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?
6840 messages, Last post on Nov 25, 2009 at 2:33 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: vchiu (Jul 09, 2008 5:49 pm) I understand it does not sound that sexy and the short term dangers are not so visible. I have a hard time accepting the theory that the earth is in any kind of danger. Maybe mankind is in peril. Which is worse the threat of all out war starting with Iran and Israel or the ice melting and flooding low lying areas? I think there are issues in this World that trump the GW hysteria. The collapse of our economy is not a small issue for those of US in America. It will spread to all the World quickly. The last thing people that are starving are going to worry about is their carbon footprint. Everything I see proposed to cope with GW is just pushing the World closer to economic collapse. Which will create chaos that will lead to anarchy and dictators rising up to control the masses. At that point NO ONE will care that the global temperature is rising by 6/10ths of a degree over the next 100 years. Al Gore will be hiding in his mega mansion trying to find the ammunition his dad stashed in the attic for the revolution. Yes a high speed train ride across America sounds intriguing. I don't see it happening in my life time. So I will just go ahead and drive my Sequoia or hopefully an efficient diesel SUV on my vacations around the country. I will keep an eye open when I am in the low lying areas. 
|
|
|
Replying to: euphonium (Jul 09, 2008 1:02 pm) Are you saying that planes offer better comfort, with the checking up queues, delays and all the mess with ridiculous luggage allowance ? Did you ever board a high speed train in Europe ? To clear any possible misunderstanding, I don't consider the Acela express corridor train as a high speed train. 6 hour 36 minutes for 452 miles (Boston-Washington) is still a bit more than 3 hours for 540 miles (Paris -Marseilles). I suggest to cut the stereotypes of train transport. Stereotypes by the way are contradictory with independant thinking. >& prefer the intimate privacy of their own vehicles. Well, how about road safety concerns? It is no secret that accidents per million passenger is maybe 1000X lower with trains than cars. Isn't staying alive priceless ? I admit being in one own's vehicule may be a pleasant experience. If you prefer spending more time in gridlock /traffic congestion, I respect your choice, provided that you pay the real cost which is not met by current 4+ USD per gallon. > Build more freeways, highways, & honor the automobile. those roads are very real estate hungry and densely built-up areas can't accomodate 6-8 lanes highway. the current automobile-only culture is really costing Americans a lot of money and much more than that. |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 09, 2008 7:55 pm) You are right, I did not express myself correctly. What is in danger is the earth ability to support mankind (and many other life forms as well) >Which is worse the threat of all out war starting with Iran and Israel or... I do no wish to compare those two threats which are so different but regretfully real. My views don't contradict addressing military threats. I am not sure that the second Iraqi war did anything to help in this respect though. > I think there are issues in this World that trump the GW hysteria I don't think there is as much hysteria as there is indifference or denial. Tackling GHG is also an incredible opportunity for economic development in the US. The first economy that will be the most oil independant will certainly take the lead in this century. I don't support hysteria but I support a strong action plan >The last thing people that are starving are going to worry about is their carbon footprint. GW/CC is predicted to radically shift climate patterns, which in turn is likely to reduce the quality of arable land. Droughs, floods, record high temperatures, Food prices are already increasing because of oil prices. Foul weather will really tip the balance. The coming up years are going to be very tough, and this will impact US too. >Everything I see proposed to cope with GW is just pushing the World closer to economic collapse. I suppose this includes my sustainable transportation /clean technology views. in this case I respectfully disagree. >At that point NO ONE will care that the global temperature is rising by 6/10ths of a degree over the next 100 years. This is very true, especially because 6/10ths may represent a very small fraction of the temperature increase. You may know the SS Manhattan's voyage to Alaska through the North West passage in 1969. This modified Tanker, assisted by an icebreaker found herself blocked quite a few times by ice many meters thick, despite her 43000 HP. Now, the North West passage is accessible with a one-manned pleasure boat for most of its length. Temperatures have indeed risen on the north ice cap, but 6/10ths may represent a yearly figure. What changes GW/CC will bring about ? If we continue to go our current way, we may soon get the answer and I am afraid this is not going to be good news.
