservation measures - more insulation, better roofs, etc. - economically feasible.
But all of those projects require immediate expenditures up front on the part of the homeowner. Now, governments - both state and the federal government - can abate some of that cost through tax credits, or even grants. But the bottom line is that no grant program will cover ALL of the cost (especially for those in the middle class) as no state government, and certainly not the federal government, can afford to do so. So I would be faced with higher electric bills AND the need to spend money on these improvements just to get my bills to what they were before.
That sounds as though I'm poorer - unless you plan to graciously fund the installation of solar panels, better insulation and a new roof on our house. If so, please e-mail me and I'll send you my address so that you know where to mail the check after I get the appropriate quotes.
Believe me, it would be nice if all of those were as easy, simple and painless as you describe. I'd love to have solar panels on our house, and a car that has all of the attributes of my Accord but gets 60 mpg on the highway.
But the real world is considerably more complicated, which is why progress is slower, not because of oil company conspiracies, the Bush Administration, the Big Three, etc., etc.
It just takes a few more dozen million people willing to sacrifice personal luxury for the sake of my children's future, like myself, to make a major difference.
And as far as my not knowing "what size vehicle you need" that's true. But I also know this: Hundreds of thousands of people in the USA could downsize their vehicle and not lose anything but a higher car payment and a higher fuel bill.
That's a guarantee.
Which is the point I'm trying to make.
larsb: I'm tougher than most people I have known in regard to gladly accepting personal suffering for the greater good of the all, so I guess I'm just exceptional, like my Mommy has always told me.
There is a difference between making your own sacrifices, as opposed to deciding that everyone else needs to make them, too, and thus having the government mandate them because everyone else isn't "doing enough." That's not being exceptional - that falls into the category of being judgmental.
larsb: It just takes a few more dozen million people willing to sacrifice personal luxury for the sake of my children's future, like myself, to make a major difference.
I didn't realize that comfortable automobiles and warm homes where residents aren't on top of each other are now "personal luxuries."
larsb: And as far as my not knowing "what size vehicle you need" that's true. But I also know this: Hundreds of thousands of people in the USA could downsize their vehicle and not lose anything but a higher car payment and a higher fuel bill.
That's a guarantee.
They could also live in mud huts and run around naked, thus cutting their housing, utility and clothing bills, too. That's a guarantee, but I doubt many are ready to go that route...
Whether profits are going up or down does not change the fact that all business people spend time figuring out other ways to make money. That fact is independent of whether profits are up or down.
Thus more alternative fuel research and development will take place.
If profits are down there will be less $ for R&D. In most smart companies R&D is kept "as is" in tough times; though many companies also reduce R&D when profits go down. It is very rare for a company to increase R&D when profits are down, as the executives have quarterly profit-targets as goals.
If oil is $40/bbl and the various alternative fuels cost an equivalent (in mpg) of $75, $80 and $85, then what happens is any investor will not put more $ into actually building the plants or technology to make the alternatives.
The Catch-22 is that for alternative fuels to be popular the demand for oil must be high, such that the price for oil and gasoline is high. Or the cost of the alternative fuel must be dirt cheap.
Heck, if demand can be reduced low enough, we might see the day when oil companies start researching electric cars !!
Decreased demand for oil would reduce the cost, and thus demand will never go very low. Plus oil is used around the globe for many other things like plastics, heating fuels, and yes electrical generation. If oil prices decline, OIL THEN BECOMES THE FUEL your power company uses to make the electrcity for your EV.
You can't win. Once oil was discovered that it could be burnt for energy, it set the course for it ALL to be burnt; the only question now is whether it lasts 200, 250, or 300 years. It all gets used.
Same with diesel exhaust. Some people want diesel cars to be as unregulated as gasoline cars, but because of the science we know about the dangers of diesel exhaust, so it's regulated. Diesel fuel cars is not a preferred option for most people.
Unrealistic Alert: They could also live in mud huts and run around naked, thus cutting their housing, utility and clothing bills, too. That's a guarantee, but I doubt many are ready to go that route...
