Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?

12357223

Comments

  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    The way this conversation is going (in here and in the rest of the world), we better prep dossiers on all the drafters of the article. We need to know dissertation topics, who's funding their research, who's asthmatic because of car exhaust and how badly they were sunburned as a child. :shades:
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I do not pretend to understand most of what that report is saying. A few statements did catch my attention. Most of the report is just that a compilation of many scientific studies. I have no reason to doubt the validity of what it is saying. I do not get the same level of hysteria that is coming from the Global Warming cult. If I am reading this correctly it is saying if we were to stabilize our output of GHG it would not have much affect for centuries to come.

    Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized.

    Something else caught my attention. And this should be posted in the diesel forum. Most of the NoX and Methane are from agriculture. NoX is main reason we cannot buy diesel cars in several states. Sounds to me like we were beating a dead horse on the NoX issue with diesel cars.

    Lastly in this report to the UN it appears that they are not backing the Kyoto Treaty.

    The SRES scenarios do not include additional climate initiatives, which means that no scenarios are included that
    explicitly assume implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change or the emissions
    targets of the Kyoto Protocol.
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    From the Philadelphia newspaper:

    http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/6861027.html
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    WOW, What a good article....I had to re read it again pal !!! ;)

    Rocky
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    That article is full of falsehoods.

    The CNW study has been WIDELY debunked, and not just by the hybrid lovers either.

    The nickel thing is vastly overstated and Toyota uses FAR less than the article implicates.

    Believe that story at your peril. I have read posting after posting of facts which debunk it.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    The nickel thing is vastly overstated and Toyota uses FAR less than the article implicates.

    Do you have any data to back up your statement? Sounds like a problem to me. I know many have discounted the CNW report because it does not fit their preconceived notions. I would be interested in this new bit of information concerning nickel as in NiMH batteries. 100lbs per hybrid. 500,000 hybrids sold that is 50 million pounds of batteries, that will have to be dealt with. How much of those batteries is nickel? How much GHG is expelled in recycling those batteries? We know that recycling is more energy intensive than using raw materials.

    I have no problem believing the xB is a far more eco friendly choice than the Prius. Or the Echo that the original Prius was built on.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    On the nickel issue:

    - The typical non-hybrid car uses 50 pounds of nickel
    - The Prius battery pack uses 22 pounds
    - Electronic appliances such as cell phones use way more nickel in their NiMH batteries worldwide than hybrids
    - Toyota is not a primary customer of this factory - 1,000 tons of nickel is far too little to keep it in business. That Inco plant produced 267,500 tons of nickel in 2006.
    - The 1,000 tons of nickel is not dedicated to the Prius, but Toyota. Tundra probably uses more nickel.
    - The plant is not owned by Toyota or joined at the hip.

    The studies are reported on two small lakes at Sudbury, Ontario located close to a nickel-copper smelter which closed in 1972.

    25 years later, Toyota Prius was introduced in Japan in 1997.

    So reporters need to REALLY check the facts before doing something like this. The world is far better off with hybrids like the Prius on the road, not vice-versa.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    I agree with you. The fact that Toyota, doesn't own the nickel producing factory doesn't mean it's not a contributing factor to global warming. This article should be on the front pages of major newspaper's IMHO. ;)

    Rocky
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Read again:

    The nickel plant in question sold 267,500 tons of nickel and only a mere 1000 of those tons went to Toyota.

    All the damage the nickel plant did was done decades ago, long before the Prius.

    - The typical non-hybrid car uses 50 pounds of nickel
    - The Prius battery pack uses 22 pounds

    EVERY CAR and EVERY CARMAKER contribute(s) to global warming in a small way, some more than others, but the Prius balances it's production by producing FAR LESS GHG gasses than most cars during the total of the lifetime.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    Do you have a link to back up your facts ? I have a hard time believing only 1000 tons of nickel is purchased per year by Toyota.

    Rocky
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "Do you have a link to back up your facts ? I have a hard time believing only 1000 tons of nickel is purchased per year by Toyota."

    Well, let's do some math:

    1000 tons x 2000 lbs/ton = 2,000,000 (2 million) lbs. of nickel......

    .....and at larsb number of 50 lbs. of nickel / car:

    2 million lbs. / 50 lbs per car = 40,000 cars

    Something tells me that Toyota builds slightly more that 40,000 cars/year........
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    Well last time I checked they were going to be the #1 automaker in the world. That's the number I thought was right but I thought perhaps I messed up because I didn't think someone could be that far off. ;)

    Rocky
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    From the INCO plant they only purchase 1000 tons a year. The plant which was mentioned in the UK article about the Sudbury pollution.

    I have no idea how much nickel Toyota or any other automaker purchases a year.

    But since average non-hybrid cars use about 50 pounds of nickel, I'd say worldwide use of nickel in cars is pretty substantial.