|
|
|
Replying to: vchiu (Jul 10, 2008 1:56 am) This is a very speculative statement. Some areas may become less useful while others become more useful. I do believe a case can be made for an overall rise in temperature. I do not think a good case can be made for man to change the climate. None of the countries that signed onto the original Kyoto have reached the goals set out in that treaty. The countries that will be contributing the most in the near future, China and India are not going to be tied to any restraints that slow economic growth. The USA is buried in debt trying to be the World policeman and cannot afford to finance these wild programs of cutting GHG. We are on the brink of economic collapse in the USA because of our personal debt and the high cost of energy. Most alternatives to our energy problems, that may cut GHG, will add to our trade deficit. We are so environmentally regulated in this country we cannot even do positive things to alleviate the problems. Solar and wind projects are so bogged down by regulations that they are being canceled. So how will this be a plus for the USA? The very people preaching this GW hysteria are the ones blocking progress in that direction. So we are at an impasse. I say let the sea rise where it will. Buy on top of the mountain while ocean front property is still valuable. Can high speed trains compete with air travel for distances up to 500 miles or more? If so they may be good solutions for heavily traveled corridors. We have deregulated the airlines to the point that 1000s of small communities in the USA are very hard to reach except by car. Our bus services like Greyhound are HORRIBLE at best. I have not heard anything good about that form of travel in recent years. It may or may not get you to your destination. For the foreseeable future the personal auto is the only logical choice for most of US. If batteries are invented that offer decent range they will be the wave of the future. We will need more roads and highways. We would be better off as a society to abandon our big cities and spread out across this great land. Get an acre plant a garden, raise some chickens and live longer.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 09, 2008 3:21 pm) I usually see the big TARC(city) buses in Louisville with about 8 or 9 people in them, many times just 3 or 4. Seems like a waste to the taxpayer and the environment. I would guess a big bus like that would put out about 10 times the pollution a regular sized sedan would. |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 10, 2008 5:43 am) I understand from you position that you are convinced GW/CC is either not a big deal or not man induced. It seems there is a consensus though that human activities do have a strong influence on climate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Human_influences_on_climate_change It could be an endless debate because maybe you will require even more drastic climate changes for you to be convinced. (the disappearance of North pole ice cap is the phenomenon who got me understand) Time will tell anyway. > None of the countries that signed onto the original Kyoto have reached the goals set out in that treaty. If they signed, it means they recognized the issue and the need to tackle it. I heard that recently G.W Bush was open to the idea of measured GHG emissions objectives. >The countries that will be contributing the most in the near future, China and India are not going to be tied to any restraints that slow economic growth. Clean / oil less technologies are a factor of growth. China have understand that and is building Photovoltaics production facilities at brisk pace. China has already a wide offer on electric cars. Reliance on oil is restraining economic growth. Clean technologies are an incredible opportunity for the US. All now is in the will to grab it. >The USA is buried in debt trying to be the World policeman and cannot afford to finance these wild programs of cutting GHG. 1) it is all about priorities. Most of the money burnt is in Iraq. Financing of this should have been given to private venture only and not the taxpayer's money. What will be left of all the money flared ? 2) All the programmes I proposed are 100% investment and no spending. As a result, we should get measurable assets under the form of infrastructures or key technical advance. We will get measurable improvements in life quality and transport speeds while saving money. > Most alternatives to our energy problems, that may cut GHG, will add to our trade deficit. Isn't oil one of the largest source of trade deficit ? how lowering oil consumption (hence imports) is going to increase trade deficit? Heavily investing in clean technologies in the US means developing domestic clean technologies. These are tomorrow's jobs. You prefer to abandon such jobs to China ? >Can high speed trains compete with air travel for distances up to 500 miles or more? it is considered that below 2 hours of train journey, air travel will disappear (this happened when Paris to Lyon TGV was opened in 1981 in just 2 hours. Up to 3 hours, train remain competitive and will grab up to 75% marketshare depending on tarrifs (Paris to Strasbourg, Paris to Marseille) Over 3 hours, plane is increasingly taking advantage, taking the majority above 4 or 5 hours journey. the 3 hour -journey time is a reference, because when taking the plane and unless departure and destination being close to airports, we generally add 2-3 hours for check-in, security, luggage pick-up, waiting, transit from and to airport on top of actual flying duration. with new generation high speed trains with a cruise speed of 225mph (360 km/h) I see a real case for an atlantic line from Portland to Miami http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:High-Speed_Rail_Corridor_Designations.png While we would not expect many people going end to end, there is enough population to keep this line busy. A link between the NY area and the great lakes would make sense too. A california high speed train has been in discussion for so long to the point it is ridiculous. There are enough key cities and population to grant a heavy load on this line. High speed train (HST) are all electrics so no emission (unless factoring the power plants producing electricity) Steel on steel rolling means very little friction thus little lost power in comparison to any ground transport HST success rely on the ability to offer competitive journey times in regard to air travel, but much more comfort and practical aspects. a Railway station is easy to integrate in a built-up environment. such can't be said for an airport. In relation to cars, HST boast much much higher average speeds and much more safety against accidents. We can do other activities while on the train (reading, eating, playing). Many people do the same behind the wheel and no wonder there are so many deaths on the roads.
