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.
Options

Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?

134689223

Comments

  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    It was reported by CNN...it certainly might BE a conspiracy theory.

    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
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Gary, Gary, Gary...................

    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.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    What HAS BEEN SAID and is COMPLETELY TRUE is that:

    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
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    Now Rock, let's not forget that Toyota has sold one whole HECK of a lot more vehicles than Honda. So the statement is true in its own way.

    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)

  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    I like I said agree that honda, is the only one who will be able to probably make these CAFE standards without having to change it's line-up and spend large sums of money/ The bottom line is Honda, knows this and it's a good buisness strategy as Dianne Feinstein, and Barbara Boxer, are in Honda's back pocket. I'd love to follow the money trail of both of them and Al Gore. :mad:

    -Rocky
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    Now I'm not sure I totally agree with you there. I think all three - Ford, GM, and Toyota - need to get their butts in gear and get very ecnomical diesels out there, and kill all the really big gas monster engines that go in their volume products. Can Camaro and G8 have an optional gas-guzzling V-8? Sure they can, because they sell in minuscule numbers. Can Silverado and Tahoe have an optional 6.2L V-8? No, perhaps they can't afford to have that. Perhaps instead, a monster of a diesel making 25 mpg (or more?) will have to substitute in its place. In fact, perhaps most of the gas engines will have to go away in favor of a couple of superb diesels. Once they get 50-state diesels out there, of course, which is why they need to get off their butts (Toyota too, even more than GM) and get busy with that goal!

    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)

  • stockmanjoestockmanjoe Member Posts: 353
    The whole global warming theory is the biggest bunch of BS ever invented. ALGORE drives around in big SUVs, private planes, owns several 20K plus sq ft houses - now does that sound like a man overly concerned about human induced global warming? The earth has warmed and cooled many times over for thousands of years and it will continue to do the same for many more. Pay no attention to the chicken littles.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    Well, even if the earth doesn't continue to warm and cool as it has, you won't be around by then, so you don't have to worry about it, eh?! ;-)

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    Nippon, you don't think the nearly 30 mpg 2-Mode hybrid isn't enough to take care of that problem. I agree a diesel option would be cool even in small cars. I'm yet to see GM, get off their [non-permissible content removed] and build a Carolla fighter. As you already said it sells what 300,000 unit world wide.

    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
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    Agree !!!!! Well we might as well give up those rib-eye's as well as the cattle industry (cows) give off more ozone damaging gases than all the automobiles on this earth from a study done by some enviromental group. George Noory or Art Bell, had a guest on talking about it as well. So what are we going to do quit drinking milk and eat soy steaks. :surprise:

    -Rocky
  • murphydogmurphydog Member Posts: 735
    Do you all remember the last big crisis driven by the media? How chaos was just around the corner, food supplies would be threatened, we would not have energy. Cities would be shut down, thousands without heat or water during the winter. Remember how it went on and on and on and on. People loaded up on supplies, guns and ammo to save themselves and their families. It was in the news every day. The media was sure that we were all gonners....Remember that? What did we call it....oh yes.. Y2K!!!

    Not much different this time around... :shades:
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    Actually, 300,000 is the number of Corolla sedans Toyota sold last year in the U.S. If you include the Matrix, which is technically just a Corolla hatchback, the total rises to 350,000. But Toyota sold WAY more Corollas than that worldwide last year. I don't even know the exact number, but Corolla is a strong seller in Europe and Japan too.

    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)

  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    A few things. What could possibly motivate the oil companies to fund R&D on ways to use less oil. As a stock holder I would vote to fire the executives that made that decision. I agree that the automakers could possibly reap benefits from more fuel efficient vehicles.

    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.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Rocky, I did not say Toyota was a greener COMPANY than Honda.

    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.
  • john500john500 Member Posts: 409
    I never understood the bandwagon to blame oil company profits for the horrendous gas mileage of US automobiles. Anyone with financial common sense looks at the ratio of profit / revenue for the companies of interest. If the ratio exceeds 15 % (on an annual or quarterly basis), then the company is either strategically marketed with patents or in collusion to "gouge" the public. In the last 20 years, I haven't seen one oil company even come close to 15 %, although banks and pharmaceutical companies regularly pull in 18-40 % year in and year out (which is another area where I heavily invest). The only possible academic counterargument would be that if the oil companies pay their employees excessively. ALthough perhaps some executives are overpaid, CNN comes out every year with the highest average annual salary for large companies. None of the large oil companies ever crack the top 25. I'm a minor shareholder in oil, but I could care less if they prosper or go under. Preferably, I would like to see much less oil being used even if it costs me. R&D expenses should be - 95 % on the automobile company with another 5 % as a "courtesy" from the energy companies and federal agency research labs. It ain't rocket science. Just make the cars lighter. The average US citizen is simply a consumer and clueless when it comes to design, production and fabrications. They will buy whatever crap is on the market and feel safe and comfortable as long as someone else is riding something smaller and cheaper so they can feel superior. I'll be that person riding around in a gokart or on a motorcycle for the US public ego boost.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    "What could possibly motivate the oil companies to fund R&D on ways to use less oil"

    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)

  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I am sure that Lutz has a better idea of the battery situation. Is he letting us know what he knows is the question? I think that Toyota was set back on their LS600h because Li-Ion technology has not matured enough for mainstream. They had stated earlier that the LS600h would debut with Li-Ion. Now they are back peddling.