    But that was not the topic - nickel was only brought up to show that Toyota is not ITSELF responsible for the Sudbury pollution issues as was blamed on them.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Lets add some more to that. Nickel price was $1 a pound in 2001 up to $8.50 per pound currently. As you so clearly pointed out the discrepancy in the nickel used by Toyota. If the Tundra uses 50lbs mostly for stainless steel parts. I would think a hybrid would use that plus the 22lbs for batteries. Here is the commodity take on nickel.

    No metal illustrates this point more so than nickel, whose rapid increase in value is driven by market forces reacting to a supply situation that is expected to worsen in the years to come. Last Autumn several commentators predicted that future nickel prices would move into the US$10,000-12,000 range, or possibly even higher, in the next few years. These have already been exceeded, with the price peaking at US$17,000/tonne in January this year. So far these price increases have failed to stifle demand and as a consequence LME stocks are at their lowest for 12 months.
    Demand Driven By Stainless Steel

    Nevertheless, the demand for nickel is growing, driven by the market for stainless steel, which accounts for 54% of nickel consumption in the USA and more than 60% in other countries. The next largest market is super alloys, consuming 10% of nickel production. Nickel demand has grown at a rate of 4% per year during the past decade, with 7% growth seen during the past two years - a rate most metals would envy
    Geographical Demand for Nickel

    Demand is up in the US, Europe and Japan, despite the absence of economic recovery. However the greatest growth in demand is in Asia and specifically China.

    Inco is a major company in the nickel industry and has seen sales to China amounting to 60% of the company's total sales - a market greater than Japan and Europe combined.


    Question is have they found a solution for the pollution caused by smelting the ore for all this nickel? Of course that includes massive amounts of GHG. Our only hope is for everyone to keep the car they have right now and stop building cars. :shades:
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    I hate it when I hear a "great idea" which is impossible to implement.

    I agree that we should stop building cars ASAP.

    I think we have enough cars and trucks to last us 30 years. Just keep making parts to fix 'em. !!!

    :D:D:D:D:D
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    We've had 4 cars in the last 25 years and I think the two still in the stable will make it another 5. So I'm in. ;)
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    a crazy idea like stop making automobiles. Have you guys even phathom the impact that would have on the global economy ?

    Rocky
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    Don't jump to conclusions rocky; I'm sure they can continue to make millions of new cars every year with no adverse impact on global warming or the global economy whatsoever.

    Just don't DRIVE them..... :P
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Just think how long that new car would last if you just parked it and took the bus.. :) Rocky has this dream to own a 750 hp street cruiser. When he wakes up gas is $6 per gallon for the high test and he cannot afford to drive it. :sick:
  • waygrabowwaygrabow Member Posts: 214
    People buy automobiles. Also carbon dioxide has just been determined to be a pollutant (by the Supreme Court). If we stop making people, we will solve the automobile problem and lessen the carbon dioxide problem.

    I understand that temperatures on the planet Mars are also increasing; those SUVs must be everywhere. The temperatures on Earth have varied significantly in past periods without much of an automobile industry being present. It's those humans we need to get rid of (except for you and I).
  • murphydogmurphydog Member Posts: 735
    how about a bounty for any car over 15 years old? I am sure a new hummer with all the emmissions bells and whistles puts out less polution than a 15 year old rusted out beater... :P
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    In case you missed it this morning:

    Study suggests ethanol may cause more smog (Straightline)

    The Ethanol - E85 FlexFuel board has some more topicial discussions to talk about the study, like the Is Ethanol good for the environment? discussion.
  • li_sailorli_sailor Member Posts: 1,081
    If we stop making people, we will solve the automobile problem and lessen the carbon dioxide problem.

    But we won't solve the "people living with growing GW" problem.

    I understand that temperatures on the planet Mars are also increasing...

    The temps increase in my oven when I turn it on, too.

    I think if we combine these observations we'll have something. Something half-baked, perhaps.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    Well I don't need quite 750 hp. ;) I'd be happy if Hyundai would make me a $45,000 Twin-Turbo 500 hp. Genesis. The savings on the car sticker would allow me enough extra dough I could afford $6 dollar gas for those rare Sunday drives. :P

    Rocky
  • dave8697dave8697 Member Posts: 1,498
    All the old cars are rounded up by wholesalers and put on ships headed for the third world. So there is already a bounty on them.

    The Prius uses an above avg amount of Ni because of the battery. An F-350 probably uses almost as much as a Prius. A Cobalt uses 22 lbs less than a Prius. A 15 year old car costs far less to keep running clean than it costs to buy a new one. If 50% of all new cars are V8 SUV's and trucks getting mileage in the teens, how can they ever be helping us reduce pollution and raise efficiency?