Trading to a smaller, more fuel efficient, more financially sound car is far from THAT sort of sacrifice.
Hey - "deciding what everyone else needs to do" is part of being a supporter of a cause !!! Imagine where this country would be if there were not groups trying to decide what other people should do !!
That's a GOOD THING not a BAD THING !!
We had posted the data some hundreds of posts ago. All global transportation is about 20% of man-made CO2 emissions. That includes trains, planes, boats, ships, heavy trucks, and private autos and motorcycles. (I believe you can find that in an on-line issue of Road & Track from about 6 months ago). Most man-made CO2 is the result of electricicty use. But if you look at CO2 generation of nature vs. man, you will also see that nature far and away produces more CO2. I believe mankind's transportation emissions is approx. 1% of all CO2 generated.
If I was stuck in Yaris, Fit or Yugo for a trip of more than 50 miles, I would consider that intolerable. On the same level as living in a mud hut. Hey, I tried to get a permit to build a mud house. Not legal in CA, against regulations. They save too much energy reducing taxes and that is against the rules.
"deciding what everyone else needs to do" is part of being a supporter of a cause !!!
I am glad you recognize that. And I am all for a person that has a cause and fully lives up to the message he is preaching. Why does Al Gore always come up when the subject of "Do as I say, Not as I Do" pops up? This country is full of environmental zealots that would like the rest of us to conserve so they have more to use. How about Ted Kennedy? Heard the latest on wind generators on the Outer Banks? Maybe that is because they were blocked by a kicker he put into a bill. Great environmental record in Congress. As long as it does not impact his lifestyle.
From what I read about Bali and the UN conference, most of those pushing GW are total hypocrites when it comes to down sizing their carbon footprint.
Neville Chamberlain lives!
Common sense is not a personal thing. It is shared. That's why they call it "common."
"Common sense" would seem to indicate the opposite since the atmosphere contains about 6,000 TRILLION pounds of CO2 and mankind puts out less than 1% of that in a year much of which gets removed by plants and other processes. The oceans hold about 300,000 TRILLION pounds of CO2. Oceans will put far more CO2 into the atmosphere by natural "global warming" than mankind would ever be capable of doing! (Carbon Dioxide)
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
Get a smaller car, buy a smaller house, get on mass transit, sell your boat, give away your air conditioner, simply seems like he wants to give orders to everybody...
Some recycling does use more energy that the amount used to make a new item from scratch...some cities mass transit is often filled with people who have yet to discover the advantages of the daily application of soap and water, and yes, I will go out of my way to avoid those...who are you to place me in the middle of filthy people just because you like mass transit???
The ONLY consensus is that there is no consensus, and the more you read, the more scientists are junping on the anti-global wamring bandwagon simply because it is political and not scientific at all, but a means to extract money from capitalistic wealthy societies thru UN taxation to give to third world dictators and despots, and you have your blinders on and are unwilling to deal with that corruption...
Global warming and global cooling have been going on for billions of years, and for anyone to actually believe that humans will affect the temperature of the globe in the middle of the universe is beyond absurd...
You have been brainwashed by politicians who propose a political solution...there is no science to back up anyone that humans can affect the planet...
Sunspots will affect the earth's climate and changes in the moon's orbit may alter the tides, but do you really believe that a planet that has been hotter than this and colder than this (think Ice Age) is suddenly in danger because it might increase its average temperature by one degree in the next 100 years, AND THAT MEAGER HUMANS CAN ACTUALLY HAVE ANY POWER TO STOP NATURE???...are you sane???...do you realize what earth has experienced in the last 5 billion years, and you think the planet could be in danger because of a 1-2 degree temp change???
Now you know why normal folks see the global warming alarmists as crackpots or worse...any day now I expect that you will be running around yelling that the sky is falling, but even the children will figure you out by then...
There comes a point that normal people get really insulted when you try and hand them that line of crap as tho it has even a shred of credibility...and, to add to that, as one stated earlier, back in the 70s, not so long ago, the fear was global cooling...
