larsb: 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.
Both types of vehicles are regulated. It's just that one type meets the regulations in all 50 states, and the other type cannot as of now, although this will apparently change in 2009 when Honda debuts its Accord diesel.
larsb: 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."
Again, some people are happy to pay more money for other attributes besides fuel economy. That doesn't make their choices "incorrect."
I could save money by cancelling cable television, the daily newspaper and my internet service provider. I don't because all three provide benefits that are well worth the costs.
Same with buying, say, an Accord instead of a Fit or Smart car. The extra money spent for the car, and the gasoline to run it, are worth the cost.
larsb: 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.
You are talking about corporate survival, which is a different beast entirely. An oil company could also survive by buying Toys 'R Us or Hershey Foods Corporation, which would save the money invested by shareholders, which is the point of the corporation's reason for being. But note that neither one has anything to do with alternative fuel production, even though the corporate entity will survive (possibly under another name).
This is what Studebaker did in the 1960s - although it left the auto business, it survived as a corporation because of its non-automotive divisions. The corporate entity survives to this day (although not under the Studebaker name).
larsb: 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.
Your first sentence is wrong, and it contradicts the second sentence. Passion for the subject matter at hand - which you definitely possess - does not trump real-world experience or an understanding of why people do what they do, or what motivates their purchasing patterns.
To quote gagrice, "The elitist viewpoint is to advocate others to sit on a bus with smelly people, when they do NOT use said transportation."
I could not have said it better...what is arrogant and elitist is to tell others what "is good for them"...I am quite glad that it doesn't bother YOU to tell ME that it is OK for ME to sit among the unwashed, since it certainly does not inconvenience YOU...whether or not YOu would do it is another topic, but the fact that you can tell me it is OK and yet you do not see your own elitism and arrogance is frightening...
But the average normal liberal Democrat is quite accustomed to telling the "rest of us" what is OK for us...kinda like Teddy Kennedy...it is OK for us to be stuck in public schools, but his kids go to private school...it is also OK for us to go without guns, but he used to (and maybe still does) have bodyguards that carried fully automatic submachine guns...why can't I have that but it is OK for him to be protected like that...I assure you, he truly is no more important than I am, altho he does have more $$$ than I do...:):):)
Once you figure out how elitist you enviro-fascists (is that a new word???) are, you might get a glimpse at how the rest of us resent your arrogant attitudes...
Please take a minute and tell me why it is OK for me in my suit, on the way to Court, must sit among the filthy, dirty, unwashed, smelling of poor hygiene, smoke, liquor, and clothes and a body that have not been washed in days or weeks (how do they always find the money for cigarettes and cheap liquor???)...and just who are you to decide who I "associate" with, just so you can call yourself "concerned for the environment?"...
Your arrogance has struck a nerve, and you appear to be to naive or immature to have the introspection to see it... :mad: :mad:
larsb: 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."
The only contrariness and unenlightened thinking I see on this thread are from those who can't accept that other people may have different choices and priorities than they do, and, in a free society, are spending their money accordingly.
larsb: 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 !!!
Actually, we do know the differences between small vehicles and our present vehicles, but our choices don't make you happy, so you have to pretend that we purchase vehicles without a clue as to what alternatives are available. I spent a fair mount of time last summer driving around southern Germany in a VW Polo sedan...if you think it offers the comfort, room and noise/vibration/harshness control of an Accord...well, we need to talk.
tell me why it is OK for me in my suit, on the way to Court, must sit among ...
Would it make you feel better about it if you knew the judge also took that bus? And if she's not getting out and about amongst the people she judges then perhaps she shouldn't be sitting on the bench. :P
Seriously, though, this whole thread supports the notion that there is far more politics than science in the "climate change" issue.
You apparently have not been around these forums long enough to have correctly perceived who I am. You are almost entirely incorrect on all your assumptions.
My supposed Elitism, Arrogance, and my perceived "bossiness" aside, here is a fact for you:
If you are too ( .....whatever here, fill in the appropriate word since I can't seem to find a word that clicks with you......) to ride a city bus to help reduce pollution and improve the air, then you are just being either stubborn, or lazy, or uncaring about your fellow man. There is no other choice which would properly describe that stance.
And I'm not a "normal liberal Democrat" at all. I have voted Republican my entire life. So there goes one of your incorrect assumptions.
And I'm neither "arrogant" nor rich. I was raised lower middle-class in central Texas and I live my life weekly paycheck to weekly paycheck and aside from a little retirement money and a VERY small college fund for my kids, I have very few assets of note. Anyone who thinks they are too good and too clean to ride a City bus, telling someone ELSE that they are arrogant ? Think about that conundrum for a second.
I don't know about your city, but in Phoenix the buses are cleaned daily. I have ridden on them dozens of times in the 12 years I have lived here (although I own a car and a bike) and I have yet to be offended by anyone's smell or appearance.
Maybe I'm just way more tolerant of people than some folks.
larsb: 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 !!!
grbeck: Actually, we do know the differences between small vehicles and our present vehicles, but our choices don't make you happy, so you have to pretend that we purchase vehicles without a clue as to what alternatives are available.
Notice I did not say "every single American" now did I? There are also millions of people who are smart enough to know they can use a smaller car and happily do so. Others take time to fully understand that, and others are too stubborn to even consider it.
My message is intended for those who have never seriously considered the subject.
grbeck says: The only contrariness and unenlightened thinking I see on this thread are from those who can't accept that other people may have different choices and priorities than they do, and, in a free society, are spending their money accordingly.
That's part of my message. Just as some people are not smart enough or strong enough to conclude that they should stop smoking, the guvmint will put more and more restrictions on them.
Accordingly and hopefully, in the future, people who don't know how to purchase a more efficient, lower polluting vehicle will be instructed on how to do it and maybe regulated into doing so by the guvmint forcing automakers to make cars more efficient and cleaner.
This might sound bad, and I'm sure I'll take grief about saying it, but it's nonetheless true - I can't help it - facts are facts: Too many people are too stupid to find out about what's good for them, and it's the job of the people who are not too stupid to pass the message on to them.
