Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
How many were covered up before the advent of the automobile? Many places in the US were built near or even below sea level. I am thinking of New Orleans. That should be the responsibility of those choosing to be there. My family could have moved to some place like Florida or NO. They chose to live on higher ground. Sounds more like a common sense problem than GW. Building in a vulnerable place and expecting everyone else to be responsible just does not make good sense. I would love to buy a home where I usually rent along the coast of Hawaii. Common sense says rent. It is in Lava Zone 1. Much of the area was in a lava flow within the last 20 years. Man with all his inventiveness cannot control a volcano. The same as he cannot control the weather, even though some think they can.
I disagree. The cars that existed 10-20 years ago still exist. Only their names have changed. The 1990 Accord is today's Civic. It has improved in every way including power and efficiency.
Today's Accord is a completely different type of vehicle than it was in 1990. It is now a legitimate full sized car, which didn't exist in Honda's line-up back then.
The Honda Fit has taken the place of the old Civic. This is pretty typical of the way things seem to work throughout the auto industry. What's somewhat surprising is despite the fact the Honda Fit has a smaller engine producing significantly less power than the Civic's the mpg difference is not all that great. This leads me to believe that the key to higher mpg is not necessarily less power. It is quite possible that without using diesel or incorporating hybrid technology we are getting near the threshold of just how efficient a gasoline ICE powered vehicle can be.
I think that is exactly right. We have squeezed a gallon of gas to the max. The Fit/Civic is a good example of diminishing returns. Our insistence of larger vehicles can be best shown with the Camry and Accord. The current Camry is larger than the LS400 luxury car of 1990. It looks like the trend will continue. The Current Lexus LS460 is bigger than ever with a long version to boot. The luxury car today does not get any better mileage than the luxury car in 1990. We are still getting 20 MPG around town and 27 MPG on the highway with our 1990 LS400. Which tells me people across the spectrum of cars are more interested in having a bigger car than more MPG.
This is very true. I owned 1988, 1993 and 1996 Civics. Each new generation seemed as nice as the lower-level versions of the previous-generation Accord.
tpe: Today's Accord is a completely different type of vehicle than it was in 1990. It is now a legitimate full sized car, which didn't exist in Honda's line-up back then.
You nailed it again. We have a 2003 Accord EX sedan (four cylinder). It can carry four people comfortably, while offering a very nice combination of noise suppression, ride comfort and performance - all while returning decent REAL-WORLD mileage. Our car has 75,000 miles on it, and still gets 25+ mpg in mostly urban driving.
We certainly aren't going to trade the Accord for anything that gets WORSE mileage. But, by the same token, we aren't going to give up the room, comfort and performance we enjoy now for a few extra miles per gallon, even if gas does go to $4 per gallon.
I'd rather drive less, and still have driving be an enjoyable experience when I do it.
A bit of historical perspective - when I was growing up, my parents drove Oldsmobile 88s (a 1967 Delmont 88, and a 1976 Delta 88 Royale). Those were REAL full-size cars, and most of the time they never carried more than four people (my parents, my brother and I). They may have touted six-passenger carrying abilities (with bench seats), but that capacity was rarely, if ever, used.
I seriously doubt that they performed any better than the Accord (measured, by, say, 0-60 acceleration times), and they sure weren't averaging 25 mpg in the city (and the 1967 Delmont 88 didn't even have air conditioning).
BTW, your contention that about 300 million people that live in the Indian subcontinent in floodplains that earn, oh, about $1/day, can move anytime they feel like it, is certainly, um creative thinking.
Also, if today's Civic is yesterday's Accord (true enough) it would be nice if they still advanced things enough to improve the mileage maybe 20% over what my 86 Accord got. If I averaged 34 then, today's Civic I think should average 41 or 42, but it is not close to that. I understand about weight and safety reg's, but it would be nice to see some company somewhere do something to truly advance things, or are we at the limits of technology? I think not. Maybe Tesla Motors will shake things up, or if GM really puts out that Volt Concept.
Perhaps by improving those qualities, Honda has prevented people who are seeking those very qualities from trading up to a less fuel-efficient vehicle.