That is why you enviro-wackos have zero credibility...first, you need to make up your mind, cooling or warming...then, figure out how silly you sound when you are alarmed about cooling and then warming in a simple 30 year time span...you don't look silly, you look insane...
You really think Man has the power to alter the earth's climate from cooling to warming, like I can raise or lower the thermostat in my house from 50-80 degrees???
That isn't science you preach, that is beyond astrology and witchcraft...maybe you have watched too much Star Trek, but your credibility is certainly diminished when you preach cooling to warming in 30 years...you don't have the slightest idea what you are taling about, and getting your talking points from Gore adds nothing to your argument...
Strong opinions to follow, as soon as I can compose my thoughts...
I recommend the letter and article to anyone who wants to seriously examine the science and who wants a proper perspective on climate change. While you're there, take a look at the petition signed by over 19,000 real scientists who aren't swayed by the "climate change theory." The scientific facts described in the report cannot casually be brushed aside and should lay to rest the notion of consensus. The scientific case for anthropogenic climate change has not been made and abundant evidence refutes it.
Enjoy! I know Steve will!
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
Remind me tomorrow night (but that's a lot of scientists to look up on the deniers list, lol).
Maybe, you guys can leave poor Al, alone and hash this article out !!! :P
-Rocky
Same with diesel exhaust. Some people want diesel cars to be as unregulated as gasoline cars, but because of the science we know about the dangers of diesel exhaust, so it's regulated. Diesel fuel cars is not a preferred option for most people.
You're not comparing apples to apples. Regulating the output of a particular produt is not the same thing as telling people that they cannot use the particular product, or that they can only use certain types of a particular product.
Also note that smoking doesn't provide any real utility (as driving does) and there are no real benefits (as a larger vehicle does from a comfort and safety perspective).
Also - where are you getting the idea that gasoline powered cars are "unregulated"? Their emissions are strictly regulated, and have been for decades. Diesel fuel exhaust is also regulated, and Honda plans to bring over a diesel for the Accord in 2009 that meets all applicable emissions standards, including those promulgated by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
larsb: Trading to a smaller, more fuel efficient, more financially sound car is far from THAT sort of sacrifice.
In the future, you need to add, "In my opinion" before that sort of sentence for it to be accurate.
larsb: Hey - "deciding what everyone else needs to do" is part of being a supporter of a cause !!!
A better use of time is increasing knowledge of the subject matter at hand. For example, we need to learn how supply and demand really affects oil companies; why oil companies are not responsible for making electric cars feasible (for starters, they are companies that search for, find and refine a natural resource, not companies that engineer and design personal vehicles); and why it is not the responsibility of oil companies to find alternatives to oil (the responsibility of oil companies is to make a profit for shareholders by discovering and refining sources of oil for consumers, while observing government laws and regulations; there is nothing to stop other companies from formulating alternative fuels).
larsb: Imagine where this country would be if there were not groups trying to decide what other people should do !!
That's a GOOD THING not a BAD THING !!
Regarding the subject matter at hand, we would be better off. A better cause to support is rational laws that start with the baseline that the government has no right to take an action until it proves a need, and that said need must be based on sound science, not movies or what Leonardo DiCaprio is saying this week, and that such regulations and rules must be as minimally intrusive as possible, while giving people maximum freedom, choice and flexibility.
Given that higher oil prices are depressing sales of pickups and big SUVs, while spurring customer interest in smaller vehicles, it appears that the free market is starting to work. The fact that people want to trade down to an Accord or Escape instead of a Fit, or that they aren't driving 55 mph, and you don't like this, means that...you don't like their choices, not that they are making the wrong choice, or that the free market isn't working.
Don't confuse "personal preference" for "the correct path" or the "only way." Didn't your mother ever tell you that?
It makes sense as that is the business they are in. I think that many uninformed folks think the oil will all be gone in 10-20 years. That is far from the truth. The oil companies as you have stated are looking for and developing new sources of oil. You can tell when the price of oil is good. The activity in the oil fields increase. Alaska & Texas are booming as a result of $90+ oil. When the price dropped to $10 in 1998 the field was like a morgue. Low producing wells were capped. No activity except routine maintenance.
