Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?
2762 messages, Last post on May 14, 2008 at 1:10 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: steve_ (May 13, 2008 8:22 pm) |
|
|
Sir Paul McCartney is said to be "horrified" that his new eco-friendly car was flown 7,000 miles from Japan. The Lexus LS600H, which costs £84,000, was a gift from Lexus to the 65-year-old former Beatle, who helped promote the hybrid vehicle. But instead of arriving by boat as expected, the car was flown to Britain on a Korean Air flight, creating a carbon footprint almost 100 times bigger than if it had come by sea. Sir Paul is a vocal advocate of vegetarianism and has long been a poster child for environmental activism. A source is reported to have said: "Paul was offered a Lexus as a gift and ordered the hybrid limo because it helps to reduce emissions. "He'll be horrified after learning it was delivered by plane. Paul has always campaigned for green issues and he can’t understand why anyone would send an enormous car from Japan to Britain on a plane." Carbon offsetting firm CO2balance.com said the plane journey would have caused a carbon footprint of 38,050kg, compared to 397kg for a three-week boat journey. A carbon footprint is the measure of the impact that human activity has on the environment and is measured in units of carbon dioxide. Co2balance.com Director Mike Rigby said: "That is the equivalent of driving the car around the world six times."
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (May 13, 2008 9:16 pm) If it was the only reason, then it's definitely conspicuous consumption. But it reduces the impact if the flight was used for other purposes also. If it was making the flight ANYWAY and they said, "here, take Paul's Lexus while you are at it" then it's really no big deal.
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (May 14, 2008 6:27 am) A spokesman for Swissport, the freight handling company who unloaded the car at Heathrow, said: "Obviously we were happy for the business but everyone was shocked. The carbon footprint must be enormous." Paddy Gillett of the anti-aviation lobby group Plane Stupid, said: "For anyone to pretend that a private limousine is in any way eco-friendly is like pretending a private jet is. It's total greenwash." Sir Paul, who is also a vegan, has previously lauded Lexus for their commitment to making hybrid vehicles. Lexus sponsored the singer’s 2005 US tour. The Lexus is probably better on the environment than the Rolls Royces in his fleet of vehicles. Of course I would expect him to praise Lexus when they sponsor his tour. |
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (May 13, 2008 8:22 pm) With increasing demand for energy, something needs to be done to increase the supply. What's the alternative to $12 billion nuclear plants? Waiting 50 years until all the oil and coal are severely depleted? That will turn that $12 billion plant into a $95 billion plant. Can't say I understand the relationship between plants and utilites. A gas, electric, or nuclear power plant sends energy to utility companies... who then supply the homeowners? A utility company will buy energy from the cheapest sources for it's customers. If so, then nuclear powered electricity, from that new $12 billion plant, would have to be competitively priced... no? Also, your link was a bit of a tease. It provides the first paragraph of the Wall Street Journal article. To read the remainder I have to order a subscription. You getting kickbacks? 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: pat85 (May 13, 2008 12:42 pm) Here in New York State we now have more forested land than in the last 150 years. Gov't regulation, high taxes and a general anti-business environment have put hundreds of farms into foreclosure. The abandon farms then grow up to forests. Great for the deer and the birds...not so great for the humans. Unless you are a rich environmental lawyer who can pick up country land cheap for your vacation home. 
|
|
|
Replying to: jipster (May 14, 2008 7:14 am) Yeah, Rupert Murdock sends me a check every three days.  Here's a free version of the article. New Wave of Nuclear Plants Faces High Costs |
|
|
Replying to: oldfarmer50 (May 14, 2008 9:34 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (May 14, 2008 9:59 am) Thirty-three percent of the total land area in the United States is forested. This compares to 46 percent forested at the time of European settlement. Between 1600 and 1920, 13 percent of the land area (29 percent of the forested area) was lost to clearing for agriculture and towns. Most of this clearing occurred between 1850 and 1910. By far the largest part was cleared for farming. Cities actually occupy a very small percentage of the total land area. Today, the United States has about the same area of forestland as it did in 1920, even though there has been a 143 percent increase in population between then and today. There are two main reasons why the area of land in crops has remained stable since 1920. First, in 1910 about one-quarter of the land in crops was used to produce food for horses and other draft animals. The advent of the automobile and tractor made it possible to use that land to produce food for people instead. Second, advances in technology, chemistry, and genetics have made it possible to produce much more food on the same amount of land. Forests have been a major feature of planet Earth ever since trees evolved from smaller plants more than 300 million years ago. Today, 29.6 percent of the world's land area is covered by forest. The area of forest cover has changed over time as climate changed, as ice ages came and went, and more recently as the human population cleared large areas of forest for food production. During the rise of civilization, 40 percent of the forest cover that existed 5,000 years ago has been converted to farms and cities. Most of this deforestation has occurred during the past 200 years to grow the food for a rapidly rising population. As of the year 2000, the world's forest cover was 3.9 billion hectares (9.8 billion acres) or 29.6 percent of the total land area of 13.1 billion hectares (32.8 billion acres).
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (May 14, 2008 10:04 am) So actually the use of the automobile and the tractor have kept down the amount of deforestation. If we all used animals for transport and farm-work, the forests would basically be gone, and we've all read how much CO2 the trees of the forests absorb. If the forests were eliminated there might be higher CO2 in the atmosphere than even today! If we didn't have fossil fuels for energy and trucks for transport, people would not be able to live in compact cities. Cities actually keep people from having an even greater impact on the environment. If everyone had to provide for themselves, every family would need 50-100 acres, so they could grow their own food, grow feed for the animals, and have some trees to cut for building materials and firewood. There would be no land left for national parks and such, and most of the game that exist today would be wiped out either for food, or their habitats would be used by humans. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?