    A woman in Fl wrote the auto experts column in the newspaper. She asked what dealer she should buy her Prius from. The one charging 4000 over MSRP or the one charging 3000 over? The columnnist wrote back that both dealers were going to use the extra 3 or 4k to upgrade to twin V10's for their 35' boat that is rated in gallons per mile.

    $619 per year is the amount of gas money a 48mpg Prius can save in 12000 miles as compared to a 25 mpg car that can be bought for so much less. What is a year's interest on the extra cost of the Hybrid option? Could be most of the gas savings. How can the Hybrid ever become popular enough to matter? They say $8 a gallon gas will do it.
  • mediapushermediapusher Member Posts: 305
    Global is inevitable, whether we are speeding up the process with our pollution is a fact that's difficult to discern.

    The problem with cars is that they're extremely pollutant. We should be worried about all the negative effects that pollution causes before we start worrying global warming, even though global warming may be caused by the greenhouse gases cars create
  • mediapushermediapusher Member Posts: 305
    Oh my god, that was good, You people are too nutty. I don't even know what to say, my sides are hurting from laughter..

    People buy cars and trucks for the most part, BECAUSE THEY NEED THEM .Try functioning in life or getting to work in Southern California without a car.

    What I want to know is why I can't buy a car that runs on hydrogen fuel cell technology or one that runs on electricity,etc.. Why are we forced to use one technology?
    When I go to the store, I have a choice of 500 different brands of shampoos I can use....
    ________________
    reference text::::::
    People buy automobiles. Also carbon dioxide has just been determined to be a pollutant (by the Supreme Court). If we stop making people, we will solve the automobile problem and lessen the carbon dioxide problem.

    I understand that temperatures on the planet Mars are also increasing; those SUVs must be everywhere. The temperatures on Earth have varied significantly in past periods without much of an automobile industry being present. It's those humans we need to get rid of (except for you and I).
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    I reject my own statement !!!!! :sick:

    Rocky
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    What I want to know is why I can't buy a car that runs on hydrogen fuel cell technology or one that runs on electricity,etc

    Maybe because the technology has not matured to the place it can be sold for a price you would pay. You can get a Civic HX or a Tesla electric if you want to pony up the bucks. With hydrogen you would be using natural gas to produce it. It would be cheaper to get the Civic GX and eliminate a $100,000 worth of fuel cells. CNG is getting easy to find in So CA. EPA says it is the cleanest car they ever tested.

    If I lived where you live in San Bernardino, no I would never live there. But say I did. I would be extremely interested in getting rid of pollution. San Bernardino should be ashamed of that brown haze they seem to enjoy. One solution would be to blow up the mountains that trap that nasty air coming from the port at San Pedro. You could then build houses all the way to Hesperia without those nasty mountains blocking progress.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    I'm in too. I will drive my current cars until 2037 as long as they will promise to continue stocking parts for repairs! :-)

    If everyone did this it would do far more for GHG reduction than any amount of improving the fleet fuel economy or switching the fleet to alt power sources. As a rule of thumb 60% of the energy consumed by a vehicle is used up in its manufacture. And we all know that the source of the energy being used in those factories is mostly greenhouse gas-emitting...

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

  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    li_sailor: The temps increase in my oven when I turn it on, too.

    I think if we combine these observations we'll have something. Something half-baked, perhaps.


    Except that no one can plausibly claim that the increasing temperatures in your oven are the direct result of solar activity.
  • li_sailorli_sailor Member Posts: 1,081
    Except that no one can plausibly claim that the increasing temperatures in your oven are the direct result of solar activity.

    Oh, I don't know. I wouldn't exist without solar activity and I'm the only one that turns my oven on. And I'm as direct as they come. There, a plausible claim.

    Sort of like Mars/SUV claims re GW :)
  • tidestertidester Member Posts: 10,059
    There, a plausible claim.

    Yes, but the specification was "a direct result of solar activity. I think you and your oven are somewhat indirect even if your replies are not. :P

    tidester, host
    SUVs and Smart Shopper

    Not the host here!
  • james31278james31278 Member Posts: 78
    All plants and lifeforms emit CO2. The Sun is directing more heat at Earth lately, as a result CO2 emissions are a little higher. The Sun is driving this warming trend if anything, not humans and not cars. Check out a video on Youtube called The Great Global Warming Swindle. You'll find real answers there, not with some political idiot named Al Gore who burns more energy than anyone combined plus all the rest of the democraps who take their own private jets everywhere.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    Those compassionate conservatives don't pollute I suppose ? :D

    -Rocky
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Of course not. In our compassion for our fellow man we exhale Oxygen. :)
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    So the recommendations of literally thousands (about 2000) scientists from around the globe (in the latest IPCC report) whose LIFE'S WORK has been on this topic, not to mention the agreement of leaders of most of the world's nations (INCLUDING George Bush, who was finally forced to concede the existence of global warming recently, at the risk of continuing to sound pretty unaware if he didn't) doesn't sway you huh?

