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?
6843 messages, Last post on Nov 26, 2009 at 7:45 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
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.
|
|
|
Replying to: vchiu (Jul 14, 2008 6:10 pm) First it is debatable if any of that is legal from a Constitutional standpoint. I know our government has done a lot of those things under the very shaky grounds of "Common Good". You will get arguments right here on Edmund's concerning hydro dams being environmentally sound. We will probably not see any more in the USA. I personally feel all those things are best done by private enterprise with making a profit as incentive. No profit poor idea. That includes mass transit. Now if a city or state decides to build mass transit such as HST and the PEOPLE vote to borrow the money I cannot say anything but, OH Well..... US motorists should be happy. Trust me they are anything but happy. I think it will be reflected in the 2008 election. Personally I hope they vote every stinking incumbent running out of Congress. Carbon trading is a key environmental development opportunity. When this idea hit the airwaves it all came clear to me. The whole Global Warming scam is designed to make money. Buying your way out of GW responsibility STINKS of elitism to the max. You cannot jet set around the globe and plant a few Mango trees in Africa and be cleansed of your part in "GW". Either EVERYONE sacrifices or it is a SCAM for the wealthy to further push the middle class into the ranks of the POOR. When you state that it is not perfect that would be an understatement for sure. Planting mango trees where they do not get enough water. Handing out CFL bulbs as compensation for big GW concerts all smell to high heaven. The high priest of GW Al Gore has made $100,000,000+ in 7 short years with this scam. Calling GW or climate change anything but a charade is beyond my realm of belief. There is a better chance that the Heaven's Gate wackos ended up on a space ship behind Hale Bopp Comet, than all the catastrophic occurences Al Gore claims will come to pass. Many of the so called 2000 scientists are bailing out because the UN distorted their findings and politicized the whole report. Why, To make money. Extract money from the rich countries. The UN lost their oil for money scam when we got rid of Saddam. They need a new scam and GW was ripe for the picking. because congestion won't be tackled by individual cars and railways are the best answer to that. I agree with you that congestion is only going to get worse in this country. Will people buy into riding the train after having the freedom of personal transportation? I just do not think they will. Riding the train in the EU is something everyone there was raised with and accept. Most people here have never been on a train. I have put my wife on the Coaster a few times to go see her grandkids the other side of LA. It is better for one person traveling. It beats fighting the LA traffic. Maybe if the cost of gas gets so high that people have no choice. I think our economy will fold before that happens. We may be on the brink right now. If we do come up with alternatives to fossil fuel such as algae for diesel or cheap batteries for cars or even hydrogen fuel cells that are inexpensive. How are you going to convince some one that has an electric car that only costs pennies a day to operate that he should get on a stinking bus or even a high speed train? |
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Jul 14, 2008 6:44 pm) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Natural_and_anthropogenic There are quite a few studies mentioned in the article footnote. On the other hand, I find little or no evidence showed by the GW/CC deniers. >The earth's ecosystem is too big to be affected thus. Not sure where you found such information. You may need to wait a cataclysm to accept there is a problem. I guess the North pole ice sheet melting would just make you shrug >Yet the atmosphere of Mars has 80 times the CO2 of earth and it's not superhot I still find the ability for Mars to support human life pretty challenging. Have you considered that Mars is 230 million km away from the sun, whereas the earth is 150 million km ? How about taking into account the difference in atmosphere density. Mars has only 1% of the Earth atmosphere density. >How do you know that? I can answer! You don't, but it makes feel good talk. Not sure about what you mean. sorry for my poor English. I just learned somehow that laws of physics can not be changed and that one property of CO2 is to trap heat.
|
|
|
Replying to: vchiu (Jul 14, 2008 6:55 pm) That was done under a different era. It was done by a military man thinking of moving men and equipment easily around the USA. It was also lobbied for by GM, Ford and Chrysler as a way to stimulate CAR sales. It pretty much destroyed the passenger railroad business in the USA. Keep in mind the Interstate system ended up costing US $114 billion and 23 years later than planned to complete. Zip forward to 2008. CA has this HST plan that has been tossed around for 10 or more years. No price tag just more money to study and think about it. If it costs the projected $40 billion for JUST the SF to LA segment or 432 miles. What would it cost for a Nation wide system. LA to NY what $350 billion. Seattle to Chicago $300 billion. To cover the USA that is 3000 miles by 1500 miles would cost TRILLIONS of dollars Today. We are looking at Presidential candidates that want to bankrupt US with universal health care. There ain't no money for trains. That is too far in the future. Even that little 432 mile run from SF to LA would probably not be done for 10 years if it gets voted in this year. This is a knee jerk society. Gas goes up people buy Prius. Gas goes down they buy the biggest SUV. We do not think 10 years ahead. So for US to vote on spending money over the next 10 years to maybe have this fast train that serves only the people in LA and SF will have a tough go at the polls. Why would anyone in San Diego or Redding vote to help out those in LA and SF. We don't even like them... 