The current Civic and Accord are very good, fuel-efficient vehicles that meet most everyone's needs without making drivers feel as though they have taken a vow of poverty everytime they get behind the wheel.
And I also think that global warming is used as an agenda to gain power in Washington. No different than oil lobby money. Call it fear tactics or guilt tactics. The hoped for end is to get elected into the power of government. You want to be a pawn in their quest for power go for it. Just don't try to convince thinking people that it is for the good of the planet. That is such a joke, I cannot believe you are posting without laughing out loud.
I will give you the same challenge that no one has been able to answer. Which country that has signed onto Kyoto, have met the goals?
I don't think any ratifying country (or signatory country like the US) has met any of the upcoming goals. California is in line to meet the Kyoto limitations but at a later date than the 2008-2012 commitment period.
Secondly, a lighter vehicle will use less energy. If you want to do a physics test, take a wheelbarrow and put various amounts of stones in it and see what you think.
The reason some economy cars today don't get great mpg is because they are made boxy. A Civic is probably much more aerodynamic than that tall Fit, and thus accounts for the equal or better mpg. Take a new Civic, strip out the extra weight of the fancy stereo, AC, side airbags, and put the Fit engine in it, and you'd increase the mpg.
I'd like to see evidence that ANY Indians or Bangladesh have been displaced by rising waters due to GW.
Oh, and you can forget about citing Lohachara Island....
http://www.nowpublic.com/bogus_global_warming_story_lohachara_island
http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/NewsPapers/Lohachara.html
Chevy Aveo
Honda Fit
Kia Rio
Nissan Versa
Scion xA
Toyota Yaris
are some that come to mind. There are a lot of people like yourself that are absolutely convinced that we could achieve much better mileage by sacrificing power. I'm curious as to what this belief is based upon.
Here is what our neighbors to the North are going to do with Kyoto.
In September 2006, Environment Minister Rona Ambrose said Canada had no chance of meeting its targets under the Kyoto Protocol. She accused the Liberals of wasting $1 billion on emission-reduction efforts without keeping the country on track to meet its promises under the international agreement. "Kyoto did not fail this country," Ambrose said. "The Liberal Party of Canada failed Kyoto."
So everyone jumps on board. We can all buy a Prius and sing Kumbaya as we do our part to make hell freeze over.
The cars you mention to compare to the Civic are the exact ones that I suspect have relatively poor aerodynamics, and thus their mpg will suffer. I had an aerodynamic '88 CRX 1.5L with a 4-spd auto that returned 40mpg day-in, day-out.
If you want to see the difference that weight and engine size have on mpg - compare a Camry to a Corolla, compare an Accord to a Civic, or compare a V-6 Accord to a 4-cyl Accord. I'm sure you can find all other sorts of 6 cyl. to 4 cyl. comparisions such as the Fusion, the Sonata ... Or go take a look at what turbos do the mpg of the same basic engine of the Subaru Impreza.
Put a 1.5L 100hp engine in the Civic, take 200Lb out, and you're mpg would go up 3-5mpg, I'd estimate.
I just can't understand why the 'other side' is not taken more seriously on this
I think James explained the reason. The leader of the GW cult is a numb skull. Born into wealth gained from unscrupulous politics. The new darling of Hollywood where all is make believe. I think we have a consensus :shades:
How about this?
The causality relationship between CO2 and "global warming" seems to be backward. Historical data (over hundreds of thousands of years) shows that increases in atmospheric CO2 levels lag behind warming by about 800 years. Similarly, decreases in atmospheric CO2 levels lag behind cooling.
Apparently, warm (ocean) water cannot hold as much CO2 as cool water so warming causes CO2 in the oceans to be released into the atmosphere. Cooling allows more CO2 to be dissolved in the oceans thereby removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
There are lots of reasons for a warming trend to start, certainly not only CO2 levels. And a warmer earth will certainly hold more CO2 in the atmosphere. But once the CO2 is increasing, it will certainly provide a positive feedback loop that will increase temp, increase CO2, increase temp etc. Some other event would have to stop the loop and always has. So far
No, lung cancer does not cause smoking, but CO2 in the atmosphere does, indeed, trap heat.
