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?
7015 messages, Last post on Dec 08, 2009 at 8:22 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Apr 02, 2007 12:19 pm) |
|
|
Whether you believe in autos being a major contributor or not, it looks like those 1+ billion people in China are continuing to consume more and more oil and coal for their industry, and their desire to drive. I guess competition for gasoline and price increases will be worse. http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-04-03-gm-china_N.htm |
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Apr 02, 2007 9:31 am) It does not sound like the decision was a slam dunk on anything but giving the EPA the authority to decide on how to handle GHG. Same people at the EPA that have fought against CA making rules that were not in line with the EPA. Ahnold is still asking the EPA to grant authority to CARB. So what was really won with that decision? |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Apr 03, 2007 1:58 pm) Supreme Court Decision Sets Stage for Tighter Regulation of Tailpipe Emissions The fight does remind me a bit of the Freon battle; DuPont made a lot of money switching over to other refrigerants. Some say DuPont backed the Montreal Protocol just because their R-12 patent was expiring - in any event the company made money and came out of the battle looking a bit greener. And green is selling right now. The smart automakers (Honda?) will embrace the latest trend too, instead of waiting on the regulators.
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Apr 03, 2007 4:47 pm) As far as GM and Ford, I think they have already side stepped the GHG issue with offering E85 equipped vehicles. They are touted as practically carbon neutral by some folks. Now it is up to the farmers and ethanol producers to supply this elusive fuel. Buy a Ford or GM truck that is Nature Friendly. Not some gas guzzling Tundra or Titan.  Who cares that 99% of those big trucks will never smell E85.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Apr 03, 2007 5:45 pm)  "GM has made a commitment to producing E85 FFV’s, with more than 2 million of these vehicles on the road in all 50 states." GM and Ethanol E85 Team Up in Jackson Hole, Wyoming (The Driving Woman) |
|
|
The sky is falling. Sound familiar? Now I agree that man has made mistakes and treated this world poorly, but they have found that Mars and Saturn's temps are raising comparably to Earth's and as far as I know, we haven't been to either one yet. 35 years ago, they were one a tangent about how the hole in the ozone would cause the polar ice caps to melt in 25 years and raise seal levels and all that. Well, 10 years past that point and there hasn't been much change. A person can argue this subject for a hundred years, cite thousands of articles which contradict each other over and over and we would all end up in the same spot. If you were to look at fossil data showing the temps of the earth during certain period and CO levels during those periods, you would find data that shows that in some instances, the CO levels were 3 times what they are now. Sadly, man wasn't around during those times. The earth has gone through some pretty severe climate changes in the past and not one of them were related to man. The bottom line is to take a look at the history of the earth, the data available from those times and the current data and sift through the garbage and draw your own conclusion. The thing that bothers me is the folks who say that people are wrong for believing one thing or another. When you have half the scientist saying one thing and the other half saying the opposite, no wonder things are messed up. Understand that Al Gore is NOT a scientist. He is a politician. And as was once said of politicians, they are like diapers. They should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Apr 03, 2007 1:58 pm) And either way, it basically leaves them without grounds for denying California a waiver to do its own thing, which is all that California was asking of the EPA anyway. Which is why that one should go ahead fairly quickly, hopefully this year (to take effect for the 2009 model year). That then leaves the possibility of an injunction by the court over the lawsuit launched by the automakers, not too likely, and the possibility the automakers will win the lawsuit, which is more likely than an injunction but less likely after today's Supreme Court verdict.
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Apr 03, 2007 9:42 pm) What I see Ahnold and his Hollywood buddies trying to pull off will cripple this state. It will make Gray Davis look competent. That is not easy to do.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Apr 03, 2007 10:26 pm) It is easy to forget how much we depend on natural systems for the wealth of resources we find ourselves with. If humanity damages global ecosystems to the point where the fragile balance that exists is gone, it won't matter how much the cost of Kyoto will have been in dollars, for the people just trying to survive. Whether we are the victims or the cause of other peoples' suffering, it won't be a good feeling. We are very very dollar-oriented in the U.S., but there are other things that matter as well. And it's not like California has outlawed the car or something. They have just recognized its crucial role (and no it's not the only contributor) in increasing global warming.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