|
|
|
Replying to: vchiu (Jul 14, 2008 7:34 pm) AD 1000 to 1500: This period has quick, but uneven, warming of the climate of the Northern Hemisphere. The North Atlantic becomes ice-free and Norse exploration as far as North America takes place. The Norse colonies in Greenland even export crop surpluses to Scandinavia. Wine grapes grow in southern Britain. The temperatures are from 3-8 degrees warmer than currently. The period lasts only a brief 500 years. By the year 1500, it has vanished. The Earth experiences as much warming between the 11th and the 13th century as is now predicted by global-warming scientists for the next century. The causes of this period of warming are unknown. GW Hoax Global Warming Consensus, Not hardly: The words "global warming" provoke a sharp retort from Colorado State University meteorology professor emeritus William Gray: "It's a big scam." And the name of climate researcher Kevin Trenberth elicits a sputtered "opportunist." At the National Center for Atmospheric Research, where Trenberth works, Gray's name prompts dismay. "Bill Gray is completely unreasonable," Trenberth says. "He has a mind block on this." Only 55 miles separate NCAR's headquarters, nestled in the Front Range foothills, from CSU in Fort Collins. But when it comes to climate change, the gap is as big as any in the scientific community. At Boulder-based NCAR, researchers project a world with warmer temperatures, fiercer storms and higher seas. From CSU, Gray and Roger Pielke Sr., another climate professor emeritus, question the data used to make those projections and their application to regional climate change. Science by its nature is disputatious - with every idea challenged, tested and retested. It's always been that way. http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_4387552 My take is they cannot predict the weather tomorrow. So how the heck can they predict 100 years from now? Follow the money and you will find your answers.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 14, 2008 7:12 pm) Well, less polluting than burning fossil fuels, uranium including. Larger dams pose greater challenges. There is no 100% clean energy producing device, and that include renewable energy technologies. All is in choosing the best balance. >Now if a city or state decides to build mass transit such as HST and the PEOPLE vote to borrow the money What was the process when the Interstate system was established and all the highways built? Were there local consultation/votes ? Were the increases in tax clearly defined and advertised? Was a business plan established ? What was the involvement of private investors and which profit scheme was settled? I think you and I know the answer. We know that massively building roads helped develop US to now. The limit of the system has been reached. I propose for the US govt to launch a similar infrastructure investment for high speed lines. Regarding train service, it makes sense to let private operators use the line for keeping competition and service levels. Many such services operate under PPP agreements (Private -Public - Partnership). It is naturally healthy for such operators to post profits. >Either EVERYONE sacrifices or it is a SCAM for the wealthy to further push the middle class into the ranks of the POOR I strongly disagree. Environment must be a profit making business as any others. I suggest to drop the old clichés of the big bad elitist conspiration against the masses. Why sacrifice anything ? I am not suggesting self whipping. We just need to do the necessary investments to increase our quality of life, our transport efficiency and decrease oil use which is harming the US in many aspects. >Will people buy into riding the train after having the freedom of personal transportation? mmm, it seems many people already accept to board planes for the speed they offer. Modern HST are easy to board and the journey is actually a pleasant experience. Even though I own a car, I generally prefer to take the train because I don't need to risk speed tickets or accidents while the children enjoy the landscape. I understand people are not used to, but the first experience is very convincing. It is a great alternative between car and plane.