When BP bought ARCO they acquired one of the largest Solar energy research companies in the World. ARCO has done research for years into PV cells. They have a huge array up in the CA desert. I guess they could have bought the technology and hid it as so many uninformed conspiracy theorists would have us believe. They would NOT be involved if they did not think there was money to be made.
On December 15, 1982 ARCO Solar, Inc. began full daily operation of a 1 MW DC photovoltaic power generation plant on Southern California Edison (SCE) property adjacent to the utility's Lugo substation at Hesperia, California.
That's a very elitist thing to say. To have to sit near a couple of stinky people for a half hour is a small price to pay to reduce pollution and clean our air and help our planet stay livable and reduce traffic gridlock and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Anyone who uses the "dirty people" defense against mass transit is being a little to important for their own britches, in my opinion.
marsha7 says, "Get a smaller car, buy a smaller house, get on mass transit, sell your boat, give away your air conditioner, simply seems like he wants to give orders to everybody... "
It's not giving orders at all. The only person who can "give orders" to someone is a person in authority over that person. I have no authority other than knowledge, common sense, 44 years of living on Earf and my personal experiences. And my personal experiences have PROVEN to me that these things are good. If you don't like reading them, there are other forums to attend, or you can just skip over my posts.
All those things I have recommended to people here in order to reduce their own personal pollution are good things to do, and they apply to almost every normal, working American with a mortgage and a checking account. ( I never said anything about selling a boat, or giving up an A/C though. )
I see your views on GW are very "out there" so I'll choose not to discuss it with you.
The elitist viewpoint is to advocate others to sit on a bus with smelly people, when they do NOT use said transportation. Just like GW, the jury is close to hung, on the issue of mass transit saving on anything. A bus or trolley with half a dozen riders is more polluting than a car with one person riding around. Buses block the right lane causing traffic backups. Trolleys block intersections causing traffic backups. So your arguments are not facts. They are your opinions. Just as my post is an opinion.
If you have facts that mass transit in an urban sprawl situation saves money, time or the planet, feel free to post them.
I think this line from the article says it all. The American car buyer wants it all without any added cost. Or very little. I would be interested as to the cost to raise the emissions on a car from ULEV to SULEV to PZEV, if any of you enviro types have the data, please share it.
Rock, look at the thread on GMs new hybrid Tahoe/Yukon. Most feel that the premium that is proposed at 10 grand is not close to worth the gain of a couple MPG. A small diesel V6 would have been much better and would not sacrifice the towing capability as the hybrids will.
That was not the best analogy, but my point was (and I know you got it) that SOMETIMES regulations and laws are made for the good of the many at the expense of the good of the few. Someday, maybe intelligent regulations may need to be put in to protect people who don't want to pollute from those who pollute excessively.
grbeck says, "Also - where are you getting the idea that gasoline powered cars are "unregulated"?"
What with the fact that they are not banned in any state like some new diesel cars, they are unregulated in that manner. Of course they are regulated in the manners you pointed out. Everyone knows that so I omitted those instances.
grbeck says, "In the future, you need to add, "In my opinion" before that sort of sentence for it to be accurate. "
Actually, no I don't. It's not an opinion but a fact that having a smaller car and the associated financial benefits is not equivalent in sacrifice to the example you pointed out.
grbeck says, "why it is not the responsibility of oil companies to find alternatives to oil (the responsibility of oil companies is to make a profit for shareholders by discovering and refining sources of oil for consumers, while observing government laws and regulations; there is nothing to stop other companies from formulating alternative fuels)."
All very well said, but you are incorrect in one area. It **IS** the responsibility of the oil companies to spend R&D money on alternative fuels, if they want to survive past the oil era, which as we know will someday end. Any company with a good headstart now will be the leader and make the most money, just like Toyota is and was with the hybrids. They were first and have done it the best and have made the most money. Same will happen with the oil company which does the best job of graduating into the next fuel era.
And people who think there are hundreds of "correct paths" for certain things are just flat out wrong. Certain things have different paths to get there, but the end goal is the same.