    I'm impressed. :-P

    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 don't think finding a warming trend is the question. It is what causes the warming. I find blaming cars a stretch. In light of the fact that many of the same names were sure we were going into another Ice Age just 30 years ago.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Gary, you keep mentioning the "thinking we were going into an Ice Age in the 1970s" thing, and in FACT, that was not a scientific prediction at all.

    It (as a social discussion point) was started mostly by an unsourced, alarmist article in Newsweek. As a whole this article contained a very large percentage of draconian, alarmist and largely unsourced statements.

    See more on this:

    One Alarmist article in Newsweek in 1975

    No one REALLY SERIOUSLY thought we were heading for a new Ice Age. At least no one CREDIBLE.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    If you read on through those politics of science you will read that we have been in a warming trend since 1500. With cold snaps in the 1700s. This trend predates the industrial revolution. I agree that the 1970s alarmists were politically motivated. Just as the 2007 alarmists are politically motivated. Where we are not in sync is the causation of global warming. I believe it could be a natural phenomenon. With man having little or no control over it. If you read the UN report as I did you would find that there is NOT a consensus on what causes global warming. Just as the Supreme Court did not find that global warming was caused by cars. It merely gave the EPA the right to consider GHG emissions as a factor.

    I have no problem with your ideas that we need to use less fossil fuel. I just do not believe our Congress & state legislatures are on the same page. They all want to look environmentally astute without giving up any of the amenities they enjoy. EVERYTHING we do uses energy of some sort. Unless you think we can put limits on the amount of energy each person uses. I think as long as it looks like we have enough oil people will not change much in their habits.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    Well let's just hope we don't actually live
    "The Day After Tommorow" :surprise:

    -Rocky
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    If you truly believe what the politicians are saying about global warming you should be looking for Yaris or Aveo so you do not contribute so much GHG to the environment.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    I actually don't think cars are the biggest contributer's to global warming but yeah I think man has made a impact and no you would never see me drive a car that small as their are much bigger ones that can do almost as good as those two both in mpg and in emissions. The Acura TL, is one that comes to mind just like the Saturn Aura Greenline, Carolla, Jetta, help the Volvo S80 V8 gets ULEV II status. :P

    -Rocky
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Why does science have to be always accused of being politicized?

    You do know, or course, that there are scientific organizations with the backing of both liberals AND conservatives who believe that man is causing global warming, right?

    It's not JUST the left-wing wackos, although they are the wheels which are squeaking the loudest in almost every instance.

    What irritates me is the FINANCIAL aspect. Like the recent stories of Exxon-Mobil paying scientists $10,000 bounties to refute global warming, JUST SO THEY CAN KEEP SELLING OIL.

    That my friend is bordering on criminal behavior if you ask me.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    Yeah, if that story is true which I wouldn't doubt it those folks should be sent to the firing squad or at least get the chair. :mad:

    -Rocky
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    It has a several page article near the back on this exact topic. The research the author did, has CO2 emissions from all the world's trucks and auto at 15% of the total created. The U.S. auto share is 6% of the world total. Over 40% of all CO2 emissions comes from electrical power plants.

    There are some graphs showing future growth of CO2 emissions. So basically if you took that 15% CO2 away by banning all autos, in a few short years we're back to where we are now and then we're climbing higher. The reason CO2 is and will continue to increase is that economies and population are growing. The only way to stop that is either to regress economically, or to grow nuclear, wind and solar power quicker than we grow our use of energy.

    Anyone want to check if the article's on-line?
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    ULEV and PZEV and all that does not concern themselves with CO2 emissions. A gallon of gas burnt in any rating car produces almost exactly the same amount of CO2. The only difference would be minute amounts of CO or HC (unburnt hydrocarbons) a car might admit. Ans I believe to pass emissions those are in the parts-per-million.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    More conspiracy theories. I thought you were above that? Now if you said they gave it to Congressmen to shoot down any bills that would negatively impact oil sales I would believe it. Having met many scientists that were working on grants from oil companies and the US Government. I did not get the feeling any of them would lie for their benefactors. On the other hand we know for a fact that politicians lie every time they open their mouths. On both sides of the aisle.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    As long as it was mentioned. Looking at the EPA stats on both the GM and Tundra PU trucks. The new Tundra 4WD expels 1.2 tons more GHG than the new 4WD From GM. If you use E85 in that same GM truck you will put out 3.1 tons less per year than the Tundra PU truck. What happened to the GREEN image that Toyota wants US to believe? It sure looks like vaporware to me.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    Well those same Tundra, owners are getting 14 mpg hwy. :surprise:

    -Rocky
This discussion has been closed.