Just like some people are too stupid to use carseats and booster seats with their kids in cars, so the guvmint has to tell them to do it.
It's nothing new, folks !! Y'all are acting like no one ever tried to give people good advice before !!
Seriously, though, this whole thread supports the notion that there is far more politics than science in the "climate change" issue.
I think that was well known when the thread started. Politicians not scientists have created this whole GW hysteria. What is amazing is the seemingly educated people that have bought into the whole scheme to extort money through carbon credits.
Just like some people are too stupid to use carseats and booster seats with their kids in cars, so the guvmint has to tell them to do it.
Just as you feel people are too stupid to do what you think is right. I think people are uninformed of the facts about safety and small cars. You should think about your position. I have and will not head out onto the highway with a vehicle I DO NOT feel safe in. Check this out with a very popular smallish car.
There's no need to make this discussion as personal as it has become. Let's keep the focus on the issues. If you want to attack someone, please limit it someone used to it, like Al Gore, not your fellow forum tire-kickers. Thank you.
Larsb - This might sound bad, and I'm sure I'll take grief about saying it, but it's nonetheless true - I can't help it - facts are facts: Too many people are too stupid to find out about what's good for them, and it's the job of the people who are not too stupid to pass the message on to them.
Just because you disagree with their choice does not make them stupid, just different from you or I. Calling their choice stupid does not give you the right to decide for them.
Just because you disagree with their choice does not make them stupid, just different from you or I. Calling their choice stupid does not give you the right to decide for them.
I think he is hoping the Government will tell us all what we can and cannot drive. How big of a home we can have. When we will be forced to ride the bus etc. I don't think he will like being told what, where, when and how, anymore than we like being referred to as stupid because we do not follow his lead. I am following Al Gore's lead. Burn as much as I can afford..... :shades:
Too many people are too stupid to find out about what's good for them, and it's the job of the people who are not too stupid to pass the message on to them.
Wow! I've got to say, a statement like that could generate a record number of replies. Wouldn't that then mean: - the stupid being stupid, are too stupid to know their stupid and would think they're intelligent? The stupid therefore would feel empowered and even obligated to help others. So then the stupid run for public office and want to make laws, which of course are really stupid laws, and the world would have lots of problems.
Seriously now: Do you really think that more intelligent people should have the right to pass laws telling less-intelligent people what they should do? how to spend their money? I think you're missing the fact that this country and its laws are based on freedom-for-all, not just freedom and power to the more-intelligent!
There are a lot of intellignet people as measured by IQ and degrees who have smoked, drank excessively, went bankrupt, and done other dangerous things that we may think are stupid. But are they stupid, OR have they simply determined that though it may be dangerous the goal of life is to ENJOY and take risks. Now you may think that stupid, as your goal in life is to live as long as possible, and to do as little environmental harm as possible.
So whether actions are "stupid" depends on what your goals are sometimes.
But any intelligent person's right to so something "stupid" stops right about the time when that act interferes with someone else's life.
Like smoking in public places. Like driving recklessly, which puts a strain on the traffic enforcement system, the insurance system, and the health system.
And yes, our system of government is based around some people telling other people how to act. Other people who, if left upon their own accord, will do stupid things. That's why we have laws against murder, robbery, etc.
That's what we have, and it's the best governmental system that we know about.
Oh dear, I'm not sure I should do this. May be a stupid thing to do but...........
"The best system of government we know". Well, that could be because you don't know any other and it is arguably not the best if you're poor and/or disadvantaged. I believe Sweden has a far better system, just as one example.
"Freedom-for-all". Certainly is freedom-for-all to do it the American way regardless of nationality/race/creed/culture or wishes. How will it be if/when China decides to become an Imperial power, (as the USA is and always has been), and give us all freedom to do it their way ? Will that be O.K. with you guys ?
I express these personal, (but widely shared outside USA), opinions in the spirit of my personal freedom and trust they'll be respected as such. However, if I do get a flaming I will know I've asked for it.
But any intelligent person's right to so something "stupid" stops right about the time when that act interferes with someone else's life.
Yes but people making independent decisions on how, and the quantity of energy they use is not typically interfering with others, in any reasonable way. The actions of mankind have positive and negative results. Every process has waste of some sort generated. Therefore we must accept as reasonable some level of waste and byproducts. The more people on the Earth, the better lifestyle we live - using more resources, the more waste and byproducts we will generate globally.
Now you may not like how much waste and byproducts we generate. But that is your opinion - that we should use less, while people obviously wish to use more resources and live better. You get your choice, and everyone else gets their choice. Don't be surprised when people tell you, they're fine with your choice, but don't want to live a conserving lifestyle (if they so choose). We do not have to act for the collective good - that is Marxism, and that was unsuccessful as it went against basic human-nature - we are individuals with individual goals.
However: This whole discussion (when it is on topic) is based on the amount of global warming contributions made by autos.
IF INDEED that autos are contributing in a way which is conducive to the negative human and planetary effects of GW, then your statement that "people making independent decisions on how, and the quantity of energy they use is not typically interfering with others, in any reasonable way" becomes untrue.
And yes, we must accept some level of waste, that's a given. MY conflict is with people who waste more than their "share" so to speak and worse, DON'T GIVE A FLIP ABOUT doing so !!! Those people are the people I have a conflict with.
And my "choice" of living a conservationist lifestyle is only right now picking up steam with more and more people, as people are finally starting a little bit at least to wake up to the fact that they can live their lives almost exactly as they do now and yet make minor changes which can help future generations have a better Earf.
And anyone who "does not want to act for the collective good" is just being selfish, stubborn, contrary, or a combination thereof. And I don't think that's an acceptable attitude to have.
It's their RIGHT of course, but it makes them less of a good person in my eyes if they do not care about how their actions might be affecting other people and future generations.
And yes, we must accept some level of waste, that's a given. MY conflict is with people who waste more than their "share"
I would imagine if you interviewed people in some African or Asian countries they would say you are very wasteful in your lifestyle. I do not think your choices could be sustained if we were to not linked to 3rd world countries. I don't believe you could get through the EPA regulations to build a modern NiMH or Li-Ion battery factory in the USA. Yet Batteries are what saves you gas in your car. Many of the products we have pushed off onto 3rd world countries would be taboo manufactured in the USA. I would like to see only products sold in this country that can be manufactured in this country. That to me is a much more sound environmental viewpoint than sending all the dirty work to 3rd world countries. Yes that includes all the hybrid cars. When they can build all the parts here in an environmentally clean factory I will add them to the list of clean vehicles.
IF INDEED that autos are contributing in a way which is conducive to the negative human and planetary effects of GW,
But yes we get back to 1) IF GW is really occurring as there have been some few hundred year swings here and there (Tidester's links), 2) the amount autos would contribute to GW IF occurring, and 3) is that GW more negative or positive overall.
I think I've addressed 2), where autos put out about 1% of the natural and anthropogenic CO2 emissions, so if that was the only GHG and temps. have gone up 2F degrees, that would make autos contribution 0.02F for the last hundred years. Can you feel the difference of 0.02F? I certainly can't. So then let's forget about that. And I do not see GW as being as negative as you do, I see more benefits than negatives, as life flourishes (amount and diversity) in the warmer climates.
MY conflict is with people who waste more than their "share" so to speak and worse, DON'T GIVE A FLIP ABOUT doing so !!!
And I have to ask why you think there is a "share". And who would define what a fair share is? Is the U.N. to say every person on the globe gets 2 gallons of oil per week? No, the fair system the whole world uses is the monetary system. With the money each of us earns or inherits we then purchase the shares from what's available to use. So if you have more $ like the Nobel winning Gore, you can use much more energy and resources than you or I together, with the result of that much more waste and byproducts.
It's their RIGHT of course, but it makes them less of a good person in my eyes if they do not care about how their actions might be affecting other people and future generations.
I don't agree it is healthy to have a mindset where you're apologizing for existing, and creating a normal amount of waste. If you buy things from China and other poor areas of the world, you should consider that your actions of purchasing inexpensive non-union things is subjecting millions of people to harsh, slave-like factories. If you buy fruits and vegetables in the supermarket you are giving business to people who have migrant workers, and farms that pollute the rivers with fertilizers and other chemicals. So yes the typical western-lifestyle does create a lot of negatives; that is the tradeoff for the positives. it's a competitive world, and there are winners and losers.
Well, I think calling the car dirty because the battery manufacturing process is dirty is similar to saying that since half the stuff we buy is from China, who apparently has less regulation that we do in that area, that almost everything we buy is tarnished environmentally.
That does not make the product itself bad, does it? All process manufacturing is a dirty process, some indeed more dirty than others. But you have to have some chemical reactions which create pollution in almost any manufacturing environment. I think saying "this product is dirtier than that product because the manufacturing process is dirtier" is kinda asinine and a useless action.
gary says, "I would like to see only products sold in this country that can be manufactured in this country."
A nice fantasy, but completely unrealistic mi amigo..
kernick says, "And I do not see GW as being as negative as you do, I see more benefits than negatives, as life flourishes (amount and diversity) in the warmer climates."
As a Jim Carrey character might say: "OHHH REEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLYY?????????"
Vehicle exhaust accounts for 39 percent of Arizona's greenhouse-gas emissions, which is why Arizona moved to control it, said Steve Owens, director of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
"If you're going to do anything to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, you have to do it with automobiles," he said.
that the judge takes the bus mean anything to me???...and why am I arrogant simply because I choose not be surrounded by filthy people and still do not need someone to "dictate" my mode of transportation simply because it may be YOUR preferred mode of transportation???
I also do not go to greasy spoon restaurants because I will come out smelling like the food they serve...are you about to dictate that I should go to those restaurants because the judge may go, or that it is your favorite type of restaurant???
Tidester: right about one thing, global warming is ALL political and NO science, but could become a serious method to raise taxes on us and simply bypass the income tax laws, simply by ratifying some stupid treaty like UN or Kyoto...and THAT is something every Democrat would LOVE to do, get the treaty and then say "but I never raised your taxes, the treaty did that"...
Be carreful what you vote for, you might get it...
That does not make the product itself bad, does it? All process manufacturing is a dirty process, some indeed more dirty than others. But you have to have some chemical reactions which create pollution in almost any manufacturing environment. I think saying "this product is dirtier than that product because the manufacturing process is dirtier" is kinda asinine and a useless action.
Well, I think it does. You may not agree. That does not clean the air wafting across the globe caused by your need for a low fuel consuming hybrid. Just because all process manufacturing is dirty does not make it justified. Maybe in your mind, not in mine. If you are not willing to have a chemical plant in your neighborhood that manufactures a product you want or need, I find that hypocritical. You are adding to world wide pollution with your choice of cars.
China has shown that the air they breath, is not as important as the Dollars they receive.
I find your reasoning that it is OK to pollute in the manufacturing process overseas, as long as the car is clean burning in your neighborhood, to be somewhat self centered. Even more so by the fact that you have bought into the whole GW hysteria.
that the judge takes the bus mean anything to me???
Just to be clear, my line about the judge was tongue in cheek.
...get the treaty and then say "but I never raised your taxes, the treaty did that"
I've seen the term "deniers" bandied about in reference to the "skeptics" with all its negative connotations. But since you mentioned some of the ulterior motives you may be interested in knowing that some are adopting the term "watermelons" to describe the climate change proponents. Of course, we know that watermelons are green on the outside and red on the inside. Again, just to be clear, I am in no way suggesting anyone here fits either of those characterizations.
I offer this only as an observation about the nature of the "debate" which, once again, has little to do with real science and much to do with political objectives.
I have not "bought into the whole GW hysteria." We are mostly waiting for the science to figure it out.
Regardless of what some people think (hoax, conspiracy, shakedown, political gambit, etc.) about the issue, there are unanswered questions, but also FACTS which indicate the Earf IS INDEED warming. That fact is not up for debate any longer. The cause is still up for debate, but not the warming. The warming is happening.
What is causing and/or contributing to the warming is the main question yet to be answered.
And my buying a hybrid did not pollute the Earf more than if I had not bought a hybrid. You know why? Because the lifetime pollution factor of a hybrid is less than a comparable gas car. You know that. So in fact, by buying my TCH instead of an XLE, I have REDUCED my potential carbon footprint.
And Toyota did not build one "just for me." Had I or had I not bought it, it was still already built. What happens to the cars they build before or after mine is not my concern. Mine was built already. Whether I bought it or a non-hybrid Camry, both cars were already built. Any car you buy has had manufacturing pollution in the build process.
And I don't care where the car is built. ( To be honest, I WISH it had been built here, so you could stop quacking about it.) In fact, I have a huge empty lot behind my house. Anyone who wants to can come move in and build batteries right there. Because the EPA and OSHA would make sure the plant was clean enough before they could build the factory.
Every mile I put on my TCH brings closer the day where my car has reached the equivalent pollution of a non-hybrid Camry and puts me in the black carbon-footprint-wise. For the current Prius, that "break-even" mileage figure is about 41,000 miles. I estimate on the TCH it's probably a little shorter, since the TCH has an exact gas comparable version of the car and the Prius does not.
Some of those extinct creatures might be involved in a cure for cancer, or AIDS, or MS, or herpes, or Hepatitis.
If the species can't survive a degree or 2 increase, I don't know how they'd ever work around an autoclave or bunsen burner in a lab.
Or the species could be the ones to create the next global plague? How about an ebola-type virus spread by air? But since the global climate has changed all by itself historically, the elimination and creation of new species is nothing new. The loss of species is nothing new, and in the past cataclysms have surely wiped more species out faster. So under worst-case circumstances we may change what lives, and what evolves from what lives. But life is very resilient.
Vehicle exhaust accounts for 39 percent of Arizona's greenhouse-gas emissions,
Probably because Arizona gets much of its electricity from hydroelectric - Hoover Dam, (and any other dams?). If Arizona was more typical of states using coal, natural gas, and oil to produce electricity, the percentage from autos would drop.
Many say it is a first time ever. I guess it finally got warm enough to snow in the desert. Maybe big Al is sitting in his McMansion thinking how he can spin this into his agenda.
"I asked my mother, who is 80, whether she'd ever seen snow in Iraq before, and her answer was no," said Fawzi Karim, a 40-year-old father of five who runs a small restaurant in Hawr Rajab, a village six miles southeast of Baghdad.
And yes, our system of government is based around some people telling other people how to act.
You should love this one larsb. CA is going to control our heat and AC for US, by radio control. "What do you mean you would like it cooler than 85 degrees in the house"? The people have spoken. No cooling below 95 degrees :sick:
Next year in California, state regulators are likely to have the emergency power to control individual thermostats, sending temperatures up or down through a radio-controlled device that will be required in new or substantially modified houses and buildings to manage electricity shortages.
"The cause is still up for debate, but not the warming. The warming is happening."
The later stages of the Holocene Epoch.... Mother Earth is right on track....
The idea that mankind can somehow manipulate it is.... Pathetic.
I wish a medium size volcano would gear up.... It would pretty much mute this whole dumb subject, and the sunsets would be spectacular.
Go to a library, pick up a book (heavens), stop listening to mouthpieces that are trying to STAY famous with the global warming road show and after you READ for awhile..... Pro and con, make up your own mind and stop letting NON-SCIENTISTS manipulate scientific research. GOSH BATMAN! Government and Religion trying to affect the results of discovery and real science - has this ever happened before? Well, DUH.
that the hysterical ones, who DO believe that mankind can manipulate the earth like a piece of silly putty, however pathetic they are, are the ones the media pays attention to, like AlGore and his left wing Hollywood friends...and the idiot politicians who will make policy based on the alarmists...
The sane ones, like us...( :P )...may never get our side heard, even though a person really must be ARROGANT to think that little old mankind can actually affect Nature's creation of the earth, considering the history of the planet, it is amazing that the average temp has stayed in this range so long, instead of varying 50-100 degrees, rather than a mere degree or so...
If they weren't so ignorant and arrogant, this global warming crap would be funny...
Thanks for the "reading" tip. I never would have thought about it. In fact, since I have read thousands of books, I never even have to "think" about reading. It comes natural.
So does my absorption of facts. The facts are that the Earf is getting warmer. The causes are up for debate, but the fact that there is a warming trend (whether it be natural or not) is indeed a fact.
And mankind cannot "manipulate" weather in the strictest sense, no.
What we CAN DO, however, is discover that something we are doing is adversely affecting the Earf and try to stop doing that thing to see if it would help. That has been done with clean air programs, clean water programs, etc for many years now with success.
You guys seem to think this should be an "us against THEM" situation, and it's not that at all. We should all agree that being good stewards of the Earf is a job we all share.
You guys seem to think this should be an "us against THEM" situation, and it's not that at all. We should all agree that being good stewards of the Earf is a job we all share.
Being a good steward in your book may be different than what others believe. You seem to be saying yours is the RIGHT way and those that disagree are either stupid or ill informed. While I agree in principle with some of your assertions. I disagree on the solutions. I believe in realistic approaches to keeping the air and water clean. I believe as you have said that we have come a long way since the early 1970s. Can we do more? Yes. Should we go crazy with no regard for the economics involved? NO! I believe the standards for vehicle emissions achieved by the early 1990s are good enough. Any further enhancements are just a big waste of money. The cleaning of our gas and diesel is more important than further kludging up our cars and trucks. We will see more improvement in our air as a result of cleaning our gas and diesel supply, than adding $1000s of dollars of worthless crap to our vehicles.
Well, there is only one "right way" to conserve and be less of a polluter - and that's to do things which reduce your own personal fossil fuel burning and reduce your automobile exhaust pollution.
I don't think we should "go crazy" with no regard to the economics involved either. But research and money should be used to see what we reasonably do as a country, and as individuals also, to lessen the negative environmental impacts of our own consumption.
It seems to me that in outsourcing so much of our industry and our "dirty" processes due to environmental concerns in the developed world, we are simply creating problems in the developing nations. I'm sure glad I don't live in India, China, or Indonesia these days. In 10-20 years the places will be abysmal.
Besides just creating factories in these areas, our policies of outsourcing are also transferring large amounts of money to these countries. The middle-class is growing in these countries, and with that the number of autos will be growing quickly around the world. Whether you want to fuel all the vehicles with fossil fuels directly, or have EV or fuel-cell cars that use electricity, there will be problems, waste, and emissions.
The world is desperate for more energy; and every fossil fuel and nuclear fuel will be put into use. When you see GDP increasing you can just equate that with more energy use, and more waste and emissions.
The good news is - the Earth has and can never be hurt by those things, and life has always survived.
I'm sure glad I don't live in India, China, or Indonesia these days.
ME TOO!!!
They are wondering if the Olympic athletes will survive in the horribly polluted air of China. Yes we have contributed with buying anything that pollutes the air during manufacturing. There are those that feel so smug because they feel that it is better them than US that have the pollution to deal with.
At the UN GW summit in Bali, the leaders of India and China made it clear they were not going to do anything to disrupt the growth in their countries.
Comments
Both types of vehicles are regulated. It's just that one type meets the regulations in all 50 states, and the other type cannot as of now, although this will apparently change in 2009 when Honda debuts its Accord diesel.
larsb: 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."
Again, some people are happy to pay more money for other attributes besides fuel economy. That doesn't make their choices "incorrect."
I could save money by cancelling cable television, the daily newspaper and my internet service provider. I don't because all three provide benefits that are well worth the costs.
Same with buying, say, an Accord instead of a Fit or Smart car. The extra money spent for the car, and the gasoline to run it, are worth the cost.
larsb: 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.
You are talking about corporate survival, which is a different beast entirely. An oil company could also survive by buying Toys 'R Us or Hershey Foods Corporation, which would save the money invested by shareholders, which is the point of the corporation's reason for being. But note that neither one has anything to do with alternative fuel production, even though the corporate entity will survive (possibly under another name).
This is what Studebaker did in the 1960s - although it left the auto business, it survived as a corporation because of its non-automotive divisions. The corporate entity survives to this day (although not under the Studebaker name).
larsb: 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.
Your first sentence is wrong, and it contradicts the second sentence. Passion for the subject matter at hand - which you definitely possess - does not trump real-world experience or an understanding of why people do what they do, or what motivates their purchasing patterns.
I could not have said it better...what is arrogant and elitist is to tell others what "is good for them"...I am quite glad that it doesn't bother YOU to tell ME that it is OK for ME to sit among the unwashed, since it certainly does not inconvenience YOU...whether or not YOu would do it is another topic, but the fact that you can tell me it is OK and yet you do not see your own elitism and arrogance is frightening...
But the average normal liberal Democrat is quite accustomed to telling the "rest of us" what is OK for us...kinda like Teddy Kennedy...it is OK for us to be stuck in public schools, but his kids go to private school...it is also OK for us to go without guns, but he used to (and maybe still does) have bodyguards that carried fully automatic submachine guns...why can't I have that but it is OK for him to be protected like that...I assure you, he truly is no more important than I am, altho he does have more $$$ than I do...:):):)
Once you figure out how elitist you enviro-fascists (is that a new word???) are, you might get a glimpse at how the rest of us resent your arrogant attitudes...
Please take a minute and tell me why it is OK for me in my suit, on the way to Court, must sit among the filthy, dirty, unwashed, smelling of poor hygiene, smoke, liquor, and clothes and a body that have not been washed in days or weeks (how do they always find the money for cigarettes and cheap liquor???)...and just who are you to decide who I "associate" with, just so you can call yourself "concerned for the environment?"...
Your arrogance has struck a nerve, and you appear to be to naive or immature to have the introspection to see it... :mad: :mad:
The only contrariness and unenlightened thinking I see on this thread are from those who can't accept that other people may have different choices and priorities than they do, and, in a free society, are spending their money accordingly.
larsb: 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 !!!
Actually, we do know the differences between small vehicles and our present vehicles, but our choices don't make you happy, so you have to pretend that we purchase vehicles without a clue as to what alternatives are available. I spent a fair mount of time last summer driving around southern Germany in a VW Polo sedan...if you think it offers the comfort, room and noise/vibration/harshness control of an Accord...well, we need to talk.
Would it make you feel better about it if you knew the judge also took that bus?
And if she's not getting out and about amongst the people she judges then perhaps she shouldn't be sitting on the bench. :P
Seriously, though, this whole thread supports the notion that there is far more politics than science in the "climate change" issue.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
My supposed Elitism, Arrogance, and my perceived "bossiness" aside, here is a fact for you:
If you are too ( .....whatever here, fill in the appropriate word since I can't seem to find a word that clicks with you......) to ride a city bus to help reduce pollution and improve the air, then you are just being either stubborn, or lazy, or uncaring about your fellow man. There is no other choice which would properly describe that stance.
And I'm not a "normal liberal Democrat" at all. I have voted Republican my entire life. So there goes one of your incorrect assumptions.
And I'm neither "arrogant" nor rich. I was raised lower middle-class in central Texas and I live my life weekly paycheck to weekly paycheck and aside from a little retirement money and a VERY small college fund for my kids, I have very few assets of note.
Anyone who thinks they are too good and too clean to ride a City bus, telling someone ELSE that they are arrogant ? Think about that conundrum for a second.
I don't know about your city, but in Phoenix the buses are cleaned daily. I have ridden on them dozens of times in the 12 years I have lived here (although I own a car and a bike) and I have yet to be offended by anyone's smell or appearance.
Maybe I'm just way more tolerant of people than some folks.
grbeck: Actually, we do know the differences between small vehicles and our present vehicles, but our choices don't make you happy, so you have to pretend that we purchase vehicles without a clue as to what alternatives are available.
Notice I did not say "every single American" now did I? There are also millions of people who are smart enough to know they can use a smaller car and happily do so. Others take time to fully understand that, and others are too stubborn to even consider it.
My message is intended for those who have never seriously considered the subject.
grbeck says: The only contrariness and unenlightened thinking I see on this thread are from those who can't accept that other people may have different choices and priorities than they do, and, in a free society, are spending their money accordingly.
That's part of my message. Just as some people are not smart enough or strong enough to conclude that they should stop smoking, the guvmint will put more and more restrictions on them.
Accordingly and hopefully, in the future, people who don't know how to purchase a more efficient, lower polluting vehicle will be instructed on how to do it and maybe regulated into doing so by the guvmint forcing automakers to make cars more efficient and cleaner.
This might sound bad, and I'm sure I'll take grief about saying it, but it's nonetheless true - I can't help it - facts are facts: Too many people are too stupid to find out about what's good for them, and it's the job of the people who are not too stupid to pass the message on to them.
Just like some people are too stupid to use carseats and booster seats with their kids in cars, so the guvmint has to tell them to do it.
It's nothing new, folks !! Y'all are acting like no one ever tried to give people good advice before !!
I think that was well known when the thread started. Politicians not scientists have created this whole GW hysteria. What is amazing is the seemingly educated people that have bought into the whole scheme to extort money through carbon credits.
Just as you feel people are too stupid to do what you think is right. I think people are uninformed of the facts about safety and small cars. You should think about your position. I have and will not head out onto the highway with a vehicle I DO NOT feel safe in. Check this out with a very popular smallish car.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_86RuYXoJA&feature=related
PS
My partners daughter was killed when a PU ran a stop sign and broad sided her. The guy in the PU walked away unhurt.
Simple question here. Please rank the following drivers
1. SUV driver who drives 5 miles each way. 17 MPG
2. Hybrid driver who drives 40 miles each way. 50 MPG
Larsb in your opinion who is having a larger negative impact in mother earth?
I admit my last post was a bit personal - but did you look at any of the others? Sheesh... :shades:
Larsb - This might sound bad, and I'm sure I'll take grief about saying it, but it's nonetheless true - I can't help it - facts are facts: Too many people are too stupid to find out about what's good for them, and it's the job of the people who are not too stupid to pass the message on to them.
Just because you disagree with their choice does not make them stupid, just different from you or I. Calling their choice stupid does not give you the right to decide for them.
I think he is hoping the Government will tell us all what we can and cannot drive. How big of a home we can have. When we will be forced to ride the bus etc. I don't think he will like being told what, where, when and how, anymore than we like being referred to as stupid because we do not follow his lead. I am following Al Gore's lead. Burn as much as I can afford..... :shades:
Doesn't Al Gore, drive a hybrid ???
-Rocky
You have to start somewhere and your's was handy. Nothing personal.
btw, your email bounced.
Rocky, I think you are thinking of Al the Third and his ~100 mph speeding ticket in a Prius a few months back.
my e-mail bounced? Not sure I follow.
Ornery huh?
Wow! I've got to say, a statement like that could generate a record number of replies. Wouldn't that then mean:
- the stupid being stupid, are too stupid to know their stupid and would think they're intelligent? The stupid therefore would feel empowered and even obligated to help others. So then the stupid run for public office and want to make laws, which of course are really stupid laws, and the world would have lots of problems.
Seriously now: Do you really think that more intelligent people should have the right to pass laws telling less-intelligent people what they should do? how to spend their money? I think you're missing the fact that this country and its laws are based on freedom-for-all, not just freedom and power to the more-intelligent!
There are a lot of intellignet people as measured by IQ and degrees who have smoked, drank excessively, went bankrupt, and done other dangerous things that we may think are stupid. But are they stupid, OR have they simply determined that though it may be dangerous the goal of life is to ENJOY and take risks. Now you may think that stupid, as your goal in life is to live as long as possible, and to do as little environmental harm as possible.
So whether actions are "stupid" depends on what your goals are sometimes.
But any intelligent person's right to so something "stupid" stops right about the time when that act interferes with someone else's life.
Like smoking in public places. Like driving recklessly, which puts a strain on the traffic enforcement system, the insurance system, and the health system.
And yes, our system of government is based around some people telling other people how to act. Other people who, if left upon their own accord, will do stupid things. That's why we have laws against murder, robbery, etc.
That's what we have, and it's the best governmental system that we know about.
"The best system of government we know". Well, that could be because you don't know any other and it is arguably not the best if you're poor and/or disadvantaged. I believe Sweden has a far better system, just as one example.
"Freedom-for-all". Certainly is freedom-for-all to do it the American way regardless of nationality/race/creed/culture or wishes. How will it be if/when China decides to become an Imperial power, (as the USA is and always has been), and give us all freedom to do it their way ? Will that be O.K. with you guys ?
I express these personal, (but widely shared outside USA), opinions in the spirit of my personal freedom and trust they'll be respected as such. However, if I do get a flaming I will know I've asked for it.
It's because it has survived a basic framework for about 230 years now.
Sure, there are nitpickers who say it could be better and that other systems are better, and in some cases they have valid points.
But the proof is in the pudding of time.
Yes but people making independent decisions on how, and the quantity of energy they use is not typically interfering with others, in any reasonable way. The actions of mankind have positive and negative results. Every process has waste of some sort generated. Therefore we must accept as reasonable some level of waste and byproducts. The more people on the Earth, the better lifestyle we live - using more resources, the more waste and byproducts we will generate globally.
Now you may not like how much waste and byproducts we generate. But that is your opinion - that we should use less, while people obviously wish to use more resources and live better. You get your choice, and everyone else gets their choice. Don't be surprised when people tell you, they're fine with your choice, but don't want to live a conserving lifestyle (if they so choose). We do not have to act for the collective good - that is Marxism, and that was unsuccessful as it went against basic human-nature - we are individuals with individual goals.
However: This whole discussion (when it is on topic) is based on the amount of global warming contributions made by autos.
IF INDEED that autos are contributing in a way which is conducive to the negative human and planetary effects of GW, then your statement that "people making independent decisions on how, and the quantity of energy they use is not typically interfering with others, in any reasonable way" becomes untrue.
And yes, we must accept some level of waste, that's a given. MY conflict is with people who waste more than their "share" so to speak and worse, DON'T GIVE A FLIP ABOUT doing so !!! Those people are the people I have a conflict with.
