Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
But Exxon-Mobil did not ask anyone to LIE per se:
According to CNN, the American Enterprise Institute, a think-tank partially funded by the ExxonMobil Corporation, “sent letters to scientists offering them $10,000, plus travel and other expenses, to highlight the shortcomings in a report from the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group widely considered to be the authority on climate change science.”
Highlite the shortcomings
Toyota (nor anyone lauding them) has NEVER SAID:
"EVERY SINGLE TOYOTA VEHICLE IS GREENER COMPARED TO ANY OTHER MANUFACTURER'S COMPARABLE VEHICLE."
That's never been said.
What HAS BEEN SAID and is COMPLETELY TRUE is that:
Toyota has sold more environmentally friendly vehicles than any other carmaker on this planet.
Toyota has sold more environmentally friendly vehicles than any other carmaker on this planet.
Now that is bull crap also as Honda, is a lot greener than Toyota. Toyota, really isn't any greener than General Motors.
-Rocky
I would say the only one of the automakers doing a whole lot more than just-enough-to-make-its-self-serving-green-PR-true is Honda. I do think Toyota and GM both mean well in this regard, but they are both organizations heavily influenced by their PR departments.
In fact, one of the minor crimes of the last decade is that Toyota sold itself as the greenest, the first with hybrids, etc, when in fact Honda could have made that claim if only it had the media budget that Toyota does.
Honda was first with a hybrid in the U.S., still holds the record for most fuel-efficient hybrid ever sold here (the Insight), most fuel-efficient gas-powered car ever sold here (the old Civic HX/VX, rated higher than a 3-cylinder Metro despite having 4 cylinders), was first to market with a car that runs solely on compressed natural gas (you can still buy that one today), will be first to market this summer with a fuel-cell powered car for private consumers, even as it gets ready to offer 50-state diesels in other models that meet ULEVII smog ratings without a special urea-injection system like the Germans have developed,...
And of course, for the last quarter century at least, they have been the most fuel-efficient carmaker in America overall, mainly because they didn't focus much on big vans or trucks until the last decade or so (and even now their sales-weighted average is WAY higher than the American car companies and more than 2 points higher than Toyota).
edit: last time I checked, which was more than a year ago, Toyota's combined overall fuel economy (sales-weighted of course) was a good 5 points higher than Ford or GM (around 27 for Toyota, around 22 for GM, a little lower for Ford IIRC), so in one sense at least Toyota is "greener" than GM. Problem with the term "greener", of course, is it's way too vague to be very useful in a discussion like this one.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
-Rocky
And GM and Ford are lucky in one sense, they both have heavy duty trucks in the line-up which are exempt from this whole CAFE business. Toyota doesn't have that luxury, as every single one of its Tundras is counting right now, and not a one makes more than 20 mpg highway...all have combined ratings only in the mid-teens. :sick:
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
As I said before if I was GM, I'd make the hybrid motors standard and use them like Lexus to electrically assist my automobiles. The RAV4, right does this as well. GM, yes can do better but damn I think the politicians need to help fund both the infrastructure we have now and R&D. Big Oil, could do their part after ripping us off for the last 5 years and help take some of those old subsidies they got and turn it into something useful. :mad: They got to play their part instead of just grinning ear to ear making record profits while we just complain and do absolutely nothing. :sick:
-Rocky
-Rocky
Not much different this time around... :shades:
What problem do you propose to fix with the "nearly 30 mpg 2-Mode hybrid"? For trucks, that's a good start. If that's a proposed powertrain for a car, then no, it aint nearly good enough.
But what you said about the oil industry struck a chord with me. These folks are reaping $100 billion a year in profits alone, and that's each company. Plus, they all have a stake right along with the auto industry in determining the powertrains and therefore fuel needs of the vehicles of the future. Why don't they plow some of their tremendous profits back into R&D right alongside the American car companies, to help advance the technology and help us all out, them included? Buried in that little piece everyone is quoting today was a little line that nobody quoted. Concerning the future of the Volt program, Lutz was talking about how it was now an official fully-funded future-model program, $500 million in projected investment this year alone, blah blah blah. At the bottom, he said "we can have this thing to market by 2010, if the battery makers can produce a Lithium Ion battery by then that meets our needs." That's a big big if, and he knows it. But maybe with a quarter billion dollar investment from the oil industry, the battery makers could get to work on coming up with such a battery in the next two years.
Oh, and hey, soy steaks are good for you, and good for the environment too! ;-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Second: soy steaks MAY be good for you. Not especially good for the environment. Soybeans along with corn is grown using way too much fossil fuel fertilizer. It is destroying the environment where ever it leeches into the rivers and streams. Probably causing GW.