|
|
|
Replying to: vchiu (Jul 14, 2008 8:21 pm) If we go back to the carbon levels of 1990 with all the additional people, someone has to decrease their carbon footprint. In 1990 there were approximately 30 million people in California. Today approximately 37 million people. Not counting the illegals which may push us over 40 million. Now how do you & Ahnold propose we get 40 Million people to produce less CO2 than 30 million people did in 1990? First the cars in 1990 were not that much different than today. They still average 27 MPG as they did in the mid 1980s. CO2 is directly related to fuel consumption. The 1990s saw the biggest increase in large SUVs. Many are still on the road today. When we have people with carbon footprints the size of small towns, are they going to give up their lifestyle. Why should Oprah have several homes with high carbon output while I am expected to cut back? The CA plan is to reduce GHG by 30% over the next 12 years. They have all these expensive ideas and a budget shortfall. Ahnold is proposing huge solar electric projects. Who does not get to sell when they have too much electricity as just happened in the NW with the high winds and wind farms? So sorry that $60k solar system on your house is not needed this month. Half the state is on fire causing more CO2 than all the vehicles in the state for probably 20 years. That was the other environmentalists that do not believe in clearing dead fall and brush from residential areas. I appreciate your anxiety to see us get our problems solved. I think our layers of regulations will block any kind of progress for the foreseeable future. I can see it now. You are going to have to take that high speed train over that mountain, this is a valley of California Coastal Sage. The prime nesting area for the Black Gnat catcher.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: vchiu (Jul 14, 2008 7:34 pm) And the oceans are consuming the CO2 along with the plants on the earth. More CO2, better food for tree leaves!!! I would be much more concerned with the actions of the earth's core and the magma movement affecting the tundra mentioned earlier than the pop science culture determining that CO2 is a threat using The View quality of science comprehension. If CO2 were a real threat, Al Gore would be demanding all jets quit flying other than military aircraft TODAY. I haven't seen any move that way. Maybe The View will pick up on that idea if they really care about lowering CO2 (as if it would effect a change). The earth went through Ice Ages and warming without blaming mankind. The Hollywood types worry about whatever is pop culture science. I recall an actress deciding the alar scare foisted by Meryl Streep (another Hollywood type). From Wiki--an example of pop science scares. "On February 26, 1989, CBS-TV's 60 Minutes aired an exposé titled "A is for Apple," which became the opening salvo in a carefully-planned publicity campaign developed for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The NRDC is one of the handful of environmental groups that can afford to hire a public relations company, and it chose the firm of Fenton Communications, which developed and helped distribute public service announcements featuring actress Meryl Streep, who warned that Alar had been detected in apple juice bottled for children. An NRDC report, issued at the time of the 60 Minutes broadcast, stressed that risks to children were higher than to adults, because children consume far more apple products per pound of body weight. The NRDC report focused on inconsistencies in government regulatory policies and the need for better policies to protect children. Nowhere did it suggest that eating a single apple or drinking a single glass of juice posed a significant risk. Nevertheless, the prominence of 60 Minutes and Streep's movie-star status helped produce a dramatic public reaction, as some mothers poured apple juice down sink drains and school lunchrooms removed apples from their menus. The apple industry, its back to the wall, hastily abandoned its use of Alar, and the market for apples quickly rebounded. Within five years, in fact, growers' profits were 50 percent higher than they had been at the time of the 60 Minutes broadcast. Apple growers in Washington state filed a libel lawsuit against CBS, NRDC and Fenton Communications, claiming that the "scare" had cost them $100 million and sent orchards into bankruptcy, but their case was eventually dismissed. The judge who presided over the lawsuit pointed to failures in the federal government's food safety policies and noted that "governmental methodology fails to take into consideration the distinct hazards faced by preschoolers. The government is in grievous error when allowable exposures are calculated . . . without regard for the age at which exposure occurs." ..."Consumers Union, in its 1989 report on the Alar issue, noted that its own tests on apples showed a lower cancer risk than the EPA's estimate -- only five cancers per million, instead of fifty. Consumers Union also advised parents that even with Alar, they were still better off feeding apples to their kids than candy bars. Nevertheless, it concluded, the chemical should be banned, because a risk of even five cancers per million is unacceptable." Even the saccharine scare from Wiki exemplifies the problems with pop science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccharin "No study has ever shown a clear causal relationship between saccharin consumption and health risks in humans at normal doses, though some studies have shown a correlation between consumption and cancer incidence.[14] Some of the animal studies were procedurally flawed.[15] According to tradegroup-operated saccharin.org, "Concerns over saccharin's safety were first raised twenty years ago after a flawed study that administered huge quantities of the sweetener to laboratory rats produced bladder tumors in rats. New and better scientific research has decisively shown that the earlier rat studies are not at all applicable to humans." The U.S. National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences came to the same conclusion in 2000, recommending that saccharin be removed from the list of known or suspected human carcinogens.[16]" Note also Wiki on science is editable and faux tenets can be added. A good program is the one that shows the edits on a topic in Wiki. It came out when a current female candidate for president was in senate and likely to run. Many edits of topic about here were from IP addresses in offices related to her workers. I recall the alar and saccharin scares so I can filter Wiki. On the topic of global warming as though mankind were the source of methane et al, the obvious sequal to those wanting to selectively stop auto use as though that's the only source and the sole cure of alleged ill... is to suggest killing all animals on the earth because they produce methane and CO2!!! That would stop CO2 and methane from one source. Think the alleged global warming would change? Nooooooo.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?
