Gary says, "Our government in all its ignorance says you want a diesel buy a BIG PU truck. If you like driving a large SUV buy a gas guzzling SUV. So those are the options our government have given US. "
No, you are incorrect there Gary. It's not the Guvmint who has limited our choices - it's the car manufacturers not offering it in a "clean enough" configuration.
Now that clean diesel technology is available, the car makers CAN and WILL start putting diesel in more economical trucks and SUVs.
Gary says, "To say "no one needs a Hummer" is not a very well thought out statement. The people that bought our 400 acre ranch, here in San Diego, totally trashed an Acura MDX in a year on the 2.7 miles of fire road going up to the Ranch. "
We are mostly talking about commute vehicles and daily drivers. No one needs a Hummer for a normal daily commute, and no Soccer Mom from Brentwood needs one either. People who do their driving on ranches and farm property are in a different category. There will always be a need for large pickups and work trucks and those sort of vehicles. But GM could design a diesel H3 that got 35 MPG if they wanted to, and then the Hummer would no longer be vehicula non grata.
But GM could design a diesel H3 that got 35 MPG if they wanted to, and then the Hummer would no longer be vehicula non grata.
We finally agree on something. Problem is the government. They are always making emissions a moving target. About the time the automakers solve one problem they say that is not good enough. It never gives them a chance to make any money on their R&D. The EV-1 is a prime example. Of course they have blocked the diesels at every turn. The EU emissions work from a different angle. They say OK you can sell that diesel car but by this date we want to see improvement. The EPA and CARB say no that is not good enough never giving the automakers a chance to sell what they have come up with. Our GHG levels would be a lot lower if we had taken the same route the EU has.
I don't see "the guvmint" making clean vehicles a priority as a problem. I see that as a necessary evil. We should all want cleaner cars.
Our GHG levels would be better but our particulate matter would be a problem for us like it is for Europe. And particulate matter is worse for our public health.
larsb: People are ALREADY buying too much vehicle (in both size and cost) and therefore are already putting themselves in a lose-lose situation.
Except that, as I've already explained, there are advantages to buying a larger vehicle from a room, comfort, performance and noise/vibration/harshness standpoint.
I know that a Fit costs less to buy and run than my Accord.
The extra money spent for the initial purchase price and gasoline costs are worth it for the other advantages offered by the Accord. There are other factors to consider when buying a new vehicle beyond purchase price and gasoline mileage.
If you don't see the problem with the way our government operates, there is nothing I can do. There is a difference between setting out rules and then accepting the vehicles that are built to those regulations, than changing the rules once the automaker has built a vehicle to meet the first set of regulations.
Kind of like if tomorrow AZ were to say we are going to mandate that all cars driven on the streets of Phoenix must be ZEV rated. Anyone caught with any other vehicle will be ticketed. You may suck it up and ride your segway with a trailer for mom and the kids. Not everyone feels as strongly about emissions as you do.
All diesel cars available to sell in the USA have had PM filters for a long time. The biggest problem in the USA was the fuel source. The EU started implementing ULSD before we did. The only thing I know of stopping the sale of diesel cars in CA is the NoX levels. In most other pollutants the diesel is cleaner than the average gas car. There are big advantages to diesel that gas does not offer. Of course mileage is important. But driveability is overlooked. Having driven diesels over the last 3 years I can attest to their being superior to their gas counterparts. Gas engines just do not offer the torque needed for those long uphill pulls. If you like hearing a screaming gas engine then diesel is not for you.
Their goals with the EPA are to keep the air clean. Setting regulations on diesel is based on decades of science on the harmful effects of diesel. They have to have some regulation in areas which they have authori-TYE.
"Driveability" is overrated. I have driven a lot of cars in my life, and none of them have I ever considered "not drivable."
Unless you live in an area where you are doing "long uphill pulls" several times a week, then torque is not an issue for you. I do "long uphill pulls" about as infrequently as anyone possibly could, so to me, that is a non-issue.
I can tell you that the times I have driven in the mountains in my TCH, I have had absolutely ZERO problems with pulling. That car is plenty powerful.
The same cannot be said for the HCH, however. That car, once the battery was drained and you were running solely on a 105 HP gas engine, was very weak on the long mountain roads. But that type of driving was less than 1 % of the driving I did in that car, so it was really not an issue for me.
It still meets my stressed point of buying and driving a cleaner, higher mileage vehicle than the one you have and don't really need.
If you're going to start with "need" then I think you're going to have to define what that means, because everyone has a different definition. For example many people who don't have an auto arrange their lives such that they have no need for an auto. Then you have people who drive motorscooters, as in India, and take the wife and kid and food on that. That meets their "need", or is that excessive?
So define for us what you think "need" is? I'm fairly certain that most of the world will consider that "luxury". For example - Iraq which has a very similar climate as Phoenix, most of the people do not have AC's as you do. It is obviously not a need, as much as a comfort.
BTW - I don't use AC in my car. Do you lower your mpg by running the AC?
You know that everyone has different "needs" and by asking for a definition you are just being contrary, you little devil !! LOL
As a more advanced society than Iraq, we are more evolved in our "needs" than they are.
They might be perplexed but accepting of the fact that losing people to heat stroke is something that will happen in those temps. We, here, are not as accepting of that view.
A/C in Phoenix is a health requirement as well as a comfort requirement.
And believe me: there are very few people in Phoenix who have a working A/C in their car and do not use it when temps are over 100 degrees.
I'm a conservationist but not an idiot who will sacrifice my family's health by putting up with extreme heat.
Except that one could argue that people don't need to live in Phoenix (or a place with a similar climate) in the first place.
Remember that such places only became habitable on a large scale with the invention of low-cost air conditioning, which uses LOTS of energy. And lets not even get into the water-use issues...
Sure. And we use millions if not billions of gallons of water every year to support our golf courses.
The costs of an advanced civilization are not small.
This is why we need to even more closely guard against waste and abuse. The more we waste and abuse, the less we have to make our life pleasantly livable.
Well, it just depends on the issue. Unless you are the reincarnation of HeySuse Christo himself, your opinions will be incorrect some of the time just like the rest of us schmoes.
P.S. And remember there is a difference in "admitting" your opinion is wrong and it actually "being wrong." It could be wrong and you not admit it, but that does not make it less wrong. Example: I'm probably wrong about my opinion that I'm more scared of my kids smoking than I am of them doing drugs, but I'm not gonna modify my belief in that opinion.
No it is a set figure by the EPA that you are so enamored with. It has no rhyme or reason as much of the government regulations. For some reason a Lexus LX570 with a rated 14 MPG is NOT a gas guzzler. An Aston Martin Vantage V8 that gets 14 MPG is a gas guzzler. Maybe you can tell me why one gets a bye while the other is labelled "Gas Guzzler"? Oh and both are rated the same for CO2.
You know that everyone has different "needs" and by asking for a definition you are just being contrary, you little devil !! LOL
Like a wascally wabbit!
So then read what you wrote and apply it to this topic and when you consider what are other peoples' "needs" and waste. What you consider need and waste is subjective as you point out. So then how can you state what is need or waste for others?
Basically you're trying to convince us that on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being no resource use and 10 being the most resource use of a person, that you live a transportation lifestyle (energy use) which is acceptable and anything more is waste. Well I'd guess comparing you globally, you would be about a 7 or 8 (because you drive a pretty good number of miles per year). You then sit there and say anyone higher than you is wasteful, yet don't consider your fuel usage wasteful, because you have "needs". Isn't 1 of your "needs" to drive to Texas? I'm sure that's a life-or-death need. So forgive me if I still think your position is hypocritical; that you want the 8, 9, and 10's to come down to your non-wasteful 7.5 level.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything they should not already know. But many people don't THINK about conserving in their daily lives like I do. I do feel like it's my job to keep that in the front of people's minds.
Giving up a little bit of comfort and sacrificing a little of yourself for the good of other people is nothing new, folks. People have been doing it for hundreds of years! I'm just pointing out that there is a new way to apply it in this modern world.
( And I've got about enough hypocrisy in my life to cover the head of a straight pin. )
What I'm saying is that a life with conservation on the mind is better than being a waster. Each person can determine their own personal level of waste and conservation, and there is no "one size fits all" solution.
But even a "reasonable person" can see that some acts are obviously wasteful. Like keeping your A/C at 72 degrees in the summer like my sister does. Her utility bills are $300-$400 in the summer. By just about anyone's estimation, that can be considered wasteful. She would rather "be comfortable" than spend that money on her retirement fund or her kids' college funds. That's her personal choice. But it's wasteful.
( I keep mine at 82-84, depending on the level of the heat wave, and my highest bill EVER has been $175, and my average for the time in my house is less than $90 a month. )
I know also that people who drive an SUV who can be just as transported with a 5-passenger sedan are being wasteful. They are cheating themselves out of money they could have in their pockets.
I drive to Texas twice a year because I am from there. Them's my roots. My grandmother is very close to my kids and she only has a few more years to live. My kids need to know about their roots and see their cousins.
I get 35-38 MPG usually on my trips, and when I had my HCH I was getting 45-48 MPG. I use just about as little fuel as anyone can for the trips I take, and I make up for that with limited driving the rest of the year. My normal driving would be less than 9,000 miles a year without the Texas trips. With them in there, I am still FAR below most people's consumption.
And it's not just being conserving in the gasoline and electricity usage arena for me. I conserve in basically everything I do, and recycle like a madman.
I'm going to my grave knowing I did good by my fellow man and trained my kids well in the ways of not being wasteful.
You position seems to be more of "I don't like SUVs".
That is fine - no problem having an opinion against SUVs. But you state above that SUV users could do better with a 5 passenger car vs an SUV. Well using that logic you don't need your TCH - a Honda FIT also seats 5 and costs less to operate and is cheaper to buy. Using your own login you are part of the problem you are against.
But even more interesting is you are advocating that I should give up my SUV even though my carbon foot print is much smaller that yours.
On top of that you are crowing about the changes you have made yet your life style by definition increases your carbon foot print - AC in the Car, home, bus, office etc...
Please don't misunderstand, enjoy AZ, enjoy your cross country drives, enjoy your AC - just don't try to use the guise of saving the world to take away my car, unless you are ready for me to outlaw desert AC under the guise of saving the world.
With the 43% growth in Asia what we should be promoting is to limit the growth there. That would be the parallel thinking to the approach we are hearing here that we must limit our growth.
What's good for the US is good for the Gander over the ocean. Please note the tongue in cheek before getting out blowtorches.
I have nothing against SUVs for people who NEED them and USE THEM AS DESIGNED. Some people need to carry six or seven passengers frequently, or have reason to transport cargo for their jobs or personal life, and need a vehicle that large. When they use it for that purpose, I have no issue with them. It's when they use that same vehicle for a 1-person commute that they become a waster and get on my bad side.
When I was married with 5 kids, I probably needed a Suburban sometimes, although I could have made do with the Geo Prizm and the 1996 Camry we had at the time I got married and inherited three new kids into the family. Instead of trading the Camry to give us the option of all riding at the same time in the same vehicle, I could have just kept the two small cars. Upgrading to the Suburban was a luxury that my new wife who I loved dearly at the time convinced me to buy, which I was against in principle at the time. Sometimes you have to bend your convictions in a marriage to keep the peace.
When I see a soccer mom doing her shopping at the high-end mall, alone on a weekday during the school year, it irritates me.
The SUV craze irritated me because I saw all the waste created by the "keep up with the Joneses" mentality. It was crazy and oh so wasteful.
Most if not almost all families who need a five-passenger transport vehicle could use a smaller vehicle for that purpose.
And you are wrong about me "not needing my TCH." I bought the most fuel-efficient vehicle I could buy for the size I needed. The Prius has as much or more interior room than the TCH but I preferred the heavier and quieter feel of the TCH, and it's STILL an AT-PZEV vehicle, the cleanest on the road with the exception of the CNG Civic.
If you are wasteful by driving an SUV and you could get the same thing done in a smaller car, then I am not in your corner.
It's not my fault my job landed me in AZ. I use about as little A/C as possible out here, compared to the general populace.
If you are wasteful by driving an SUV and you could get the same thing done in a smaller car, then I am not in your corner.
I am trying to understand your logic. If you chose comfort over the Prius that gets 30% better gas mileage, how can you be so intolerant of someone that wants the comfort and safety of an SUV? We could all downsize to a smaller vehicle than we choose in the US. Why pick on one segment?
I don't think you are in the majority. At least not in my area of the USA. I had some time to kill and stopped into the Toyota store to see the new 2008 Sequoia. They did not have a single one. The salesman told me they were selling as fast as they were unloaded off the truck. Wanted to know if I wanted to put my name on the list to be called when one is available. He had a long row of Prius out front.
I wonder how much GHG is spewing out of the volcano in Columbia. I think we should throw A Gore in to appease the GW gods.
I paid considerably less than $26,000 for the Accord (bought brand new). So, I'm getting the same capabilities (actually superior capabilities - Accords have better handling than Camrys) for less money, and the savings will pay for lots of gasoline, even at today's higher prices. And I don't have to worry about problems with the hybrid mechanicals at, say, 100,000 miles.
Larsb, You say you don't mind the people who buy a large sUV if they need them to transport their family etc. But then you go on to say that you hate to see the soccer moms (At least some of whom fit into the above catagory) at the mall shopping with their SUVs on the weekdays, or people commutinbg with the SUV, so in your opinion then they should have at least one other car to do these errands in, which for the majority of the people out there is just not a finacially sound decision. Now I am not a big SUV supporter (don't like them blocking my view on the highways, and I too feel that they use too many resources especially when they are zooming it the fast lane at 90 MPH with one person in them), but I am not going to say they should be outlawed or anything. I think with the rising gas prices they will be phased out of the fleet soon enough, except for the people who actually need them in the first place. I just think you need to realise that very few people can really afford to have more than one car for each driver in the family and that unfortunately these big SUVs are going to be used for the purposes you describe until they are replaced with something else in the future. I would hope when the time come to replace them people will decicide if the truly need this much transportation and purchase accordingly.
That said I am glad you are doing as much as you can for the environment, though I amy not agree with all of your statements. I do as much as I can as well, even though I am not conviced of the global warming threat, it doesn't hurt me to use as few resources as possible and the recycle as much as I can. (we normally have two recycling bins full and about 1/4 of a bag of garbage on the curb a week, the garbage would go out less often if there weren't too many large raccons around the house) Anyway I think pretty much everyone that is posting on this topic is doing everything that they feel they can do to help the envirionment, even those with big SUVs, they have their reasons for driving them, and feel that they can't do without. Maybe by the next time they are ready to make a purchase those needs will have changed.
BTW (to everone) just because an SUV is a ULEV does not mean it is as clean as a car that is a ULEV. The pollution is measure in Parts Per Million, so yes it sounds like they pollutute the same, and they would with equivalent fuel consumption, but if the SUV uses twice the fuel it will still pollute twice as much per mile driven as a car with the same parts per million, as it is putting out twice the amount of exhaust (I.e. if the car puts out 1 million , the SUV will put of 2 million) . Just a flaw in the way we in North America measure our pollutants, we should be measuring them in a way that is per mile driven (like they do in Eurpoe, though their system isn't perfrect eith I am sure). Scott
My logic and my perspective is not hard to understand at all.
Like I have said many times:
"Buy the smallest, most efficient, least-polluting vehicle you can afford which meets your family's needs. All else being equal, choose a PZEV car over a SULEV car. If your needs can be met by a Civic, buy the CNG Civic. Buy a hybrid or a clean diesel if you can afford it. Do not buy something larger than you reasonably need, to accomplish these ridiculous goals: to show-off, or to compete with your neighbors or your sister or your friends or your co-workers, or to carry that one dresser you might buy this year. And do not buy something larger and wasteful which will put you in a higher car payment that you can reasonably afford."
Just got back from a talk on energy trends out through 2030, and it was eye-opening, to say the least. If we change the title fo this discussion to "Are US automobiles a major cause of global warming", the answer is a pretty clear no. In 2005 the US used about 9 million barrels of oil per day to fuel our light vehicles (cars, pickups, SUVs), while the world used a total of about 190 million barrels of oil equivalent (oil+coal+natural gas) per day for all fuel-based energy needs. So less than 5% of world fuel use is for US light vehicles. Now, what change might we make to that 9 million number through modest increases in new car/truck mpgs? Not much. The US share of global use is also expected to decline as other countries continue their rapid industrialization.
The problem isn't conservation, it's overpopulation. Of course, if Al Gore and other like-minded do-gooders emphasize people not having children they'll be chased off the stage. So the myth is promoted that saving a few MPG on a car purchase will save the planet.
Baloney. Even if the billions of adults in China and India buy a gas sipping Yaris as they become more affluent it won't take the pressure off limited oil reserves. Not to mention all the other uses for oil in manufacturing.
Since people can't resist the natural urge to have children and we can't conserve our way out of the mess given increasing population and demand for goods (as the world becomes more affluent), our only hope is technological advances.
Well if China ends up buying more vehicles than the US by 2016 it is pretty easy to see we will be passed up as the gluttons. At the UN conference in Bali India & China made it perfectly clear that they were not going to cut emissions. Why would they? We have set up all those factories to produce everything that cannot be built in the USA under our strict regulations. Hybrid car anyone?
And Japan on Monday called on all parties to "effectively participate and will contribute substantially". A Japanese official said it was "essential" that China and India were involved.
China and India say that rich nations must take on far deeper cuts in emissions and that they cannot take on caps yet because they need to burn more fossil fuels to end poverty.
"Canada and Japan are saying nothing about legally binding emission reductions for themselves after 2012," said Steven Guilbeault of environmental group Equiterre. "They are trying to shift the burden to China and India."
sknabt: Since people can't resist the natural urge to have children and we can't conserve our way out of the mess given increasing population and demand for goods (as the world becomes more affluent), our only hope is technological advances.
Regarding population increases, in Japan and several European countries (Germany and Italy among them), the concern is decreasing population.
I don't think even the U.S. population would be growing all that much if we limited immigration more stringently (especially since many immigrants tend to be younger, and thus likely to have children).
As countries get wealthier, family size decreases, because children go from being an asset (they help on the farm, or are put to work as soon as possible) to an expense (they are kept in school until the age of 16 or 18, and thus must be supported while bringing in no income).
Plus, greater wealth drives down infant mortality rates, which means that a couple can have fewer children while still ensuring that at least one will live to adulthood.
Sure, as people become wealthier they tend to have fewer children. But my point is we have too many people already so even a replacement rate is unsustainable. The current economic model is a handful of affluent developed nations like the US, Japan, England, Germany, etc. can consume like mad and as long as the rest of the world remains impoverished we remain in fat city for a century or more.
What's causing gas prices to skyrocket (forgetting inflation because current policy is to trash the dollar) is huge increases in demand overseas. China's emergence as an economic power is often cited but other countries are part of this equation.
And what happens when a nation like Russia has stagnant population growth? The political leaders start implementing measures to promote higher birth rates because stagnate population equals stagnate economic growth leading to social economic woes like an inability to support social welfare programs for the elderly (e.g., look at our own Social Security/Medicaid mess).
I read a National Geographic article on global warming that quoted an academic study of the conservation measures required to offset the current global warming problems. While theoretically obtainable, they are so austere I can't imagine any American politician supporting them. Look at Bush & Co. fighting Kyoto, a mere baby step.
Given current population and economic growth rates how are we going to conserve our way to a solution? And we're just talking about global warming. We haven't even touched the topic of strains on the availability of clean water, food, and other natural resources.
There's snow through Georgia and Carolinas and up tonight. Near zero in Ohio Valley. :P
Guess people aren't driving their cars and trucks enough to offset the global cold effect. Need more of that CO2.
I heard a really funny caller on Clark Howard show today talking about she was helping national security by having bought a hybrid. She was so proud of herself. She sounded elderly and probably drove about 5 thousand miles a year... :sick:
Exclusive of the environmental damage done building the batteries and electrical motor...
When Clark pointed out that the typical return time for her choice of hybrid to equal the cost of a similar vehicle was ELEVEN years..., she sounded like her balloon really had burst. And her return to break even on the extra cost of a hybrid with a low mileage usage and a high premium paid to the salesman telling her she needed to buy a hybrid to help national security, her return time will be even higher!
I thought China had enough lead problems to run older cars for years to come...lol.. I go away for 5 days and i see 59 new posts.... What the heck you been doin to these people gag?.... Later.....lol Caaz
I'm just minding my own business. I was sort of waiting for one of the GW sources to explain the record cold and unexpected snow in diverse places on Earth. Like in China, Baghdad and Sillycone Valley.
did you read the article in the paper on Antarctica's shelves melting at a faster pace? And the huge shelf on the Australian side that is melting at an accelerated pace?
Some scientists were really concerned that if a large part of these shelves(after a long time of continued melting too fast)broke off our coastal cities might be swooshed off the map.
I don't know, it seems a might too hard to prove the real danger of something like that is described in that article really happening. Seems like the extra water would just meld in and compensate for an area of water that might be lower for that period of time, etc., etc. This article discussed information from one of the recent weather scientist "summit" meetings.
Everything (?) I've read recently says that whilst the Arctic cap is melting, the Antarctic cap is generally increasing in thickness. Guess whatever you read in one place, you can read the opposite someplace else.
A weather scientists summit eh ? When was the last time any group of scientists/experts got together and all said; "Well, nothing new to report from me". Who's gonna fund the next summit if that happens ? Think of the downturn to the airlines business, all the Avtur that's going to stay in the tanks, all the CO2 that's not going to be released, all the airmiles not being claimed, all the empty hotels in some nice location, all the research grants being cancelled. What a waste.
iluv: Some scientists were really concerned that if a large part of these shelves(after a long time of continued melting too fast)broke off our coastal cities might be swooshed off the map.
Sounds like we need to send a Trident sub there and breakup the glacier into smaller pieces a little at a time. We must have some older missiles and warheads lying around. Nuclear power to the rescue again!
Very interesting article. What is even more distressing are the 1000s of containers filled with nuclear waste the Soviets dumped up there. They probably thought they should still own Alaska. Makes GW seem very insignificant by comparison. I can see the whole ocean being contaminated as those containers begin to leak.
Comments
No, you are incorrect there Gary. It's not the Guvmint who has limited our choices - it's the car manufacturers not offering it in a "clean enough" configuration.
Now that clean diesel technology is available, the car makers CAN and WILL start putting diesel in more economical trucks and SUVs.
Gary says, "To say "no one needs a Hummer" is not a very well thought out statement. The people that bought our 400 acre ranch, here in San Diego, totally trashed an Acura MDX in a year on the 2.7 miles of fire road going up to the Ranch. "
We are mostly talking about commute vehicles and daily drivers. No one needs a Hummer for a normal daily commute, and no Soccer Mom from Brentwood needs one either. People who do their driving on ranches and farm property are in a different category. There will always be a need for large pickups and work trucks and those sort of vehicles. But GM could design a diesel H3 that got 35 MPG if they wanted to, and then the Hummer would no longer be vehicula non grata.
We finally agree on something. Problem is the government. They are always making emissions a moving target. About the time the automakers solve one problem they say that is not good enough. It never gives them a chance to make any money on their R&D. The EV-1 is a prime example. Of course they have blocked the diesels at every turn. The EU emissions work from a different angle. They say OK you can sell that diesel car but by this date we want to see improvement. The EPA and CARB say no that is not good enough never giving the automakers a chance to sell what they have come up with. Our GHG levels would be a lot lower if we had taken the same route the EU has.
Our GHG levels would be better but our particulate matter would be a problem for us like it is for Europe. And particulate matter is worse for our public health.
Except that, as I've already explained, there are advantages to buying a larger vehicle from a room, comfort, performance and noise/vibration/harshness standpoint.
I know that a Fit costs less to buy and run than my Accord.
The extra money spent for the initial purchase price and gasoline costs are worth it for the other advantages offered by the Accord. There are other factors to consider when buying a new vehicle beyond purchase price and gasoline mileage.
It still meets my stressed point of buying and driving a cleaner, higher mileage vehicle than the one you have and don't really need.
Kind of like if tomorrow AZ were to say we are going to mandate that all cars driven on the streets of Phoenix must be ZEV rated. Anyone caught with any other vehicle will be ticketed. You may suck it up and ride your segway with a trailer for mom and the kids. Not everyone feels as strongly about emissions as you do.
All diesel cars available to sell in the USA have had PM filters for a long time. The biggest problem in the USA was the fuel source. The EU started implementing ULSD before we did. The only thing I know of stopping the sale of diesel cars in CA is the NoX levels. In most other pollutants the diesel is cleaner than the average gas car. There are big advantages to diesel that gas does not offer. Of course mileage is important. But driveability is overlooked. Having driven diesels over the last 3 years I can attest to their being superior to their gas counterparts. Gas engines just do not offer the torque needed for those long uphill pulls. If you like hearing a screaming gas engine then diesel is not for you.
But when does it stop? I've heard environmentalists (not on this board) describe a car as a "gas guzzler" because it only gets...25 mpg.
That is what I achieve in the Accord in the real world (with a mix of suburban, city and highway driving).
Their goals with the EPA are to keep the air clean. Setting regulations on diesel is based on decades of science on the harmful effects of diesel. They have to have some regulation in areas which they have authori-TYE.
"Driveability" is overrated. I have driven a lot of cars in my life, and none of them have I ever considered "not drivable."
Unless you live in an area where you are doing "long uphill pulls" several times a week, then torque is not an issue for you. I do "long uphill pulls" about as infrequently as anyone possibly could, so to me, that is a non-issue.
I can tell you that the times I have driven in the mountains in my TCH, I have had absolutely ZERO problems with pulling. That car is plenty powerful.
The same cannot be said for the HCH, however. That car, once the battery was drained and you were running solely on a 105 HP gas engine, was very weak on the long mountain roads. But that type of driving was less than 1 % of the driving I did in that car, so it was really not an issue for me.
If you're going to start with "need" then I think you're going to have to define what that means, because everyone has a different definition. For example many people who don't have an auto arrange their lives such that they have no need for an auto. Then you have people who drive motorscooters, as in India, and take the wife and kid and food on that. That meets their "need", or is that excessive?
So define for us what you think "need" is? I'm fairly certain that most of the world will consider that "luxury". For example - Iraq which has a very similar climate as Phoenix, most of the people do not have AC's as you do. It is obviously not a need, as much as a comfort.
BTW - I don't use AC in my car. Do you lower your mpg by running the AC?
As a more advanced society than Iraq, we are more evolved in our "needs" than they are.
They might be perplexed but accepting of the fact that losing people to heat stroke is something that will happen in those temps. We, here, are not as accepting of that view.
A/C in Phoenix is a health requirement as well as a comfort requirement.
And believe me: there are very few people in Phoenix who have a working A/C in their car and do not use it when temps are over 100 degrees.
I'm a conservationist but not an idiot who will sacrifice my family's health by putting up with extreme heat.
Remember that such places only became habitable on a large scale with the invention of low-cost air conditioning, which uses LOTS of energy. And lets not even get into the water-use issues...
The costs of an advanced civilization are not small.
This is why we need to even more closely guard against waste and abuse. The more we waste and abuse, the less we have to make our life pleasantly livable.
P.S. And remember there is a difference in "admitting" your opinion is wrong and it actually "being wrong." It could be wrong and you not admit it, but that does not make it less wrong. Example: I'm probably wrong about my opinion that I'm more scared of my kids smoking than I am of them doing drugs, but I'm not gonna modify my belief in that opinion.
And one of the things that makes our lives pleasantly livable is a roomy, quiet and comfortable car that travels safely at 80+ mph...
No it is a set figure by the EPA that you are so enamored with. It has no rhyme or reason as much of the government regulations. For some reason a Lexus LX570 with a rated 14 MPG is NOT a gas guzzler. An Aston Martin Vantage V8 that gets 14 MPG is a gas guzzler. Maybe you can tell me why one gets a bye while the other is labelled "Gas Guzzler"? Oh and both are rated the same for CO2.
As I said - there are multiple definitions and interpretations of the term.
The last data that I have seen from NASA shows the earths temperature is cooling over the last ten years.
Over the last 100 years have been multiple panics over the earth cooling or warming.
My impression is that Global Warming to some is a religion rather than a scientific fact.
Fear is a powerful tool to influence people to give up some freedom and some property. Let us all pay a carbon tax to appease the Global Warming Gods.
Like a wascally wabbit!
So then read what you wrote and apply it to this topic and when you consider what are other peoples' "needs" and waste. What you consider need and waste is subjective as you point out. So then how can you state what is need or waste for others?
Basically you're trying to convince us that on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being no resource use and 10 being the most resource use of a person, that you live a transportation lifestyle (energy use) which is acceptable and anything more is waste. Well I'd guess comparing you globally, you would be about a 7 or 8 (because you drive a pretty good number of miles per year). You then sit there and say anyone higher than you is wasteful, yet don't consider your fuel usage wasteful, because you have "needs". Isn't 1 of your "needs" to drive to Texas? I'm sure that's a life-or-death need.
Giving up a little bit of comfort and sacrificing a little of yourself for the good of other people is nothing new, folks. People have been doing it for hundreds of years! I'm just pointing out that there is a new way to apply it in this modern world.
( And I've got about enough hypocrisy in my life to cover the head of a straight pin. )
What I'm saying is that a life with conservation on the mind is better than being a waster. Each person can determine their own personal level of waste and conservation, and there is no "one size fits all" solution.
But even a "reasonable person" can see that some acts are obviously wasteful. Like keeping your A/C at 72 degrees in the summer like my sister does. Her utility bills are $300-$400 in the summer. By just about anyone's estimation, that can be considered wasteful. She would rather "be comfortable" than spend that money on her retirement fund or her kids' college funds. That's her personal choice. But it's wasteful.
( I keep mine at 82-84, depending on the level of the heat wave, and my highest bill EVER has been $175, and my average for the time in my house is less than $90 a month. )
I know also that people who drive an SUV who can be just as transported with a 5-passenger sedan are being wasteful. They are cheating themselves out of money they could have in their pockets.
I drive to Texas twice a year because I am from there. Them's my roots. My grandmother is very close to my kids and she only has a few more years to live. My kids need to know about their roots and see their cousins.
I get 35-38 MPG usually on my trips, and when I had my HCH I was getting 45-48 MPG. I use just about as little fuel as anyone can for the trips I take, and I make up for that with limited driving the rest of the year. My normal driving would be less than 9,000 miles a year without the Texas trips. With them in there, I am still FAR below most people's consumption.
And it's not just being conserving in the gasoline and electricity usage arena for me. I conserve in basically everything I do, and recycle like a madman.
I'm going to my grave knowing I did good by my fellow man and trained my kids well in the ways of not being wasteful.
You position seems to be more of "I don't like SUVs".
That is fine - no problem having an opinion against SUVs. But you state above that SUV users could do better with a 5 passenger car vs an SUV. Well using that logic you don't need your TCH - a Honda FIT also seats 5 and costs less to operate and is cheaper to buy. Using your own login you are part of the problem you are against.
But even more interesting is you are advocating that I should give up my SUV even though my carbon foot print is much smaller that yours.
On top of that you are crowing about the changes you have made yet your life style by definition increases your carbon foot print - AC in the Car, home, bus, office etc...
Please don't misunderstand, enjoy AZ, enjoy your cross country drives, enjoy your AC - just don't try to use the guise of saving the world to take away my car, unless you are ready for me to outlaw desert AC under the guise of saving the world.
43% growth in Asia.
What's good for the US is good for the Gander over the ocean.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
When I was married with 5 kids, I probably needed a Suburban sometimes, although I could have made do with the Geo Prizm and the 1996 Camry we had at the time I got married and inherited three new kids into the family. Instead of trading the Camry to give us the option of all riding at the same time in the same vehicle, I could have just kept the two small cars. Upgrading to the Suburban was a luxury that my new wife who I loved dearly at the time convinced me to buy, which I was against in principle at the time. Sometimes you have to bend your convictions in a marriage to keep the peace.
When I see a soccer mom doing her shopping at the high-end mall, alone on a weekday during the school year, it irritates me.
The SUV craze irritated me because I saw all the waste created by the "keep up with the Joneses" mentality. It was crazy and oh so wasteful.
Most if not almost all families who need a five-passenger transport vehicle could use a smaller vehicle for that purpose.
And you are wrong about me "not needing my TCH." I bought the most fuel-efficient vehicle I could buy for the size I needed. The Prius has as much or more interior room than the TCH but I preferred the heavier and quieter feel of the TCH, and it's STILL an AT-PZEV vehicle, the cleanest on the road with the exception of the CNG Civic.
If you are wasteful by driving an SUV and you could get the same thing done in a smaller car, then I am not in your corner.
It's not my fault my job landed me in AZ. I use about as little A/C as possible out here, compared to the general populace.
I am trying to understand your logic. If you chose comfort over the Prius that gets 30% better gas mileage, how can you be so intolerant of someone that wants the comfort and safety of an SUV? We could all downsize to a smaller vehicle than we choose in the US. Why pick on one segment?
I don't think you are in the majority. At least not in my area of the USA. I had some time to kill and stopped into the Toyota store to see the new 2008 Sequoia. They did not have a single one. The salesman told me they were selling as fast as they were unloaded off the truck. Wanted to know if I wanted to put my name on the list to be called when one is available. He had a long row of Prius out front.
I wonder how much GHG is spewing out of the volcano in Columbia. I think we should throw A Gore in to appease the GW gods.
You say you don't mind the people who buy a large sUV if they need them to transport their family etc. But then you go on to say that you hate to see the soccer moms (At least some of whom fit into the above catagory) at the mall shopping with their SUVs on the weekdays, or people commutinbg with the SUV, so in your opinion then they should have at least one other car to do these errands in, which for the majority of the people out there is just not a finacially sound decision. Now I am not a big SUV supporter (don't like them blocking my view on the highways, and I too feel that they use too many resources especially when they are zooming it the fast lane at 90 MPH with one person in them), but I am not going to say they should be outlawed or anything. I think with the rising gas prices they will be phased out of the fleet soon enough, except for the people who actually need them in the first place. I just think you need to realise that very few people can really afford to have more than one car for each driver in the family and that unfortunately these big SUVs are going to be used for the purposes you describe until they are replaced with something else in the future. I would hope when the time come to replace them people will decicide if the truly need this much transportation and purchase accordingly.
That said I am glad you are doing as much as you can for the environment, though I amy not agree with all of your statements. I do as much as I can as well, even though I am not conviced of the global warming threat, it doesn't hurt me to use as few resources as possible and the recycle as much as I can. (we normally have two recycling bins full and about 1/4 of a bag of garbage on the curb a week, the garbage would go out less often if there weren't too many large raccons around the house)
Anyway I think pretty much everyone that is posting on this topic is doing everything that they feel they can do to help the envirionment, even those with big SUVs, they have their reasons for driving them, and feel that they can't do without. Maybe by the next time they are ready to make a purchase those needs will have changed.
BTW (to everone) just because an SUV is a ULEV does not mean it is as clean as a car that is a ULEV. The pollution is measure in Parts Per Million, so yes it sounds like they pollutute the same, and they would with equivalent fuel consumption, but if the SUV uses twice the fuel it will still pollute twice as much per mile driven as a car with the same parts per million, as it is putting out twice the amount of exhaust (I.e. if the car puts out 1 million , the SUV will put of 2 million) . Just a flaw in the way we in North America measure our pollutants, we should be measuring them in a way that is per mile driven (like they do in Eurpoe, though their system isn't perfrect eith I am sure).