It will turn out that the goal of every industrialized country will be to reduce their dependence on and usage of fossil fuels. The sooner we start, the better off everyone, including our precious Earf, will be.
And the days of the American consumer refusing to pay for energy- and pollution-conserving technology on their cars is going to come to an end eventually. The guvmint will eventually do the right thing in spite of the auto lobbyists and require those things, just like they have done with certain diesel technologies.
The spoiled American consumer will just have to live with it and maybe give up those 22" chrome spinners and 500 watt stereo for something that really matters.
And the days of the American consumer refusing to pay for energy- and pollution-conserving technology on their cars is going to come to an end eventually. The guvmint will eventually do the right thing in spite of the auto lobbyists and require those things, just like they have done with certain diesel technologies.
The spoiled American consumer will just have to live with it and maybe give up those 22" chrome spinners and 500 watt stereo for something that really matters.
Lets try this another way, maybe it will become clear why so many are disagreeing with you.
Instead of requiring smaller cars how about we pass a law that says you have to live within 2 miles of the office - get any car you like, but you have to live within 2 miles of work. Sounds good right? reduce pollution, save the world, hell most people could walk to and from work each day.
Of course if there is no housing near your office you might be out of luck - but we are talking about saving the world so no problem!
Now do you see why your sweeping statements and ideas rub people the wrong way?
BTW - is there a shortage of high MPG cars right now? Can buyers like your self who want high MPG cars not purchase a "green" car right now?
Supply is meeting demand.
"Green is both trendy and.....wait for it....wait for it....PROFITABLE?????
And:
Ford to give it's vehicles an ecoboost
How more fuel efficient cars can help us
Funny how THAT is an "inconvenient truth" now. I am starting to find that Western society has decided it just want to throw away years of science because one person on the national nightly news is.... "concerned". Then because of status and BLATANT lack of cooperation with valid scientists ie; cut their funding if they don't "say" the right things.... Despicable.
Pretty sad when a school kid knows who Al Gore is but doesn't know the name of the last ice age, Then completely terrify them by saying "Mommy's minivan is causing Polar Bears to drown!" without adding the point that is how they usually expire naturally, another "inconvenient truth".
Let's have some fun. Answer these questions WITHOUT "googling" or going to Wikipedia.... Marsha7 you're excluded because you used the word "anthropogenic", you obviously have more on the ball on this subject, so keep quiet and don't help anybody out.... Here we go......
1. What was the name of the last Ice Age.
2. How do Polar Bears usually expire in the wild? (ok that's a gimme).
3. What "epoch" are we in right now?
4. Distinct faunal stages have been identified in our current epoch (true or false).
5. Mankind has never faced near extinction because of natural global
warming or cooling. (true or false).
6. Katrina was the worst natural disaster so far this century. (true or false).
7. What was the "younger dryas" and why is it important to the study of global
warming?
8. Mass extinction post-Pleistocene is primarily caused by mankind or nature?
9. Are there any areas of increased glaciation anywhere on the planet?
10. Is Carbon Dioxide produced primarily by man or nature?
11. The worst source of mercury in the atmosphere is from power plants or the
state of Hawaii?
12. Hubbard's Curve is a study of a real threat to the Arctic Circle or your current
Western quality of life and your Dodge Ramcharger (with that cool hemi
engine)?
I understand that anybody in this forum can whip up arbitrary questions like I have just done - that's not my point. My point is that you HAVE to start seeking good information on the study of "possible" global warming and not a complete conclusion just because somebody that's famous says so.
Let us walk and live in mud huts so the developing nations can use the oil instead.
The problem is that too many people are selfish and get contrary when presented with ideas which are very good ones and yet are foreign to their thinking. It takes a while in life to become properly enlightened on a subject. Many times, people rebel to new ideas out of hand without properly evaluating them logically.
Millions of people could use smaller cars and still have the life they want in the comfort and safety they desire - they just don't KNOW it !!!
"The cheaper and cheaper vehicles become, the quicker those pollution levels will increase," Leather said.
GO GREEN! :shades: