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?
6727 messages, Last post on Nov 05, 2009 at 2:29 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: cowens1 (Nov 04, 2006 8:50 am) Check again. It was actually the exact opposite in regards to the Supreme Court. They ruled that the EPA has the right to declare CO2 a harmful substance and limit its emissions. The Federal Government is a different story, as they're too entrenched in special interests to ever get anything done. 19 states and numerous municipalities have taken steps to combat global warming. It's real, we must slow it and "believing" otherwise is like "believing" Earth is at the center of the universe in the 16th Century because a few "scientists" say so.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Apr 10, 2007 12:00 pm) LA is all alone as the worst. San Bernadino is the dirtiest county in the country. See this page: Clean and Dirty cities and counties |
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Apr 10, 2007 11:58 am) That is probably a much more difficult metric to establish conclusively. However, I would believe that you are seeing the actual effects of more and more stringent pollution controls on newer cars gradually replacing the non-existent or ineffective controls as older cars are removed from service. In other words, the pollution control technology works. The general California population was able to 'enjoy' more and more automobiles clogging their roads while AT THE SAME TIME reducing the levels of harmful pollutants going into the atmosphere. So, in the face of this scenario, what was the typical anti-car environmentalist to do? Afterall, the mantra for decades was 'reduced pollution through reduced consumption' when technology (apparently) has shown us another way. Answer? Redefine the pollutants. Now, the pollutant is CO2, which is unaffected by the pollution controls, and the ONLY way to reduced CO2 as a 'pollutant' IS to reduce consumption. |
|
|
Replying to: jriz (Apr 10, 2007 12:06 pm) You can ride around in a Yugo while these so called experts are riding in private jets, Limos & yachts, don't count on me to join your circus parade.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Apr 10, 2007 1:18 pm) Not so much in 2007. As Ahnold said in 2005, "The debate is Ovah." There are vastly more studies and credentialed scientists now who have data supporting AlGore's view than there were a few years ago. If CO2 is a greenhouse gas (most everyone believes it is) and cars and manufacturing operations which are geared toward creating things which humans use create CO2 and it adversely affects the global climate, then cars DO contribute to the problem. How muchso is the question.
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Apr 10, 2007 1:23 pm) I don't see any plan laid out that will not be economically disruptive. No country that has signed on to Kyoto has lived up to the treaty. That should tell you something. Japan is trying and is way behind their goal. Kyoto was ill conceived and a political tool, nothing more. |
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Apr 10, 2007 1:23 pm) Yep, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So is water vapor. And water vapor contributes FAR more to the 'greenhouse effect' than does CO2. Which begs the question: why the heated debate over man-made CO2 emissions? Why no debate over man-made water vapor? Has the amount of WATER VAPOR in the atmosphere changed perhaps?
|
|
|
Replying to: rorr (Apr 10, 2007 2:25 pm) You know it has. Melting snow produces water vapor. More snow melts because the temps are hotter. Are autos a considerable cause?
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Apr 10, 2007 2:31 pm) Very good. But, if WATER VAPOR is a much greater component of the greenhouse effect, is it POSSIBLE that NATURAL processes leading to additional water vapor in the atmosphere has a GREATER impact on global warming than manmade CO2 (which has a much lesser effect in the greenhouse effect). In other words, could a NATURAL PROCESS (perhaps, increased solar radiation) lead to increased evaporation rates, leading to increased water vapor, leading to a greater greenhouse effect? And, if water vapor is a BIGGER COMPONENT of the greenhouse effect, and if we feel than man is at least partially responsible for water vapor, why not concentrate efforts on reducing man-made water vapor? BTW, what is the tailpipe emissions from a hydrogen powered automobile? Um, water vapor....... 
|
|
|
Replying to: rorr (Apr 10, 2007 2:53 pm) Those we CAN control and those we CANNOT control? Is that not a logical conclusion? Control what you can control and the rest is out of your hands.
|
|
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