Last: I would not hold my breath on Li-Ion batteries making it to prime time. I think Toyota was hoping for a decent battery for their LS600h, which has not materialized.
I said they have sold more green vehicles than Honda, and that statement is ABSOLUTELY true.
And every "green company" rating system I have ever seen has Toyota in the top three or four.
It's like john said, these aren't just oil companies any more. We call them that for the sake of simplicity, but these are really energy companies. At the very least, BP, Shell, and Chevron have already stated very publicly that they are looking well beyond oil to their future growth markets. That could be in a variety of things, including hydrogen, etc. Right now they have, in effect, unlimited funds they could put into changing the structure of their businesses, or into research on future sources of energy. Now is the time for them to do it, not later when they are scrapping with other oil companies over a smaller and smaller pie.
Oh, and I was being facetious with the soy steak remark. ;-)
But if I shouldn't hold my breath on the Li-Ion batteries making it to the big-time, then Lutz has a big problem. There is no way he can make a mainstream debut of the Volt using hydrogen power, the infrastructure won't be there yet in 2010. So if he can't get the Li-Ion batteries to spec by then, the 2010 Volt will slip back to become the 2020 Volt. Not good. I bet he has a better gauge of where Li-Ion technology is at than we do. I hope he knows something we don't.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
If we are banking on EV and Hydrogen cars to save our planet from GW, I would say we are in deep trouble. Then I think we have many problems in the world that far out weigh global warming. Politicians are afraid to address real problems, so they throw up smoke screens to keep our attention elsewhere.
But really, it is the backyard climate change experts who continue to spread doubt on boards like this so that they can justify the flooding of millions in Bangladesh so that they can continue to drive their Suburbans.
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf
First: I did not know this was a religious issue. I knew it has been politicized using fear mongering tactics. From your statement I Can assume everyone I see driving a Suburban is a Christian. And everyone in a hybrid is an atheist.
Second: the report makes it clear that the bulk of the GHG is from energy generation. Who will be first to give up their TV? The charts I see in the IPCC report show a direct relationship of GHG to the increase in population. My question to you is where do we start killing the millions of people that are using energy? People that are worried about being flooded by the ocean rising should sell their beach front property and move onto a mountain. I know I cannot afford to live close enough for me to worry about it.
Third: I have been on this board since 1999 trying to promote the use of diesel to lessen the use of fossil fuel, thus conserving and cutting GHG. I see many reasons not to use the diesel fuel to lower CO2, CO & HC. I would be tickled with a Suburban that got 30 MPG on the hwy. I know it is possible. Just NO ONE in Congress has the will to push it.
From what I am reading China is a big contributor to GHG. Maybe you should look and see if yours or anyone in your family is wearing shoes from China. Or maybe the computer you are typing on. Every thing we do including breathing contributes to GHG. For me I have planted trees on much of my land. What are you doing to absorb CO2 & other GHG components?
PS
Is John Kerry a super evangelical with his 6 or 7 Suburbans?
-Rocky
Hillary Clinton, to the best of my knowledge is the only democrat that I've seen that hasn't backed this new proposal of 4% a year. I could be wrong but I don't see her named mentioned on the CAFE increase. Instead she want to invest $50 billion in R&D for alternative energy
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/
-Rocky
P.S. gagrice she supports your clean diesel car technolgy as well.
-Rocky
Btw Gary, I killed my TV when I left AK in 2000 and highly recommend it. Don't ask me about my PCs and their contribution to GW though.
When the first season of the current NBC hit TV show "HEROES" comes out on DVD next year, BUY IT !!
You are missing one of the best shows ever !!
As far as global warming on cars goes, I think it's obvious that cars are not HELPING the situation.
Whether they are a MAJOR CAUSE is doubtful though.
I do agree that cars cause environmental problems. They also use resources that are being diminished. Putting GW as a big issue on a political platform and blaming cars for the climate change is a big stretch. We have so many bigger problems that need addressing in the world.
I forgot we have a TV in the closet hooked up to a DVD player - haven't watched a movie in a year now. So there's still one crt in the house.
So maybe 500 million is a lot of vehicles. 6 billion people and growing will demand many more vehicles in the future. China is supposed to be close to us in the near future.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=36&article_id=5198
The point of my reference to religion was not that religious people uniformly make kneejerk reactions to politics (although fundamentalists often do). Instead it was directed at the kneejerk resentment by people regarding scientists and the government officials who support those scientists. Kerry and Gore support the clear and overwhelming opinion of cimate scientists and want to raise gas fees to reduce the U.S.'s HUGE output of GHGS and stimulate alternatives. They advocate this even though it will affect them adversely. Why? Becuase it is a smart, U.S. jobs generating, humane policy. Some somehow see this as some nefarious plot because they are wealthy and have large houses. Okay... sure...