Actually, it might be that this phase will turn out to be the first in which CO2 rise preceded the big temp rise. The Klingons will look at the ice cores in 2280 AD when they arrive and say "Ah, look at this chart, no wonder they're all gone. And what the heck is an Excursion?".
****
Now, if we examine this chart that shows historical IQ levels tracking down just ahead of increasing SUV purchase levels.........
J/K!!!
Yikes! Next you're going to tell me that half of all drivers you meet on the roads have IQs of less that 100? Alarmist!
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
Why does ANYONE think that the climate of the planet should be stagnant???...why can't we be on a 1000 year cycle that warms the earth more than "we think it should be?"...who are we to actually think that we control the climate of the entire planet???
Wasn't more junk spewed in the atmosphere in 1979 when Mt St Helens erupted in mere minutes than all the pollution ever emitted by humans in the last 100 years???
Do we actually KNOW if CO2 is a problem???...don't plants use CO2 and emit O2, so we can breathe the O2???
Why do we think that an ozone hole that varies in size may not be exactly as nature intended???
Why does every rabid environmentalist actually believe that everything should remian stagnant as though the earth's climate has never changed before???...so what if the polar ice caps melt and Saudi Arabia is under water???...wasn't Arizona under water in the past, which is how we have the stratified rocks that now make up the mountains???
Just once I would like someone to explain to me why just because we have had a certain climate for the last 50 years that this is what has been divinely ordained for the next 1000 years, even tho we have strong evidence that our worldly climate has been bouncing between extremes for over 10,000 years...
This does nOT include the different situation wherein we throw junk in the Hudson River without expecting a detrimental effect...but even then, given enough years, the river will purge itself and nature will take control again...
That is why I am quite skeptical when "scientists" start mandating changes that are politically enforced by zealots who have no common sense, but keep screaming "global warming"
Weren't those same wackos screaming global cooling back in 1970???...didn't they have "scientists" backing up their claims then???...why should those charlatans have any more credibility now than they did then???...and remember, these are the same "climatologists" who still can't rpedict the weather 3 days from now, but they have total credibility when they predict what will happen 20, 30 100 years from now...
Sorry, folks, the MAN-MADE global warming crowd are a bunch of charlatan quacks, like Al Gore and his ilk, trying to get all of us into Austin Mini-Coopers, while they fly their jets and drive their limos...
If the polar ice caps on Mars are also melting along with ours, where are their SUVs spewing pollution???...
The sun is getting hotter, and we will do nothing to change our climate except to live and adapt to it...100,000 species will die, joining the millions of species that have died at the hands of Nature for 1000s of years...
Get over it, and stop trying to legislate stupidity based on quack science...
Strong opinions to follow, as soon as my coffee wakes me up...:):):)
Also, I don't know if being "forced into" a...I think you meant BMW Mini-Cooper...would be such a bad thing, ya know?
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
If you don't watch out, the "rabids" will try and legislate that Arizona may not go under water by Federal Mandate!!!
Can you swim?????????????????????????????????
BTW-I love water around where I live anyway-I'm a tranplanted Washington stater...and Arizona is not only dry in the air but it's dry as far as water goes. Go 400 miles west and San Diego has plenty of water, eh? But we are dry-dry-dry-can't wait to get that pool up!
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
But then we continue to build in earthquake zones and along the hurricane susceptible coasts. Is that real smart? It's kind of like having a picnic in the breakdown lane - it's not if you're going to get hit, but when.
The climate of the earth has changed over the millenium - ice has covered the Earth, there were jungles in Alaska, and seas covered the American west amongst many changes. It will continue to see similar drastic changes with or without mankind. Nothing human-kind does can stop these changes, or make any global warming permanent, or worse than any other previous global-warming.
Enjoy life and don't worry about the miniscule amount of CO2 we're putting in the air. It really is quite insignificant compared to any random catastrophic event that could kill us next week. Or some "educated idiot lawyer" might create a pandemic by traveling around the world. Another reason to love your car - you don't have to share space with these public idiots.
I gotta figure if there are nuclear bombs going off all over the place perhaps the temperature is the least of my worries.
At any rate, no one said that because of cars, factories and what have you spewing out C02 that it would get colder.
I'd welcome intelligent debate but anything that starts out with "Al Gore is an idiot," or has that as its main component will be left unread.
What we do know is that the tree changes -coconuts fall and new coconuts grow.
In general we should be very careful about trusting what the "experts" say as truth. If you lived during the Greek ages, the experts would have told you of the 4 elements. If you lived during the Middle Ages you would have believed the Earth was flat. If you dig a little deeper into today's scientific fields you will find that climatologists really don't know all the variables and the amount of effect that each variable has on the climate. There are many, many "theories" on how things work - like the sun, where is dark matter that makes up 80% of everything, ...
They are just theories, and many theories have been completely and utterly proven to be false. Science requires tests and proof, and then it is known as a "Law". Any scientist who claims he absolutely knows about global warming and climate change, instead of unemotionally stating "it is our theory or model", has an agenda or is looking for notoriety.
The earth is not that warm right now that we could not err on this issue. There are vast stretches of land which are scarcely populated because they are simply too cold. Where have people preferred to move to - warm areas - the South and southwest of this country. I don't see a rush to move to N. Dakota and Minnesota. If we were talking about the chance of triggering global cooling now that would be a problem as it wouldn't take much of a drop in temp. to increase glacier growth.
There goes the only equation I know fire + water = firewater.
I give Gore credit for the fact that he is well versed in this field. He has been on this for decades - it's certainly not a latest political thing for him. That said I agree that what we are looking at are symptoms. Whether specific remedies will make things better I am still open on.
By nature I am of the opinion that we should leave as small a footprint as we can. Sort of the when in doubt theory.
Of course I grew up in a place and time where a major corporation had a factory in our town and thought absolutely nothing about dumping mercury, lead and any number of those unspellable carcinogens directly into a creek that fed into the lake I spent my childhood in and I will readily admit that this colors my thinking. I have health problems that may (or may not) be related to that exposure and many people in the town faced major health problem or died from that exposure.
Back to the point. We didn't know the dangers of exposure then. Heck, they let us play with mercury. We don't know the exact dangers now but I would favor moving in the direction of what we know least impacts our footprint on the earth. OPEC and such may already be helping us towards that day even as it is not their intention.
I agree with that quote...the problem is, politicians around the world are about to enact legislation that could be quite damgerous based on some of these way-out theories...then exempt 3rd world nations but we must abide by it...if it is bad for us, why is it good for the downtrodden and poor???...so they can "catch up??"...there is so much hypocrisy in this global warming crap that it makes me sick...no, I am NOT guilty because we have cars and Ethiopians do not...
And, no, I am not against cars and trucks getting 30 mpg in the city, but that is NOT what all this global warming and CO2 crap is all about...they are simply trying to stop nature from change, yet nature is all about change...
These are the same folks who want to stop Walmart, trying to save Mom/Pop stores who have been overcharging us for years...they want to stop change, whether retail or climate, as they believ that stagnant is what should stay for the next 5000 years...it is all the same insecurity and we will pay for their folloy, but we will NOT stop climate change...
We CAN put less acid in the air and fewer tires in the Hudson River, but climate change will march on daily and forever...get over it and get used to it...just because we consider the French Quarter a quaint area of New Orleans does not mean that Nature may not care in the way we do, so losing New Orleans is simply the removal of something that never should have been there in the first place...
Maybe Nature is much smarter than we are, considering all the slums that were washed away...
The same goes for those who build homes on the Atlantic Coast or on San Andreas fault...ya gotta be an idiot to do so, and an even bigger idiot gov't that offers taxpayer subsidized insurance so idiots can rebuild at a discount...
A little off topic, but cars do not contribute to global warming, the sun and volcanoes contribute to global warming
No, those were two entirely different things. The cooling trend starting from about 1940 inspired theories about global cooling which was then attributed to atmospheric aerosols and "orbital forcing." By the time the general public became aware of the "problem" the cooling trend ended and started to reverse and, suddenly, we were concerned about global warming. The nuclear freeze scare arose separately at the end of that period (1970s) and was based on the potential cooling effects of atmospheric debris. (see Global Cooling for a blow by blow account.)
