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?
6907 messages, Last post on Dec 02, 2009 at 4:48 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: steve_ (Jul 14, 2008 10:36 am) Compare the economy and taxes generated of an area with a lot of roads (LA?) to any area in the U.S. with nothing more than a dirt road. 
|
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Jul 14, 2008 12:13 pm) And don't forget that the railroads deserve equal time.
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Jul 14, 2008 12:21 pm) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System A subway, bus, or HST is almost solely designed to move passengers; not moving military equipment, supplies, or general commerce goods. Consumers are taxpayers usually. It's fairly hard to make $ w/o the tax-man collecting some. I think trains used to haul bulk-cargo (coal, wheat, corn ...) are great and should be encouraged. I think systems should be paid for by those who use the system.
|
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Jul 14, 2008 12:57 pm) More freight moved by trains and barges could mean fewer trucks, and maybe fewer emissions (to touch on the topic a little). |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 14, 2008 8:18 am) I consider education, project engineering (dam building, power plant building) Transport infrastructure building, R&D as investment. Any amount invested in those should improve human, economic or environmental benefit. I consider gulf war, welfare spending, infrastructure upkeep as spendings. I am advocating less spending and more investment. Some spendings are necessary, but others could be cut. >That money is spent. Do you mean there is no way to stop the counter anymore ? The national debt is a serious issues and maybe tackling it from the root would prove effective. I suspect HST and mass transit investments were not the reason. >we are near revolt over the current gas prices. mm, not sure if the mindset of cheap gas being a right as equal as free speech is a healthy one. US prices are still half of European prices, so US motorists should be happy. >Why do people think that we should tax automobile drivers to finance mass transit? Because the polluter should be the payer. Gas is not only rejecting CO2 but also many other dangerous gas. Gas is deepening US trade deficit, gas is inherently unsustainable. Current gas prices don't reflect that. >why not tack an additional tax on air travel. That is also a good idea, provided that money be also used to offer alternatives. The problem is that I don't see alternatives for overseas flights. >Last I read a cross country flight dumps as much CO2 per passenger seat as a small car in one year (about 5 tons) I think a cross country high speed line would allow the same trip overnight. This would be a great project. It is true aircraft CO2 release is a true problem and HST bring solutions to that, albeit not 100% perfect. >No buying carbon credits for the rich. Carbon trading is a key environmental development opportunity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_credit#How_buying_carbon_credits_can_reduce_- emissions We are still in the early stages, so not perfect yet. This is not a reason to throw it away. > I am thinking we will all have electric cars soon. Then What do we need mass transit for? because congestion won't be tackled by individual cars and railways are the best answer to that. Some people want to have the choice in their transportation mix.
|
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Jul 14, 2008 8:31 am) The problem is that the project is still not started : building has not commenced yet and it looks like it is set to slip by another year. The project is dating back from 1998 where gas was cheap. I can't imagine how it would like if it was operational already. >Now you're seeing the light Depends how one understand it. I meant it in a humorous way. Water vapor accounts for the majority of current GH effect. in fact we need green house effect, otherwise there would be no life on earth. However, the increase in man made GHG (CO2, Methane, NOx, CFC..) is upsetting the balance. Unprecedented levels of GHG are strongly influencing the climate and every month, there are new studies supporting that. With the permafrost melting in Siberia, we can expect a massive amount of methane release in the air. It may become an uncontrollable chain reaction. I am not throwing stones. I don't need because the environment will do it in my place. I just think we had plenty of warning signals and it is not good just doing nothing (or drilling more)
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 14, 2008 8:44 am) it is currently 200 mph =320 km/h on the LGV-Est (Paris to Strasbourg) Alstom unveiled their new 225 mph HST unit which claims same electricity consumption as older units going 187mph. >I think the CA HST plan will be long on promises and short of cash. There must be a strong political will for it. Currently, it is not the case. >If all we get to do is lay track that kind of sounds like the original railroads. it is a major engineering project, with many planning, mapping, digging, bridges, tunnels, roadside development, signalling, overhead wires... track laying is rather at the final stage of it |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: vchiu (Jul 14, 2008 6:25 pm) How do you know that as a fact? Studies are popularity contest for Al Gore. The earth's ecosystem is too big to be affected thus. >CO2, Methane, NOx, CFC..) is upsetting the balance. The tenet of the green folk is that CO2 causes the problem. Yet the atmosphere of Mars has 80 times the CO2 of earth and it's not superhot. So much for greenhouse effect of CO2. I'm always curious how people know that the one item is the single item in the controlled experiment that causes something or other re the multiplicity of homeostases in the earth's systems. How do you know that? I can answer! You don't, but it makes feel good talk.
|
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Jul 14, 2008 12:57 pm) Well it seems now highways' main purpose is personal transportation. HST is a passenger train, but the same railways could be used for goods transport as well. >I think systems should be paid for by those who use the system. This is a logical thinking but how to do for the HST (or any future R&D or transportation project) ? There is none existing and the bulk of the investment must be done years before the line enters into service. it is the current loophole. Nobody wants to pay for a non-existing train, and this is the reason the biggest failure of HST is in America. I think the US government is using double standards, as they paid the many billions for the Interstate system, considering it would benefit the country in a whole, but can't extend that thinking to HST, even though benefits are easily proven in the face of environment, service quality and expensive oil.
|
|
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