Many also seem religious about being an American and defending America from any accusation of exploiting the rest of the world. Unfortunately the U.S. is a bad actor in regard to climate change. For the last 50 years of the Industrial revolution, the U.S. and western Europe have produced roughly 90% of the emissions that have ALREADY caused climate change. The U.S. has 2% of the world's population and produces 25% of the world's GHGs. Western Europe no longer has that dynamic, mainly due to their allowing gas fees that limit the use of enormous polluting vehicles for long commutes. Why is it so hard to accept some responsiblity for our actions (based on our lifestyles) and pay 50 cents per gallon to reduce our huge historical role in exacerbating climate change and thereby reduce our enormous impacts on the world's poor? While such a fee will hasten the demise of corrupt and greedy Detroit oil execs, this fee will clearly stimulate small and medium size American businesses who are still the best innovators in the world.
In fact — and note well — when any “science” scoffs at disagreement, it’s no longer very good science.
Some specialists question the state of the art of today’s climate models. One, for example, said no model comes close to replicating clouds — and the most natural greenhouse effect is water vapor’s. Also, the modeling of aerosols, which have a cooling effect, is a particularly difficult art. Climate models are highly complex, requiring sensitive choices of parameters in fine-tuning. Last, storyline assumptions have been brought into question. As an example, one of my sources
Scoffing at car industry magazine views and the unnamed clowns that the author talks to is indeed good science. Why doesn't the author name his sources for his questioning of complete scientific consensus? He often uses "my sources" or "some scientists." Hahaha. Why doesn't he cite one single peer reviewed scientific article or a climate scientists to support his oft repeated, unsupported challenges to real scientists. Later using models on different points does not erase his his use of nebulous sources for his absurd questioning of the IPCC findings.
This is Detroit PR masquerading as journalism. Let's see, who puts ads in Motor Trend? Is it the poor in Bangladesh who will be killed by the 100s of thousands in climate exacerbated floods, or is it Firestone and General Motors? What ever happened to American's ability to think critically about the garbage that the car industry feeds us.
You left out one teensy little fact when you point to the EU as an example. They used diesel cars and small trucks to accomplish the goal of conservation. We were not given that option. I for one would have applauded that.
You keep referring to Bangladesh being flooded. It could also get hit by an earthquake and Tsunami. I suppose the thousands that lost their lives to that earthqauke and Tsunami in Sri Lanka was caused by global warming also?
I see it as the epitome of elitist arrogance that we can change the weather in some significant way by driving a Prius instead of a Suburban. Give me a diesel Ranger PU and I will cut my current CO2 by 2/3rds.
But the vast majority of reputable ones do. Not all scientists are the same.
If these politicos are so sure America is the culprit, they should be setting an example for us to follow.
That's BS, but it's also irrelevant. If the message is good, it doesn't become bad if they (for whatever reason) deviate from the ideal.
You seem to be saying that if you are wealthy it excludes you from conserving on energy.
Besides the fact that that is wrong, what has being wealthy have to do with the topic here?
When all the fat cat politicians move into a 6 room house and drive a hybrid they can tell me to conserve.
That's a heck of a poor basis for action.
They used diesel cars and small trucks to accomplish the goal of conservation. We were not given that option. I for one would have applauded that.
YOU may applaud the proliferation of particulates, but I don't. When that is fixed, ok, but stop this nonsense about "we were deprived".
I see it as the epitome of elitist arrogance that we can change the weather in some significant way by driving a Prius instead of a Suburban.
Thinking that would be silly and would have nothing to do with eilitism.
We need to cut down on our carbon production. This is clear. And motor vehicles produce a lot of carbon. So do other things. We need to consider all the major sources that we can reduce. These are the facts.
Well at least we agree on your last statement. One out of 7 ain't bad for you and I.
Thinking that would be silly and would have nothing to do with eilitism
I think it does. And that is exactly what our VERY WEALTHY Robert F. Kennedy Jr has stated.
Also, Jared Diamond in his book "Collapse" points out that the average middle class person in developed countries uses 32 times more energy per unit of time than the average resident of a 3rd world country. However, as hundreds of millions of people in the 3rd world achieve middle class status their energy consumption naturally will increase. They will buy cars, bigger homes, lots of electric gadgets etc.
So the problem is energy consumption (and resultant pollution) will continue to increase at a rate greater than general population growth as more millions of people become wealthier.
It seems to me increasing CAFE standards is one of the less objectionable ways to reduce the rate of growth in the use of energy. Raising gas taxes might work better, but that primarily hurts those who can least afford it while the wealthy will still have little incentive to switch to more fuel efficient vehicles.
Ah, advertising. Thank goodness it pays the bills
Many of them do. Unfortunately, not the ones that they make money on. When they actually make some money.