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
me: I can see your point. But this may be a Catch-44. The best thing for leaving the planet as natural as it would be, is if man did not exist. That is in direct conflict with man's goal to 1) live as long as possible, 2) to procreate as we continue to do to 6+ billion people, and 3) our and our governments goal to improve our standard of living which usually involves the use of more material and energy resources.
The best thing "for the planet" to remain as it would be, would be for nature to kill us all humans off. Then the planet could go thru its natural freezing and heating cycles, until gradually the sun enters its growth phase (Red Giant) and cooks the Earth real good in 1-2 billion years. If we're around in 500 million years I guess we're going to have to evolve into an iron-based organism, or we're going to have to move to Mars and Saturn. And who knows if that'll be a good neighborhood when the Milky Way merges with the Andromeda Galaxy about then.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2007-05-31-climate-models_N.htm
Hoo-Ah !!!
Do you know how much the seas will rise with a 2 degree rise in global temp? Do you realize what % of the world's population lives near coasts?
Do you realize that a GW myopist is even worse than a GW alarmist?
Why does ANYONE think that the climate of the planet should be stagnant...
Who knows. But the issue is not some illusionary "stagnant" condition but the one that actually exists....in which CO2 is rising faster and to higher levels than it has before and also that we are contributing a huge amount into the atmospehere.
Why does every rabid...
Here's to less rabid and more reason. On both sides.
Volcano's spew occasionally (as one who had to shovel ash of my driveway in 1986, I'm glad they are uncommon). Cars spew 24/7. (link)
That San Diego State link suggests that cooling effects only last a couple of years for the major eruptions, and they only point to four as being major eruptions in the last couple of hundred years.
Given a choice of getting warmer or cooler sign me up for warmer but give me time to move further inland.
Do you know how much the seas will rise with a 2 degree rise in global temp? Do you realize what % of the world's population lives near coasts?"
Again, so what???...if the sun IS getting hotter (as evidence we seem to believe that polar ice caps on Mars are also melting, probably not due to those damned SUVs) then we are in for a change...you, IMO, are the alarmist, failing to acknowledge that earth's climate IS in a constant series of fluctuations...when it fluctuates over 1000 years, we adapt well, mentally and physically...when it fluctuates over a portion of our meager lifetimes, we panic, asking, how will we adapt???
Simple: those who live near the coast will adapt by MOVING...same for those who physical environments change elsewhere...Saudi Arabia may be under water...they have to move...it IS that simple...easy???...no...simple???... yes...
What would you tell someone who built a million dollar mansion, on 100 acres, and had 100 head of cattle and 100 cats and dogs, at the base of a volcano that has been dormant for 1000 years and suddenly erupts with millions of tons of lava???...well???...what would you tell him, as the lava was flowing downhill to his property???...he has to move, and quickly, I might add...all simple adaptation...
Coastlines have been eroding for years, bringing the ocean right up to the edge of some of our mighty fancy hotels...fortunately, so far, no one blames ocean erosion on George Bush (yet), as they actually seem to believe that erosion really does occur naturally (note: the Grand Canyon as a primary example)...we have been adding sand to "restore" the coastal buffer...but, at some point, the buffer may be useless, and the hotels will be flooded, all because of the truth that no one wants to admit...THEY NEVER SHOULD HAVE BUILT THEM THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE...
But, humans not wanting change, expecially when it affects THEM, fight it tooth and nail...
I accept that the oceans may rise and some million/billion dollar proerties may be worthless, and I do not believe it is Man's fault, it is simply the continued warming from the Ice Age many years ago...
What makes you think that it has to be Man???...does the simple thought of a mega-thousand-year cycle of heating and cooling go beyond your comprehension???...
Do we both accept that the earth HAS been warmed somewhat for the ice from the Ice Age to recede, which may be why the oceans are at their current level???...couldn't the oceans have been, say 50 feet lower when all that moisture covered the planet with ice???