    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.
  • edwardsfedwardsf Member Posts: 190
    To All: Here is a link to the latest IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report. This group attains consensus from virtually ALL of the world's scientifc journal published climatologists. There is no doubt whatsover - among those scientists, at least - that human activities, especially petroleum fuel burning, are hugely increasing the scope and speed of climate change. This climate change does not necessarilly mean higher temperatures in Gagrice's back yard but it does mean an exacerbation of violent storm events like Typhoons and Hurricanes and drought. If you live in Subsaharan Africa or the Maldives, you may have noticed. There are no peer reviewed journal articles that reach different conclusions. But there are certainly plenty of climatologists that receive funding from the oil industry who attack the established peer reviewed scientists. As I recall, Dr. Singer of UVA was trotted up to Capitol Hill by his employers at the American Petroleum Instite. He was a laughingtock in his field but the Neanderthals and religious fundamentalists like Inhofe ate it up.

    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
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    A few things I would like to comment on:

    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?
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    Did you see that Kerry, wanted to instantly raise fuel economy to 31 mpg across the board (I Think) by 2009. :sick:

    -Rocky
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I am sure Kerry would raise them for you and I. Not he or his fellow elitist. Don't you find it interesting that the same folks pushing for the higher CAFE standards claim to be for the union workers in America. They are threatening the jobs at GM & Ford with those higher standards. Unless Congress can throttle the EPA & CARB they will succeed in killing the US auto industry. GM & Ford have had vehicles that would easily meet those new CAFE standards for at least a dozen years. The EPA & CARB make the emissions just high enough to keep them off our highways. They sell high mileage diesels in the EU and the rest of the world in large numbers. They are restricted by designer emissions controls.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    gagrice, as you know I'm a democrat. LOL, like that isn't obvious. However pal, it really pains me that I can agree with my party on a lot of issues but this energy issue is one that many in my party are set out to make law without fully realizing the impact of a great loss of jobs and god know if it wouldn't bankrupt the Big 3. I will not support any candidate that backs this legislation because it would crush my family. They would lose everything. :sick:

    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. ;)
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    I would like to know who else is against these new CAFE increases that is running for president ???? It seems like both sides several (Dem & Rep) are backing this initiative. :sick: I always said I liked Duncan Hunter, yes a republican and I see no where on his site where he is willing to support policy based on a theory. ;)

    -Rocky
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I know if we sat down with a Mai Tai we could find a lot of common ground. I do agree that it is hard to find a politician that excites me for 2008. Duncan Hunter may be one that does. I have been a registered Alaska Independent for over 30 years. So I don't feel tied to either major party. I just find it hard to trust any of them. When they jump on a bandwagon like this GW issue I just figure it is the lie of the day club. Using fear tactics to sway voters turns me off on a candidate. A candidate that has gotten things done for the working man in America will be more likely to get my vote than one that says he will and has a record that does not match.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Let's give politics a rest and get back to the topic please.

    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. :D
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Same here have not watched TV since retiring a year ago. Never watched it at home. Too many other things to keep me occupied, like Edmund's :) I did get rid of all my CRT monitors. Hope that helps a little.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Gary:

    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.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I cannot say I have heard of the show. When I watched TV at work it was just news or Discovery channel. Don't miss it at all.

    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.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    An undated Greenpeace reports says that there are 500 million cars world-wide. Seems like a big enough problem to me. (If anyone has a better link about the number of cars out there, please post it).

    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. ;)
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    How do you think fossil fuel powered cook stoves and refrigerators compare to vehicles? If the IPCC report is correct, they claim a small percentage to transport. That includes I am assuming air, sea, rail, mass transit along with our private vehicles. I know a bus uses more fuel and emits more pollution and GHG than any of my cars. I cannot tell you how many times I see them with 2 or 3 people doing their routes. I am also sure they have a passenger mile record for mass transit. I wonder if mass transit is in fact saving resources in many areas of the USA. I use our trolley system when going to an event down town. Not to save money on gas. It is a pain to find parking. It costs my wife and I $12 round trip on the trolley to go downtown. We still have to drive 4 miles to the closest trolley stop.

    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.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    I think this is a pretty logical, comprehensible summary of this topic:
    http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=36&article_id=5198
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    That is a very good article and cuts through a lot of crap.
  • edwardsfedwardsf Member Posts: 190
    Use of evil straw men (Kerry, Gore) and nonsensical comparisons (emissions caused by TV energy consumption and those of automobiles) is clever but I don't think such red herrings are fooling anyone. The basic issue that Kerry and Gore are getting at is a moral one: should U.S. policy require us to start paying our historical share for the impacts that we have been and are causing to the world's poor (who face the brunt of climate change).