And my "choice" of living a conservationist lifestyle is only right now picking up steam with more and more people, as people are finally starting a little bit at least to wake up to the fact that they can live their lives almost exactly as they do now and yet make minor changes which can help future generations have a better Earf.
And anyone who "does not want to act for the collective good" is just being selfish, stubborn, contrary, or a combination thereof. And I don't think that's an acceptable attitude to have.
It's their RIGHT of course, but it makes them less of a good person in my eyes if they do not care about how their actions might be affecting other people and future generations.
I would imagine if you interviewed people in some African or Asian countries they would say you are very wasteful in your lifestyle. I do not think your choices could be sustained if we were to not linked to 3rd world countries. I don't believe you could get through the EPA regulations to build a modern NiMH or Li-Ion battery factory in the USA. Yet Batteries are what saves you gas in your car. Many of the products we have pushed off onto 3rd world countries would be taboo manufactured in the USA. I would like to see only products sold in this country that can be manufactured in this country. That to me is a much more sound environmental viewpoint than sending all the dirty work to 3rd world countries. Yes that includes all the hybrid cars. When they can build all the parts here in an environmentally clean factory I will add them to the list of clean vehicles.
But yes we get back to 1) IF GW is really occurring as there have been some few hundred year swings here and there (Tidester's links), 2) the amount autos would contribute to GW IF occurring, and 3) is that GW more negative or positive overall.
I think I've addressed 2), where autos put out about 1% of the natural and anthropogenic CO2 emissions, so if that was the only GHG and temps. have gone up 2F degrees, that would make autos contribution 0.02F for the last hundred years. Can you feel the difference of 0.02F? I certainly can't. So then let's forget about that.
And I do not see GW as being as negative as you do, I see more benefits than negatives, as life flourishes (amount and diversity) in the warmer climates.
MY conflict is with people who waste more than their "share" so to speak and worse, DON'T GIVE A FLIP ABOUT doing so !!!
And I have to ask why you think there is a "share". And who would define what a fair share is? Is the U.N. to say every person on the globe gets 2 gallons of oil per week? No, the fair system the whole world uses is the monetary system. With the money each of us earns or inherits we then purchase the shares from what's available to use. So if you have more $ like the Nobel winning Gore, you can use much more energy and resources than you or I together, with the result of that much more waste and byproducts.
It's their RIGHT of course, but it makes them less of a good person in my eyes if they do not care about how their actions might be affecting other people and future generations.
I don't agree it is healthy to have a mindset where you're apologizing for existing, and creating a normal amount of waste. If you buy things from China and other poor areas of the world, you should consider that your actions of purchasing inexpensive non-union things is subjecting millions of people to harsh, slave-like factories. If you buy fruits and vegetables in the supermarket you are giving business to people who have migrant workers, and farms that pollute the rivers with fertilizers and other chemicals. So yes the typical western-lifestyle does create a lot of negatives; that is the tradeoff for the positives. it's a competitive world, and there are winners and losers.
That does not make the product itself bad, does it? All process manufacturing is a dirty process, some indeed more dirty than others. But you have to have some chemical reactions which create pollution in almost any manufacturing environment. I think saying "this product is dirtier than that product because the manufacturing process is dirtier" is kinda asinine and a useless action.
gary says, "I would like to see only products sold in this country that can be manufactured in this country."
A nice fantasy, but completely unrealistic mi amigo..
As a Jim Carrey character might say: "OHHH REEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLYY?????????"
Extinctions good?
Some of those extinct creatures might be involved in a cure for cancer, or AIDS, or MS, or herpes, or Hepatitis.
Is losing that chance, even if it's a small one, good for the world as a whole? I don't think a reasonable person would say yes to that question.
Arizona drafts tough tailpipe rules
From the text:
Vehicle exhaust accounts for 39 percent of Arizona's greenhouse-gas emissions, which is why Arizona moved to control it, said Steve Owens, director of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
"If you're going to do anything to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, you have to do it with automobiles," he said.
I also do not go to greasy spoon restaurants because I will come out smelling like the food they serve...are you about to dictate that I should go to those restaurants because the judge may go, or that it is your favorite type of restaurant???
Tidester: right about one thing, global warming is ALL political and NO science, but could become a serious method to raise taxes on us and simply bypass the income tax laws, simply by ratifying some stupid treaty like UN or Kyoto...and THAT is something every Democrat would LOVE to do, get the treaty and then say "but I never raised your taxes, the treaty did that"...
Be carreful what you vote for, you might get it...
Well, I think it does. You may not agree. That does not clean the air wafting across the globe caused by your need for a low fuel consuming hybrid. Just because all process manufacturing is dirty does not make it justified. Maybe in your mind, not in mine. If you are not willing to have a chemical plant in your neighborhood that manufactures a product you want or need, I find that hypocritical. You are adding to world wide pollution with your choice of cars.
China has shown that the air they breath, is not as important as the Dollars they receive.
I find your reasoning that it is OK to pollute in the manufacturing process overseas, as long as the car is clean burning in your neighborhood, to be somewhat self centered. Even more so by the fact that you have bought into the whole GW hysteria.
Just to be clear, my line about the judge was tongue in cheek.
...get the treaty and then say "but I never raised your taxes, the treaty did that"
I've seen the term "deniers" bandied about in reference to the "skeptics" with all its negative connotations. But since you mentioned some of the ulterior motives you may be interested in knowing that some are adopting the term "watermelons" to describe the climate change proponents. Of course, we know that watermelons are green on the outside and red on the inside. Again, just to be clear, I am in no way suggesting anyone here fits either of those characterizations.
I offer this only as an observation about the nature of the "debate" which, once again, has little to do with real science and much to do with political objectives.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
I have not "bought into the whole GW hysteria." We are mostly waiting for the science to figure it out.
Regardless of what some people think (hoax, conspiracy, shakedown, political gambit, etc.) about the issue, there are unanswered questions, but also FACTS which indicate the Earf IS INDEED warming. That fact is not up for debate any longer. The cause is still up for debate, but not the warming. The warming is happening.