Scott
Like I have said many times:
"Buy the smallest, most efficient, least-polluting vehicle you can afford which meets your family's needs. All else being equal, choose a PZEV car over a SULEV car. If your needs can be met by a Civic, buy the CNG Civic. Buy a hybrid or a clean diesel if you can afford it. Do not buy something larger than you reasonably need, to accomplish these ridiculous goals: to show-off, or to compete with your neighbors or your sister or your friends or your co-workers, or to carry that one dresser you might buy this year. And do not buy something larger and wasteful which will put you in a higher car payment that you can reasonably afford."
That's it. Not Rocket Science at all.
I'm all for sacrificing AlGore.
Baloney. Even if the billions of adults in China and India buy a gas sipping Yaris as they become more affluent it won't take the pressure off limited oil reserves. Not to mention all the other uses for oil in manufacturing.
Since people can't resist the natural urge to have children and we can't conserve our way out of the mess given increasing population and demand for goods (as the world becomes more affluent), our only hope is technological advances.
I'm not saying "outlaw SUVs" or "put families in financial trouble" at all.
For a summary of my exact feelings, see post number 1558.
Close this puppy up.
Answer is clearly "NO" so let's move on to other topics.
And Japan on Monday called on all parties to "effectively participate and will contribute substantially". A Japanese official said it was "essential" that China and India were involved.
China and India say that rich nations must take on far deeper cuts in emissions and that they cannot take on caps yet because they need to burn more fossil fuels to end poverty.
"Canada and Japan are saying nothing about legally binding emission reductions for themselves after 2012," said Steven Guilbeault of environmental group Equiterre. "They are trying to shift the burden to China and India."
http://uk.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUKL0481692._CH_.242020071204
Regarding population increases, in Japan and several European countries (Germany and Italy among them), the concern is decreasing population.
I don't think even the U.S. population would be growing all that much if we limited immigration more stringently (especially since many immigrants tend to be younger, and thus likely to have children).
As countries get wealthier, family size decreases, because children go from being an asset (they help on the farm, or are put to work as soon as possible) to an expense (they are kept in school until the age of 16 or 18, and thus must be supported while bringing in no income).
Plus, greater wealth drives down infant mortality rates, which means that a couple can have fewer children while still ensuring that at least one will live to adulthood.
What's causing gas prices to skyrocket (forgetting inflation because current policy is to trash the dollar) is huge increases in demand overseas. China's emergence as an economic power is often cited but other countries are part of this equation.
And what happens when a nation like Russia has stagnant population growth? The political leaders start implementing measures to promote higher birth rates because stagnate population equals stagnate economic growth leading to social economic woes like an inability to support social welfare programs for the elderly (e.g., look at our own Social Security/Medicaid mess).
I read a National Geographic article on global warming that quoted an academic study of the conservation measures required to offset the current global warming problems. While theoretically obtainable, they are so austere I can't imagine any American politician supporting them. Look at Bush & Co. fighting Kyoto, a mere baby step.
Given current population and economic growth rates how are we going to conserve our way to a solution? And we're just talking about global warming. We haven't even touched the topic of strains on the availability of clean water, food, and other natural resources.
Was Malthus right?
Guess people aren't driving their cars and trucks enough to offset the global cold effect. Need more of that CO2.
I heard a really funny caller on Clark Howard show today talking about she was helping national security by having bought a hybrid. She was so proud of herself. She sounded elderly and probably drove about 5 thousand miles a year... :sick:
Exclusive of the environmental damage done building the batteries and electrical motor...
When Clark pointed out that the typical return time for her choice of hybrid to equal the cost of a similar vehicle was ELEVEN years..., she sounded like her balloon really had burst. And her return to break even on the extra cost of a hybrid with a low mileage usage and a high premium paid to the salesman telling her she needed to buy a hybrid to help national security, her return time will be even higher!
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Close this puppy up.
Answer is clearly "NO" so let's move on to other topics.
Nice try, my friend, and I agree but this snowball is rolling down a very big hill and I fear it's gonna run.
BTW, I'll gladly lend a hand getting Smug Al up that volcano.
Later.....lol
Caaz
You're too smart for this thread, get out while you can!
Some scientists were really concerned that if a large part of these shelves(after a long time of continued melting too fast)broke off our coastal cities might be swooshed off the map.
I don't know, it seems a might too hard to prove the real danger of something like that is described in that article really happening. Seems like the extra water would just meld in and compensate for an area of water that might be lower for that period of time, etc., etc. This article discussed information from one of the recent weather scientist "summit" meetings.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
A weather scientists summit eh ? When was the last time any group of scientists/experts got together and all said; "Well, nothing new to report from me". Who's gonna fund the next summit if that happens ? Think of the downturn to the airlines business, all the Avtur that's going to stay in the tanks, all the CO2 that's not going to be released, all the airmiles not being claimed, all the empty hotels in some nice location, all the research grants being cancelled. What a waste.
Sorry, switched back out of "Cynical' mode now.
Sounds like we need to send a Trident sub there and breakup the glacier into smaller pieces a little at a time. We must have some older missiles and warheads lying around.