|
|
|
Replying to: vchiu (Jul 10, 2008 7:36 am) I will admit that I like the idea of train travel. Actually for me the speed is not as much a factor as comfort and flexibility. We currently have train service from Mexico to Canada. It is not heavily used and has frequent delays. You still need transportation at your destination. Does that bring the cost over just driving. Flying now has its own challenges. Of course delays are a way of life for as long as I have been flying. I have over 700,000 actual miles on Alaska Airlines because of my 3500+ mile commute every 3 weeks. I have just about decided the only place I will fly for vacation is Hawaii. The rest of the USA I will drive. I don't think I can justify the cost for a vacation to the EU. Now back to HSTs. How do you propose that a daily commuter would get from his home in San Diego to a job in the San Fernando Valley if we have a HST from SD to LA? I am very practical and like practical solutions to problems. I just talked to my wife about the fact that we can get a senior pass to ride all the bus and trolley lines for $16 per month. She asked why would we ever do that? I said we could go to Balboa Park and the ZOO. Then I did some checking. We could drive to the bus stop 2.8 miles from home and catch the 8:30 AM bus & trolley ride to Balboa Park and be let off about 1 mile from the Zoo. If we leave the Zoo and catch that bus at 2PM we will be back in Alpine at 4:31 PM. Our usual Zoo trip we leave home at 8:15 AM. We get to the Zoo and park about 50 feet from the entrance just before it opens at 9 AM. Walk briskly to the Polar Bear Plunge and watch their early morning antics until the masses make it impossible to see anything. We then stroll around some area of the park and usually leave by 10:30 AM. We are then home well before lunch. With Premium at Costco selling for $4.55 per gallon it costs us $16.87 to drive the Lexus on our 66 mile round trip. When you add buying lunch at the zoo it will end up costing us a lot more than our normal routine. When things get so bad that we have to take the bus and trolley we will probably just stay home. PS When the Arctic can no longer support the polar bears we will have some. Our two favorites are the orphans from Barrow Alaska.
|
|
|
Replying to: vchiu (Jul 10, 2008 7:36 am) Now I can agree with you that a high-speed train makes sense to replace some short-distance air travel, but a high-speed train is only moving a few hundred people at a time. Even if you have a train pulling in every 10 minutes at a station on a line, that only moves a few thousand people/hr. And on a high-speed line, to hit high-speed you need to minimize the stops. Trains like these do NOTHING to help the individual in the U.S. commute, shop or do their other misc. travel. In fact while in France, I noticed that despite the high gas-price, there was a lot of auto traffic, and very few people on bikes, scooters or walking. The main difference was the cars were small and mostly diesel. I bet most people in france don't get onboard that high-speed train more than once a year. Probably if they're going on vacation they take that train.
|
|
|
Replying to: oldfarmer50 (Jul 09, 2008 3:54 pm) |
|
|
Funny Wonder what the diesels will score? SACRAMENTO, California — The state of California will require all 2009 model and later cars to be labeled with stickers giving their global warming score, starting at the beginning of the year. The labels will rate vehicles on a scale of 1-10 — with 10 being the best and 5 an average number — based on direct emissions and emissions related to fuel production, and will let consumers make comparisons between models. California vehicles already are given a Smog Score, in which new models are rated on a 1-10 scale for emissions. The labeling will be displayed side by side on new vehicles sold in the state. Consumers can also look up detailed information on the Drive Clean Web site. New York can expect a similar sticker law for new models starting in 2010.
|
|
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