It seems to me increasing CAFE standards is one of the less objectionable ways to reduce the rate of growth in the use of energy.
You're not alone. And BTW, while our standards have remained pretty much stagnant, China has moved aggressively ahead on CAFE-like requirements for their vehicles.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Right, but only a few automakers pay those, most pay nothing, because they are in compliance. The fleet is at the CAFE level, remember?
Raising CAFE does not force people to buy a more efficient vehicle.
No, it forces the makers to sell at the average. They manipulate that mostly through marketing.
So ignoring whatever side of the debate on GHG in general that you're on; is there some other number/calculation source we should use? I believe the other number that stuck out in my mind was that a 50% reduction in the use of motor fuels here in the U.S. would reduce GHG by 3.0%-3.5%.
So if we're answering the question the title of the topic asks and there are no numbers significantly different than that, we can conclude that they are somewhat significant, but not the major source.
I have no idea how you reduce total GHG emissions as each year more people in the world, world (not just the U.S.!) drive, and improve their lifestyles. Improving lifestyles means more appliances, more trips for recreation and shopping ... all using more electrical energy meaning we use more carbon-based fuels, meaning more GHG's.
Now there are things on the drawing board that could reduce GHG's such as collecting them at electrical power-plants and pumping them underground. And there are the proposed (only because we don't have plentiful excess nuclear energy to run them, and the need to build them) atmospheric factories (NASA has designs). Yes plants could be built if needed to suck in air and remove CO2 - though the resources and energy to do so planet-wide, would be unacceptably high with our current technology. Maybe 100 years from now?
That is a loophole built into CAFE, that caused a whole class of nice, family trucks to be built. People wanted the size and convenience, and the automakers went that direction to meet the market, when they saw they couldn't put out 20 mpg full-size Roadmaster wagons, and meet CAFE easily; all the while upping the weight, power and size of their other car models.
While autos are efficient as ever, and do get decent mpg, imagine how much better mpg could be if the average car was lighter, had a smaller engine, didn't carry a bunch of heavy electronic options ... I remember having a 40mpg Sentra and Escort back in the 80's. It got me and my stuff around just fine. Somehow I now need a 320hp car, with 500W stereo, with all sorts of power options, to get to similar places in similar amounts of time. Anyone remember how light a VW Beetle used to be? Go look what 1 weighs now. Maybe the old VW needed some improvement but to add 1,000lbs!!
Know what you mean. My '86 Accord LXi (top of the line in that year) had a 110hp motor & 5 speed stick and I averaged about 34mpg combined with it in real world. I rarely pulled less than 37 freeway, and I had room for 5. I thought today the Accords would be getting 50mpg or better, but even today's Civics can barely get mid 30s if you baby them, and low-budget stripped down Accords/Camry's are maybe high 20s average, and that is supposed to be good. Makes me wish I didn't sell that '86 Accord, and I have to laugh my butt off when people rave about a silly-looking hybrid Prius being a wonder for doing what my "low-tech" Accord did 20 years ago without resorting to a potentially harmful massive chemical storage module that I need to replace every 100k miles for 3 grand.
A lot of things seem to be related to changes in our troposphere. You can divide them into two groups: those we can do something about, and those we can't. Cars seem to have some small impact among the first group. But not enough to change the end game which will be decided by the latter group.
But here's the thing -- Y'all realize what Web site you're on, right?
And the briefest tour of the site indicates that most of us would give up our cars with the same glad eagerness that we'd receive the news that our first born had decided to drop out of college and leave in the morning for Darfur as a volunteer.
As special as these arcane anti-car arguments may make you feel, in the end, it's all just B.S.
As far as I can tell, driving our cars makes people happier than any other single thing we do. I don't know how anyone can visit this Web site and come to a different conclusion.
But go ahead, sit there like a sourpuss and grumble about our duty to fend off global warming. Only by the way, the globe isn't warming. The troposphere is changing. A lot of things can (and have) caused this, cars or not.
There are already some Pacific island nations that have been submerged and abandoned forever because of sea level rise.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
A natural by-product of a more efficient engine is that it will produce more power. I don't understand why people continue to insist that a high power rating is contrary to fuel efficiency.
You look at today's average economy car and it's probably 3,200Lb with 140hp, and gets 33mpg. Ok we're same mpg.
What I am saying is if you took today's economy car and reduced it back to 2,400Lb and back to 90 hp (lighter car doesn't need as much power), you could probably get 45 mpg with today's combustion technology.
Technology is being used to keep mpg similar, allowing us to indulge in larger more powerful cars. If you kept the car and engine smaller, you could increase mpg instead! But that isn't what CAFE and the markets encouraged auto makers to produce.