    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.
  • edwardsfedwardsf Member Posts: 190
    You are kidding right? Citing a ROAD & TRACK magazine article on climate change? One that cites NO scientific sources for its doubt sowing statements on climate change and relies on misleading crap like the following:

    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.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    You seem to think everyone but you is biased. You need to look around. Not all scientist share your opinions. This is not a case of denying a change in climate. It is assigning the blame. I thought the R&T article used several good scientific studies to base his opinion on. If these politicos are so sure America is the culprit, they should be setting an example for us to follow. THEY ARE NOT DOING THAT. You cannot buy back CO2 you have expelled. You seem to be saying that if you are wealthy it excludes you from conserving on energy. I do not consider turning the AC down in 27 rooms of a 40 room mansion as conservation of our natural resources. It is the old I got mine now it is time to conserve. When all the fat cat politicians move into a 6 room house and drive a hybrid they can tell me to conserve.

    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.
  • li_sailorli_sailor Member Posts: 1,081
    Not all scientist share your opinions.

    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.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    We need to consider all the major sources that we can reduce.

    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.
  • rwhrwh Member Posts: 29
    Why is increasing CAFE standards harmful for Detroit? They already advertise the fact that many of their models get at least 30 mpg. Don't CAFE standards apply to all car makers? Why will it hurt Detroit to mandate greater fuel efficiency but not Japan, Europe or Korea?

    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.
  • li_sailorli_sailor Member Posts: 1,081
    They already advertise the fact that many of their models get at least 30 mpg.

    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.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Raising CAFE does not force people to buy a more efficient vehicle. Take me for instance. I went looking for a PU. A GMC Sierra Hybrid was rated 18/21 MPG on the window sticker. A smaller lower powered Tacoma was rated 18/22 MPG. I went for the roomier less expensive Sierra hybrid. If a vehicle does not have the amenities I am after the MPG is not the most important criteria. Supposedly you can jam 5 adults into a Civic. More people opt for the Camry or Accord that still only seats 5 people. They lose mileage in the process. So whatever CAFE sets as a standard only means the automaker pays a fine for every vehicle that is not up to that standard. Wait a minute, the automaker does not pay that fine the auto buyer pays the fine. So when you see Toyota & GM fighting these crazy CAFE arbitrary mileage figures it is to avoid raising the price of the car. It is just another hidden tax by the party that loves to tax US.
  • oldfarmer50oldfarmer50 Member Posts: 24,194
    NO!

    2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible

  • li_sailorli_sailor Member Posts: 1,081
    Wait a minute, the automaker does not pay that fine the auto buyer pays the fine.

    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.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    I thought the most interesting point of that Road & Track article was that the entire world's contribution from all sorts of IC vehicles, was 15% of the total man-made emitted GHG.

    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?
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    The main way car manufacturers meet their customers' desires and meet CAFE, is by then building SUV's which are classified as trucks, instead of building a similarly poor-mileage full-size wagon which is classified as a car.

    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!!
  • ricardoheadricardohead Member Posts: 48
    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.
  • saabgirlsaabgirl Member Posts: 184
    First, to answer the Q:

    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.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    You make very good points. For me I gave up my Nordic day cruiser with its 454 fire breathing engine. My dune buggies and motorcycles. I draw the line on crawling into a little tin can of a car and doing battle with all the giant PU trucks on the highway. If the people in Bangladesh are living that close to the beach that they are going to drown it is not my problem. My daddy told me never build on sand in a dry creek bed or any place that is known to get flooded. You want the pleasure of beach front living you sometimes have to pay the price. I am not going to drive a Yugo so some fat cat can live in the Hamptons without fear of being washed out to sea.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    I'm not getting involved in the GW debate any further, I promise, but I thought I would just mention that it's not because the Bangladeshis are all living on the beach, it's because their whole country is totally flat. On the beach or 50 miles from it, the elevation doesn't get six feet above sea level in their country.

    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)

  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    That's interesting. I also had a Sentra and Escort in the 80's and never got 40 mpg. Probably around 33 in combined driving. Neither of these cars had AC and I believe they were rated below 100 hp. I had a 1999 Toyota Corolla, which was a little heavier, had AC and was rated at 118 hp. I consistently got 35 mpg with that vehicle. My neighbor has a new Civic EX which is pretty well loaded, weighs more than any of these cars and puts out 140 hp. He tells me that he is getting 35 mpg. My point is that I don't see this trend towards lower mpg. Cars are getting heavier, which is primarily to be able to pass crash tests. The electronics weigh very little and their impact on mileage is neglibible.

    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.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    The comment isn't so much that cars of 10-20 years got better mpg or such. If we look at various models you may say that the average economy car of 1985 was 2,400Lb with 90hp, and got 33mpg combined.

    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.
This discussion has been closed.