Why do you believe that the earth stopped heating up naturally, simply because the North American continent is now exposed land, but the glaciers are up north???...why can't the warming cycle simply be a continuation of Nature's plan to continue to melt the ice, but it just may be inconvenient to us because we placed our meager buildings on what we thought was "stable" land???
That is why this global warming hysteria alarms me...they will pass worldwide laws to "stop" something that can be stopped no more than we can change the orbit of the moon and sun...
Global warming "chicken littles" scare me more than anything else, because they actually believe they are more pwerful than the forces of nature that we have observed for 1000s of years, whether live or by the evidence that remains, like stratified mountains in Arizona (i.e. "arid zone") which prove that what is now dry desert was once under much, much water...
If you were alive back then, would you have been this alarmed over the "Arizona" land becoming the Rocky Mountains, and would you have passed legislation to try and stop it???...do you realize what was once good fishing territory is now desert???...is it so hard to accept planetary change as 100% natural???
No one is saying that. Except you
The water rise will be exceedling slow, so drowning is not a problem, unless you are locked in concrete. The problem is loss of shoreline, quite a bit in some places. I'm 50 feet from water, so this will affect my current residence profoundly. Thankfully, long after I'm gone.
Same people also say it is because we are using too much fossil fuel. In the next political speech they tell us we are running out of fossil fuel.
Both are true. They are not in contradiction.
So what is the problem?
You are very web-saavy, come on, you can get that info pretty easily!
If the supply of oil is getting so low that it will only last the next 50 years the poor helpless folks in Bangladesh are safe.
You can easily find out how long CO2 stays in the atmosphere and what effect it will have. Do we have to do all your heavy lifting???
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.
The sooner you accept that GW is a political tool, and nothing more, the easier you will sleep at night. You might want to put a high water alarm in your home though.
PS
I just bought a home at the 1200 foot level in San Diego just in case.
The Ocean Beach Hotel...they're having fun...they can't get over all the hippies...wife says that San Diego is where all the left-over hippes have decided to descend upon.
I told her to pick me up a stray Guess Who or Foghat poster or CD or cassette or 8-track or...LP.
I'm here putting my work days in...gonna have to go absorb some of sunny San Diego...that coast air would do my Pacific NW skin and blood some good. Rock on!
And no, cars aren't a major cause of global warming...natural methane from cows might indeed be, though. Meanwhile, the San Antonio Spurs are living proof that thuggery is applauded and rewarded by the NBA. Robert Horry is basically a goon and look at how Duncan clears a path with his large thug arm. I never thought I'd be rooting for Utah but...sheesh. The Spurs are dull and abrasive all at the same time. Take three straight, Jazz!
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
My wife really likes the desert. She was raised in Blythe. Dry heat is nice until it gets over 100 degrees. I could spend winters in your area and enjoy it. I would like to explore the mountains around there.
Sand Diego and not an ocean person? For shame.....
We now return you to our regular programming already in progress.
Not many beaches on the East side of the Big Island. I mostly snorkel in the many large tide pools. Not very many tourist. Nice beaches on the Kona side of the Island.
Living close to the ocean, I would worry a lot more about Tsunami than global warming.
All I'd need in Hawaii would be one accessible beach. I'd be fine.
Your point about cold ocean is a good one. We have about a three month season here. Of course the surfers are there in wet suits year round.
The earth is affected by lots of things. We're talking here about CO2 and the effect that has. Automobiles do not affect the sun in any way afaik.
...you, IMO, are the alarmist, failing to acknowledge that earth's climate IS in a constant series of fluctuations...
First, are you able to converse without name-calling and labeling? It's not productive and it simply gets in the way.
Second, I've "failed" to acknowledge that the earth is rotating, too. That doesn't mean I don't realize it happens. Yes, there are natural fluctuations, the affects of fossil fuel burning are superimposed on that.
Simple: those who live near the coast will adapt by MOVING...
I'm glad you think that's simple. Wholesale destruction of all major cities on the Atlantic coast will occur, and your answer is: they'll just have to deal with it. Um, ok, I think we're done.