What is causing and/or contributing to the warming is the main question yet to be answered.
And my buying a hybrid did not pollute the Earf more than if I had not bought a hybrid. You know why? Because the lifetime pollution factor of a hybrid is less than a comparable gas car. You know that. So in fact, by buying my TCH instead of an XLE, I have REDUCED my potential carbon footprint.
And Toyota did not build one "just for me." Had I or had I not bought it, it was still already built. What happens to the cars they build before or after mine is not my concern. Mine was built already. Whether I bought it or a non-hybrid Camry, both cars were already built. Any car you buy has had manufacturing pollution in the build process.
And I don't care where the car is built. ( To be honest, I WISH it had been built here, so you could stop quacking about it.) In fact, I have a huge empty lot behind my house. Anyone who wants to can come move in and build batteries right there. Because the EPA and OSHA would make sure the plant was clean enough before they could build the factory.
Every mile I put on my TCH brings closer the day where my car has reached the equivalent pollution of a non-hybrid Camry and puts me in the black carbon-footprint-wise. For the current Prius, that "break-even" mileage figure is about 41,000 miles. I estimate on the TCH it's probably a little shorter, since the TCH has an exact gas comparable version of the car and the Prius does not.
If the species can't survive a degree or 2 increase, I don't know how they'd ever work around an autoclave or bunsen burner in a lab.
Or the species could be the ones to create the next global plague? How about an ebola-type virus spread by air? But since the global climate has changed all by itself historically, the elimination and creation of new species is nothing new. The loss of species is nothing new, and in the past cataclysms have surely wiped more species out faster. So under worst-case circumstances we may change what lives, and what evolves from what lives. But life is very resilient.
Probably because Arizona gets much of its electricity from hydroelectric - Hoover Dam, (and any other dams?). If Arizona was more typical of states using coal, natural gas, and oil to produce electricity, the percentage from autos would drop.
"I asked my mother, who is 80, whether she'd ever seen snow in Iraq before, and her answer was no," said Fawzi Karim, a 40-year-old father of five who runs a small restaurant in Hawr Rajab, a village six miles southeast of Baghdad.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jW3GxloIao_SDQfJaOPCdr4CD0AAD8U3S3681
Yeah, that is what I was thinking !!!!
-Rocky
-Rocky
You should love this one larsb. CA is going to control our heat and AC for US, by radio control. "What do you mean you would like it cooler than 85 degrees in the house"? The people have spoken. No cooling below 95 degrees :sick:
Next year in California, state regulators are likely to have the emergency power to control individual thermostats, sending temperatures up or down through a radio-controlled device that will be required in new or substantially modified houses and buildings to manage electricity shortages.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/11/america/calif.php
If I use less gas per year than you in my car am I "green"?
The later stages of the Holocene Epoch.... Mother Earth is right on track....
The idea that mankind can somehow manipulate it is.... Pathetic.
I wish a medium size volcano would gear up.... It would pretty much mute this whole dumb subject, and the sunsets would be spectacular.
Go to a library, pick up a book (heavens), stop listening to mouthpieces that are trying to STAY famous with the global warming road show and after you READ for awhile..... Pro and con, make up your own mind and stop letting NON-SCIENTISTS manipulate scientific research. GOSH BATMAN! Government and Religion trying to affect the results of discovery and real science - has this ever happened before? Well, DUH.
The sane ones, like us...(
If they weren't so ignorant and arrogant, this global warming crap would be funny...
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
So does my absorption of facts. The facts are that the Earf is getting warmer. The causes are up for debate, but the fact that there is a warming trend (whether it be natural or not) is indeed a fact.
And mankind cannot "manipulate" weather in the strictest sense, no.
What we CAN DO, however, is discover that something we are doing is adversely affecting the Earf and try to stop doing that thing to see if it would help. That has been done with clean air programs, clean water programs, etc for many years now with success.
You guys seem to think this should be an "us against THEM" situation, and it's not that at all. We should all agree that being good stewards of the Earf is a job we all share.
(that's my shorthand for the word you used...Easier to type and some have said is even cute..)
Being a good steward in your book may be different than what others believe. You seem to be saying yours is the RIGHT way and those that disagree are either stupid or ill informed. While I agree in principle with some of your assertions. I disagree on the solutions. I believe in realistic approaches to keeping the air and water clean. I believe as you have said that we have come a long way since the early 1970s. Can we do more? Yes. Should we go crazy with no regard for the economics involved? NO! I believe the standards for vehicle emissions achieved by the early 1990s are good enough. Any further enhancements are just a big waste of money. The cleaning of our gas and diesel is more important than further kludging up our cars and trucks. We will see more improvement in our air as a result of cleaning our gas and diesel supply, than adding $1000s of dollars of worthless crap to our vehicles.
I don't think we should "go crazy" with no regard to the economics involved either. But research and money should be used to see what we reasonably do as a country, and as individuals also, to lessen the negative environmental impacts of our own consumption.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2008-01-12-nuclearworld_N.htm
It seems to me that in outsourcing so much of our industry and our "dirty" processes due to environmental concerns in the developed world, we are simply creating problems in the developing nations. I'm sure glad I don't live in India, China, or Indonesia these days. In 10-20 years the places will be abysmal.
Besides just creating factories in these areas, our policies of outsourcing are also transferring large amounts of money to these countries. The middle-class is growing in these countries, and with that the number of autos will be growing quickly around the world. Whether you want to fuel all the vehicles with fossil fuels directly, or have EV or fuel-cell cars that use electricity, there will be problems, waste, and emissions.
The world is desperate for more energy; and every fossil fuel and nuclear fuel will be put into use. When you see GDP increasing you can just equate that with more energy use, and more waste and emissions.
The good news is - the Earth has and can never be hurt by those things, and life has always survived.
ME TOO!!!
They are wondering if the Olympic athletes will survive in the horribly polluted air of China. Yes we have contributed with buying anything that pollutes the air during manufacturing. There are those that feel so smug because they feel that it is better them than US that have the pollution to deal with.
At the UN GW summit in Bali, the leaders of India and China made it clear they were not going to do anything to disrupt the growth in their countries.